Best sociology books according to redditors

An administration employee of Kushner's prep school was shocked when he got into Harvard.

​



My book exposed a grubby secret of American higher education: that the rich buy their under-achieving children’s way into elite universities with massive, tax-deductible donations. It reported that New Jersey real estate developer Charles Kushner had pledged $2.5 million to Harvard University in 1998, not long before his son Jared was admitted to the prestigious Ivy League school. At the time, Harvard accepted about one of every nine applicants. (Nowadays, it only takes one out of twenty.)

I also quoted administrators at Jared’s high school, who described him as a less than stellar student and expressed dismay at Harvard’s decision.

“There was no way anybody in the administrative office of the school thought he would on the merits get into Harvard,” a former official at The Frisch School in Paramus, New Jersey, told me. “His GPA did not warrant it, his SAT scores did not warrant it. We thought for sure, there was no way this was going to happen. Then, lo and behold, Jared was accepted. It was a little bit disappointing because there were at the time other kids we thought should really get in on the merits, and they did not.”

​

https://www.propublica.org/article/the-story-behind-jared-kushners-curious-acceptance-into-harvard

>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.

This is a great question that I have thought about a million times. I have actually spent a lot of time trying to find a book on it, but I have not come across one that is specifically about Sociology or Psychology.

I first started to think about this when I was getting my masters degree (in Sociology). Often times I was super excited to share the things I would learn with my family and friends, and how the things I was (and still am) learning are often in contradiction to the things I was told/learned growing up. For context, I'm a white girl who grew up in an upper-middle class politically conservative suburb in a large city with successful parents, and I was always given everything I wanted/needed. I considered myself a Christian and I told people that I was a republican (although I knew nothing about politics and was just identifying with my parents).

Then I started studying Soci and my entire perspective on the world changed. It opened my eyes and forced me to look beyond my tunnel vision of society. It was really hard at times to come to terms with things that I thought I already understood, especially social issues that I had never thought about before or issues that had always been presented to me in a one-sided, biased manner.

A good example of this is the trope of the Welfare Queen. I was told that poor people, esp. poor black people, were moochers and only wanted handouts because they were lazy and didn't want to get a job. Of course, I learned that the Welfare Queen (and welfare "fraud") is a myth that was promulgated by Ronald Regan in order to stigmatize people in poverty so that he could convince Americans that rolling back the social safety net was justified because it was only being used by poor black (read: undeserving) citizens. The truth is that most people on welfare do have jobs (i.e. the 'working poor'). Also, the welfare reforms of 1996 created a 5-year maximum lifetime cap on benefits so that welfare "cheaters" (which did not exist anywhere near the level that we're often told) were literally unable to collect benefits for life (also, contrary to popular opinion, women do not have more babies to get more benefits. In fact, if a woman has a child while receiving benefits, she and her family will be removed from the rolls). Welfare is probably one of the least understood/mischaracterized social issue in American society.

Science in general is often met with the sting of anti-intellectualism, which is part of the answer to your question. However, I think social science in particular gets it worse than the 'natural' sciences like Biology and Chemistry. I used to say that it was because people were generally more suspect of social sciences, but I think it's more than that. People like to dismiss facts about social issues that they don't agree with or have a different view on because it's much easier to disagree that we live in a post-racial society (we don't) than it is to disagree on the functions of bodily organs. People also tend to conflate their individual life experiences with overall reality (i.e. "well, i've never experienced [blank] so it must not be true or its exaggerated" or "well, I know someone who is [blank] but [blank] doesn't happen to them"). You get what I am saying here? Most people don't question or critically think about social norms or commonsense 'truths' because these 'truths' are so embedded in our milieu that its hard to imagine otherwise. So instead of thinking critically, people dismiss sociological knowledge as either "elitist" or "not real science" so that they can remain undisturbed in their own little worlds.

Once I saw a question on r/askreddit that asked what the slogan of your college major or job would be. I would say, "Sociology: reminding people of uncomfortable truths since 1838" or "Sociology: everything you were taught about society was a big lie" lol.

I'm sorry I can't find any literature for you, but I can recommend these instead:

Anti-Intellectualism in American Life

The Death of Expertise: The Campaign Against Established Knowledge and Why it Matters.

I looked into his background and I swear to god this is true, I can't post where his dad works etc, but it is true. This kid has legacy status and his dad is a c-suite level executive. They are affluent from the Beverly Hills area.

The real question gamergate and sjws need to ask themselves is......

Should these affluent people be given affirmative action, when they come from wealthy backgrounds?

I hope that gamergate and the sjws can come together to oppose legacy status in society.

Why are the Zoe Quinn's (VV Family), Lifschitz's, Romero's, Graner's being given preferential treatment in the video game industry, when they come from affluent backgrounds? Why can't they help poor inner city people, Appalachian people, etc. Theres plenty of homeless in San Francisco that need help too. It's always these damn legacies that get help.

How legacy status works

http://www.amazon.com/The-Price-Admission-Americas-Colleges/dp/1400097975

What's your take on David Faris' new book It's Time to Fight Dirty: How Democrats Can Build a Lasting Majority in American Politics?

His arguments strike me as broadly compatible with yours, but he argues for a platter of considerably more ambitious things.

In short, he argues that once Democrats run the table again (like in 2009), they should ram a bunch of reforms through that are explicitly designed to undo unfair Republican advantages. Such reforms include:

• Packing the court so that we don't have such a large percentage of justices nominated by presidents who lost the popular vote.
  
• Term limits for Supreme Court justices structured in such a way that guarantees every president at least one nomination.
  
• Admit Puerto Rico and DC to the union.
  
• Break California into several states to get it more senators.
  
• National early voting.
  
• Pre-voter registration of 17-year-olds nationwide.
  
• Making Election Day a national holiday.
  
• Other voting rights reforms as well (e.g. bans on disenfranchising ex-cons, making it a federal crime to intimidate voters, etc).
  
• Fighting gerrymandering by doubling the size of the House and having multimember districts with proportional representation.
  
• Abolishing the filibuster so all those things can be enacted with a simple majority.
  
  These things seem philosophically in line with your proposal to fix the Electoral College, so I was wondering what you thought of each of those ideas.
  
  Also, if you could amend the Constitution with whatever changes you like, would you simply abolish the Electoral College? Would you abolish the Senate too? (I would.)

It's called The Great Paradox.

>Inspired by Thomas Frank's book What's the Matter with Kansas?, I began my five-year journey to the heart of the American right carrying with me, as if it were a backpack, a great paradox. Back in 2004, when Frank's book appeared, there was a paradox underlying the right-left split. Since then the split has become a gulf.
>
>Across the country, red states are poorer and have more teen mothers, more divorce, worse health, more obesity, more trauma-related deaths, more low-birth-weight babies, and lower school enrollment. On average, people in red states die five years earlier than people in blue states. Indeed, the gap in life expectancy between Louisiana and Connecticut is the same as that between the United States and Nicarugua. Red states suffer more in another highly important but little known way, one that speaks to the very biological self-interest in health and life: industrial pollution.
>
>...
>
>Given such an array of challenges, one might expect people to welcome federal help. In truth, a very large proportion of the yearly budgets of red states -- in the case of Louisiana, 44% -- do come from federal funds; $2,400 is given by the federal government per Louisianan per year.
>
>But Mike Schaff doesn't welcome that federal money and doubts the science of climate change: "I'll worry about global warming in fifty years," he says. Mike loves his state, and he loves the outdoor life. But instead of looking to government, like others in the Tea Party, he turns to the free market.

Strangers in Their Own Land, Arlie Russell Hochschild

Charb, the late director of Charlie Hebdo killed in the terrorist attack back in January, published the following:

Open Letter: On Blasphemy, Islamophobia, and the True Enemies of Free Expression

It's a truly remarkable book, and very short. I recommend it warmly.

PS to the mods: this isn't a referral link afaik

>And we don't have an equal and opposite force exerted by a liberal propaganda machine.

Michelle Obama is one of the smartest and classiest people ever, but sometimes I think she gave bad advice when she said "when they go low we go high." It only works, in a political environment like the USA is dealing with right now, if people care about someone going low. Not enough people do. The book It's time to Fight Dirty is awesome in how it lays out solutions like giving DC and Puerto Rico statehood, expanding the SC and so on. I don't know how realistic it is but it's a good blueprint. I'm fucking sick and tired of the Dems trying to play by the book and the fact they still respect traditional norms. Fuck that. It's time to go Moscow Mitch on their asses.

https://www.amazon.com/Its-Time-Fight-Dirty-Democrats/dp/1612196950

And this is why Democrats get to be grumpy when Republicans talk about "eliminating" them. Conservatives say stuff like that all the time, and sometimes act on it.

The Price of Admission: How America's Ruling Class Buys Its Way into Elite Colleges

But of course, it is part of the SJW ethos that the think they are smarter and morally superior to you. Their entire world view depends on this. They are the Anointed, you are the masses, and if you do not accept the pronouncements the Anointed make, this makes you evil by definition.

Thomas Sowell lays it all out in his book Visions of the Anointed. This really should be required reading for anyone who opposes SJW idiocy, because it makes it so clear why SJWs do what they do.

The gap between rich and poor in developed countries (GDP > $4000/capita) is one of the best predictors - if not the best predictor - of violent crime, drug abuse, mental health problems, short life expectancy, depressed innovation, political non-participation, teenage birth rates, lower levels of trust and incarceration rates.

Not only that, but we're pretty sure that inequality actually causes these things, rather than simply being linked to them because we have very good data on the EU countries (which are all quite similar) and the American states (which are all very similar). We can trace the rise of these problems alongside the rise of inequality and link inequality-generating policies or price shocks to negative effects further along in time.

We can link this to a biological explanation in laboratory experiments; if chimps (or humans) are put in a situation where they are of 'low status' compared to everyone else in the room, they start to produce stress hormones which cause, for example, violence, overeating and stress-related mental health problems.

There is still some debate among proper academic sociologists whether there might be a third factor which causes both inequality and all the negative things stemming from inequality, and its not clear to me that the issue will ever be resolved beyond reasonable doubt (although the lab tests on hormone profiles are pretty convincing to me). It is also true inequality does not matter very much when overall income is very low, which is to say <$4000/capita. But there is certainly a correlation between stuff that 'matters' and the increasing gap between the rich and the poor, and very good evidence that this correlation is causal.

The Spirit Level is a good introductory book on the matter, being neither too technical nor too simplistic. Here is a quick summary by BBC news and here is a website where you can verify all the claims I have made, if you are so inclined.

Ladies and gentlemen: I give you utilitarianism. You have no value aside from your ability to make choices or feel good.

Now, combine that with aggressive statism where everyone is thought of as a charge of the state(you can't have positive legal rights without it). Suddenly anyone below what the anointed declare to be minimum health/happiness can be killed. There is no innocence, crime, rights, or justice, just judgement by those in power.

> “This change in views about euthanasia and assisted suicide are the result of a tide of increasing morality in our world,” he stated.

This is a transition from principled morality like natural law and virtue ethics to a utilitarian morality. Morality isn't increasing, it's morphing into the culture of death. The dead do not endure earthly suffering.

Ill be honest, none of the whole "gaming journalism" thing is why Im a KiA supporter. Ive always been a gamer, but Ive never followed any sort of gaming media or journalism aside from Thoorin's videos in League of Legends.

I dont buy triple-A titles outside of Blizzard games. I dont own a PS3, PS4, XBox 360, or Xbox One. I have a Wii because of Xenoblade (and I think I bought one of the Zeldas), Ill get a Wii U for the next Xeno game. None of the journalist shit affects me much because I already dont use their sites.

Its the censorship, the SJW post-modernist bullshit, the lying, the professional victims, the way it spills over into Wikipedia lacking neutrality. Its the way that I, just some random guy who goes to work, goes running, and plays video games, am blamed as a misogynist shitlord just for being a white cis male who is willing to discuss both sides of an issue. Its the way that white upper class people dictate to women and minorities about how they are doing all this FOR THEM, unless those women and minorities disagree in which case they are internalized misogynists (Please Stop helping Us). Its the way that being an egalitarian makes me a misogynist in their eyes, and a racist, and probably other things as well.

THATS the shit that pushes me to this "side".

I highly suggest reading some Thomas Sowell, I think you might enjoy him.

http://i.imgur.com/CGFrk9k.jpg

This would be a good place to start in light of the Ferguson stuff. Black Rednecks & White Liberals by Thomas Sowell - Here is the audio version available on Youtube for free.

Intellectuals and Race -
Thomas Sowell

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

>someone should gas that bitch

Stop. That's eliminationist rhetoric -- on the far side of the bright line demarcating civil discourse from incitement to violence. This is what they do -- the sort of language that Bernard Goldberg and Rush Limbaugh and Michelle Malkin et al. spew that leads to tragedies like the Knoxville church shootings, the Holocaust Museum shootings, the murder of Dr. George Tiller, etc. David Neiwert's new book should clear up any illusions that using this sort of language is "just talk". We can do better.

https://www.amazon.com/Strangers-Their-Own-Land-Mourning/dp/1536684937

>The acceptable phrase, which Hochschild heard over and over, was “line cutter.” The real problem with this country is the “line cutters,” people who jump their place in line for the American Dream, while those in the poor white working class have been patiently waiting their turn for years. The “big government” that oppresses them gives unfair advantages to the line cutters, in the form of welfare payments, affirmative action, and recognition of special status. People who have worked hard all their lives with little to show for it must witness the undeserving “line cutters” moving ahead of them, and we all know who those are: blacks, foreigners, and anyone who receives government handouts. This even includes Medicaid: there is a widespread but mistaken belief that people on Medicaid do not work, even though it is documented that most Medicaid recipients do work (and of course many are children, or are too old, sick, or disabled - especially the nursing home population). So if Republicans want to do away with Medicaid, don’t expect much outcry here: let everybody work for what they get instead of leeching off the public dole.

>As Hochschild describes it, this resentment of the line jumpers has been simmering for years:

Anybody who is not white and working class, who is successful, "cut in line" ahead of them, and they abso-fucking-lutely hate them.

This needs more upvotes. If your son makes education a priority, he'll be fine. If he doesn't, there's nothing OP can do to change it.

The son models the behavior of the parents. Sounds like the parents think college is the end goal, which it must. not. be. College is a shitty end goal.

A life well lived is the end goal. And that can be done with or without college.

I highly recommend Excellent Sheep: The Miseducation of the American Elite and the Way to a Meaningful Life

The author talks about just this thing. OP, read the book, then give it to your wife. Might save the three of you hundreds of hours of fighting, tears, heartache, wasted time and money.

Charb, who was killed in the attack and was the CH editor, wrotes a book on the rises of Islam which was published after his death:

Open letter: On blasphemy, Islamophobia and the true enemies of freedom of expression

A friend of mine in high school went to Harvard and I visited him in Boston frequently.

From what I saw, if you are above a certain threshold of intelligence then it can actually be easier to make As in certain subjects at Harvard than at lower ranked universities due to the leniency of Harvard's administration and its grade inflation. My friend had armies of tutors and advisors watching over him to ensure that he graduated with a high GPA and he could turn in late homework in most of his classes, while my advisors barely knew my name and if I missed a deadline then I knew it would impact my grade. These kinds of things are even more important when you are college aged, learning how to be an adult, and generally in need of support, mentors and role models. My friend was guided, and coddled, by Harvard's administration, whereas I eventually learned to think of mine as a cold, uncaring machine that only valued me for my test scores and spit me out after 4 years.

This isn't true for all subjects, but if you are smart enough to make As in a subject like English at both Harvard and a local university, then you will probably have an easier time at Harvard.

Edit: Also, if anyone is interested in the book the quote in the comment above mine came from

Economic Facts and Fallacies, The Vision of the Anointed and/or Black Rednecks and White Liberals. Depending on your interests.

no link to actual study so nothing to actually comment on. but here goes anyways.

the most important metric is wages and employment relative to the 35-50 age bracket. it is hardier to fake relative numbers. their attempt at creating new definitions for things like full time.under employed etc. woud be less important as they would apply to both age brackets.

also as the article is(apparently) a focus on youth the easiest way to judge their change over time is relative to other brackets, not to themselves.

this is exactly what the OECD does, and so i can assure you this "news" is 25 years old.

youth (yup early thirties is now youth) are being robbed of society.

read the pinch

the largest offender is the government themselves. why hire young nurse, teachers, doctors etc., they just pay the old ones more money and put in a hiring freeze to balance the budget cuz the union says so. or just make them unpaid interns.

this is fundamentally illegal as it is age discrimination and against current law. most unions are breaking the law and no one wants to enforce it.

the result will be no CPP for the old, and certainly no government pensions. ill be roling that shit way back. if you want your money ask your own cohort for it.

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.

A book was literally written about how poor a candidate for admission to Harvard Kushner fils was, how much Kushner père had to pay that university to buy the former entrance, and how that process writ large contributes to structural inequalities throughout America.

Cf., The Price of Admission

Congrats on being a big part of the reason why this book was published.

Willetts wrote a good book on this subject and he's been talking about it for many years. The Pinch - How the Baby Boomers Took Their Children's Future You should probably ignore most of the 1 star reviews as they seem to come from disgruntled boomers.

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 . . . .


http://www.amazon.com/The-Vision-Anointed-Self-Congratulation-Social/dp/046508995X

>Dude, when I worked at Barnes and Noble, a ton of old white dudes (always Republican/tea party types) would practically burst at the rim when coming up to the counter to buy Glenn Beck and Ann Coulter books to talk about any and all racial issues.

Omg, when I worked there, this one guy asked if we had this book in stock, which we didn't. I kept my facial expressions as flat as possible to dissuade him from trying to engage, because he was trying.

This is a good start.

There is a fuck ton of books on the subject as well.

> If equal rights is a motivating factor for you, then you really only have one choice and that is to vote Democrat.

Equal rights to me means the rights of everyone, not just the people I agree with. Democrats tend to be a little too selective about which groups deserve which rights IMO. Like this, but the umbrella also represents other Constitutional rights. Republicans aren't better, they just favor other groups. My view is that it should cover everyone equally, but that feels like a minority opinion.

> Also, could you explain what frightening ideas the Democrats have said they would do if they have power?

Off the top of my head: stuffing the SCOTUS, breaking up Democratic strongholds into multiple states, allocating more Senators to states with large populations (or eliminating the Senate altogether), eliminating the Electoral College, etc. In fact, here's a book, written in earnest by a liberal Democrat, that offers a breadbasket of ideas many in the party are seriously considering for after they win back Congress and the White House.

I'm not going to quibble over the merits of these ideas. What's frightening to me is the serious consideration of proposals intended to create a "lasting" (read: permanent) majority. While I understand the appeal from an emotional standpoint, I think history is rife with examples warning against this type of arrangement.

Why? For one, it seems like the surest way to bring one of the most ambitious social experiments in history to a disappointing conclusion. Broadly, a one-party state that controls the Legislative, Executive AND Judicial branches is an oligarchy. What is the point in having a Bill of Rights if the court is packed with justices who will arbitrarily reinterpret those rights to suit the whims and political expediency of Congressional leaders? It gives the illusion of legitimacy, but really it's a democracy in the same way North Korea is a democracy.

To circle back to what I said earlier about equal rights, this concept is terrifying to me personally because a group with a tenuous relationship to freedom and equal rights is openly talking about how they can rig the system to grant themselves the ultimate say in the matter. I 100% do not trust them with that kind of power.

To be clear: I'm not saying "IF TEH DUMBOCRAPS WIN, THE US WILL TRYANNY AND WAR IN TEH STREETZ!!" What I am saying is that I am hesitant to vote for people who fantasize about how they could take over and rule over me the rest of my life. I don't want to enable Trump any more than I want to enable that agenda. I don't trust either party with my life, safety, liberty, economic security, etc. Hence why I'm conflicted.

If I may make a recommendation, read The Death of Expertise by Tom Nichols. It explains why a yahoo with a computer who’s been in Florida a few days thinks he knows better than a multi billion dollar company, its suppliers and a veritable army of engineers and (actual) experts.

The degree thing is interesting... I just recently read a book (The Death of Expertise by Tom Nichols; https://www.amazon.com/Death-Expertise-Campaign-Established-Knowledge/dp/0190469412) which, among many topics, touches on the subject of how with the massive explosion of degrees and the fact that as college degrees have become more and more widespread, the value of the degrees diminishes. The author postulates that college was not necessarily meant to be the egalitarian thing that it has become and... honestly, I can't disagree with him.

And the downside of it all is that you have many who enter degree programs that are not well positioned to the modern workforce or (worse) folks who enter college when perhaps college was not the best course of action for them. We need to start encouraging more younger folks to look at the trades and other forms of employment... I think they often get overlooked and I know they were even 10 or so years ago go when I graduated high school.

One our UK ministers wrote a book about it. http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Pinch-Boomers-Childrens-Future/dp/1848872321/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1394364590&sr=8-1&keywords=david+willetts Funnily enough the one star reviews and nitpicking come from baby boomers...

His dad gave a shit load of money to them. There's even a book about it.

https://www.amazon.com/Price-Admission-Americas-Colleges-Outside/dp/1400097975/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1479403171&sr=8-1&keywords=the+price+of+admission

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.

Democrats have been so demonized by the right-wing media, that Alabamans find it a moral dilemma to choose between a Democrat and a Sexual Predator/Nutter.

https://www.amazon.com/Eliminationists-Hate-Radicalized-American-Right/dp/0981576982

That's a lot of metaphor and hyperbole. Keep in mind, we still need to win the election first, before we can start crushing anyone. And running against gerrymandering might be a good way to do that.

And believe me, I read the book.

https://www.amazon.com/Its-Time-Fight-Dirty-Democrats/dp/1612196950

But I honestly don't think gerrymandering is the answer for dems.

But does that get to the issue with Democracy?

*Note: I agree that the best system of governance is Democracy, but it is still a system created by humans, who have flaws, and no system is perfect*

The fundamental premise of Democracy is that an informed public will make the right choice on how to govern themselves. It assumes that the issues of the day do not invoke emotions, and that people are rational actors. So, like in Economics, there are fundamental assumptions on the theories that in reality are not true.

Another problem is, like you said, the death of debate. I would point you to the book "The Death of Expertise" which goes into how people seem to dismiss, if not outright question and delegitimize, educated professionals doing what they are trained to do. And, the Republican party especially, want to cast doubt on all research on climate change for the Gas & Oil company's benefits. So it's in their benefit to delegitimize them, but in doing so makes everyone question experts. I'm not saying no one should ever question experts, but I constantly hear this "Those researchers are just trying to get grant money." Which 1) is not how the grant approval process works and 2) is ignoring the massive amount of profit Oil companies makes and how anything that could jeopardize their money making scheme would be viewed as a threat. Now, that's just climate change. But think of flat earthers, anti-vaxxers, etc.

Also, on your theme of death of debate, what we call debates are not even debates. Take Ben Shapiro as an example, now he is educated but he also uses certain tactics that make an idea sound logical, when, in some cases, they are not. Now, it's not even about debate to find an ultimate truth and the best solution forward. No, it's about VICTORY. Well, how can you defeat someone if you feel that person is entitled to their position, whether that is on the battlefield, sports field, or in politics.

AND even more, we need less educated people because someone needs to dig ditches. So how do you educate people enough to be an informed public but don't dilute the value of an education? (because if everyone can be a doctor or lawyer, it wouldn't be worth much.)

So yeah, that's the flaw with Democracy. We are a large amount of people, with varying educational backgrounds, trying to understand something as unique and complicated like government, but elect people because they "keep it simple". We're fucked.

A book wholly worth checking out is The Price of Admission, which uses Jared Kushner as a case study of how the wealthy can subvert all types of academic rigor in order to get the correct looking resume.

I just hope that this whole process with Trump and Kavanaugh can snap people out of the whole meritocracy ideal once and for all, because god knows it's gotten us into a lot of trouble.

Check out Excellent Sheep. It's a great examination of the college admissions system. Hopefully, it will shake some of the high performing students out of their assumptions.

No offense, but Churba is misremembering. The idea that miners should learn to code was endorsed by journalists from all over the ideological spectrum.
Just off the top of this search results page:
Forbes,
NPR,
Bloomberg News,
PBS,
CBS,
the CBC,
and Wired. It also had the support of the IEEE and, at least obliquely, the Obama White House. You could find plenty more examples with only very limited digging.

There was some criticism from the political right, as e.g. the Wired article points out, but certainly not from any Vicesters.

In any case, it's not just miners, or just journalists, or even just coding. Blue collar workers have been told to quit whining and learn to tech by politicians and the media since at least the early 1990s. Bill Clinton famously expressed support for the drive in his original primary campaign. His early speeches on the subject were widely hailed as one of the reasons his campaign took off.

Nobody complained as long as the advice was directed at unfashionable people with dirty hands, but the intellectuals got pretty angry pretty quickly when they later found themselves at the receiving end. William Deresiewicz wrote an entire book about his unhappiness with "the empirical kids" and the whole HURR DURR JUST BECOME A STEMLORD YOU LOSER theme. The book was widely reviewed, sold approximately 80 billion copies, and is considered fairly influential in the humanities, liberal arts, and J school crowds. In theory, most journalists should have heard of it.

> capital allocation should remain in the hands of those who have proven themselves good at allocating capital.

1. Dollarocracy
   
2. Who Rules America?
   
3. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_inequality_in_the_United_States
   
4. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC
   
5. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture
   
6. http://www.businessinsider.com/the-dramatic-rise-and-fall-of-labor-unions-in-one-chart-2012-5
   
7. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly
   
8. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporatocracy
   
   It's easy to claim that one is deserving of their wealth (and then some more), when it is their wealth that allows them to change the rules of the game to their advantage.
   
   But you already knew that.

This Guy


should read


some books

Sounds like you have a great opportunity, one that deserves a good deal of consideration. Congratulations!

Your father has it right. If you're planning to attend medical school, the prestige of your undergraduate institution is not critical provided you get the preparation you need to go to a good medical school. And it sounds like you will.

>At a fundamental level will the courses at a typical T120 private college (say Temple) cover the same material and at the same depth as say NYU (29) school?

For the most part, they'll cover the same material for the same courses. A lower ranked university may emphasize teaching more from their faculty than a top ranked university, meaning that the quality of the education you receive as a student is likely to be better (heretical as it is to say on this sub). Whatever time they're spending chasing research grants, recruiting postdocs, and cranking out sausages (research articles) is time away from considering how best to teach. I know when I taught at the university (at a top-20 research institution by most rankings), I was told that I just needed to check the teaching box, do a good enough job to get by, avoid complaints, maybe win a department teaching award or two, but don't go overboard, that for a junior faculty member it's far better to spend that energy building your research program.

Your peer group may be more diverse, academically, socioeconomically, spiritually, at your "lesser" school than at an Ivy League university, but that's not necessarily a bad thing. Some, such as Deresiewicz, have argued that this is a generally positive thing, that the Ivy League calibre schools are turning out "leaders" preternaturally good at conforming to expectations, avoiding risk, and validating the norms that have led to a manifestly unequal and unfair society.

If you really want the answer to that question, read the book "Strangers in Their Own Land" where a liberal sociologist goes out of her comfort zone in the heart of Republican territories in the South and interviews 60 individuals to get their perspective. Basically she wanted to understand what life is like for them. Where they get their information from. Why they shape their opinions.

In short, she discovers that under the onslaught of the mainstream networks that skew heavily toward the left, these individuals felt marginalized, dismissed, made fun of, were uneducated, homophobic, sexist, racist and every vitriolic thing you can think of. That characterization made them feel isolated and jaded, meanwhile you had the Rush Limbaugh's and O'Reilly's defending them (or at least on air) so naturally even though many of these individuals might have had affinity towards their left leaning brothers and sisters, thanks 24 hours of consistent demonization by the media, they had no choice but to go against their morals and ethics and instead vote for the conservative.

So in the end, their behavior is molded by corporate media instigating strife and polarization for the sake of revenue and ratings, and while their jobs are stagnant and going nowhere they're witnessing the nepotism and line cutters getting ahead. They quite literally feel like strangers in their own land because America has become, "a giant marginalization machine." It's not theirs and its putting them back.

Now wait, hold on... I know what you're going to say so let me circumvent your next question.

When you wonder why they vote against their own interest, it's quite easy to understand why when all they hear from the front of the line is, "oh you redneck!" then it makes complete sense whey they act the way they do. And guess what mi amigo, you would act the same too if they treated you the same way. Sadly, in the end both sides do this (by they I mean biased corporate networks and politicians) and until the citizens of this country both realized they're getting fucked in the ass the feces throwing and tribalism will continue to ruin this nation.

I think he's one of the more interesting MPs on a national level. I usually agree with what he says, even though I don't support his party. He also wrote a book a couple of years back called The Pinch: How the Baby Boomers Took Their Children's Future - And Why They Should Give it Back, which seems relevant to this forum's interests.

Does your dad read? The Death of Expertise by Tom Nichols, who's a conservative, got some conservative family members to stop watching Fox News. They still have terrible political views but it's warded off the more serious forms of brain worms.

If inequality means that my neighbour has a Porsche Carrera GT in the driveway and I've just got a 10 year old Mondeo, big deal.

But that's not what it means in the UK.

• People in the top income decile have a lot more political influence. So much for democracy.
  
  
• People in the bottom income decile often have to live in shitty substandard housing.
  
  
• So their kids have to go to the sort of school you tend to find in areas with shitty substandard housing, and they get an inferior education.
  
  
• They can't afford stuff for their kids which give useful formative experiences, such as holidays and school trips.
  
  
• So their kids are likely to end up being in a similar position when they grow up. This limits their opportunities.
  
  
• And if they have any skills, it limits their usefulness to the rest of us. Instead of becoming useful contributing members of society, they end up competing for the dwindling pool of unskilled labour.
  
  
• If you like capitalism, inequality is bad when it means that not enough people can afford to buy your products.
  
  
• If you believe The Spirit Level then inequality also leads to a nastier, unhappier, more unpleasant society.
  
  

An excellent primer on the topic: The Price of Admission, by Daniel Golden (2007).

It's an interesting question of whether the admissions administrator accepting a direct bribe would be a crime; it probably would be if this is a public institution, while it would merely be unethical privately.

But just pulling strings ? Hell, that's called Tuesday.

this book is a good look into the way that the poor/working class think. a sociologist embedded herself in the poor US south.

a few takeaways I had were that it's a mixture of short term thinking and allegiance to the companies that have given them jobs. the poor don't think about the social programs that the liberals/NDP/Greens want to implement. They look at their paycheque and how small it is, and then look at how much tax is taken out and think "ah ha! if I just paid less tax I'd be better off" which is true in a way, but obviously not good for them in the long term. when they're living paycheque to paycheque, theyre looking into what can help them today, not what will help them in the long term with social programs if they lose their job or it gets sent overseas.

in a similar way, thats why the poor are so supportive of industry and anti-government intervention and environmental regulations. the poor rely on companies that employ them and can't afford not to be working. so they oppose anything that would disrupt business and put them out of a job. and of course big polluters/manufacturing jobs pay them a wage, so theyre sympathetic to those industries. they may hate things like pollution in their area and that effect on their lives, but they hate not having a paycheque more, so they prioritise that.

essentially, we are thinking big picture/long term, they are thinking small picture/short term.

it's a good read. highly recommended. knowing the way that those that you disagree with think is very useful.

I love the guy praising Riley's book to defend the "It's actually the government damaging the black community". Dismissing the system's endemic problems that disproportionately target black people — largely lead by motherfuckers saying the same thing as the OP — is more lazy libertarian reasoning; at any point, any societal problem can be solved by this mythical hands-off approach that just happens to favor maintaining the status quo.

Absolutely.

Heres a personal story on how true it is.

http://www.amazon.com/Please-Stop-Helping-Us-Liberals/dp/1594037256/ref=tmm_hrd_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=&sr=

I haven't read this book but it has been getting praise, "White Girl Bleed A Lot". I've also been seeing this too but I haven't read it either, "Please Stop Helping Us".

Can anyone here who has read these books give a quick review for these books?

We should split CA into like seven different states, all of which lean left. Is a good idea. Check out It’s Time to Fight Dirty by David Faris

I highly recommend this book, to give you an idea of how the US has behaved in other sovereign countries history.

https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1783601779

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

The Law by Frederic Bastiat (awesome, short, soooo many quotable quotes)

Healing Our World by Dr. Mary Ruwart (old version available free)

Haven't read any of his books (have listened to many lectures and radio show), but something by Harry Browne should do quite nicely. I've heard great things about Why Government Doesn't Work

Myths, Lies, and Downright Stupidity - John Stossel (do check out his excellent Fox Business show "Stossel" on hulu.com, and look for his old 20/20 specials on libertarianism - they're fantastic)

good economists: Peter Schiff, Walter Williams, Thomas Sowell, Walter Block

You might be better off waiting til you get more comfortable with libertarianism, but G. Edward Griffin's Creature From Jekyll Island is a must read. It's more about the monetary system and the Federal Reserve than libertarianism in general though.

I haven't read anything that makes a good argument against libertarianism, but can recommend a guy who makes a seemingly good argument against capitalism and for socialism - Michael Parenti. I haven't read any of his pro-socialist books (but have one on foreign policy called The Terrorist Trap which is quite good and very short. Libertarians and socialists tend to agree on not inviting war and not waging war). But I have listened to his pro-socialist lectures - they're well delivered and impassioned and a person who didn't know any better would easily be tempted. They're worth listening to to use his arguments and twist them to actually make the case FOR libertarianism. He'll use some faulty facts/data that leftists typically do such as "Hoover was an ardent free-market advocate and we can blame him and capitalism for causing the Great Depression" (we can blame him for the depression all right (prolonging it, to be specific), not b/c he was a capitalist but b/c he really started all the policies that FDR continued when he got into office)

Daniel Golden won a Pulitzer Prize in 2004 for his reporting on admissions preferences at elite American universities given to the children of wealthy donors and influential alumni.

He turned his reportage into an excellent book, released in 2007, titled "The Price of Admission: How America's Ruling Class Buys Its Way into Elite Colleges--and Who Gets Left Outside the Gates".

The context of his book is, of course, only partly related to the topic of this post, but it does add an important piece to the picture of how the wealthy and powerful receive advantages at every stage in the game. And how they are able to transmit said advantages to their children, to help them get a leg up in their rise to the top.

Articles:

The Black Family: 40 Years of Lies
by Kay Hymowitz, City Journal, The Manhattan Institute

Liberalism Versus Blacks by Thomas Sowell, Creators Syndicated.

Books:

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


Race & Economics: How Much Can Be Blamed on Discrimination? by Walter Williams.

Please Stop Helping Us: How Liberals Make It Harder for Blacks to Succeed by Jason Riley.

I'm not a conservative, but "cutting holes in the social safety net" isn't the goal of the conservatives. Rather, they see that the social safety net is actively harmful, and often, believe that federal assistance is the worst way to effect benevolence unto the poor.

If it weren't for partisanship, we'd realize that both the liberals and the conservatives stated goals have merit, and are equally noble. Similarly, in practice, both are equally ignoble, and equally meritless.

That said, that conservatives have a different way of helping the poor than the one you prefer doesn't make them heartless.

This book might help understand their view:
http://www.amazon.com/Please-Stop-Helping-Us-Liberals/dp/1594037256

> Rather, they see that the social safety net is actively harmful, and often, believe that federal assistance is the worst way to effect benevolence unto the poor.

I'm British and a socialist, so while I can't speak to the efficacy of your specific social safety net I can say that desiring to see all such safety nets totally removed sounds pretty heartless to me. The assumption that the market fixes everything is demonstrably untrue and leaving the unfortunate at the mercy of a handful of benevolent philanthropists sounds highly unreliable. It could also be a smokescreen for "I don't care about them - I just want to pay less tax".

> If it weren't for partisanship, we'd realize that both the liberals and the conservatives stated goals have merit, and are equally noble

Can't speak for your American equivalents but here in Britain the noble sentiments of our political parties are much less interesting that the things they've actually done. Noble intentions are meaningless. Of course we'd all like to see an end to poverty, better schooling for everyone, etc, etc, but if your way of achieving those ends turns out to be suspiciously close to "letting the rich get richer while the poor get shafted" then I'm going to call shenanigans on your noble intent.

> This book might help understand their view: http://www.amazon.com/Please-Stop-Helping-Us-Liberals/dp/1594037256

Huh. So if American businesses could pay their workers at Chinese sweat shop levels then more black people would be employed? Forgive me for failing to see the altruism at work in that line of thinking. Alternatively you could all contribute a tiny fraction of a tiny fraction of your wages to pay for a better state education system that would help to enable a true meritocracy to exist.

I don't know any papers...but this series of papers (read as "book") explains in detail how scapegoating of Muslims is used to control people.

I would imagine looking up subjects related to imperialism and colonialism might lead you in the right direction. France and Egypt, and Britain and India had imperial relations.

That's all I got off the top of my side.

> That being the case, one might assume that the American people would notice the pattern of intervention, see through the propaganda and assign blame accordingly. But that never seems to happen and...

The US government has aggressively overthrown the governments of many countries -- democratic and non-democratic alike, as author and former State Dept. historian William Blum has documented.

This behavior obviously flies in the face of the noble writings of the US founding fathers and our claim to respect governments "of the people, for the people and by the people." This is nothing more than raw imperialism on the part of the US.

The above is simply an "inconvenient truth."

My question is this: At what point should the people of the world stop talking about the crimes of "the US government" and when should the people of the planet start blaming the crimes of the US government directly on the American people? Is there a point at which we should blame the population of a country for the crimes of its government?

We often blame Hitler for everything evil act of the Nazis. We gloss over the fact that Hitler was elected into power and the German people went along with the crimes of the Nazis. I'm not saying the US government is as bad as the Nazi regime, but do Americans share in the guilt of the crimes committed by the US government?

The Republicans need to read this book by one of their own and 5 time Jeopardy champion, Dr. Tom Nichols.

In fact, I would say a high percentage of Redditors need to read it also.

Check out this book: https://www.amazon.com/Death-Expertise-Campaign-Established-Knowledge/dp/0190469412
Society is quickly evolving to not trust real information, but somehow we feel like crowd sourcing some randos killing time on reddit is trustworthy. /shrug/

You might enjoy The Death of Expertise by Tom Nichols. He goes over that exact same issue. Check out his AMA. Follow him on twitter if you want the perspective of a sane, snarky, conservative.

the key isnt that the normal folk like you and me should pay more.

The top 1-2% pay jackshit compared to the rest of us.

have stocks? they pay even less.

> Traditional classroom Education is meaningless for these people. Teach them a TRADE, something worth while.

100% totally agree! https://www.amazon.com/Death-Expertise-Campaign-Established-Knowledge/dp/0190469412

this is a great read. he actually talks about how college has become a money making scheme more than a concerned about education.

Yeah, that one's definitely on my "to read" pile.

RIP Charb

EDIT: btw, you linked to the original book on amazon.fr, but its worth pointing out to anyone reading this that an English translation (titled simply "Open Letter") has been published as well. Amazon.com link, Amazon.co.uk link

EDIT AGAIN: oh, and /u/pink_ego_box, I'm guessing you're not a native English speaker, so just so you know, the translation of "islamophobie" is "Islamophobia", not "islamophoby" ;).

I started to make one a while back but didn't get too far. There are just too many great books to choose from.

Classics 1950-1970

What is Conservatism?

The Conservative Mind

The Road to Serfdom

The Constitution of Liberty

Ideas Have Consequences

The Quest for Community

Economics in One Lesson

Capitalism and Freedom

In Defense of Freedom


Age of Reagan 1970-1990

The Conservative Intellectual Movement Since 1945

Modern Times

Knowledge and Decisions

A Conflict of Visions

Anarchy, State, and Utopia

Roots Of American Order


Modern Must Reads 1990-Today

The Clash of Civilizations

A History of the American People

The Vision of the Annointed

Intellectuals and Society

Illiberal Reformers

Restoring the Lost Constitution

How To Be A Conservative

Of course! Dialogue is how we are best able to challenge each other! So important in our field. I tend to get wordy, so I’m approaching this in bullets to spare you something that isn’t digestible. (also, just FYI, I’ve worked with similar populations in residential settings so I totally get the frustration. There is a lot to be said about how our MH system, for e.g. has institutionalized people and created a culture of learned dependence. Totally relevant here but probably based stuck to the side and saved for a different post. I chose to NOT stay in this field because of what I assume are the same things leading you to this situation.)

1. I have to push back on need vs. want. I agree that there is a difference here, but I don’t agree that this is the approach to understand what is happening with these folks. We, as outsiders, really can’t determine what someone else’s needs and wants are. We may perceive it as not that important (a want) but to the person themselves they do NEED that item or service. Again needs vs. wants, without collaboration from the client, is a values judgement. Just saying this to be mindful of it as you work with these more challenging residents. They’ll pick up on that judgement. If they do ‘need’ the service that seems optional, you want to understand why that is perceived as a need. IME there is always something there once you start peeling away the layers. When you understand what is there, then you can start looking at strategies to help. Maybe they really do need what they ask for, maybe there are other more ‘legitimate’ ways of getting that help which you could assist them with. The conversation needs to start with them, and not you.
   
   
2. In terms of the resident you have, I can tell you have a handful! First I want to point out a few observations
   a. We learn to exaggerate our needs to get the services that we legitimately do need. I have had to coach clients to embellish their disability for certain services they are eligible for (and need) because otherwise we would need to deal with the lengthy appeals process. Folks who minimize their needs suffer. SO we as a society has created this situation – and your residents sounds like she is being very smart in figuring out how to manage it.
   b. She has a disability, there isn’t a question about that. Maybe she exaggerates the symptoms but let me point something else out. What does she have to gain for throwing out meds and not using her scooter? Don’t know what her disability is, what is clear is that she NOT being treatment compliant. She isn’t taking her meds (and they aren’t the fun kind to sell so no reason to exaggerate to get meds to throw out). She isn’t using the aids she needs, etc. I would be concerned about her taking care of herself. IME many people with degenerative issues avoid accepting that. Consider the possibility that both is true. She knows what she needs and exaggerates it to get what she is eligible for – but also is clearly not taking care of herself, and maybe has some ambivalence about what her care should be. This isn’t fraud. At best it is survival and at worst it is a woman who is sick and not taking care of herself. The sort of exception is selling Ensure. Technically this might be something should could get in trouble with – but why would you hurt someone who is trying to get by? Selling Ensure, for e.g. is VERY common. Our public benefit system is horrid and fails to address people’s needs. We don’t receive enough SNAP, PA, etc. People are barely surviving under the poverty. When we, as a society, do this to people – how can we then penalize them for trying to make the best of it and survive a little better off of nothing? Also, Ensure is $$$$ and I’m sure that the person she sells it to is getting a deal. Good. Again we give people nothing to survive on, let them try and make the best of it.
   
   My main point is that you can support this client, and get her help, without doing something you find unethical. To do this, though you need to move past you own mishegas associated with clients such as this resident. Your scenario describes, to me, a person in need of support. Your role is not to determine if she should qualify, or if she is needy enough for a service. It sounds like she could use an aid, and that you should continue to provide supportive, client centered, and judgement free services to her.
   
   
3. Ah this also makes sense. Welp, she tried, and it didn’t work ;-) I hope that dealing with that isn’t on you then. That really is a management issue to decide if they wish to enforce their own rrules. If so, great. If not, don’t sweat it – nothing you can do and not worth the ulcer. In the realm of messed up things, trust me, it could be VERY worse. I live in a city with a housing crisis and have had this come up with single people in 3-4 bedroom homes. They get angry when they need to pay more rent for the rooms – but refuse to downsize. I get it, but it can be INCREDIBLY frustrating from the outside.
   
   
4. The welfare queen is a myth. I would recommend reading more about it and thinking about the implications. Our jobs are not o be gatekeepers deciding who is worthy of services or needy enough. Our jobs are not to decide if you deserve what you are asking or investigate your circumstances to catch you in a lie and report you. Our job is to walk alongside you, follow your lead, and to the best of our ability help you manage, achieve, and thrive. A few quick reads: https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/09/welfare-queen-myth/501470/ https://www.amazon.com/Myth-Welfare-Queen-Prize-Winning-Journalists/dp/0684840065 The myth of the welfare queen was based on one woman, and let me tell you, with confidence, she is far from a typical occurrence. http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/history/2013/12/linda_taylor_welfare_queen_ronald_reagan_made_her_a_notorious_american_villain.html If we have a .01% chance of coming across someone like this, is that reason enough to treat all of our clients suspiciously? Doing so is probably one of the many reasons that our field is fairly ineffective. Clients don’t trust us, because social workers treat them as criminals, and then the social workers blame them for not doing what they want. Really it is the social workers’ job to assess and engage.
   
   
5. I mean this is the absolute kindness, and most honest way possible. Given the lense with which you see your clients, it might be time to consider a different line of work. I don’t mean leave social work – but find something in a different population, with a different type of task. When you have these feelings towards your clients, at best you stop being effective. At worst you are causing harm. I can tell from your thoughtfulness throughout this thread that you are a smart and balanced person. It is ok to decide that a certain environment or population is not right for you and that you need to find somewhere else that is a better fit. Sometimes, once you are farther away from this situation you can more easily understand what was going on without being held down by your own feelings and viewpoints. As I said earlier – I’ve been there and the best thing you can do when you realize you can’t provide equal services to all your clients is to find a different setting where you can. It is a hard thing to tell yourself, but doing so is what makes someone a great social worker.
   
   edit: for some reason the formatting keeps renumbering the last 3 items - should be 3-5 ;-)

For easy reading, follow links for source data:
http://www.junkland.net/2012/01/8-myths-about-welfare-queens-debunked.html

And a famous book on the subject:
http://www.amazon.com/Myth-Welfare-Queen-Prize-Winning-Journalists/dp/0684840065

Trying to catch stuff that hasn't been mentioned here already:

Films:

Bob Roberts (1992)

Bulworth (1998)

Primary Colors (1998)

Documentaries:

The War Room (1993)

The Century of the Self (BBC)

The Power of Nightmares (BBC)

Books:

Anything by Al Franken

Lies: And the Lying Liars Who Tell Them

The Truth (with Jokes)

Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat Idiot and Other Observations

Other authors:

Bowling Alone by Robert Putnam

Nixonland: The Rise of a President and the Fracturing of America by Rick Perlstein

Eliminationists: How Hate Talk Radicalized the American Right
by David Neiwert

I wish I could upmod you more. I'm about done reading The Eliminationists; I highly recommend it to anyone taking notice (or not taking notice for that matter) of the extremism---bordering on fascism---emanating from the "right".

Hi, rogerd,
Thanks for understanding Castle so well. I might have to break this into separate replies:

1. I don't think the trend has died down, if anything it's worse. I can certainly write a book a year, but at that time I had a lot of other things to deal with -- repairing my house, neighbours bullying, noise pollution, chronic pain, lack of money -- so I suffered a great deal of stress. I moved house and I'm in a better position now. Small presses are probably the answer for me. I'm 107K words into the next novel, and I'll finish it next year.
   
   
2. Exactly! And it mirrors some things I've seen in the real world -- I'm fascinated by different character types and what people will do for fame. And what fame actually entails. I've studied the careers of, say, Lance Armstrong, Jim Slater, and I'm looking at Donald Trump. These people have done extraordinarily nasty things in order to gain success (fame & fortune) and -- what's amazing is -- society lets them. Not only lets them, but upholds them. There is a myth that if they're successful, they must have done something right. Things which people will excuse, because they're famous, or because they have built a personal myth in which people want to believe. So [Ata](/s "gets away with killing Shearwater Mist"), because the unspoken rules of our society are reflected in theirs.
   
   Another aspect is what sort of people gain success? We have a belief that, if you are naturally blessed with talent, or if you work hard you'll be successful. That's a myth too -- the book Outliers shows the processes that are really going on. Also a Vice article. Another book.
   
   Jant is more laid-back than the others (horizontal, in fact), because he can fly, he can take a bunch of drugs and still maintain immortality. The immortals are on a spectrum -- at one end are the biological freaks like Jant (and Simoon), and at the other end are people who practise all the time, like Hurricane. Lightning is somewhere in the middle.
   
   And I'm showing the other ways people rise to success, or 'get in to the Circle'. I was very naive at the beginning. I thought success in our world was due to personal effort. But you can see how Mist and Ata were both born to seafaring lives -- Shearwater Mist was a coastal trader (so was his father). Ata was from Grass Isle. In Fair Rebel and the next book it's deeper so for example [Gayle](/s "the Lawyer has been "hothoused" into it by her parents -- also lawyers -- who started her in law at an early age"). I'm interested in the effect that has on her, and also to compare her with [Simoon](/s "the Treasurer, who finds his mathematics effortless and enjoyable").

http://www.amazon.com/The-Story-Civilization-Volume-Set/dp/1567310230/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1393902661&sr=8-1&keywords=will+durant+story+of+civilization+set

https://www.amazon.com/Story-Civilization-11-Set/dp/1567310230

The Story of Civilization by Will and Ariel Durant - you can find used sets cheaper. It focuses more on western civilization, but I think of it as the gold standard for engaging, comprehensive history.

He has an awesome book too

Please Stop Helping Us: How Liberals Make It Harder for Blacks to Succeed

What is the source of this statement? Apparently, it's Who Rules America? The Triumph of the Corporate Rich [Paperback]
.

But, I wonder what Domhoff's source is.

nods wisely

> What's your revenue, asshole? Let me help you: zero. You're a social parasite. Instead of posting excruciatingly long and bullshity posts (not only this one, all of your posts are depressingly horse-manurey), maybe you could actually DO something useful.

I'm going to be heading to university this September, with the hope of working in academia - I don't have a job yet because, instead, I'm planning it out. Following university, I've be heading to the continent through European Voluntary Service, and possibly EURES as a means of finding a job. I have business start-up ideas, myself, written down, but I'm not that much of an idiot to try to create one either straight away, and especially not in this climate.

And, for the record, I contribute more to the economy than you do by a long shot, as I'm one of the people who contributed £22.7 billion to the UK economy in 2007/8, and have been similarly up to this year, where I am still volunteering.

Do I take any of that money home? No, but I certainly give to the economy, and take absolutely nothing from it, as I'm still living with my employed parents. If I were to rely on the welfare system, my contributions to it would make me fully entitled to do so, as would everyone else's - everyone is entitled to welfare; that's why it exists.

> And, just so that you'll feel shitty, my company is 15 years old, not a fucking startup like you arrogantly and dismissively suggested, employing young people from 15 fucking countries from around the world, making 200% above the EU average for the industry (which is a top-earning industry, btw), free in-house daycare, no overtime whatsoever, 30 days paid vacation, every Friday is optional non-working, etc, and my salary is below the team's average.

I don't feel shitty, actually, but I you seem to have some big issues - if your company was so successful, assuming you aren't one of the many individuals who deserve to be mocked on /r/QuitYourBullshit, then surely you wouldn't be so violently aggressive towards your potential consumers. What do you have to gain by claiming that they're all lazy, other than to promote right-wing biases that have already been thoroughly debunked?

Tell me, as I await for the experts to point holes in your fabricated story, what industry are you in? Dare I ask, what is your company, and where is it based? Do tell me your long-winded story about how "hard work" let to your success.

> You think social equality not possible? A lie? That all is lost? Fuck you! It is certainly impossible with people like you. Now, please do me a favor, and commit suicide. Now. Please. I can't stand human waste such as yourself.

That makes little sense to the topic, but okay. My opinion is, obviously, that social equality cannot work in a free market, capitalist system - a belief that is further reinforced by research such as that found in The Spirit Level, which draws upon other well-documented conclusions.

Enlighten me, where is your argument and sources? As all I see is a whiner getting an e-peen from preaching to the masses that they just "aren't trying hard enough". A person who eithr likes to pretend he has a business, or who created a business pre-depression and profited most from the collapse, and now likes to look down upon those less fortunate than themselves.

Whether nouveau riche and forgot his roots, or old money, all I see is a bitter, despicable man obsessed with schadenfreude - loving to laugh at those poorer than him, who couldn't succeed at the rat race, and having no sympathy because, quite frankly, "they deserved it".

> Instead of posting excruciatingly long and bullshity posts

You're clearly not a very literate man, are you? If you were, this wouldn't be a problem. I bet it burns you up inside to know I am better at this than you. Trust me, it only takes me about 5-10 minutes to write this - it's not a waste to see your reaction to this post.

___

On that note, to do a little snooping myself, I would never have expected someone who owns such an allegedly-multicultural 50-person company to be such a raging antisemite, but I guess that's just what business leaders are like these days. Your profile is a goldmine - it certainly isn't the only cultural gaffe you make, but most are deleted from their original source.

Read 'The Spirit Level', it's basically this question!

>ever increasing wealth disparity is to an extent normal and a sign of a healthy society. A rising tide really does raise all ships

These are both empirically untrue statements. As demonstrated pretty conclusively by The Spirit Level, the more unequal a society becomes, the less healthy it becomes in almost every measurable way (crime levels, life expectancy, health outcomes etc). Equally, despite huge economic growth and productivity increases, real wages have remained stagnant since the 60s.

You might not ever get round to it, but you should read this book

https://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/aw/d/0241954290/ref=mp_s_a_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1475004996&sr=8-1&pi=SL75&keywords=the+spirit+level

this is my personal best. (stole the pic, of course)

Also everyone should read this: https://www.amazon.com/Open-Letter-Blasphemy-Islamophobia-Expression/dp/0316311332

Archives for the links in comments:

• By Muskaos (amazon.com): http://archive.fo/PxNeH
  
• By StabbyPants (funnyjunk.com): http://archive.fo/KhkwI
  
  ----
  I am Mnemosyne 2.1, No copyright law in the universe will stop me! gets striked by copyright by sonic team ^^^^/r/botsrights ^^^^Contribute ^^^^message ^^^^me ^^^^suggestions ^^^^at ^^^^any ^^^^time ^^^^Opt ^^^^out ^^^^of ^^^^tracking ^^^^by ^^^^messaging ^^^^me ^^^^"Opt ^^^^Out" ^^^^at ^^^^any ^^^^time

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

>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.

http://www.amazon.com/Vision-Anointed-Self-Congratulation-Social-Policy/dp/046508995X/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1318974177&sr=1-2

http://www.amazon.com/Liberal-Fascism-American-Mussolini-Politics/dp/0385511841

Have you ever read The Vision of the Anointed: Self-Congratulation as a Basis for Social Policy?

>Book Description
Publication Date: June 28, 1996
Sowell presents a devastating critique of the mind-set behind the failed social policies of the past thirty years. Sowell sees what has happened during that time not as a series of isolated mistakes but as a logical consequence of a tainted vision whose defects have led to crises in education, crime, and family dynamics, and to other social pathologies. In this book, he describes how elites—the anointed—have replaced facts and rational thinking with rhetorical assertions, thereby altering the course of our social policy.

The Meritocracy Myth

Again, I don't believe this post is saying here look this is the evidence of institutional racism. Its saying these are some of the results.

It does matter. Because as you well know asking a picture to explain to you the causes and "prove" racism is impossible. So I have to assume your point is to say that these disparities are not caused by racism, otherwise the comment is of little to no value.

If you want to read up on the causes, I suggest you start here:

http://www.amazon.com/The-Meritocracy-Myth-Stephen-McNamee/dp/0742561682

http://www.amazon.com/Institutional-Racism-America-Louis-Knowles/dp/0134677382

Read David Neiwert's Eliminationists: How Hate Talk Radicalized the American Right which features Robert O Paxton's Anatomy of Fascism which Paxton defines as:

• a sense of overwhelming crisis beyond the reach of any traditional solutions;
  
  
• the primacy of the group, toward which one has duties superior to every right, whether individual or universal, and the subordination of the individual to it;
  
  
• the belief that one's group is a victim, a sentiment that justifies any action, without legal or moral limits, against its enemies, both internal and external;
  
  
• dread of the group's decline under the corrosive effects of individualistic liberalism, class conflict, and alien influences;
  
  
• the need for closer integration of a purer community, by consent if possible, or by exclusionary violence if necessary;
  
  
• the need for authority by natural leaders (always male), culminating in a national chief who alone is capable of incarnating the group's destiny;
  
  
• the superiority of the leader's instincts over abstract and universal reason;
  
  
• the beauty of violence and the efficacy of will, when they are devoted to the group's success;
  
  
• the right of the chosen people to dominate others without restraint from any kind of human or divine law, right being decided by the sole criterion of the group's prowess within a Darwinian struggle.

I havent read it, but this is supposed to be pretty good. Might be a good place to start:

The Price of Admission

> not smart enough to get into MIT

https://www.amazon.com/Price-Admission-Americas-Colleges-Outside/dp/1400097975

Part 2:


People often read Horkheimer and think, do these imbeciles think some group of evil people is controlling society (in a conspiracy type of manner)? how idiotic of them.

actually, individuals in the collective are the cause of this,

parents push engineering on to you because it will lead to a good life

people choose majors for extrinsic reasons now

men view themselves in monetary value because they need to be providers (this is true, howev,er the happy normal life exacerbates this)

as a student success is by grades not by what you learned

the moment you ask a kid, what do you want to be when you grow up?

these are all examples of how we, the collective of individuals, cause it

More:

Impact of Colonial Rule on Todays Educational System of Pakistan

>The British ruledIndia for more than 150 years. They came as a separate entity with a different religion, language, culture, style of politics and economic system. They colonize India for financial benefits. They institutionalized the systems more efficiently. Their focus was more on to facilitate their own rule than to work for the social welfare of the natives. They came to India as traders, however within short span of time they realized the weaknesses in then system of governance and planned to capture India. Local segments joined them to weakening the cohesive forces and asthey succeeded in capturing Indian lands bit by bit and weakening the existingsystem, ultimately capturing Indian sub content in 1857. They built their own kind of education system. The aim was to produce work force which follow the mindset of the rulers without causing any problems. They philosophy behind the system was to educate the people in such a way to think like rulers and oppress their own countrymen. In the beginning they adopted the language and culture of India and their tone was liberal and neutral but as they got dominating force they became harder in promulgating their systems. In 1835 English was made the mediumof instruction and whole of the education system was handed over to the missionaries. It is a general perception that educational system of Pakistan is still under the influence the colonial mind set.This system does not give the sense of independence as the educated people try to enslave their own countrymen. This system teaches to hate fellow beings. This study aims at to see the impact of colonial rule on today’s educational system of Pakistan.

The Lingering Impact of Colonization on Pakistan: Negative or
Positive?

>The British rule had a lasting Impact on the lives of the Indian people. They exploited the
Indian territory for their own interests and left the land in more disorder and confusion than
they found it in as (1) their attitude of superiority shattered the confidence of the people, (2)
their agrarian revolution did not help improve yield and caused landholdings to become
more fragmented, (3) the Indian industry was not protected and many traditional ones were
ruined , (4) education was not made easily accessible , (5) construction of railways although
improved transportation however was not done keeping the Indian interests but the British
interests in mind and (6) the new political system which lacked personal element was not
more effective than the old one.


also to relate the objective mind to colonialism,

the quote "The British rule had a lasting Impact on the lives of the Indian people. They exploited the
Indian territory for their own interests and left the land in more disorder and confusion" is the product of thinking with an objective mind

basically okay how can we the brits make hella alot of money in India


the root cause of the objective mind is from enlightenment style thinking which is why Frankfurt school is also called critical theory.

i gave a mini khutba about this how we cannot understand the Quran because of the underlying assumptions that are in a society that are the byproducts of enlightenment style thinking (NOT THAT WAY SPECIFICALLY). Like today in in my religious class, i went toe to toe with stark atheist on the meaning of "evidence"

because Horkheimer says "Our minds are closed to a different world, we will get upset of people to violate the rules of the game, but we do not question those rules"

basically we don't question the rules, for example, what is and is not evidence and why is it that way, instead we are on the defensive with the Quran like omg we're nice people stop hating on us, look Scientific miracles, we're rationally scientific people like you!

edit:

Excellent Sheep: The Miseducation of the American Elite and the Way to a Meaningful Life

>A groundbreaking manifesto about what our nation’s top schools should be—but aren’t—providing: “The ex-Yale professor effectively skewers elite colleges, their brainy but soulless students (those ‘sheep’), pushy parents, and admissions mayhem” (People).

>As a professor at Yale, William Deresiewicz saw something that troubled him deeply. His students, some of the nation’s brightest minds, were adrift when it came to the big questions: how to think critically and creatively and how to find a sense of purpose. Now he argues that elite colleges are turning out conformists without a compass.

>Excellent Sheep takes a sharp look at the high-pressure conveyor belt that begins with parents and counselors who demand perfect grades and culminates in the skewed applications Deresiewicz saw firsthand as a member of Yale’s admissions committee. As schools shift focus from the humanities to “practical” subjects like economics, students are losing the ability to think independently. It is essential, says Deresiewicz, that college be a time for self-discovery, when students can establish their own values and measures of success in order to forge their own paths. He features quotes from real students and graduates he has corresponded with over the years, candidly exposing where the system is broken and offering clear solutions on how to fix it.


Edit

read the articles/studies/journal entries for sure, then pick a book that interests you the most and run with it and have fun!


edit:

related kinda but in a different way,

Inglorious Empire: what the British did to India

>In the eighteenth century, India’s share of the world economy was as large as Europe’s. By 1947, after two centuries of British rule, it had decreased six-fold. Beyond conquest and deception, the Empire blew rebels from cannon, massacred unarmed protesters, entrenched institutionalized racism, and caused millions to die from starvation.

>British imperialism justified itself as enlightened despotism for the benefit of the governed, but Shashi Tharoor takes on and demolishes this position, demonstrating how every supposed imperial “gift”―from the railways to the rule of law―was designed in Britain’s interests alone. He goes on to show how Britain’s Industrial Revolution was founded on India’s deindustrialization and the destruction of its textile industry. In this bold and incisive reassessment of colonialism, Tharoor exposes to devastating effect the inglorious reality of Britain’s stained Indian legacy.

This dude did something amazing (i can go into detail why it was amazing given the ethnocentrism, academic, power, and cultural structure present and just uh it makes me drool in awe) but basically he questioned what people view as a genocide and said mister Winston Churchill, the one who helped stopped the genocidal Nazis promoting freedom and democracy committed a genocide himself in continental India

relevant article https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/world-history/winston-churchill-genocide-dictator-shashi-tharoor-melbourne-writers-festival-a7936141.html

because other people came out and rebuked him which shows he challenged a pharaoh

edit:


sorry but here's an interview of the Indian historian and the lady who supports him says about the Britain education about their vicious imperial past till 6:11

That is exactly how this book explains it.

The Story of Civilization series by Will Durant

http://www.amazon.com/Story-Civilization-11-Set/dp/1567310230/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1376428657&sr=1-1&keywords=will+durant+story+of+civilization+set

Your library should have it

This got a bit long, but I'm a bit passionate about the issue and it frustrates me that the very people who lament a problem are enabling it because they think they are being "good" and "nice" even though it causes more problems than it could fix.

Sorry, that's simply wrong. You should try to read the FBI's uniform crime statistics. You have no idea just how wrong you are. Just take a look, you'll find out that you have been made a fool all this time and have been eating that propaganda up hook, line, and sinker. All you have to do is look at the stats for things you really can't honestly believe can contain any real discrimination like violent assaults, murders, rape, robbery, burglary, etc. It's not like cops are going to say "oh, he's one of those white males we like to treat better. Carry on with your raping and robbing, white male. We don't see any problems here."

Don't worry. I don't judge you. Just have an open mind and be willing to accept reality. As someone who used to be on the center left and was part of both the '08 Clinton and Obama campaigns, I can tell you shit is really not what you've been led to believe even if it is done with good intent. But you know what is said about good intent, right? It paves the bleeding heart soaked path to hell.

You have to also try to remove that chip on your shoulder you were given to immediately knee-jerk to an assumption that reality will be used to justify racism. It's really the left that assumes racism that is making these topics racist and about race and perpetuating the racial divide that does not need to exist if we just solve the problems. It is actually quite thoroughly paternalistically racist to, e.g., say that we need different usually lower standards for blacks than other "races". Why don't blacks deserve to be measured by the same standards that are then not subject to diminishing their achievement? Why do we need to have lower standards for blacks that then leads to lower outcomes that then only contributes to negative and poor perceptions of blacks? It's the deepest kind of racism that really even still exists and liberals don't even know how to realize it, let alone comprehend it.

My perspective is that people on the left are doing exponentially more harm acting and lying to themselves and the world by ignoring, covering up, and just plain lying about reality. You simply cannot fix or change something you aren't even willing to be honest or truthful about acknowledging. It's like I'm dealing with a world or hoarders. Have you ever seen that show? Where the hoarder is like "What, I'm collecting take out food containers with samples of their fine cuisine in its natural setting and really really really like a lot of cats. This is perfectly fine!" and you are just watching it like. O__O

As long as the left wants to coddle, make excuses, and enable nothing will ever get solved just the way it has not been solved over decades now. But I guess when you just want a subset of dependent blacks you really don't have an interest in providing them the dignity of equal standards and expectations. Because just as the benevolent racists of yesteryear, blacks need to be helped, right? It causes so much damage and across generations.

Many problems in our country that liberals lament could have been solved if self-righteous, selfish liberals would simply stop trying to help all just so they can feel good about themselves. The black community has every right to be held to the same standards and expectations that you are held to, those include not ignoring or rationalizing away the reality that the black community has a crime problem that can only be solved if responsibility is accepted ... and not just blame some bullshit about cops arresting more blacks ... PRECISELY because the black community has a crime and violence problem you simply want to ignore and sweep under the rug.

Please Stop Helping Us is a great book on this subject, and a pretty easy and entertaining read.

DSA, I would guess. They’re the only organization you’ve identified not committed to a candidate or party, but an ideology instead.

Honestly, though.Progressives are at a disadvantage right now. Manchin won’t last in WV. Jones won’t last in AL. If Dems win the Senate, House and WH in 2020, do the following please:

1. Abolish filibuster for everything
   
2. Admit DC, PR, VI and Guam as states
   
3. Reestablish VRA
   
4. Nationally restore felon voting rights
   
5. Split California into 7 states
   
   Then, we have, like 14 new Senators, and people who can actually vote for them. Read this: It’s Time to Fight Dirty by David Faris
   
   We just need the will to change
   

https://www.amazon.com/dp/1612196950/?tag=slatmaga-20

Twelve ways for Democrats to defeat the biased political system.

You uncap the HoR to ensure you never lose the presidency and from there pack the courts and make PR and DC states, split California into multiple states.

I'll check it out.

Link for others like me:

Strangers in Their Own Land: Anger and Mourning on the American Right https://www.amazon.com/dp/1620973499/ref=cm_sw_r_em_apa_i_S023Ab62P5KW2

http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Pinch-Boomers-Childrens-Future/dp/1848872321

Here's a British version of basically the same thing. You can simply call it 'neo-liberalism' that happened to benefit the Baby Boomers (less government investment in young people, corporate friendly policies that reduced worker wages and rights over time and favored stock ownership), but I think the galling thing to most nonBoomers is their complete lack of understanding that the 'old normal' is GONE; nada, no more. The opportunities, the cushy jobs that were 'too good to be true', the union jobs that had fat benefits and safe work rules; all gone now.

Once the economic boil came off, really sometime back in the late 1990s with the crash of the tech bubble, people's wages fell off the cliff in real terms. 2008 just made accelerated an already occurring trend towards a lower standard of living among the young generation than the older.

Users kingofthenorthpole and zmild gave great advice. If you read some history about Islam and the Middle East and read the news consistently too, you'll soon have a reasonable opinion that you'll be able to back up. It won't be a warped view either, so feel confident in your ability to figure these things out yourself and then express those views. Keep in mind some words from Kant:

> Those guardians who have kindly taken supervision upon themselves see to it that the overwhelming majority of mankind--among them the entire fair sex--should consider the step to maturity, not only as hard, but as extremely dangerous. First, these guardians make their domestic cattle stupid and carefully prevent the docile creatures from taking a single step without the leading-strings to which they have fastened them. Then they show them the danger that would threaten them if they should try to walk by themselves. Now this danger is really not very great; after stumbling a few times they would, at last, learn to walk. However, examples of such failures intimidate and generally discourage all further attempts.

I also think you should take a look at William Domhoff's arguments about the nature of the Council on Foreign Relations, its importance, and its history. It's an interesting and detailed argument about the creation of our foreign policy that you should at least consider. As a disclaimer, he certainly could be wrong, and not many people agree with him. But it's an interesting read nonetheless.

> I see general policy-discussion organizations such as the Council on Foreign Relations, along with the "think tanks" that provide advice to them, as the main ways in which corporate leaders attempt to reach policy consensus among themselves and impress their views upon government. As I have claimed since the early 1970s (e.g., Domhoff, 1970a, 1971, 1974, 1979; 2014, p. 93), they have four main functions within the corporate community and three roles in relation to the general public:

> 1. They provide a setting in which corporate leaders can familiarize themselves with general policy issues by listening to and questioning the experts from think tanks and university research institutes.
2. They provide a forum in which conflicts between moderate conservatives and ultraconservatives can be discussed and compromised, usually by including experts of both persuasions within the discussion group, along with an occasional liberal on some issues.
3. They provide an informal training ground for new leadership. It is within these organizations that corporate leaders can determine in an informal fashion which of their peers are best suited for service in government and as spokespersons to other groups.
4. They provide an informal recruiting ground for determining which policy experts may be best suited for government service, either as faceless staff aides to the corporate leaders who take government positions or as high-level appointees in their own right.

> In addition, the policy groups have three useful roles in relation to the rest of society:

> 1. These groups legitimate their members as serious and expert persons capable of government service. This image is created because group members are portrayed as giving of their own time to take part in highly selective organizations that are nonpartisan and nonprofit in nature.
2. They convey the concerns, goals, and expectations of the corporate community to those young experts and young professors who want to further their careers by receiving foundation grants, invitations to work at think tanks, and invitations to take part in policy discussion groups.
3. Through such avenues as books, journals, policy statements, press releases, and speakers, these groups try to influence the climate of opinion both in Washington and the country at large.

> The CFR publishes annual reports, makes it positions known through articles in its highly regarded journal, Foreign Affairs, and has sponsored events and historical pamphlets commemorating what it considers to be significant milestones.
This picture is opposite of what conspiratorial thinkers claim, as I showed in a detailed critique of three well-known and widely read conspiracists of the 1960s, Dan Smoot, Phyllis Schlafly, and Reverend William S. McBirnie (Domhoff, 1970b, Chapter 8)...
After the role of the CFR's role in shaping postwar foreign policy is demonstrated in the first section of the chapter, I turn in the second section to a detailed account of how international corporate leaders, Wall Street financiers, and policy experts concerned with international relations worked through the war-peace study groups to develop the plans that shaped the economic framework for an increasingly internationalized postwar economy, starting with the creation of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, commonly known as the World Bank.

There is a terrific section on Obama in Domhoff's hard copy version of Who Rules America. I tried to find the story on his website but failed. When Obama was a local politician he was identified by the Pritzker family as a young man on the rise and one of the Pritzker matriarchs groomed him carefully. Unfortunately for the Pritzkers their family blew up before Obama made it to the White House and they could really make the huge haul. The story about the young Pritzker suing her uncle for trust fund mismanagement is a classic how to blow a fortune story.

Put the bulk into one "non-profit" trust is definitely the way to go.

Submission Statement: How Universities have been part of the problem and how they can be part of the solution to America's Civic Crises.

​

>The United States has seen great increases in how many of us take part in higher education. The percent of Americans who’ve completed four years or more of college has grown nearly sevenfold  just since 1940. Illiteracy rates have plummeted. We have even seen consistent growth in Americans’ average IQ, the so-called “Flynn Effect” from the 1930s through the early 21st century. In addition, people have access to information on a scale hitherto unknown in human history, available in the palm of their hand, whenever and wherever they’d like.
>
>Yet levels of political and civic ignorance have remained astonishingly stable since the 1930s (when mass survey research really kicked off). We also see increasing governmental dysfunction. Increased political and cultural polarization. A general breakdown in civil society and civil discourse. Growing distrust in major social institutions – with particularly pronounced polarization around universities, expertise, and the media. We see declining trust in one another. People are increasingly reluctant to marry, date, or even befriend or live next to those who hold different socio-political views from themselves.

Not sure this is really an ELI5 question, but.... check this book out.

Jason Stanley, a Philosophy professor at Yale, has two recent books that might be of interest: How Propaganda Works, and How Fascism Works. Depending on how broadly you want to define "philosophy", US Naval War College professor Tom Nichols's book, The Death of Expertise, would also be fit the bill. The ideas in The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion by NYU ethics/business professor Jonathan Haidt also come up frequently in conversation.

If you're willing to look further back (and perhaps define philosophy even more broadly), the late NYU education professor Neil Postman's Amusing Ourselves to Death: Public Discourse in the Age of Show Business might be of interest.

Tom Nichols (GOP ALERT 🚨) wrote a book on this. Its pretty decent and he's given some good interviews about it:

https://www.amazon.com/Death-Expertise-Campaign-Established-Knowledge/dp/0190469412

You absolutely need to read "The Death of Expertise" by Thomas Nicols. You are a big bright shiny example of all of his arguments.

https://www.amazon.com/Death-Expertise-Campaign-Established-Knowledge/dp/0190469412/

Your question refers specifically to income equality, but regarding equality more generally I think you might find The Spirit Level an interesting read.

I'll suggest two books for you:

• Chavs: The Demonization of the Working Class
  
  
• The Spirit Level: Why Equality is Better for Everyone
  
  

http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Spirit-Level-Equality-Everyone/dp/0241954290

A summary of research done by epidemiologists about the effects of income inequality on societies. There's a good body of research on the subject.

I'd recommend reading The Spirit Level and The Price of Inequality.

There appears to be a correlation between inequality and rising crime rates, ill-health, and social deprivation.

Part of this comes from the choices people can and do make when they live in a society where there is a wide gulf between the top and the bottom. It helps to reinforce class distinctions which creates a barrier around social mobility.

Inequality isn't bad in-of-itself, but that's like saying having a McDonalds in every major town isn't bad in-of-itself - the issue is that it almost always exasberates existing social problems.

United Kingdom.

My political views are... complicated. On political spectrum tests, I'm very much left-libertarian, but a lot of my views don't fit the typical leftist picture.

For me, politics should be about achieving one or more end goals, rather than blindly following any particular ideology.

For me, the main end goal which politics should achieve is achieving the greatest well-being for the greatest number of people, with safeguards in place using principles of distributive justice, to ensure that no minority group is made to suffer disproportionately for the benefit of the majority.

Despite my Marxist leanings, I'm actually in favour of a regulated free market that encourages growth of small businesses and discourages monopolies, as a successful free market requires competition. I like the idea of anarcho-syndicalism, in principle, but I believe that it's unworkable in a country with a high population density like the UK.

Certain things, in my opinion, cannot be improved with free market forces. Commodities with inflexible demand, like healthcare, utilities, public transportation, should be operated and funded by the state. I'm also a firm believer in the benefits of affordable state housing for the poorer sections of society. Under the current deregulated system, private landlords have been steadily increasing rents to suck up a higher proportion of people's incomes, transferring wealth from the poorest to the richest.

Wealth inequality is very strongly associated with poorer quality of life in many aspects for people in developed countries (the book The Spirit Level provides solid evidence that this is the case.)

Like most iNtuitive-doms here, I'm a very strong believer in personal autonomy, that the state should interfere as little as possible in the private lives of its citizens.

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.

https://www.amazon.com/Vision-Anointed-Self-Congratulation-Social-Policy/dp/046508995X

Here are some I suggest for you!

1

2

3

4

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.

That's dependent on where the person lives and what resources he has. For you, it's simple to get on the internet and use a credit card to buy rice, beans, lentils, etc. But, for many people, that's not an option.

And, don't forget that time is valuable, too. The price of food isn't just in what you're charged at the checkout counter; you also need to factor in how long it takes to get the food. Would you take the bus across town and walk for eighteen blocks to get a meal that saves only pennies in nominal cost but costs you many dollars in lost income?

I highly recommend The Myth of the Welfare Queen by David Zucchino. It might help you get an idea of why choices that seem wasteful to you might actually make sense if you were in their shoes.

http://www.amazon.com/MYTH-WELFARE-QUEEN-PRIZE-WINNING-JOURNALISTS/dp/0684840065
http://womenslawproject.wordpress.com/2010/11/02/debunking-the-myth-of-the-%E2%80%9Cwelfare-queen%E2%80%9D-who-actually-receives-tanf-benefits/
http://www.anitra.net/homelessness/columns/anitra/eightmyths.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welfare_queen

google. 0.22 secs

I suggest checking out this book by David Zucchino, because what you said is utter bullshit.

>If you google "meritocracy myth", you'll see that there are plenty of lefties who are opposed to meritocracy.

Going from top to bottom:

1. http://www.ncsociology.org/sociationtoday/v21/merit.htm <- attacks the the myth is that America IS a meritocracy.
   
2. http://www.amazon.com/The-Meritocracy-Myth-Stephen-McNamee/dp/0742561682 <- same as above
   
3. http://www.amazon.com/The-Meritocracy-Myth-Stephen-McNamee/dp/0742561674 <- same book as above
   
4. https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/wired-success/201006/the-myths-the-self-made-man-and-meritocracy <- attacks the the myth is that America IS a meritocracy.
   
5. http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2015/02/meritocracy-myth-what-ever-happened-old-dream-classless-society <- attacks a definition of meritocracy with several baked in ideas that are incompatible with a rational conception of merit (genetics, for example)
   
6. http://www.uvm.edu/~vtconn/v31/Alvarado.pdf <- attacks the the myth is that America IS a meritocracy.
   
   
   What am I looking for here?

My pleasure :) Thank you for being open-minded. I know lots of people will disregard documents hosted at Mises.org out of hand as "biased". I would rather call it "starting with a radical thesis." :)

> their assumption is that if people don't give to the government, they will automatically donate most of that same money to comparable charities, which is simply not the case.

I won't defend it if they actually made that argument in the paper, but I don't think the validity of the argument hinges on what the person would've otherwise spent the money on. I'd like to clarify the opportunity cost argument as I've seen it elsewhere (like from Harry Browne in Why Government Doesn't Work): Every cent we spend involves an opportunity cost, but our free will in the exchange is what allows us to maximize the effect of that spending. Yet when the money is taken from you arbitrarily, all you get is opportunity cost with no opportunities. The money might get spent on roads or food stamps, but it also might get spent on bombs or waterboarding sessions. You don't have the control you would have in a free exchange.

> [Taxation] is not slavery.

I suppose it isn't, literally speaking. But to someone who considers taxation a form of theft, it is in the same moral category. If I owe for using government services, why don't they just bill me? They can find the time to do that when it comes to their water and power monopolies.

According to the Grace Commission, that money gets spent much more on finance payments than on any of those federal services we know and love. Dated as the report is, I hope it helps make the point that you can't count on your taxes being spent on the things from the government you actually value.

> [Breaking up families is] better than letting people starve. I'm not sure how best to combat this type of warping.

I'm of the opinion that it is not better, not just because these people being helped are not actually in mortal peril, but because I believe it's possible to do an equal amount of good without the unintended consequences. Simply leave the care of the poor to those who are intrinsically called to do it. Those people operate on different incentives from the state. They will have greater effect if their efforts aren't crowded out or counteracted by state actions. Besides, if a society is not already inclined to help the poor, what hope do we have of producing a government that can do it?

How we care for the downtrodden says something about who we are as a civilization. I don't think it says very good things about us if we're willing to shuffle other people's money around mostly on bureaucratic costs, in a system that turns the poor into political footballs, then pat ourselves on the back like we did something good.

Try "Why Government Doesn't Work" By Harry Browne. That's the book that finally cured me of my ties to the republican party.

Harry Browne's 1996 campaign book, "Why Government Does Not Work" has a lot of material covering how government programs typically do the opposite of what they are intended to do.

Maybe in a single instance, reframing would be a debating tactic. But as a concerted effort by the GOP, right-wing media, etc., it's like a hostile takeover of the media space or propaganda/censorship campaign.

Look at how on-message GOP reps and operatives are. You'll hear the same catch-phrases used all across the media spectrum in response to some current political/news item: in media interviews, talk show host chatter, newspaper quotes, congressional floor speeches, etc. And then look at the origins of some of their ideas -- they come from radical right-wing sources, like former spokesmen for the KKK or ultra-rightwing talk radio hosts. The politicians and their operatives will often acknowledge the crazies under the guise of disavowing them, or saying things like "well, I can certainly understand how someone would get that angry" or similar downplaying statements.

Journalist Dave Neiwert has done a fair bit of work documenting this process of the GOP's mining radical speech and then normalizing it for mainstream consumption.

>And neither is "white culture", right? It's not like all those right wing
>conspiracies and racism are a massive part of traditional culture of white
>people. Right?

What are you suggesting I said? I went on to identify the ideologies that led to attacks like Oaklahoma City. I took a keen interest in the rise of militia groups and right-wing anti-government ideologies in the '90s; heck, I read every word of the transcript of McVeigh's trial as it came out. I also watched the rise of right-wing talk radio and how these radio programs stoked the flames of dissent until the inevitable result.

There's even a term for what some of these programs preach today: eliminationism.

Eliminationists: How Hate Talk Radicalized the American Right

>The Eliminationists describes the malignant influence of right-wing hate talk
>on the American conservative movement. Tracing much of this vitriol to the
>dank corners of the para-fascist right, award-winning reporter David
>Neiwert documents persistent ideas and rhetoric that champion the
>elimination of opposition groups. As a result of this hateful discourse,
>Neiwert argues, the broader conservative movement has metastasized into
>something not truly conservative, but decidedly right-wing and potentially
>dangerous.
>
>By tapping into the eliminationism latent in the American psyche, the
>mainstream conservative movement has emboldened groups that have
>inhabited the fringes of the far right for decades. With the Obama victory,
>their voices may once again raise the specter of deadly domestic terrorism
>that characterized the far Right in the 1990s. How well Americans face this
>challenge will depend on how strongly we repudiate the politics of hate and
>repair the damage it has wrought.

We saw this in the Unitarian Church shooting in 2008. Adkisson said he was motivated by Goldberg's "100 People Who Are Screwing Up America". The far right doesn't recognize that there are fellow Americans who disagree with them; instead they preach that these people enemies, traitors that are destroying the nation and that they have to be eliminated. There is no peaceful co-existence. Ann Coulter's books are a prime example; she even wrote one book titled "Traitors". Like the Pizzagate shooting, if you take this stuff seriously and literally, it justifies violence and murder and we continue to see this play out.

Do you want me to go on, because I can discuss the rise of the militia movement in depth if you want? Or you can stop trying to paint me as some sort of ignorant white supremacist.

By the way, there is no such thing as a singular "white culture". As I've pointed out before, we have as many as 11 cultures in America based on region. The forces that shaped the rise of the Michigan Militia group would not, for instance, exist in Southern California.



>> And Islam is to blame for what happened in London twice in two weeks.
>Except, it's not.

Sigh.

> There is no verse in Qoran that says "go commit mass murder against
>children with guns". Or one that says "run over them with trucks".

So where do these ideas come from when THE TERRORISTS THEMSELVES often say they're doing it because of Islam? Are they lying? And as pointed out elsewhere, there are plenty of verses calling for violence against infidels. And since guns and trucks are modern inventions, your statement is simply ridiculous. It's no easier having a rational discussion about this topic with those on the left as it is with those on the right apparently.



>> Why must we pretend to be so politically correct that we can't say the
>>words?
>
>First of all, why the fuck being "correct" is something negative to you?

It isn't. But in this case, Hillary is blatantly incorrect - and downvote me all you want, she tweeted something stupid. And she did it because of politics. On the other hand, she might just have been baiting Trump.

> Why do we have to fall into false rhetoric and say ignorant and blatantly
>wrong shit?

That's what I want to ask Hillary Clinton.

> The ideology of Jihadism is evil, but the religion itself, is not. At least not
>anymore evil than your average religion.

I can't agree with this. We don't see Quakers blowing themselves up. We don't experience horse-and-carriage bomb attacks from Amish. Catholics don't proscribe the death penalty to those who leave the faith. Unitarian Universalism doesn't have the concept of "jihad". There are lots of bad ideas in lots of religions. But we have to be honest and say that there's something particular to Islam going on here. I can go on at length about what that is although people a lot smarter than me have done so before. Islam is particularly resistant to modernization and moderation. Catholics can say "Oh, this part of the book isn't to be taken literally (anymore)" when secular morality runs ahead of scripture. Islam can't - it proscribes the harshest of penalties if even one syllable of the Koran is changed. That means 800-year-old thinking gets dragged around by Islam into the modern day. Also, Christianity at least has "Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's....". This was quite possibly added later (the Christian Bible has been literally as well as figuratively changed, unlike the Koran), but it serves its purpose. Islam makes no distinction between the secular and the religious. There's also the death penalty for apostasy, the concept of jihad, etc. These unique facets of Islam make it, as Sam Harris put it, a "motherload of bad ideas".

But again, no one wants to discuss this. The right wants to call the left terrorist-lovers and the left wants to call the right bigots and no one wants to look at the big, complicated problem we have and call it such with no easy answers to be found.

>The religion says "thou shall not kill" and "don't force the faith onto others".

And you know I can pull verses that say the opposite, right? There's an old saying, "Even the Devil can quote scripture."

> At which point people like you will stop trying to shove overgeneralized
>bullshit and recognize there are other problems at play? Hımm?

There are lots of problems at play - religion is one of them.

> Corrupted by religion my ass. Excessive majority of Muslims don't commit
>any crimes let alone terrorism,

True. Most Muslims aren't terrorists. But most terrorists are Muslim. Most people don't follow the rules of their religion anyway and the fundamentalists are actually the most honest - they assume the religion means exactly what it says. It's because of secular morality that most Muslims aren't raising Jihad and most Christians aren't murdering abortion doctors, not because of theology.

> Let this basic fact sink in: Islam is no worse than Christianity.

When a 50,000 strong army of Christians try to take over parts of the Middle East and decapitate and burn people alive, I'll buy that. Of course, they did do just that, but several hundred years ago. Since then the religion has been watered down and more importantly the Enlightenment stripped the Catholic Church of its temporal power. Islam has not been watered down and it still rules countries and armies. Turkey was able to achieve so much compared to other majority Muslim nations precisely because Ataturk enshrined the concept of a secular government in the Constitution and the army has stepped in in the past to remove any leader who tried to change that.

Thank you! I hope yours is going well.

For added reading, I'd recommend The Eliminationists: How Hate Talk Radicalized the American Right

https://www.amazon.com/Eliminationists-Hate-Radicalized-American-Right/dp/0981576982

Fascinating and terrifying read.

https://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2010/dec/07/world-education-rankings-maths-science-reading

Scroll down to the regional rankings: Shanghai was #1, followed by South Korea.

> How would they be out studying someone who attends the same university? Wouldn't that mean they were equal, educationally?

I was referring to OP's stupid claim that 'Chinese cheat their way into Western universities'. No, they out-study their way into Western universities, because of the premium Chinese society places on education, and the way in which children spend their whole lives studying for super-competitive entrance exams which determine their entire futures.


>Where are you getting these numbers for your so-called "legacy" students? You do realize that even these students must have an education in the first place to attend these universities?

No. They literally buy their way into universities like Harvard, or are granted admission despite lacking the competitive requirements because their parents went there.

Sources:

CNBC: Harvard's incoming freshman class is one-third legacy—here's why that's a problem

The Price of Admission: How America's Ruling Class Buys Its Way into Elite Colleges--and Who Gets Left Outside the Gates

The Story Behind Jared Kushner’s Curious Acceptance Into Harvard

Though that's not necessarily true. There's even a book on it.
https://www.amazon.com/Price-Admission-Americas-Colleges-Outside/dp/1400097975

However, while we do know there is wiggle room in the SSS requirement, we also know that we don't meet the requirements for that exception.

It's funny that this is a Harvard study because their (and other Ivy League schools) less than fair admissions practices heavily contribute to aristocracies, which contribute to the rise of oligarchies.

Check out this book.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/1400097975?pc_redir=1410065014&robot_redir=1

I don't think it's helpful for anyone to pathologize people who vote in a particular way. It's fair to point out, a lot of Obama voters turned around in 16 and voted for Trump.

Another problem I see is the notion that the world is literally filled with hateful, The_Donald types. It isn't. It isn't even a little bit. Those super vocal Trump supporters are the exception, not the rule.

This is more an area for sociology, not psychology.

EDIT: I need to go find a book about this, hold on. Keep checking this comment and I'll update.

edit 2: found it. This will give you a clearer understanding of the mindsets you're seeing. https://www.amazon.com/Strangers-Their-Own-Land-Mourning/dp/1536684937

Especially in context to, "line cutters," which is what all of this really boils down to.

Have you read Will Durant's The Renaissance?

Durant wrote an entire series on Western Civilization.

You can see included here: http://www.amazon.com/Story-Civilization-11-Set/dp/1567310230/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1419794343&sr=8-1&keywords=will+durant+story+of+civilization+set

Thomas Sowell and others debunk the claims that women and blacks earn less in the marketplace due to discrimination. When they are compared on equal footing, it is found they are not discriminated against, and in some cases even earn slightly more. For example, unmarried women without children tend to earn a bit more than their male counterparts. What is affecting the average woman? Having children, obviously. If you thought that women, on average, should be earning equal wages, you were clearly not using your brain effectively, as bearing children is such an obvious and enormous cost.

There is a cost to conducting irrational practices in the marketplace (racism, sexism in hiring and in customer discrimination are the examples we are concerned with in this discussion). For example, bus companies wanted to give equal treatment to Blacks during the era of segregation in the U.S., as Black Americans were their biggest customers. They were forced to conduct costly (in opportunity), racist practices in order to comply with government segregation laws. Most people simply are not willing to pay the cost if they are racist, but I also think that most people aren't racist.

If we look at Asian Americans and Irish Americans who's ancestors also experienced severe discrimination, as well as Irish in the UK who's ancestors experienced slavery, we find they don't have the same problems Black Americans face. Blacks immigrants do better on average than their American counterparts. It is clear it is not discrimination at the employer which is the problem. It is a culture of victimization that has been built around them by liberals attempting to "help" them through horrendous government policies--most notably education that amounts to nothing and subsidies of bad behavior--which has lead to alarming rates of single parenthood (usually mothers) which has destroyed the future of these young children. It really needs to stop.

Another book mentioned in this episode: 'Please Stop Helping Us' by Jason L. Riley http://www.amazon.com/Please-Stop-Helping-Us-Liberals/dp/1594037256

Ok. There's various degrees too. You got the weebo nerd/blerd or whatevs who's still awkward and weird. Then you have the type that doesn't mind being "white washed" or not having to appeal to black stereotypes, doesn't mind having republican/conservative values (think Thomas Howell) or guys like Jason Riley or Tommy Sotomayor.

Both of those can be done voluntarily, without the coercion.

Btw, most of the tax-theft money goes to the funding of wars and social programs that hurt people.

And that is the erroneous argument that I am referring to. Have you ever listened to a black republican? Have you ever listened to a conservative explain their position? I'm not talking about who the liberal leaders, the so-called "main stream" media, and the typical black community want to point to. In all honesty, they are pointing you to the 1 to 2% fringe or twisting what people say. And don't get me started on when empirical facts are used and the person using it gets called racist.

Do yourself a favor. Look up Alfonzo Rachel. Look up the book "Please Stop Helping Us" and give it a read. With your argument, you honestly need your eyes opened to who you're labeling racist. If you actually listen to just the two men I just pointed you to have to say, it will start you on a journey that will tear down this facade that you have had built around you.

93% of blacks vote Democrat. 7% of a small minority of the total US population vote either Republican or 3rd party, mostly Republican. Blacks are well represented in the GOP all things considered.

Here are a few others.

Michael Steele, the first black leader of the RNC.

Jason Reilly, Wall Street Journal editorial board member and author of Please Stop Helping Us: How Liberals Make It Harder for Blacks to Succeed

Allen West was a one term Congressman from Florida and the first black Republican Congressman from FL since Reconstruction. This man is hugely popular with the supposedly racist "tea party" wing of the party. For the record, I am not a tea partier.

I've linked to her book which I used in the description, but here's a direct link https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/1608462110/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_a2KRzbS4CAMY9

https://www.amazon.com/Its-Time-Fight-Dirty-Democrats/dp/1612196950

> No, deciding that US policy is world domination of both friend and foe is conspiracy theroy

The US has a long documented history of overthrowing the governments of our "allies" -- ask most people from Australia or New Zealand, for example. Or ask Saddam Hussein.

Heck, we even have a history of waging literal terrorist attacks on our allies, e.g. Operation Gladio, push our allies to the political right and to be more militaristic.

We've also overthrown dozens of countries, both democratic and non-democratic alike. Former State Dept. historian William Blum wrote a book on the topic, Killing Hope.

As to the cited quote about us taking over the world, that is one journalists opinion from reading Pentagon documents -- and our actions match his summary very, very well.

> "Our first objective is to prevent the reemergence of a new rival…to prevent any hostile power from dominating a region whose resources would, under consolidated control, be sufficient to generate global power. These regions include Western Europe, East Asia, the territory of the former Soviet Union and southwest Asia." -- US Dept. of Defense Planning Guide, 1992, announcing its plan to dominate the world.

Of course Sanders is right but the CIA has been helping governments to kill dissidents all around the world since 1945.

Read [Killing Hope] (https://www.amazon.co.uk/Killing-Hope-Military-Interventions-since/dp/1783601779) by Robert Blum

You won't find better than Killing Hope by William Blum https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/1783601779/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_awdb_t1_u.wUCbZFKPPTR

If America dies - the world wins. So simple.

>Tell me, if I were not an armed forces member what would change?

I don't know. Would you be a cop? We love hypotheticals.

>In reality nothing of course, I am not a very important person, but let's assume I were. Let's assume that by me not joining the US military, the US instantly becomes about as militarily powerful as Sweden.

That's a hell of a non sequitur...

>Who wins? Essentially fascist Russia,

Russia and China aren't imperialist countries in even remotely the same way the the US imposes its form of imperialism. The US is a hegemon, there are entire theories devoted to this - and there are non devoted to the idea of Russia, China, or any other country you can name - aside from the US. Why?

Here's a hint. https://s30.postimg.org/91mnxzz0h/wmb.png

Here's a book on the topic: https://www.amazon.com/Killing-Hope-Military-Interventions-Updated/dp/1783601779/

>Neither your ideology nor mine benefit.

Actually my ideology does benefit from the downfall of the prime predator nation. Communism is against predation.

>Elliot Abrams

OMG! You aren't kidding! A convicted monster returns for more blood. He helped fund the contras in Nicaragua. I'd invite the propagandists here to read William Blum's 'Killing Hope' so history does not repeat itself. To quote this serious history of the CIA p293...

People caught in these assaults were often tortured and killed in the most gruesome ways. One example, reported by The Guardian of London, suffices. In the words of a survivor of the raid in Jinotega province, which borders on Honduras:

Rosa had her breasts cut off. Then they cut into her chest and took out her heart. The men had their arms broken, their testicles cut off , and their eyes poked out. They were killed by slitting their throats and pulling the tongue out through the slit.

The Guardian, 15 Nov 1984

In November 1984, the Nicaraguan government announced that since 1981 the contras had assassinated 910 state officials and killed 8,000 citizens.

I wonder if Bruce Canon Gibney, David Willetts, Joseph Sternberg, and PJ O'Rourke (for God's sake!) are all also part of this troll farm, or just unwitting dupes. 🤔

This books breaks the entire phenomenal down into digestible bite sizes. The sheer importance of the book has been over looked for years now because no one saw this coming -- and still don't.

Long story short, we have A LOT of work to do to make sure this doesn't happen to the next gen.

https://youtu.be/sg6lk6RYuEU?t=1m2s

I encourage you to read his book, it's made just for you.

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

So, no.

https://www.amazon.com/Vision-Anointed-Self-Congratulation-Social-Policy/dp/046508995X

"Eliminationism" as a concept just means that you have to push one group out of your society. Either by killing them, imprisoning them, or "tossing them out" back across the borders or what have you.

It's most prevalent on the right (get rid of the liberals, traitors, muslims, gays, whatever) and I don't want it to be part of "my" side too.

Some good books about it:

http://www.amazon.com/Machete-Season-Killers-Rwanda-Speak/dp/0312425031/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1318024167&sr=8-1

http://www.amazon.com/Eliminationists-Hate-Radicalized-American-Right/dp/0981576982/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1318024184&sr=1-1

and a good bill moyers segment:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TZ3ap-BK0e0

There are a couple of trends going on that overlap enough to push things way out in batshit crazyland. Some of these political forces include eliminationism, dominionism, neoconservatism and a network of media that deliberately and intentionally deceives its audience.

The media network is Murdoch's. Several changes had to be made in American laws to allow him to own such a large concentration of newspapers, radio and tv stations. Other changes, such as the elimination of the Fairness Doctrine ensured that it was only his voice that could be heard on those stations - no rebuttals could take place. All these changes, including granting Murdoch an unearned US citizenship (on Reagan's orders) were done during Reagan's term of office.

Things that used to be considered totally insane years ago have become perfectly normal to talk about. This is how the Overton Window works. In practice, some of the major transmitters of right-wing messages (Limbaugh, Coulter, Beck among others) say crazy things for long enough that their audiences end up considering them to be perfectly normal.

For a background of the history of eliminationism in America, I recommend reading some of David Neiwert's writings (check out some of the longer documents linked on the left hand menu).

http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/The%20Rise%20Of%20Pseudo%20Fascism.pdf
http://www.amazon.com/Eliminationists-Hate-Radicalized-American-Right/dp/0981576982/

For an understanding of where some of the dominionists are coming from, I recommend reading some of Fred Clark's and Brad Hick's blogs:
http://www.patheos.com/community/slacktivist
http://slacktivist.typepad.com/
http://bradhicks.livejournal.com/
When people talk about "the taliban wing of the republican party" they are referring to the dominionists. These are people who want to instill a theocracy in the US. The book A Handmaid's Tale has such a theocracy as one of the major plot points.

The neoconservatives have become very influential in right wing politics. The founder, Leo Strauss, believed that an elite should govern the country, deceiving the public as necessary to keep the country going in the "correct" direction. The documentary The Power of Nightmares showed the rise of the neoconservative movement and how eerily it paralleled the rise of the Muslim Brotherhood (who were the intellectual creators of the Taliban and Al Qeda).

There is more to it, but that's all the time I have to discuss it today.

O.K. Fair point? But then you make that situation as rare as possible, not your priority. Tell you what read this book: https://www.amazon.com/Price-Admission-Americas-Colleges-Outside/dp/1400097975. Or let me point you tothis article: https://www.propublica.org/article/the-story-behind-jared-kushners-curious-acceptance-into-harvard Δ

I really wish I lived in the world you’re describing, but that’s not how I see it. The Democrats have consistently underestimated the threat Trump poses, and under-reacted in opposing him.

I think we would do well to spend less time assuring ourselves that:

“it could have been worse”

“we can still undo this later”

“he’s obviously guilty, it’s a matter of time”

And more time thinking of how to effectively resist and block his agenda, here in the present tense. Quite frankly I think our Republican friends across the aisle do a consistently stronger job of this.

I’m a big fan of the Indivisible Guide, written by former democratic congressional staffers who witnessed the rise of the Tea Party, and have written a guide on how to emulate the most effective portions of their model of political organization.

As well as David Faris’, “It’s Time to Fight Dirty”: How Democrats can Build a Lasting Majority in American Politics

This book just released in April. I haven't read it yet, but it's getting good reviews.

you are confusing correlation and causation. There are such things as low-e windows which block heat transfer. You are also ignoring the inconsistent yellowing patterns. If it was strictly heat then the picture I showed you would make no sense. You are basing your entire premise on anecdotal first hand accounts, not evidence or science. You need to read how BFR's work, what Bromine is reactive with and what redox reactions are. You should also read this

It is the way of things. I have given up on trying to set it right. Reading http://www.amazon.com/The-Story-Civilization-Volume-Set/dp/1567310230 convinced me that the truths of human kindness have existed for a very long time and we willingly ignore them. I do my best to care for my loved ones. My social justice warrior days are over. I can't win. Worrying about it just seems to lessen the time we are given to enjoy the blessing of life. Basically I feel like a prisoner who is getting raped. You can just get raped or you can fight back and you will also get your teeth knocked out too :(

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:

https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/046508995X/ref=ppx_yo_dt_b_asin_title_o05_s00?ie=UTF8&psc=1

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.

What about Congress people who's districts include a lot of people who work in financial services? What about taking into account the views of people who have more than a cursory and often times incorrect understanding of corporate finance and government regulations? This book I picked up is becoming more relevant with each passing month: https://www.amazon.com/Death-Expertise-Campaign-Established-Knowledge/dp/0190469412

The ONLY thing you can truly do is stop making being a victim 'cool'. Hear me out:

White privilege exists in the same way sexism does: A very small microcosm of the total world. But, it is used as an excuse constantly.


When you create programs to help one type of person over another it just reaffirms this position and perception bends that way. Instead of people chanting that African American communities are more likely to be poor, and have higher unemployment because of white privilege, we need to instill the concept that if you work hard, and have motivation, that regardless of the street you live on, or if your parents are still together you CAN succeed! But freebies and assistance reaffirm that they NEED the help and can't help themselves.

this book "Please stop helping us" (written by a black man) is really an interesting read on the subject.