Top products from r/WayOfTheBern

Hitler's party was named the "National Socialists." Their policies had little to do with socialism. The main feature of the Nazis was an authoritarian dictatorship. Like the "socialists" in the "United Soviet Socialist Republic" (USSR), or the Kim family's "Democratic People's Republic of Korea" the name has virtually nothing to do with how the country is/was run or its economic system.

When they first came to power, the Nazis did some quasi-socialist policies of helping the working class. This solidified their political power and mandate. This was however not real socialism, because it was not built on helping all people, just "the right" people. It was a classic divide and conquer combined with demagoguery against Jews, Roma, Homosexuals, etc. Power was concentrated at the top, particularly in a single leader, (der Führer - literally "the leader"), which is diametrically opposed to what socialism is. The Nazis could only extract more and more wealth by continually doing more dividing internally, and eventually only by attacking and overthrowing other countries and extracting their wealth, both materially and by enslaving the captured civilian populations.

The few big German (not to mention internationally, including US) companies who sided with the Nazis early on made a lot of money, as well as the leaders of the party becoming enormously wealthy, by killing, enslaving and stealing. That is also not socialism. It is fascism.

It should also be noted that soon after coming to power, all higher Nazi party members who were interested in socialism were purged from the party (some arrested and imprisoned) and socialist groups in Germany were targeted and eliminated. I'm not an expert on the USSR, but I believe this is similar to what happened there once the Bolsheviks consolidated power.

In Germany, all of this was lead by a bitter, failed painter and WWI corporal from Austria named Adolf. He learned in the early 1900s in Vienna how well anti-semitism can be used to rile people up and turn their economic frustration on minorities, rather than the powerful who control things. Hitler took the lessons of Vienna Mayor Luegner and expanded on them. Trump uses the same playbook, but fortunately, the more modern world still has a few checks on his power.

I wouldn't say Hitler was an unprecedented evil only because the validity of our written history gets very sketchy before the 1900s (and it is pretty sketchy in parts since then as well!), but he was a very, very bad person. Socialism just means society controls the means and distribution of production. There are no pure socialist countries, but almost every country has socialist policies (like the fire department, schools, roads, etc.). The happiest (according to their populations) countries have social democracies, which just means that the public has the most say in how their taxes are spent - and they choose to spread the wealth around to the vast majority of the public. This is different than in the US, where the vast majority of tax money is spent on a few lucky winners.

If you want the really best understanding of Hitler, I recommend the two-volume biography from Ian Kershaw:

Volume I

Volume II

Very long, but super informative. I think that clarifies quite well.

[edit] typo

> It can be, and has been, wielded for great good in helping women build equal rights within our society.

No it hasn't. In the US, women literally have more rights than men* and fare better on almost every quality of life indicator, yet I see no attempt by feminists to correct this.

• (1) females have the right to genital integrity. It is legal to mutilate the genitals of baby boys but not baby girls (2) women have the right to vote without signing over their body to the state. It is illegal for men to vote without signing up for selective service (conscription). (3) Women have the right to legal parental surrender. If a woman doesn't want her child she can drop it off at a safe haven. If a man doesn't want his child he will be sent to prison if he fails to pay child support.
  
  And those are just the legal rights. Discussing the privileges of the female sex would require an entire book. The reality is that females are now institutionally privileged in nearly ever facet of modern life. From the education system to the criminal justice system to politics. Strangely, this has not resulted in increased happiness. Female happiness rates have been steadily declining since the 1970's.
  
  In case you're wondering whether I'm some right wing tradcon -- no, I'm not. I support abortion rights, free birth control, public funding of daycare etc. etc. I oppose feminism precisely because I support gender equality.

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

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

start with this one:

https://www.amazon.com/Listen-Liberal-Happened-Party-People/dp/1627795391

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

I'm glad Jimmy didn't let Thomas Frank off the hook for voting for Clinton. Jimmy obviously loves Frank's book, Listen, Liberal, but seriously, how do write that masterpiece and still remain loyal to the Democratic Party?

Reading this, I was reminded of a passage from one of my favorite books (Shantaram):

> Justice is a judgement that is both fair and forgiving. Justice is not done until everyone is satisfied, even those who offend us and must be punished by us. You can see, by what we have done with these two boys, that justice is not only the way we punish those who do wrong. It is also the way we try to save them.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

His opinion is bolstered by an FBI document from 1969:

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







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

> Hillary Clinton's new book is a flop ...

People are more interested in honest stuff nowadays!

• A Letter to American Workingmen – by Vladmir Ilyich Lenin
  
  
• Essential Works of Lenin: "What Is to Be Done?"
  
  xD

Great post.

9) All the way. I have been told that if we the people wanted to fund exit polls, we would need to become a PAC and then set up fundraising, like a kickstarter. Can anyone confirm this? I guess we should bite the bullet and go for it. What should we call our PAC? “NotRussianBots” or “TiredofLivinginaBananaRepublic” or??

Richard Charnin was the mathematician. Here is his book: https://www.amazon.com/77-Billion-One-Election-Fraud/dp/1539309371

Found one on amazon, not pink but close enough. I love the graphic.
https://www.amazon.com/Bernie-Bro-Shirt-funny-Sanders/dp/B07M5YHYB9?customId=B07HPWT5Z2&th=1&psc=1

A book on the matter:

https://www.amazon.com/77-Billion-One-Election-Fraud/dp/1539309371/ref=sr_1_fkmr0_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1510079616&sr=8-1-fkmr0&keywords=1+in+77+billion

The people who did the thing.

http://www.democracyintegrity.org/ElectoralFraud/just-doing-the-math.html

NOTE: The book has tons of info and discussion but does have a couple of typos and other syntax problems that suggest it wasn't proofread with the kind of diligence one might hope for but the books is either cheap or free, supports the efforts of those who fight the good fight and you can post a review of the book to offset the 1-star from someone who gave it that rating because they never received the book.

Might I suggest also Constructive Thinking? It's graduate-level reading, advancing Martin Seligman's "learned optimism" concepts through empirical studies, with clear and coherent ways to learn constructive ways to think about the world and how one interacts with fellow beings.

A wonderful book on the subject by economist Michael Hudson;

https://www.amazon.com/Killing-Host-Financial-Parasites-Bondage/dp/3981484282

And here's Hudson's essay in Counterpunch;
https://www.counterpunch.org/2015/09/01/how-wall-street-parasites-have-devoured-their-hosts-your-retirement-plan-and-the-u-s-economy/

Or you know science.

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/765552031/The-war-on-boys-young-men-are-facing-a-new-crisis.html?pg=all

http://m.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2000/05/the-war-against-boys/304659/

http://m.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2000/05/the-war-against-boys/304659/

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/rogereolson/2013/02/discrimination-against-boys-in-education-and-elsewhere/

http://www.cornwallcommunitynews.co.uk/2014/05/05/female-teachers-marking-down-boys/

https://www.amazon.com/Second-Sexism-Discrimination-Against-Boys/dp/0470674512

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/eliminating-feminist-teacher-bias-erases-boys-falling-grades-study-finds

http://www.educationnews.org/k-12-schools/students-can-detect-teachers-gender-bias-boys-suffer-most/

You are right about one thing it is a bad plot line from a dystopian film that would never ever get made by Hollywood.

From cradle to grave men are systematically discriminated against because like it or not Hillary was right.

We are hardwired to prefer girls, to favor girls, to treat them like children, and to view boys as expendable.

You are caught in a false reality bubble.

If I could recommend just one book on the subject of his death it would be JFK and the Unspeakable: Why He Died and Why it Matters, by James Douglass.

RFK Jr. said about the book:

>In JFK and the Unspeakable Jim Douglass has distilled all the best available research into a very well-documented and convincing portrait of President Kennedy's transforming turn to peace, at the cost of his life. Personally, it has made a very big impact on me. After reading it in Dallas, I was moved for the first time to visit Dealey Plaza. I urge all Americans to read this book and come to their own conclusions about why he died and why -- after fifty years -- it still matters.


https://www.amazon.com/JFK-Unspeakable-Why-Died-Matters/dp/1439193886

For further reading let me suggest Richard Hofstadter's classic The American Political Tradition particularly the 2nd chapter, Abraham Lincoln and the Self-Made Myth and the twelfth chapter, Franklin D. Roosevelt: The Patrician as Opportunist.

Reelecting Lincoln by John Waugh is also very informative.

Here is the mobile version of your link

Read and learn

The Deep State: The Fall of the Constitution and the Rise of a Shadow Government by Former Congressional Staffer Mike Lofgren
https://www.amazon.com/Deep-State-Mike-Lofgren/dp/0143109936

Not sure if you're being sarcastic, but my main pistol is loaded and locked in one of these on my nightstand. https://www.amazon.com/dp/B006OGNLKA/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_awdb_t1_XjJHAbN36J0ES
Takes about 3 seconds to open...

Oh, I remember it. I was educated in California public schools, which were excellent before they were destroyed in the 80s.

And it worked for me: I've only missed voting in a few elections in my three plus decades of voting eligibility, when I was out of my state or the country.

But, the thing is, it's largely bullshit, and it wasn't until I was an older adult that I've learned how corrupt and undemocratic our political system really is. 2016 kicked it up a whole new notch. Here's what would convince me that whatever curriculum they impose on the kids isn't just exceptionalist propaganda: they adopt Howard Zinn's A People's History of the United States as course curriculum.

You can get quick release safes and keep your pistol loaded in them. You press a few large lighted buttons OR bio recognition from your fingers and the safe opens up. The bio-release stuff isn't there yet though... if the batteries run low many will open for anyone.

They're a little expensive, but then, guns are as well; https://www.amazon.com/GunVault-SV500-SpeedVault-Handgun-Safe/dp/B006OGNLKA/ref=sr_1_1/142-9316893-3812044?ie=UTF8&qid=1518746356&sr=8-1&keywords=speed+vault

Maybe there's something similar for shotguns?

Problem is, with dedication and plenty of time kids can break into them. Key is slower, but might be safer with kids.

Then again, anything can be broken into given enough time.

I really do need to read that. I recently read Daniel Kahneman's Thinking, Fast and Slow which is largely based on Epstein's work on dual processing.

I just checked out Tom Stafford's For Argument's Sake: Evidence That Reason Can Change Minds

>Are we irrational creatures, swayed by emotion and entrenched biases? Modern psychology and neuroscience are often reported as showing that we can't overcome our prejudices and selfish motivations. Challenging this view, cognitive scientist Tom Stafford looks at the actual evidence. Re-analysing classic experiments on persuasion, as well as summarising more recent research into how arguments change minds, he shows why persuasion by reason alone can be a powerful force.This is a collection of previously published essays, revised and expanded by the author, and accompanied by a previously unpublished introduction and annotated bibliography to guide further reading on the topic.Tom Stafford is Lecturer in Psychology and Cognitive Science at the University of Sheffield.

I have my doubts, but we shall see.

You are fighting the symptom and not the cancer itself and wasting all of your energy in the meantime. It's not a left/right issue. It's top/down. Deregulation of the financial industry and privatization of public services has stripped the assets of 90% of the people. You pay more so they can pay less and they've tricked you into voting for more impoverishment by scapegoating the other. The left isn't your enemy and neither are the Mexicans. Here is your enemy.

https://www.amazon.com/Killing-Host-Financial-Parasites-Bondage/dp/3981484282

I'm struggling to accept I just read that.

Do you think that because "political science" has the word "political" in it, you're free to ignore the "science" part, and substitute in "opinion"?

Serious question.

Because you just did the equivalent of telling a Mathematician that 5 + 5 = 10 is in fact a matter of opinion.

You just told a Geologist that alternating layers of rock containing organic material being sedimentary rock is actually subjective.

You just told an English professor that two independent clauses needing to be separated by a comma and a conjunction is open to interpretation.

The term "spoiler" is a fixed concept. It's not open to what you "think" it means. The arrogance in thinking so is astounding. A propaganda tool of donors? Are you fucking kidding me? The parties say it because it's a repeated pattern proven time and time again by political scientists like Gabriel Almond and Justin Buchler. I challenge you to read Gabriel's book Comparative Politics Today because it's a good introduction to comparative politics and its theories (to clarify, theories here being scientific theories, not your opinion.)

Political science is not a secret club where we all just spout our opinions on gun control. It's a literal science that dedicates time to studying how voters behave, understanding party actions, concrete cause and effect, international relations, and a host of other topics I doubt you never considered.

Bruce Bueno De Mesquita is a political science who turned international politics and nation reactions into a mathematical problem able to predict actions based on Game Theory as just one example.

And you're going to trounce all of that because, what, you don't want to accept it? You think Political Science is actually just a big conspiracy set up by Big Pharma?

You'll go and trash a Republican for refusing to listen to science on climate change but refuse to listen to science in politics because it disagrees with your view of the world all the same?

Go away.

> And in response to the hordes of people who will insist that not voting is irresponsible and support the age old lie that if we just can get the right people in power then, then, the system will turn around – Such naive assertions should be met with a dose of reality which is glaringly clear through a cursory look at history. Such people should have to explain at what point in time there has been a sea change in our system from where it started from genocidal slavers to benevolent rulers, because such a change is nonexistent, and all one need do to figure this out is pick up a copy of Howard Zinn’s book A People’s History of the United States. What’s been there from the get go to present is abuse, stemming from the very origins of western civilization and top down social hierarchy.
>
>When the people claim they achieved a victory what they have really achieved amounts to a gesture that shuts them up. It’s analogous to hungry child crying that has just irritated their abusive parent enough they finally concede to give them an extra morsel of food. The child then celebrates like they won a battle however the child is still in the abusive state but now thinks their wails do something. What they don’t realize is if they get annoying enough what they will be met with is not another conciliatory gesture but a beating.

We live in a perpetual system of abuse.

He published a memoir last year, so I guess that took a lot of time. But he's definitely working on something.

Just the other day, I was curious about what he's been up to and looked up recent (like, within the last two years) interviews. There are some tantalizing clues. Like from the Washingtonian:

> Hersh acknowledged he wasn’t writing—sort of. “It’s complicated. The critics say I’m not working on much. How would anybody know that?” he said, annoyed. “It’s also a very complicated time to write stories, because the media’s never been so fixed as it is now—fixated, it’s just fixed. We’ve got the people we hate, the people we like, la la la—there’s no middle ground, it seems to me. So it’s a tough time to do stuff.”

> Unprompted, he brought up the President. “There’s no focal point for serious reporting. The New York Times is in an all-out war with Trump,” he said. “They’re playing in his little dirty box. It’s all tweet and counter-tweet. They’re not playing to the core issues.” He mentioned Trump’s latest tweet distraction—the President (again) calling on special counsel Robert Mueller to end his probe. “I mean, is it that hard to say, ‘Whew, let’s take a deep thought about this—maybe he wants us to jump on this story!’ ”

> (...)

> Shortly afterward, the phone rang. “Yeah. Uh-huh. What? Indicted?” Hersh chuckled. “What, are they all living in the USSR?” Earlier that morning, Mueller had charged 12 Russians with interference in the 2016 election. The indictment was detailed down to the keystroke, by far the clearest evidence yet that Putin had played us. But Hersh refused to buy the story. “Bullshit stuff,” he huffed, hanging up the phone. “This is the f—ing dumbest case you’ve ever made up in your life.” He went on, “I know a lot about Russia. I know a lot about this crazy story that’s going on—the whole notion that the Russians hacked and defeated Hillary. That’s part of something I’ve been working on, something like six or seven years.”

>“I’ve got a truck I want to drive through it,” he added. “It’s a comedy act.”