Top products from r/esist

In case anyone is not aware, the tweeter, Kevin Kruse, is imo one of our greatest living American historians, currently at Princeton University. His book
One Nation Under God: How Corporate America Invented Christian America is a must read for anyone truly seeking to understand the origins of the left/right divide in this country. It's a history of an insidious intrigue to oppose any social program, which Kruse has laid out with meticulous documentation. It really is breathtaking the way he handles the material.

Imo, you really can't thoroughly understand where we are now, with out reading this book. I can't recommend it enough. Here's his webpage, which has a link to an interview he did with Terry Gross on NPRs Fresh Air. The interview was great and it gives you the gist of the book:

https://history.princeton.edu/people/kevin-m-kruse

>we will push out your ideology with facts, logic and sources

LOL, please go on, this is good stuff.

>if you would like to WIN this political war of ideas pick up a book

How is this book? Or this one? Or maybe this one.

Maybe you should start with this one though.

What on earth is your basis for that radiation/warmth hypothesis? You're just making stuff up.

My figures came from this interview with Joseph Romm, which is a good and patient overview of these issues. I recommend Romm's book as a starting point as well.

> It's called manufacturing consent

Which you've clearly never read.

You know who is the largest, most obvious influencer of the public opinion--outside of the Koch, DeVos, and Coors families? Spoiler alert: he owns Fox News, Wallstreet Journal, and a variety of other media outlets.

But you're thinking that Washington Post and New York Times are the biggest issues in this day and age, eh?

With the Old Breed is literally named after WWI veterans who accompanied green soldiers into battle in WWII. That is one of the best known WWII memoirs and is taught in colleges.

Everyone should read Defying Hitler. It really puts into perspective thoughts like "That could never happen here".

You likely grew up in the weird fusion of American Southern culture and a specific brand (Baptist evangelical) of Christianity. Most Christians are not American. They're not even mostly white. They're not even mostly male.

Here's a good book about the history if anyone is really interested.

And here's another.

No prob. And I agree with you on your "What's the matter with Kansas" point. Only money has nothing to do with it.

Kisses. 😘

Also, sorry you suck so very badly at Googling shit. While I erroneously added the word "News" to the book title (mea culpa), the Google search of the book with "news" in the title yielded this as like the third result.

https://www.amazon.com/Fox-Effect-Network-Propaganda-Machine/dp/0307279588

This trend went pretty mainstream among conservatives ten or fifteen years ago.

Nixon went from pariah to great president who made a single mistake.

Vietnam went from a bad idea and a huge clusterfuck to a just and righteous war that the damn democrats deliberately sabotaged.

Japanese internment during wwii went from a horrible injustice to a perfectly reasonable precaution. Michelle Malkin even wrote a book about it in 2004.

And I'm sure there are lots of other examples I'm forgetting.

The Trumpkins didn't start all this, but it's unsurprising that they'd latch on to it. Particularly Nixon.

you cant control culture? are you serious? you just said the social science equivalent of "climate change aint real". also, I just read your name and lost all desire to argue with you. I am going to leave you with some introductory reading material, do with it as you will. And if you actually have a wife and daughter (red pill not wirking for you?) and you care about them a bit, ask them if they have ever been catcalled, groped or molested by anyone. And then square that with their constitutional and legal rights.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feminist_theory
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feminist_legal_theory
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_abortion_law_debate
https://www.amazon.com/Gender-Trouble-Feminism-Subversion-Routledge/dp/0415389550/ref=asap_bc?ie=UTF8

If you haven't read Democracy in Chains by Nancy MacLean, then this article is a good reason for you to do so. The US was 70%+ pro environment in the 70's.

What changed? Koch and his endorsement of James McGill Buchanan's ideology.
Linky: https://www.amazon.com/Democracy-Chains-History-Radical-Stealth/dp/1101980966
Which is racist, classist, and generally fucked. But; the money worked.

This is an excellent book that goes to great depth to explain the problem, how we all suffer from it, and what can be done about it. Highly recommended.

Mistakes Were Made (but Not by Me): Why We Justify Foolish Beliefs, Bad Decisions, and Hurtful Acts https://www.amazon.com/dp/0544574788/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_GOAozbP594PHG

No. Voter suppression is a garbage tactic for garbage people. Here:

https://www.amazon.com/Its-Time-Fight-Dirty-Democrats-ebook/dp/B073YT8P8S/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1541731801&sr=8-1&keywords=time+to+fight+dirty

There's a whole book of dirty tricks that democrats should pull.

Also: automatic voter registration. That's our answer.

Terrorist:

noun
1.
a person who uses unlawful violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims.

If you havent already, you should read 'A People's History Of The United States' by Howard Zinn.

That's literally true! I'll see if I can find a link about it

Edit: OK, so I couldn't find any respectable organisations reporting on it, and all the reporting I did find is basically just repeating the stuff here and here anyway. There's a more readable account here, but it's far too long.

Unfortunately the bloggers who found the story did a piss-poor job of documenting it: some of the tweets they relied on have disappeared, and apparently nobody bothered to record some livestream. So I'd consider the specific claim of $5,000 a month to be unverified. Plus, "sit-in" seems a little bit formal for what happened: near as I can tell, some protestors/organisers/activists didn't get paid, and went to this fellow's office en masse to complain. (And being young, they tweeted about it.)

Still, the moral of the story: play with snakes and you might get bit.

(It always amuses me to see people who are surprised that the shady crook they've been dealing with turns out to be a thief as well. Or when people assume that a murderer wouldn't also be a liar.)

While I'm extremely confident that Kelly and Trump's civil war comments are derived from segregationist revisionism that's not based in reality, there's a crucial point that I'm surprised the Black Caucus didn't bring up regarding Republican revisionism of the party's motivations for abolishing slavery and the half hearted effort to fuse the surge in popularity of moral arguments for abolition with its more popular economic arguments that favored northern capital.

We must remember that the moral imperative as a motivator to abolish slavery was not a popular issue until soon after the publication of the emancipation proclamation, which freed only slaves who were inside the confederate states. This by no means was designed to be a moral action, and was only created to deprive the south of crucial resources that stoked its war effort.

Because there were so many voices in the Republican party at the time of the civil war the official reasons for abolition were many, ranging from economic justifications to moral ones. The southern slaveholding states viewed attempts at abolition as a violation of the constitution. The reasons for being against abolition in the south were mostly economic; while arguments over racial inferiority of slaves were used as a rationale for slavery, motivations for maintaining the status quo were always driven by the economic advantages. It's widely known that there was much anxiety in the planter class about northern capital sweeping in to replace the existing aristocracy as the primary powerhouse in the south, and this would prove to hold true when reviewing the choices that republicans made in the few short years of Reconstruction.

WEB DuBois had first revealed republican hypocrisy in 1935 in his book Black Reconstruction in America, and it was dismissed by existing academic institutions whose publications were the voice of record on the civil war and reconstruction. He surmised that the freedmen were the primary agents of change during reconstruction and not white republicans, demonstrating in remarkable detail that northern republicans were far more interested in the economic opportunities for capital in the south than pushing for equality under law. He demonstrated that republicans restored land rights and political power to the planter class, and focused on persuading southerners, both freedmen and whites, to subsidize economic projects driven by northern capital ie railroad expansion, factories, etc. DuBois noted that slavery and Jim Crow affected freedmen and poor whites alike; the only truly free classes were the planters and the capitalists. Everyone else had very little say in antebellum America.

It wasn't until the 1970's when Eric Foner revisited DuBois's work, and validated it; his book Reconstruction: America's Unfinished Revolution that the existing narrative -- That republicans had done absolutely everything that they could to empower slaves; declaring war, abolishing slavery, reconstructing post-war southern states...and still they could not save the freedmen-- was successfully invalidated. Foner had proved most of DuBois' work was in fact spot on. He even validated DuBois' assertions on Republican motivations some time later in Free Soil, Free Labor, Free Men: The Ideology of the Republican Party before the Civil War. The republican effort to make good on the moral imperative of creating equality under the law only lasted at most about 2 years, from 1866-1868. From 1867-1874 republicans had every chance to quell the rising redeemers movement -- the prelude to Jim Crow -- but instead allowed nearly all the southern republican leadership, loyalist scallawags, and community leaders of freedmen to be lynched, murdered, and run out of town. By 1877 what little effort republicans had made to stop the violence in the south had all but disappeared during the economic depression and the subsequent labor strikes in the north. Republicans decided to send union troops to quell the strikes instead of sending them to the south where southern republican leaders needed them as a matter of life and death. In the end, the push for a constitutional amendment that mandated equality under the law was given up as a quixotic venture, explaining away their failures by blaming the freedmen for their plight. This lie persisted for another 100 years.

This is a view of history that no one wants to hear. But it gives credit where credit is due. Our entire society was changed by Reconstruction, and in no small part because of the freedmen. Our view of the role of government, universal suffrage, education, labor, and political enfranchisement are all a gift from the freedmen, and with no thanks to republicans.

Source: Books. Because of Eric Foner's work, he is considered the leading voice in academia on the intellectual history of the Civil war and reconstruction. If you're wondering whose peer reviewed criticisms of ken burns' civil war are legitimate, it's Foner's. He's a heavyweight.

Let's see if I understand this correctly.

The U.S, grappling the issue of slavery since it's first Constitution, an issue that almost kept the Sovereign States from ever uniting; the U.S. that had already almost schismed into war a few times before the 1860s over the issue of slavery... that U.S. ultimately fought the bloodiest war of its history, pitting father against son, neighbor against neighbor, destroying its economy (and almost destroying itself) ...just to "catch up" with Europe.

Because in the end, Abraham Lincoln decided, "Enough is enough! Europe will pull no further ahead of us! South, gather your weapons!"

Abraham Lincoln would rather go to war than have Europe beat us. The cruelty and and greed of Americans notwithstanding (for we had a very lucrative cotton industry thriving within our nation, worked by a captive workforce) we couldn't let Europe beat us.

What the hell. How the hell do you respond to that?

As for France and their amazing treatment of women and education? Perhaps Geneviève Fraisse and Michelle Perrot could enlighten you on that subject. France had many amazing ideas about sororité and equality of education after the fall of the Bastille, but it wasn't until AFTER the U.S. started getting it's shit together that they started acting on that stuff, roughly one hundred years later.

There are a million things you could whine about, but there are currently some really important things in the U.S. that are way too important to be simply whined about- the danger is that on the internet someone might think you know what the hell you're talking about. Go read a book, it'll do you good. Learn something about a topic and THEN try to make claims about it.

"The U.S. only did those things to catch up to Europe."
"The U.S. is just a bunch of assholes."

Jesus.

Hey bud, can we pretend I wasn't a dick and continue this conversation? I know I didn't represent myself well, but I was genuinely curious as to how one can come to the conclusions that you have. Like I said earlier, I am a big fan of Lincoln and I just came across this book written by Eric Foner (the same author of the history textbook that I linked) called The Fiery Trial: Abraham Lincoln and American Slavery and was wondering if you have read it as it seems to hold the same view as I've had and has won multiple awards including the Pulitzer Prize. I find myself wondering if my point wasn't made well and there was a misunderstanding in which you thought I was trying to say that Lincoln went from being a fan of slavery to being an abolitionist. I am definitely not saying that, and I'm sorry if I made it seem that way. All I was trying to say was that Lincoln, in so few words, went from being ok with letting slavery just kind of eventually die off on its own accord to being an abolitionist who believed slavery needed to be ended now. The South was more about fighting the Civil War to keep their slaves via individual state's rights, but Lincoln was more about fighting to keep the Union in tact than it was about slavery, but that isn't to say he didn't care a great deal about slavery, he just cared more about the sanctity of our union. I believe the source you provided supports that last sentence, but I admit I could have some other things wrong.

I dunno dude, this whole interaction just never sat well with me. If I argued my point so poorly that you felt comfortable inferring I was racist, then I must have really fucked up. I'm sorry for not considering earlier that I wrote my arguments poorly. I care enough to write this almost a month later and with my tail between my legs. I admittedly am not a historian, but I do enjoy history and if I have something wrong about one of my favorite political figures of all time, I'd really like to know.

Hope you can sense my sincerity in this. I genuinely want to respectfully discuss the history as I'm running into conflicting sources and am left scratching my head a bit.

I broke the category into "anti-immigration" voters, not "anti-immigrant" voters, and then i split the category into two subcategories of those who are against undocumented citizens and those who are isolationists.

Skin color is relevant because if you look back to your original question (paraphrased because it's more difficult to quote on mobile) the question is why did Trump get non-white votes. When you ask that question and I give you some reasons and your response is, "but what about these white voters" you're changing your target from the original question to a now broader one. If you're going to debate people, I'd recommend not using these strategies because they don't really get you anywhere. If you'd like to learn more, I have a textbook I'd recommend to you so you can avoid problems like this and ad hominem attacks:

https://www.amazon.com/Debate-Student-DEBATE-McGraw-Hill-Education/dp/0078729947

Finally, if you disagree with me calling Trump racist then you haven't been paying attention to the news this week. Both his words and actions show he is either a racist or he's okay with supporting white supremacy (which really boils down to be the same thing). When a group is out chanting things like "Jews will not replace us" and "Blood and soil" while trying to defend a statue of someone who fought to keep black people enslaved due to the thoughts that they are genetically inferior, and rather than him saying that he doesn't want their support and condemns their violence he says there was violence on both sides and if the left wasn't there providing a peaceful anti-protest that no violence or death would've happened, how can you not think he's racist? Members of white supremacist groups are now out there saying they have been empowered by Trump because he doesn't want to condemn them and feeling emboldened. He sees the same news we do, he knows how they're reacting to his words but he's staying on the same line.