(Part 9) Best history books according to redditors
We found 50,061 Reddit comments discussing the best history books. We ranked the 18,074 resulting products by number of redditors who mentioned them. Here are the products ranked 161-180. You can also go back to the previous section.
166. Not in My Neighborhood: How Bigotry Shaped a Great American City
16 mentions
Ivan R Dee Publisher
Ok. So here are some examples, mostly whenever we would do this kind of stuff it's no more intrusive than a SCMODS type scan.
Among the more depressing and disturbing tasks
A simple example
So you have these "collections" of people, and now you look for events, in their lives. Good examples of events are sudden - high-cost medical expenses, a sudden change in spending habits around a subject area or area of interest, a loss or gain in employers who were "out of the curve" of probable employers. i.e.; If Aziz (our baby chemical engineer), suddenly finds himself an entrepreneur with a 200k salary, practically begs someone at FBI to want to press a button - "would you like to know more?", and we'd provide it.
A more specific example
Along these lines - and easily the most creepy - "Special requests" - usually foreign names - racial profiling aside, shortly after 9/11 we received short list query names - a list with say a dozen names on it - go fetch. What was fucked up about this - was at least a few times, we'd actually find a bunch of these names all "on a cruise together" or all randomly "visiting" Chicago, or something similar.
This was the "working end of things", So by way of example, a bunch of guys showed up on a cruise - before we had even finished wrapping up one night, they started sending short lists of other names around a small group of Muslim surnames. Each time the list would get more specific, until suddenly a flurry of intense phone-calls later , we have a major cruise line suddenly reporting that a case of "food poisoning" has struck the "SS Splashfest" and the ship (at sea for the last 2 days), finds itself "unexpectedly" back at Miami or New Orleans and has to unfortunately disembark all the passengers - less a few middle-eastern looking dudes. Oh - and here's a welcome home - 1500-4000$ cruise voucher for everyone else.
Who does this kind of stuff
Mostly these profiles were sold to / given to law enforcement, you would also see sales to non-governmental agencies, usually firms in New York with sketchy names, for foreigners this can absolutely mean that a home government has taken an interest in their hapless ex-pat.
Beyond that , the GOP has a hard-on for this kind of stuff, and they use it openly, against perceived , imagined and real political adversaries, I'm not saying the Democratic party doesn't use these tools, but in doing this for several years, I never saw a recognizable "conservative" name come up on our scans. I am sure I'd seen notable "liberal" names a few time. In that way - this apparatus has a heavy bias in the conservative bend..
And this was where I think I had my professional departure from this process, Not at all long after 9/11 the processes swung around from catching real "persons of interest" like those festive sketchy "cruisers" , and paying far more attention to the math professors, and students.
Being online, in that respects means you are being watched generating a happy if disjointed trail - almost always useless. So for example, because this conversation is publicly available, even though you and I may be using trivially anonymous names - about the only two people who don't know our real names are yourself and myself - and most everyone else on Reddit.
But even the admins would have our IP information, and cross reference that with our cable bills (if it's an available data point, and presto - a high probability that "you" are one of 4-5 people identified in a typical "household").
When you tie this information in with demographic information from websites, the traffic available from Comcast, and Verizon could give you a disturbingly complete picture of what was going on in someone's daily activity. Couple that with your bank, American Express or Visa and other spending pattern information, and you are "known" in practically the biblical sense.
Pretty much I'd say the vast majority of this was what we called executive masturbation material, even when they were busing stroking themselves over the e-lint pulled on Kim Kardashian , some short list of brunette ballerinas in Cincinnati or some such, or getting in someone's life, performing a "turn your head and cough", in electronic form.
So my "first" problem was that , in most respects, this function exists, to large extent to provide someone with executive access, an ability to perv on people with a disturbing level of anonymity and zero accountability.
The clearest example I remember from this was, the "ballerina incident" was what we called it , when someone actually kept querying detail information and all we could determine is that the women involved (never men) were all ballerina's in some dance school near Cincinnati, after the 3rd or 4th request, we asked for some reason this was being given a priority in the queue. We never received another high level request, although low level requests did come in from time to time.
If you want to know what really got the attention of these guys - It was when we got a short list (always a bad sign), again similar to our sketchy "cruisers", only this time , instead of a "oh everyone's in Philadelphia" at the convention center or the ball-game.
It was everyone on this list has stopped doing a lot of their normal set of activities or worse - has "gone dark" completely - any time someone with a substantial trivial history or sudden influx of cash goes off the grid it gives these guys serious pause.
Where you ask can do you get in on the action, well, aside from the fact that right now - you are the action - in it's most benign form I recommend some relevant links.
** edit(1) minor typos
He got what he said pretty much word-for-word from the book Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind. (It's not a plug; it's a bestseller.)
The author makes the point that hunter gatherers had more flexibility and more fun hunting, a lower rate of disease/infection, etc., while during the agricultural revolution, people turned to back-breaking farming work and dwelling in filthy communal cottages, while also being perpetually stressed due to their livelihood being almost entirely dependent on the weather.
I'm not saying I agree, but there's some clarification for you.
So what? Infosec is a hard problem, when you're operating at government scale and trying to break good crypto fast then you're going to pay through the nose. If you want to get upset about government waste on tech spending, start with https://www.amazon.com/Shadow-Factory-NSA-Eavesdropping-America/dp/0307279391 -- 900k is inconsequential.
I don't think Apple should in any way be beholden to turn over the keys to the kingdom to the 3-letter agencies... but I absolutely believe that if the FBI comes into possession of crypto that belonged to a mass murderer, they are 100% doing their jobs by trying to break that crypto with any tools available.
Even if 900k is accurate, it's got to be drops in the bucket as far as what the entire investigation, cleanup and aftermath cost.
edit: also, as always, fuck Diane Feinstein and everything she says or does.
How? With what money? With what resources? With what education? You're talking about an entire population that was intentionally deprived of familial connections, cultural connections, the ability to organize, the ability to build wealth, the ability to exercise any autonomy, literacy, and education.
Africa is not exactly a small place, and most ex-slaves didn't even know where their ancestors had been kidnapped from.
Also keep in mind how much different things looked at the end of the Civil War than much later. Ex-slaves were promised equality with whites, full rights as citizens of the US, and given the promise of reparations for slavery. Congress passed a law in 1865 that guaranteed full citizenship regardless of race and the 14th amendment was circulated starting in 1866 and became part of the constitution in 1868. For a decade following the end of the Civil War Reconstruction proceeded at a fast pace. Laws were changed, progress was made, historical iniquities were being redressed. The vast majority of ex-slaves in this situation who were offered the possibility of staying wherever they were and using the labor skills they already had to attempt to make a living in America (either through sharecropping or on their own) seemed enormously enticing.
At a minimum the situation looked to be superior to their previous situation of enslavement. They were ostensibly free. They could keep their families together, they could build their lives up (in terms of wealth, community, education, skills, ambition, etc.), and they had the prospect of attaining true equality of stature and accomplishment with whites in perhaps a generation or so.
It was not until two or three decades later when Reconstruction had been destroyed and dismantled, when slavery had been replaced with a racial caste system that was becoming enshrined in custom and law (Jim Crow et al), and when it became abundantly clear that the end of slavery did not mean the end of white supremacy in America that black Americans began to comprehend that the society they lived in was going to limit the extent of their advancements to a very narrowly defined box not much expanded from where it had been before. And then there really was a huge debate on what to do. Black communities felt the oppression, understood the long-term implications and generally understood that the status quo was untenable.
Eventually they did take action and move, out of the South and into the North and the West in one of the most significant demographic shifts in the 20th century called The Great Migration. By then they had more money, more resources, more education, much greater literacy, and greater ability to move around (due to the advent of automobiles and the advancement of railroads). But even so, and even moving within the US alone, it was an enormously challenging endeavor that not all African-Americans undertook.
If you want to get some additional perspective on what things were like I'd suggest reading "The Warmth of Other Suns" by Isabel Wilkerson.
There is actually a fairly good but hard-to-follow book that was written about who might have been "driving the ship" within the U.S. government.
It's called Another Nineteen.
https://www.amazon.com/Another-Nineteen-Investigating-Legitimate-Suspects/dp/1489507833
A lot of people here are giving shitty answers and not helping because they disprove of your use of "dark ages."
On behalf on the internet I apologize. They are giving you crap for not knowing something you have expressed interest in learning about.
I am fascinated by the "Dark ages" and I have a history degree and I'm still using the term. I understand it to usually mean "the medieval times" or "the huge time-span that is not usually taught to the average student." Most history in public schools (at least that I've seen) tends to gloss over the time from the Romans to the early renaissance so I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt and assuming that's the era you want. It's my favorite era to study for that reason - most people know so little about this 1000 year span in history.
A good starter book for you would be A world lit only by Fire I loved this book. It's not overly scholarly and is a good read.
Another great one is Mysteries of the Middle Ages... Thomas Cahill is a great writer and if this version of the paperback is anything like my copy it is a visually stunning read. I discovered him through "How the Irish Saved Civilization" which was also great.
Mark Kurlansky's books (Salt and Cod specifically come to mind) are well written, specific histories that cover parts of this time period.
I wish my books weren't still packed (recently moved) because I want to dig through the stack and share them all. :) I suck at remembering names of stuff. I recommend browsing the amazon pages section of "Customers Who Bought This Item Also Bought" for other good recommendations.
Happy Reading!! :)
edit - just remembered this one on the byzantine empire of all the books I've read on the Byzantines, that one is my favorite.
edit I'm getting a lashing for "A World Lit Only By Fire" due to the fact that it contains historical inaccuracies.
Please read this one instead In the year 1000.
I'm not trying to recommend dry scholarly tomes, I am trying to think of books that are fun, interesting, and entertaining to read while still being informative.
Here’s the backstory: I went to check out/purchase this Evo+ unit this morning. It actually had more optional features installed than I expected, so I was pretty psyched. When the seller opened up the hardshell on the back, I noticed a name inscribed on the scrubber canister – a name I recognized. Turns out that the original owner was John Chatterton, host of Deep Sea Detectives on the History Channel and author of Shadow Divers, one of my favorite diving related books. FTW!!!
The Soviet army was wholly unprepared for any large long term conflict. They learned that lesson in Finland and was common knowledge among the whole command structure, and punctuated by the initial German invasion. It's amazing the kind of things you can learn when you actually read books about history and study things. Here's a great book that you would learn a lot from (https://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/0700608990/ref=yo_ii_img?ie=UTF8&psc=1). Only 9 bucks! You have to be willing to learn of course.
Also, holy shit 100 million people! It's so crazy that Europe, with a population of only around 400 million people at the this time, had literally 1/4 of their population killed in Soviet prisons and yet people remember the Nazis as being bad. Yep, that sure is a crazy and I'm sure wholly realistic and rational numbers and not you just pulling numbers out of your own asshole.
" Of course, while the rising rates of professed secularity in the Arab-Muslim world are new, the roots of such secularism run deep. Very deep. Many centuries deep. Despite the fact that many people erroneously associate Islam with nothing but religious fundamentalism, the historical fact is that skepticism, rationalism, and humanism have been long-entrenched within Arabic-Muslim history. "
​
If there was no punishment for apostasy, secularism would have taken over the Arab world by now.
When Titans Clashed: How the Red Army Stopped Hitler
You can find it on Amazon here, or, if you're a university student like me, you might be able to download a free e-book using online library resources.
I don't think that's a fair representation of New Amsterdam.
There is a great lay history book called ["The Island at the Center of the World"] (http://www.amazon.com/The-Island-Center-World-Manhattan/dp/1400078679) in which the author spends a lot of time speaking with people who translated what are probably those manuscripts from the original Old Dutch. He paints a much more nuanced picture of New Amsterdam, and suggests that the image of the colony as filthy and chaotic is largely an image encouraged by the British, who were not on good terms at the time and of course took over the colonyat gunpoint.
The book is a good read. One of the things he goes into is the diversity and tolerance of people in the colony, and why this ended up being the case. According to him, some of it was the hands-off approach taken by the Dutch East India Company, and some of it was the nature of the Dutch as being rather no-nonsense people, and of course like any colony there was the sense of new beginnings and adventure.
edit: How deceptive... the author of the article actually quotes the book, but not entirely honestly.
And Lee Harvey Oswald had ties to the US Emabassy in Moscow.
People need to realize that 9/11 was years in the planning, starting during the Bill Clinton administrations.
What did Zelikow's cover up have to say about the dancing Israelis?
About Dick Cheney getting a count down report on a jet approaching Washington DC?
About Larry Silverstein's financial arrangements for the WTC complex and who managed security there (hint: Marvin Bush was tied into it).
Pick any one of Kevin Ryan's writings, for example https://www.amazon.com/Another-Nineteen-Investigating-Legitimate-Suspects/dp/1489507833
rather than be played for by these tantalizing bits of excrement from the official cover up
Or read about Atta and his gang hanging out in Florida https://www.google.com/search?q=Atta+and+his+gang+hanging+out+in+Florida&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8
Kevin Ryan - Demolition Access To The WTC Towers:
Full Story: Another Nineteen: Investigating Legitimate 9/11 Suspects
Sometimes, and I don't know if this applies to your understanding specifically, there is confusion around these two concepts. I have found that this excerpt from Hannah Arendt's The Origins of Totalitarianism, dense as it is, helps to clear it up:
> Loneliness is not solitude. Solitude requires being alone whereas loneliness shows itself most sharply in company with others. Apart from a few stray remarks--usually framed in a paradoxical mood like Cato's statement (reported by Cicero, De Re Publica, I, 17): numquam minus solum esse quam cum solus esset, "never was he less alone than when he was alone," or, rather, "never was he less lonely than when he was in solitude"--it seems that Epictetus, the emancipated slave philosopher of Greek origin, was the first to distinguish between loneliness and solitude. His discovery, in a way, was accidental, his chief interest being neither solitude nor loneliness, but being alone (monos) in the sense of absolute independence. As Epictetus sees it (Dissertationes, Book 3, ch. 13) the lonely man (eremos) finds himself surrounded by others with whom he cannot establish contact or to whose hostility he is exposed. The solitary man, on the contrary, is alone and therefore "can be together with himself" since men have the capacity of "talking with themselves." In solitude, in other words, I am "by myself," together with my self, and therefore two-in-one, whereas in loneliness I am actually one, deserted by all others. All thinking, strictly speaking, is done in solitude and is a dialogue between me and myself; but this dialogue of the two-in-one does not lose contact with the world of my fellow-men because they are represented in the self with whom I lead the dialogue of thought. The problem of solitude is that this two-in-one needs the others in order to become one again: one unchangeable individual whose identity can never be mistaken for that of any other. For the confirmation of my identity I depend entirely upon other people; and it is the great saving grace of companionship for solitary men that it makes them "whole" again, saves them from the dialogue of thought in which one remains always equivocal, restores the identity which makes them speak with the single voice of one unexchangeable person.
Confirmed that this is Lars Brownworth of the 12 Byzantine Rulers and Norman Centuries podcasts. Two very excellent podcasts.
12 Byzantine Rulers even pre-dates the History of Rome podcast from Mike Duncan.
Lars homepage and a link to his Amazon page, and his book: Lost to the West: The Forgotten Byzantine Empire That Rescued Western Civilization.
Thank you for agreeing to do this, sir.
4 and 16 sound like pretty sceptical authors, which might come as a surprise to those who don't know that the Arab world has (had?) a sceptical/freethinking tradition. I read about it in the fine book Doubt by Jennifer Michael Hecht.
There is no crisis in the middle east. There is territoriality of the kind seen since the Babylonians, and there is extremism practiced primarily by disaffected European muslims against the rest of the West.
source
The way to solve the perceived crisis in the middle east is to eliminate foreign involvement in the middle east so that what are primarily local struggles can continue to be local struggles. This can be achieved by energy independence from OPEC. Which, since Saudi Arabia likely hit peak oil in 2004 or so, is an eventuality anyway.
source
To deal with the extremists that come to our borders, the best approach would be to ensure young, educated Muslims in Europe a place at the table and a sense of belonging within their communities so that they do not feel disenfranchised from their countrymen and do not align themselves with internet extremism.
source
As to religious extremism of all stripes, be it Islamic, Christian or Jewish, the solution is always to integrate, to respect, and to divorce political and economic enterprises from religious enterprises. One thing few people remember is that Osama Bin Laden became a radical when the US opened bases in Saudi Arabia for Operation Desert Shield (his quote at the time was "once we let the infidel in, he will never leave). One thing even fewer people remember is that after September 11, we pulled our aircraft out of Saudi Arabia and there have been no Bin Laden-endorsed attacks against the US since.
source
Yes, you have to fucking read. But you know what? The Internet can't solve everything.
First and foremost: the Scandinavian ancestry and cultural values that came with it.
Pretty much everything else people have listed flows from that: work ethic, practicality, emphasis on education, mix of capitalism can-do attitude and well funded social programs.
Scandinavian countries usually rank really highly worldwide in all of the things you mentioned. Minnesota is an extension of that.
It's a good reminder that "white" people in America are not homogenous. Check out the book American Nations by Colin Woodard. He doesn't go into Minnesota so specifically, as I recall, but he covers the vastly different histories and backgrounds of the people that regions of our country were populated by and how much those original values and principles still explain politics and such today.
American Nations: A History of the Eleven Rival Regional Cultures of North America
https://www.amazon.com/American-Nations-History-Regional-Cultures-ebook/dp/B0052RDIZA
The book Command and Control: Nuclear Weapons, the Damascus Accident, and the Illusion of Safety gives some pretty interesting insight into these topics, how close we came to blowing ourselves up and how much nuclear authority was actual in the hands of those in the field.
All those things?
That would be a the sizeable part of the entire late antiquity and middle ages.
If there's public library in your neighborhood, I would suggest browsing through their offerings on these periods. There's probably no one book that covers all subjects, especially not one that is accessible enough to non-historians, and doesn't cost a fortune.
On the Eastern Roman Empire, these could be a good introduction:
http://www.amazon.com/Short-History-Byzantium-Julius-Norwich/dp/0679772693
http://www.amazon.com/Lost-West-Forgotten-Byzantine-Civilization/dp/0307407969/ref=pd_sim_b_3
Some of the topics mentioned, e.g. the expansion of Islam, are covered on this site, and its numerous links:
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/byzantium/index.html
OK, that's it. A few weeks ago I bought a few books about how it was that German seems so cool these days but gave rise to power the de-facto Hitler of all Hitlers.
They're next in my reading queue. This is insane.
This is a really good book. I highly recommend everybody read it. Get it from Amazon here.
there is truth in this statement, but at the same time, there are many out there who are also doing unbelievable, excellent work right now.
For example, these people are serious ass-kickers: Matt Taibi, Jane Mayer, Glenn Greenwald, Amy Goodman, Thomas Ricks, Nicholas Kristof, Steve Coll, Seymor Hersh, Jeremy Scahill, Dana Priest, James Bamford, Thomas Frank, Rajiv Chandrasekaran, Naomi Klein, Robert Sheer, Stephen Kinzer, Nir Rosen, Robert Fisk, Chris Hedges, Charles Bowden...the list goes on and on.
I think a serious case could be made that the U.S. has many of the best journalists in practice today. This is a very impressive list, as far as I'm concerned and shows that there is in fact a hell of a lot of great work being done by U.S. journalists. This is not to say that they get a fair hearing from the corporate media, however...
Weve def known about it since the 70s most people just ignore it.
Heres a book that came out in 09 that describes prism is greater detail than anyone since. He doesnt call it prism in the book because that was its actual top secret name at that time, but he tells you EXACTLY how it works and what they can do with it.
www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/0307279391?pc_redir=1398443908&robot_redir=1
The govt has released transcripts of the 9/11 terrorists phone calls that they retreived AFTER 9/11. So that basically proves they were capable of recording at least the majority of calls leaving the US in 2001.
The Byzantines had plenty of big beefy guys standing around, so the Varangians weren't too big a problem. They were hired specifically because they were from incredibly far away (Scandinavia, the Byzantines were based mostly in Greece and Asia Minor) and didn't have any ties to the various political factions within the empire.
Source: Lost to the West by Lars Brownsworth
He was a pioneer in establishing what we know now as the NWS so you aren’t far off. One of the best books I’ve ever read is called Isaac’s Storm: A Man, a Time, and the Deadliest Hurricane in History by Erik Larson(Devil in the White City) that reads like a firsthand account recreated with what’s known from the actual history.
It’s a relatively quick read and it really dives into interesting things like how poor communication(among other socio-political issues) between the US and Cuba prevented the news of the 1900 storm getting out in enough time to do much about it. The book was gifted to me when I lived in Houston, and interestingly enough also explains how Houston became the dominant port city as a latent effect of the 1900 storm’s effect on Galveston and any future it may have had as the big-dog port city.
Hey r/kappa! Since I was not chosen for the winter komike, that means I'll have more time to focus on improving my fundamentals, as well as doing more fighting game related NSFW art. Hopefully I'll be able to post here more often from now on!
I have also been reading quite a lot recently. Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind by Yuval Noah Harari has been as inspirational as lord Daigo's book to me. Highly Recommended.
It's becoming obvious that all your social media is being manipulated. Twitter/Facebook/Reddit/etc. Professors have shown that the entire narrative of a subreddit/post can be controlled by as few as 5 bot accounts. $200 is enough to get a clearly false post onto the front page.
https://youtu.be/FxNvUWN3vYk
The key is that you should put NO faith in arguments nor articles written on social media/twitter/etc. Consider it all fun theater, but don't use it to form your opinions or be educated on a subject.
But this is not new. All during the Cold War, Russia would manipulate groups to stall and derail US politics. Despite the fact the whole effort was very poorly handled and turned into a witch hunt, the Red Scare searches for Russian manipulation was quite real.
If you think you're immune, know that the military's handling of nuclear weapons is often seen as incompetent and comical. See Dr. Strangeglove. Despite the fact Russia had even MORE incidents and worse handling, they did a tremendously good job of capitalizing on our failures. When their intelligence found an incident of mishandling, they would leak it to the news, and then use our own news/advocacy groups work against the government. They absolutely did fund/feed/use well-meaning groups that aligned with their goals: create scandal, discredit politicians, control narratives, ferment social disorder. Sound familiar?
Worth a read about cold war nuclear programs and had a good chapter on these tactics:
Command and Control - Eric Schlosser
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00C5R7F8G/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1
Sapiens by Yuval Noah Harari.
Well written and a fascinating perspective. 4.5 stars with over 5,000 reviews.
"New York Times Bestseller
A Summer Reading Pick for President Barack Obama, Bill Gates, and Mark Zuckerberg
From a renowned historian comes a groundbreaking narrative of humanity’s creation and evolution—a #1 international bestseller—that explores the ways in which biology and history have defined us and enhanced our understanding of what it means to be “human.”
One hundred thousand years ago, at least six different species of humans inhabited Earth. Yet today there is only one—homo sapiens. What happened to the others? And what may happen to us?
Most books about the history of humanity pursue either a historical or a biological approach, but Dr. Yuval Noah Harari breaks the mold with this highly original book that begins about 70,000 years ago with the appearance of modern cognition. From examining the role evolving humans have played in the global ecosystem to charting the rise of empires, Sapiens integrates history and science to reconsider accepted narratives, connect past developments with contemporary concerns, and examine specific events within the context of larger ideas.
Dr. Harari also compels us to look ahead, because over the last few decades humans have begun to bend laws of natural selection that have governed life for the past four billion years. We are acquiring the ability to design not only the world around us, but also ourselves. Where is this leading us, and what do we want to become?
Featuring 27 photographs, 6 maps, and 25 illustrations/diagrams, this provocative and insightful work is sure to spark debate and is essential reading for aficionados of Jared Diamond, James Gleick, Matt Ridley, Robert Wright, and Sharon Moalem."
The short answer is Redlining, Drugs, and manufacturing.
Here's the defacto book on redlining these days.
Edit: Spelling.
Not OP, just helping out with some formatting (and links!) because I like these suggestions.
> 1) The Magic Of Reality - Richard Dawkins
>
> 2) The Selfish Gene - Richard Dawkins
>
> 3)A Brief History Of Time - Stephen Hawking
>
> 4)The Grand Design - Stephen Hawking
>
> 4)Sapiens - Yuval Noah Harari (Any Book By Daniel Dennet)
>
> 5)Enlightenment Now - Steven Pinker
>
> 6)From Eternity Till Here - Sean Caroll (Highly Recommended)
>
> 7)The Fabric Of Cosmos - Brian Greene (If you have good mathematical understanding try Road To Reality By Roger Penrose)
>
> 8)Just Six Numbers - Martin Reese (Highly Recommended)
The last excellent work of fiction I read was City of Dreams by Beverly Swerling. The book that I feel best captures the feeling of New York City, however, is Winter's Tale by Mark Helprin.
I mostly read nonfiction books about New York City history, and I'll share a few of my favorites with you. The definitive tome, of course, is Gotham: A History of New York City to 1898 by Mike Wallace and Edwin Burrows. Another favorite of mine, as I love the history of New Amsterdam, is Island at the Center of the World:The Epic Story of Dutch Manhattan and the Forgotten Colony That Shaped America by Russell Shorto. One of the most fascinating subjects I have been learning about is Native American history at the period of first European contact, and I really recommend checking out Adriaen Van Der Donck's A Description of New Netherland (The Iroquoians and their World), which many scholars agree is just as much of a significant work as William Bradford's Of Plymouth Plantation, and would be the definitive guide to the new world if it had been written in English. Evan Pritchard's Native New Yorkers: The Legacy of the Algonquian People of New York also offers an incredible look at native culture.
If you are interested in the subway system, check out Stan Fischler's fantastic Uptown, Downtown. One of the most underrated books I have picked up recently explores the construction of the amazing Grand Central Terminal, and I learned an incredible amount from it: Grand Central's Engineer: William J. Wilgus and the Planning of Modern Manhattan. If you are interested in urban planning, I would also suggest The Measure of Manhattan: The Tumultuous Career and Surprising Legacy of John Randel Jr., Cartographer, Surveyor, Inventor.
At this point I've read a ton of nonfiction books about the city, so if you have any questions or want any other recommendations, feel free to ask!
Depends how serious of a study you want to make, and if there is any particular area you want to focus on. If you want it from start to finish, read Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand by Leonard Peikoff.
Rand herself never laid everything out in one work. It is kind of all over the place. The Virtue of Selfishness is more on morality, and Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal is more on economics.
The Ayn Rand Lexicon has excerpts by topic, and I think is available for free online somewhere.
That story is from page 208 in "The Warmth of Other Suns: The Epic Story of America's Great Migration." It's gobsmacking. Robert Joseph Pershing Foster was a physician and a veteran. If he couldn't get a room, imagine what it was like for an ordinary African-American. http://www.amazon.com/The-Warmth-Other-Suns-Migration/dp/0679763880
Shows how foreign countries can influence and manipulate the foreign policies of other countries T
his confirms several specialists on Iran-Israel relations who said that Israel promoted a hostile US policy because it feared becoming irrelevant should the US and Iran get along -- see Trita Parsi's book, "Treacherous Alliances"
https://www.amazon.com/Treacherous-Alliance-Secret-Dealings-Israel/dp/0300143117
Note also wikileaks confirmed that Israel threatened to nuke Iraq to pressure the US to take a more aggressive stance there too
https://www.juancole.com/2012/06/campbell-israeli-pm-sharon-threatened-bush-with-nuking-iraq-mearsheimber-walt-vindicated.html
I got it on audible and listened to it in about 2weeks. If we were going to have a "book list for the resistance" I'd say this one is crucial. Also, maybe think of these as prerequisites, I think everyone should read or listen to The Warmth of Other Suns and Hillbilly Elegy because, in my opinion, they describe the past in way that informs the present social strife that Trump used to divide and conquer to win the Republican primary and general elections. If the Left is going to have a political answer in 2 and 4yrs for the people who either declined to vote altogether or who voted Trump, we have to understand and have compassion for their plight.
I understand the emotional need to point the finger at Trump voters and say "Ha! You get what you voted for!" when their healthcare is taken away or their jobs are automated without a proper safety net, but that's such a vindictive and shortsighted outlook that isn't going to help with coalition building.
Edit: the hardcover edition of Nothing is True and Everything is Possible is in stock
This will give you all the context you'll need, though not directly related to transit, explains a lot about why/how Baltimore is the way it is today.
https://www.amazon.com/Not-My-Neighborhood-Bigotry-American/dp/1566638437
>because the rapid demographic shifts from rural to urban areas would have threatened the Republicans' majority in the House.
Ahhh, the Great Migration. Anytime I hear mention of it I feel compelled to recommend The Warmth of Other Suns. It's a fantastic book that's well worth the read.
Be forewarned though; don't read this if you don't want to end up empathizing with black folk, because it'll getcha in the feels.
Whew, okay. Pulled out my actual computer to answer this.
So, a lot of what I could recommend isn't short stuff you could read in an afternoon because 1. it's depressing as fuck, and 2. it's likely heavy with the sheer volume of references wherein at least one book attempts to bludgeon you with the facts that "this was depressing as fuck." Frequent breaks or alternating history-related books with fiction/poetry/other topics is rather recommended from my experience. Can't remember if I got onto this topic through Howard Zinn's A People's History of the United States or Loewen's Lies My Teacher Told Me: Everything Your American History Textbook Got Wrong or just some random book found in the library.
The very clean cut, textbook Wikipedia definition of "sundown town", aka "Don't let the sun set (down) on you here.", (Ref: BlackThen.com), is:
> sometimes known as sunset towns or gray towns, are all-white municipalities or neighborhoods in the United States that practice a form of segregation by enforcing restrictions excluding people of other races via some combination of discriminatory local laws, intimidation, and violence.
For my intro into the subject however, read Buried in the Bitter Waters: The Hidden History of Racial Cleansing in America. This is a very emotionally draining, mentally exhausting book though, frequently with lists of atrocities in paragraph form. I think it's an important read, one which frankly should've been covered my senior year of highschool or so, but it's a difficult one. Also on my reading list is The Warmth of Other Suns: The Epic Story of America's Great Migration which is a surprising and sneakily hopeful title for such a depressing topic, so only guessing the narration may be somewhat more accessible.
Also, 'cause I totally didn't run to my kindle app to list out titles before fully reading your post, here's some below, and relisted one above, by timeline placement, best as can be figured. These might not be the best on each topic, but they're the ones available to my budget at the time and some are still on my reading list.
The Fires of Jubilee: Nat Turner's Fierce Rebellion
Buried in the Bitter Waters: The Hidden History of Racial Cleansing in America
The Mis-Education of the Negro
At the Dark End of the Street: A New History of the Civil Rights Movement from Rosa Parks to the Rise of Black Power
Assata
Revolutionary Suicide
Dark Alliance: The CIA, the Contras, and the Crack Cocaine Explosion
Sister Outsider
See also:
Black Street Speech: Its History, Structure, and Survival
Women, Race, & Class by Angela Y. Davis
Black Feminist Thought
Outlaw Culture: Resisting Representations by Bell Hooks
Brainwashed: Challenging the Myth of Black Inferiority
The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness
Intrepid museum:
https://www.intrepidmuseum.org/The-Intrepid-Experience/Exhibits.aspx
South Steet Seaport Museum, but you might want to check right before you come to see which ships are open and when:
https://southstreetseaportmuseum.org/visit/
You might especially enjoy a morning or afternoon at Governor's Island, with Castle Williams and Fort Jay:
https://govisland.com/map
Also near where the ferry departs is Castle Clinton in Battery Park:
https://www.nps.gov/cacl/index.htm
This is an excellent book on early NYC history:
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Island-Center-World-Manhattan-Forgotten/dp/1400078679
If anyone is interested in a good read on how racial prejudice has shaped the very fabric of Baltimore, check out Not in My Neighborhood by Antero Pietila.
One surprising fact he dug up out of the dirty (open) secrets was that the anti-Semitic sentiment was so strong in Baltimore, a third segregated tier of housing (i.e., in addition to segregation for whites and blacks), unique to the city, catering specifically to Jews developed and was even used into the early 1970s. It was so bad that Joseph Meyerhoff (yes, that Meyerhoff), a Ukrainian Jew who's family fled the pogroms of the Russian Empire when he was 7, refused to sell or rent to other Jews (Pietila 2010: 136-140).
To me it’s a dead ringer for Jennifer Michael Hecht’s Doubt: A History
https://www.amazon.com/Doubt-Doubters-Innovation-Jefferson-Dickinson/dp/0060097957
There are certain strands of Hinduism that are atheistic, Samkhya for example doesn't focus on the existence of deities, rather on the interplay between matter and consciousness. Buddhism too is a non-theistic religion. In both these cases however the nonexistence of gods is not a defining principle and, especially in Buddhism, the inclusion of other regional and cultural gods was accepted and included alongside the core teachings of the religion.
In Greece there are many philosophies that saw the gods as metaphors, allegories, or nominally existent, but not ontologically. The Sophists and the Epicureans were two branches that fall into this category.
In any case, there were no primarily atheistic societies in ancient history that it was a cultural or political practice to deny the existence of God/gods. Obviously there were individuals who dissented with the prevailing cultural religion but these are the exceptions that prove the rule.
For more information on the history of atheism I'd recommend Jennifer Michael Hecht's Doubt: A History
Clandestines is good, although its nonfiction: http://www.akpress.org/2006/items/clandestines
days and nights of love and war (not to be confused with the crimething book) is good as well, also nonfiction: http://www.amazon.com/Days-Nights-Love-Eduardo-Galeano/dp/1583670238
Homage to catalonia (spanish civil war by george orwell): http://www.amazon.com/Homage-Catalonia-George-Orwell/dp/0156421178
hmm, sorry, can't think of any 'fiction' off the top of my head though. If i do think of any i'll message you.
Also worth looking at Castles of Steel
That and Dreadnought by the same author are my favorites of the era.
Shadow Divers
An incredible read, I highly recommend to anyone.
http://www.amazon.com/Homage-Catalonia-George-Orwell/dp/0156421178/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1415647913&sr=1-1&keywords=homage+to+catalonia
There's an excellent book on this and NSA wiretapping that I highly recommend - [The Shadow Factory: The NSA from 9/11 to the Eavesdropping on America] (https://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/0307279391/).
It's an older book - it's still a fascinating read and still very relevant.
Very much enjoyed Citizens: A Chronicle of the French Revolution by Simon Schama . Very readable. Was my first foray into reading about the French Rev. so I don't have a lot to compare it to, but it was quite informative and engaging.
http://www.amazon.com/Island-Center-World-Manhattan-Forgotten/dp/1400078679
You're welcome. Amazing book.
For a deeper look at how this came to be, and the more regional nuances than just north and south, I suggest reading American Nations: A History of the Eleven Rival Regional Cultures of North America. It's a fascinating, easy, read.
I've been re-listening to my Citizens audiobook. A good summary of the French Revolution and the Terror, of which Marat was a guiding hand.
I like this take on the painting because it slyly copies David's Death of Marat from a different angle!
The sentiment here seems to be "Not in my neighborhood", which is also a book title.
Well, first we must distinguish formal religion from informal animism and the like. It's not clear that humans with their hyperactive agency detection do default to atheism.
Second, I was referring to formal arguments for atheism such as Epicurus and Siddhartha Gautama.
So, doubt as a formalized argument was really not much of a factor at the time of the founding of the Jewish religion. Therefore, belief was also not such a big deal. It was more just expected. Obedience was the focus.
If you're really curious enough to read a full length book on the subject, I recommend Doubt: A History : the Great Doubters and Their Legacy of Innovation from Socrates and Jesus to Thomas Jefferson and Emily Dickinson by Jennifer Michael Hecht
I can give you a short list of personal favorites, books that I consider both informative and extremely interesting / entertaining to read. As you'll see I prefer memoirs and eyewitness accounts to sweeping historical overviews of the war.
With the Old Breed, E.B. Sledge. Personal memoir of the author's experience as a marine machine gunner in the Pacific war, specifically the campaigns on Peleliu and Okinawa. Sledge is a marvelous writer with prose I'd describe as "Hemingwayesque", a real compliment. Grueling, appalling, human, his account does a great job of sketching in the personalities of his fellow marines.
"The Good War": An Oral History of World War II, Studs Terkel. This is the book that World War Z is aping, but the actual book is a far more gripping read. Terkel sat down for personal interviews with 121 survivors of the war, Germans, Japanese, British, Canadian as well as American.
Band Of Brothers, Stephen Ambrose. Now made famous by the TV series, the story of E Company's recruitment, training and ultimate combat experience during and after the Normandy invasion is as intense and eye-opening as it sounds.
Between Silk and Cyanide: A Codemaker's War, Leo Marks. Marks was a cryptographer working in London for the SOE (special operations executive, the group responsible for running much of "The Resistance" throughout occupied Europe, North Africa and Asia). He's a very funny guy, a self-professed coward, but the book portrays his deeply heartfelt concern for the well-being of the agents he was sending behind enemy lines. His codes, and methods of transmitting them, could be the only thing saving them from capture by the Gestapo. All too often, they weren't enough. "If you brief an agent on the Tuesday and three days later his eyes are taken out with a fork, it hastens the aging process," he writes.
Stalingrad, Anthony Beevor. When you start to read about the Eastern Front, you realize that much of the conventional western perspective of WWII in Europe is based on the comparatively minor engagements in Italy and France. France lost 350,000 civilians to the war, The Soviet Union lost 15-20 million. Considered purely from the POV of total casualties and total armed forces committed, WWII was primarily an engagement between Germany and the Soviet Union throughout Eastern Europe, with a number of smaller actions in the western countries. Anyhow, the story of the brutal, grinding siege of Stalingrad, the point where the German tide definitively turned, is a must-read.
Homage To Catalonia, George Orwell. This is Orwell's personal account of his service fighting on the Republican side against fascists during the Spanish Civil War from 1936-37. Basically, this was the war before the war, as described by one of the greatest writers of the 20th century. Incidentally Hemingway's novel For Whom The Bell Tolls is a fairly accurate, very powerful portrayal of a different view of the same war.
If you indeed voted for him, you should read Hannah Arednt and maybe Plato's Gorgias/Republic.
I am glad that you referenced Roger's book. His related book, The Safeguard of the Sea, looks at Britain's (England's, Wessex's, etc.) navy from 660-1649 and is also an excellent read.
If you don't mind, I would expand on your comment to say this: One of the major arguments that both books make is that a major contributor to Britain's naval success was also the bureaucracy that grew up around the Navy. We tend to think of bureaucracy in negative terms today, but in having a regularized, systemic way of casting and distributing guns and ordnance; building and repairing ships; victualling ships; and manning ships, the British navy was far ahead of its competitors, even by the time of the Armada.
It's also worth pointing out that Britain's naval strength was helped by the establishment of dockyards, drydocks, and associated naval "bases" (although that's an anachronistic term) in various places, including the Thames and Portsmouth but also in other places along England's coast. Not to put too fine a point on it, but wooden ships rot, and regular maintenance was a major reason why Britain was able to keep up its naval strength.
This moves a bit past OP's timeframe, but allow me to recommend two other books by Robert K. Massie, that specifically look at the Anglo-German naval race in the run-up to World War I:
http://www.amazon.com/Dreadnought-Robert-K-Massie/dp/0345375564
http://www.amazon.com/Castles-Steel-Britain-Germany-Winning/dp/0345408780/ref=la_B000AQ6XVE_1_6?ie=UTF8&qid=1370812631&sr=1-6
I hear you. If you're interested in reading on the topic, this book by John Keegan is excellent. I read it once for a class in college and could not recommend it more highly.
A little off topic but the framework that the article sited bears a striking resemblance to the model that Hannah Arendt described in her book "The Origins of Totalitarianism". The concepts are all very similar, even if the vocabulary is different.
the rise of the leader, the sense of urgency from an external source, the consolidation of ideology through brotherhood, the dehumanization of the foe, and so on.
It's a little dense, but once you get into it, it's a fascinating book on the history of these movements.
edit: fixed the link
Here is a book about actual fascism It doesn't achieve everything it sets out to theoretically, but it's a good try.
Although Arendt focused on totalitarianism it's a classic for a reason and it would be unwise to omit.
I generally recommend ignoring the Eco essay on Ur Fascism it's popular on the internet because it's brief and a list, but it's sort of a glib pig's breakfast and not very well thought out.
If you think the United States is drifting toward fascism, you might want to understand why that's just internet nonsense.
>"The pro-Iran" lobby AKA anti war lobby.
Those are not the same thing. Being pro-Iran involves being pro-war. You just want a war in Syria, Yemen, etc.
> He is a widely respect specialist whose book about how Israel was pushing for a US war on Iran, is widely lauded. https://www.amazon.com/Treacherous-Alliance-Secret-Dealings-Israel/dp/0300143117
Widely respected is a loose term here. Nathan Thrall, who is very anti-Israel, pointed out that the book blurs the line between actual history and lobbying/propaganda. The book is wrong on its premise, as no war ever resulted. He has served as part of the lobbying machine, rather than as an expert. He doesn't criticize Iran's most heinous groups and proxies, has been praised by Iran's regime, and has influence in Iran because they like him and his lobbying...if the relationship isn't deeper than that.
When he was accused of being a shill for the regime, he sued the guy making the accusation for defamation, claiming he was lying. Parsi couldn't prove the guy was lying in court. He lost the case.
Then they appealed. The appeals court said they flouted deadlines, misrepresented documents, and were "dishonest and intransigent". They ended up having to pay over $180,000 in fines because, while they failed to prove that the accuser was lying when he called them shills for Iran, they were lying to the court too.
> Even the Jerusalem Post admitted that Netanyahu was pushing the US into a war with Iran
No, it didn't.
>"Netanyahu may not mind this scenario, as his primary goal throughout Obama's presidency– it is understood by his generals– was to have the US do the job of crippling Iran’s program through force on the world’s behalf."
I'm not sure why you'd misquote this source.
First of all, it isn't "the Jerusalem Post". It's an op-ed, by Michael Wilner. He is one correspondent. He does not represent the paper.
Second of all, the next few sentences say:
> Netanyahu likely sees Trump as a different animal who is either more likely to use force against Iran or, in the least, more likely to be feared if and when he threatens it
They're also talking about the possible threat of force, not just use of force. That's what Netanyahu wanted during Obama's years. Wilner is wrong if he means to say Netanyahu did want war. If Netanyahu wanted war, he'd have struck Iran himself in 2012 when given the option.
> Whatever labels you want to toss out, it is hardly just him saying it, Thee dispute was never about nukes or enrichment. He directly quotes Israeli officials too.
No, he doesn't quote Israeli officials. He makes a blanket statement without a source. Please do not misrepresent your own source.
Also, check out Lost to the West, it's an audiobook by Lars narrated by Lars which covers the East, and it's pretty amazing.
I’d highly recommend Robert Massie’s Castles of Steel for an excellent overview of the naval conflict of WWI. He goes into great detail about the ramifications of the submarine campaign and how it ultimately pulled America into the war.
Previous to WWI, commerce raiding was done by well-armed ships which would force a merchantman to stop, board, determine its nationality, pull off the crew, and then scuttle the ship. Initially, submarines attempted to follow this model. Unfortunately, they had no space or crew to detain potentially hostile passengers and enemy crews. Furthermore, they were extremely fragile things and, once the British began using Q ships (merchantmen with naval crews and hidden guns), the Germans could no longer risk surfacing and engaging with gunfire.
These factors, compounded with the problem of identifying a ship’s (possibly fake) flag from a dim periscope a few feet above the waves lead the Germans to declare the entire North Sea a battle zone in which any ship of any nationality might be fired upon. It was this factor, which America saw as an unjust abrogation of its rights as a neutral, combined with the loss of American lives and ships from the submarine campaign that drew the nation into the war.
That is awesome! I'm currently reading "Castles of Steel" on my Kindle so any photos in the book don't really turn out. But this is great. It's incredible to see the Imperial German fleet all together like this.
If you wanted a glimpse into what tropical weather forecasting was at the turn of the 20th century read Isaac's Storm.
It's a page turner and will give you a good understanding of where we were as well as educate you about one of the worst disasters in US history.
Highly recommend reading the book Shadow Divers . It talks about what it takes to dive to these depths and to explore uBoats.
This is a pretty good read, too
The best option is almost certainly Leonard Peikoff's "Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand" (aka OPAR), based on lectures Peikoff gave in the 70s with Rand's approval:
http://www.amazon.com/Objectivism-Philosophy-Ayn-Rand-Library/dp/0452011019/
The other major option is Nathaniel Branden's "The Vision of Ayn Rand", which is essentially a transcript of an earlier set of lectures Branden gave in the 60s, also with Rand's approval (and before Rand broke ties with Branden):
http://www.amazon.com/Vision-Ayn-Rand-Principles-Objectivism-ebook/dp/B00LV0FX2S/
I'm traditionally more into literary fiction, but I've been exploring non-fiction recently.
Currently Reading: 1491: New Revelations of the Americas Before Columbus
Recently Finished: The Warmth of Other Suns: The Epic Story of America's Great Migration and Margaret Atwood's MaddAddam Trilogy
Next on the List: Either Guns Germs and Steel or Devil in the White City. Haven't decided yet
I'm currently reading When Titans Clashed: How the Red Army Stopped Hitler, by David Glantz.
It is based mostly on Soviet archives which opened to the West after the Iron Curtain fell. It is quite interesting, but can be incredibly dry at times. Lots of "General Sosoandsovski's Xth Rifle Division attacked General von Soandsohoffen's Xth Panzer Corps near Bumfuckėžys, Lithuania, supported by..." for pages and pages and pages.
> Chris Bollyn and Kevin Ryan
These two people have vastly different opinions on 9/11.
Chris Bollyn is a hack, a disinformation specialist who masquerades as an investigative journalist and isn't a credible source of information on anything pertaining to 9/11, he is on the same level as Judy Woods and her dustification and Dimitri Khalezov with his nuclear bombs nonsense.
Kevin Ryan on the other hand is a well respected, prominent 9/11 researcher who uses a scientific evidence based approach on the subject and not a speculative, fantasy based approach like the three that are mentioned above.
He also does not believe Israeli did 9/11 like you implied, his excellent book, Another Nineteen: Investigating Legitimate 9/11 Suspects is evidence of that fact.
We don't really need to speculate endlessly, there are entire books written about how the disparities in our community came about. We need to continue using the data and scholarship we have, including publications from professors at local universities and longstanding members of the community. It isn't simple and it is complex, for sure. But it's not a situation where we just throw our hands up and say "oh well, just send in people with guns, it's too hard to think through this situation."
> It's a good reminder that "white" people in America are not homogenous. Check out the book American Nations by Colin Woodard. He doesn't go into Minnesota so specifically, as I recall, but he covers the vastly different histories and backgrounds of the people that regions of our country were populated by and how much those original values and principles still explain politics and such today.
> American Nations: A History of the Eleven Rival Regional Cultures of North America https://www.amazon.com/American-Nations-History-Regional-Cultures-ebook/dp/B0052RDIZA
This was a really good read! It's an interesting perspective on North American history that makes the broad strokes fit together a lot better than my high school textbook ever did and focuses on what I think is the most interesting part of history: how it explains why things are the way they are today.
Study, I dunno. I like to listen to books about nuclear science, nuclear power, weapons, accidents and the like while I'm driving. I don't do many fiction books.
While it may not be studying, learning about the world around you can help expand your mind and keep it active while you're focusing on the road. I've listened to these books a few times over by now.
Link 1
Link 2
Link 3
Link 4
Link 5
Link 6
Not the OP, but The Warmth of Other Suns is a really good book about the era of mass black migration from the South to the North and West between WWI and the 1970s. Lots about Jim Crow in the South but also about the less-obvious racism in their new homes.
https://www.amazon.com/When-Titans-Clashed-Stopped-Studies/dp/0700608990
I can't find the actual text, so I'm paraphrasing from Shorto's excellent Island at the Center of the World
Since the basic needs of living were far exceeded for a small subsection of people living in colony of New Amsterdam, that cultural section could afford luxuries. And so the luxuries sprang up, including fine women's clothing and pastry shops creating non-essential sweets, such as cakes - in 18th century dutch, "koek." The smaller versions became known as "koekje" or "koek-yees" or any of the other spellings. Yada yada yada, that's why Americans call them "cookies" and Britons call them "biscuits."
Anybody interested in this may also be interested in reading Not in My Neighborhood: How Bigotry Shaped a Great American City
http://www.amazon.com/Not-My-Neighborhood-Bigotry-American/dp/1566638437/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1457468272&sr=8-1&keywords=not+in+my+baltimore
Well, you ignored my other questions and you haven't really demonstrated any good knowledge of American culture. Anyone who thinks they can make blanket statements about the culture of a large heterogeneous country like the U.S. doesn't, in my opinion know what they are talking about.
You may want to read this :
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0052RDIZA/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1
especially if you didn't grow up in the U.S.
Not to sound too nerdy about it, but this is interesting when put into the historical context of early American frontier migration patterns. Many Tennessean families started as Virginians then moved west (often to Texas). However, there were several competing cultures migrating at the time. Of relevance here, the southern planter elite rubbed up on and competed with the borderlander/Appalachians. You can almost draw a line straight west from Charleston South Carolina to the Mississippi river and have an approximate border between these groups. Without going into more detail, I think we can safely rely on caricatures of the rich southern gentleman in formal attire versus the back-country plain-speaking fella in deer skins. They weren't fond of each other.
Anyway, the map's mention of Virginia as "Family" and Texas as "My First Job" are exactly what you'd expect given Eastern Tennessee's place in the history. Then Kentucky is implied to be similar to Tennessee (just not as good), which is also entirely consistent. I suspect some of the modern antagonism between TN and AL is not 100% because of football. Perhaps old cultural tensions and the fact that AL was a battleground in this regard are deeper factors. Similar cultural contrasts can be seen between, say, Houston and Dallas--or so I've heard.
Someone else here even commented "I BELIEVE HILTON HEAD IS TOO RICH FOR OUR APPALACHIAN BLOOD". Ha!
Apologies for rambling. If anyone wants to learn more, here ya go:
Well, that depends on what part of America you're in.
Exhibit A: https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0052RDIZA/
As a new American I could not figure out why my viewpoint was so different than folks from the coasts (born in the middle of Canada, brief fling with the coast then back to the big middle part and migrated south in the 90's). Then I saw an article about this book and things became clearer.
(that and following back my ancestry somewhat and finding out about things like the Highland Clearances)
For more information on this I'd recommend the excellent book "Command and Control: Nuclear Weapons, the Damascus Accident, and the Illusion of Safety" by Eric Schlosser.
It's a really great history of America's nuclear program and how close we were to disaster so many times. Highly recommended.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00C5R7F8G?btkr=1
I would recommend staying away from the polemics. Authors like Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris all have books worth reading, but not really if you want a primer on atheistic alternatives in the areas of worldview, ethics, etc. I will say that Dawkins's earlier works on science would be good, but God Delusion is not an exposition of an atheistic worldview, but rather an attack on religion, and a messy, at times ignorant and oversimplified one at that (I bet I'll get crucified for saying that). As one religious studies student to another, it is a book that gets awfully frustrating every time you realize that he has a horrible grasp of the relevant data.
Books that would be really great to read:
George H. Smith's Atheism: The Case Against God is an approachable critique of some of the more popular arguments for God's existence.
Julian Baggini's Atheism: A Brief Insight is a really good and thorough survey of the explanation, arguments, history, and ethics of atheism.
Greg Epstein's Good Without God: What a Billion Nonreligious People Do Believe really gets into where someone goes once he/she has already concluded that God doesn't exist. He looks at how one builds a nonreligious life of meaning. Epstein is definitely in the "friendly atheist" category. As the Humanist Chaplain at Harvard (strange, oxymoronic titles aside) he has done a great deal of work with the Pluralism Project in their School of Divinity. He has even worked with inter-religious groups like the InterFaith Youth Core.
A long, but very much worth the time and highly recommended book is Jennifer Michael Hecht's Doubt: A History: The Great Doubters and Their Legacy of Innovation from Socrates and Jesus to Thomas Jefferson and Emily Dickinson. In it, she goes very thoroughly through the long history of religious skepticism. She looks at the lives and questions of philosophers, scientists, poets, politicians, even some religious figures who have gone through the "dark night of the soul." This is a book that I think every atheist should read to learn that religious folks aren't the only ones with a long and storied tradition. It is a good grounding in history for secularists.
He fought for POUM in the Spanish civil war, which was a marxist, communist political party and fought alongside the anarchist CNT.
Homage to Catalonia gives a lot of insight into the Spanish civil war (a war I knew very little about)- it's a very good book.
Lost to the West: The Forgotten Empire That Saved Western Civilization. A great great book that really helped me learn a lot about the Byzantines. Like how we think of the Roman Empire ending in 476AD, but that was only the western half. The Eastern, more Greek half, lived on for 1000 more years! Imagine that! A Roman Empire in the Middle Ages!
Yes, there's a big distinction. Here's a link that scratches the surface of dreadnought background & development to get you started.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Dreadnought_(1906)
If you get really curious, here's two books that round out the subject of how dreadnoughts fit into naval history...
http://www.amazon.com/Dreadnought-Robert-K-Massie/dp/0345375564/ref=la_B000AQ6XVE_1_6?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1406314026&sr=1-6
http://www.amazon.com/Castles-Steel-Britain-Germany-Winning/dp/0345408780
The Pity of War by Niall Ferguson
The Great War by Peter Hart
The First World War by John Keegan
The Guns of August by Barbara W. Tuchman
should iran and the us get along, israel's strategic value to the us would drop, which is why pro-israeli agents have been pushing so hard to prevent a us-iran rapprochement
this book is all about that; http://www.amazon.com/Treacherous-Alliance-Secret-Dealings-Israel/dp/0300143117
Well, the Shah was indeed out of touch with the average Joe Religious which is why there was a revolution, and many of his (secular and religious) opposition forces were highly critical of Iran's position on Israel. Some of the dissidents received military training in Palestinian camps and Libya etc. and carried out attacks in Iran, such as the MEK (also known as NCRI currently) but Israel was not a high priority item in the revolutionary agenda apart from rhetoric
Not sure what you mean by "their principles and political philosophy" of Isarel (there are many versions and they don't agree among themselves) but the assumption that the Arab Israeli conflict has something to do with Muslims hating Jew and vice versa, is false. Arafat was secular, the leader of the PLFP was a Christian, and the regimes of Saddam, Nasser, Assad and Hossein was all secular. Baathism is secular too. Iran's current opposition to Israel is also not because they're Jews or something, and in fact Iran's current position is that they'll go along with a peace that the Palestinians accept with Israel not that Israel must be "wipe off the face of the Earth" and other such BS. There are large Jewish communities in Iran, after all, for over 2000 years.
Indeed the Iranians had reached out to the US and included even recognition of Israel as part of the Arab Peace Initiative, but Iran was spurned by the US since back then, Israel was certainly not about to accept the Arab Peace Initiative since it included the recognition of Palestinian rights, and the Bush admin was more interested in toppling Iran's govt rather than getting along:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/17/AR2006061700727.html
As documented in this award-winning book it was actually the Israelis who turned hostile on Iran, since they saw a threat in the potential improvement of US-Iran relations, in the post-Cold War era when Israels value as an ally to the US is uncertain: http://www.amazon.com/Treacherous-Alliance-Secret-Dealings-Israel/dp/0300143117
This is really what's underneath the anxiety of Israel: If Iran and the US get along, who needs Israel?
The Saudis also didn't like it that the US had designated Iran as the Policeman of the Persian Gulf either (though they benefited from it security-wise) so they don't want to be left out in improved US-Iran relations. Iran was a competing oil producer, and the Shah liked to occasionally tweak the Saudi noses by for example sending female diplomats to represent Iran, and they (Nasserr started it) in turn called the Persian Gulf, the "Arabian Gulf" just to piss him off
Remember, when Nixon decided to recognize Communist China, the US kicked Taiwan to the curb. Israel doesn't want to be a Taiwan if the US decided to "go to Tehran" as Nixon did.
The NSA had intercepted plenty of intelligence that could have been used to stop 911. The problem was not that the NSA lacked data. The problem was that the NSA had so much data that they couldn't process it. It was therefore worthless. Read "The Shadow Factory" by James Bamford for a mountain of information about how too-much-data and too much secrecy kept the NSA from seeing the 911 hijackers during their months long stay in the USA
So, the man without a pulse is lying. What a shocker, huh?
Well, in the old Byzantine Empire AKA the Eastern Roman Empire, the typical mode of inheritance was non-familial. Generally, the successor to an Emperor would be adopted early in life, serve time in the military or civic offices, and then was elevated to co-emperor, gradually taking on the Imperial roles as the old Emperor aged. The accession of Emperor Justinian I is a good example of the old mode of "Late Roman" succession.
During the reign of Emperor Heraclius, in the era of the Arab Conquests (when the Empire saw the loss of the vital provinces of Africa, Egypt, and Syria), the Empire begins its drastic "medievalization", a necessary change in order to preserve what was left of the once-great Eastern Roman Empire. Included in this transformation is the disappearance of "adoptive succession", the traditional mode of Imperial succession stretching back all of the way to the time of Augustus. During the transition period, we begin to see a tendency towards hereditary succession, which becomes fully fledged by the era of iconoclasm and which would persist in Imperial succession until 1461.
In the era of the Komnenoi, a successor was generally appointed from the current Imperial family and would be elevated to the title of "co-emperor" or "σεβαστοκράτωρ" for a time. The then-Emperor or "βασιλεύς", would rule for life, or until retirement (which surprisingly, did occur several times) at which time the co-emperor would take his place. But other than usually being from the Imperial family, there was never really an organized method of succession like in modern monarchies, and as observed during the period, there was a lot of political strife, even amongst family members.
For relevant literature, I would certainly recommend reading the Alexiad by contemporaneous historian Anna Komnena. She provides a lot of insight into the events that occurred in the Imperial court during the Komnenian period.
Some recently-published books, such as Byzantium: The Surprising Life of a Medieval Empire and Lost to the West, both provide well-written overviews of the history of the period. These will help you get a feeling for the Byzantine political scene in the High Middle Ages.
I find John Keegan's analysis (in his WW1 book) most convincing. The Schleiffen plan:
was out of date when it was implemented
badly underestimated Russian mobilization, not entirely but significantly due to racism and stereotyping
had no real contingency for British intervention in the west
was held in secret from the German diplomats
The First World War by Keegan is not a bad read.
The First World War by John Keegan is a really excellent overview of the war that's a really great read in its own right.
I have three.
The first that comes to mind is an older book, called "Storm." It inspired my dad to become a meteorology major (sadly, the U.S. Air Force put him to use as a navigator instead of weather forecaster). The hero / heroine of the fictional story is a massive El Niño / atmospheric river event that rocks California, told in part from the perspective of a young meteorologist. It's an older book (copyright 1941), but despite being short on contemporary weather science, it's solid on the fundamentals, and the major criticism of it is that it's too technical. As a record of a storm pattern that often afflicts the U.S. West Coast (and historically has been catastrophic at times) and is only now coming to be fully appreciated, it's still relevant, even though it's out of print, but Amazon offers it used.
"Isaac's Storm" is a national bestseller about the greatest natural disaster in U.S. history, the 1900 Galveston hurricane, which killed 6,000 people. It talks a lot about the weather that created it and how meteorologists of the time failed to anticipate it (and why). It's a gripping, well-written account of a storm that shocked the nation and devastated a city that might have otherwise become Texas' largest. It's written by Erik Larson, who is one of the great nonfiction writers of our time.
You are probably familiar with the movie "The Perfect Storm" but maybe not with the book that inspired it, also a national bestseller, titled "The Perfect Storm: A True Story of Men Against the Sea" which dwells a lot more than the movie on the weather science behind the storm. In fact, the phrase "a perfect storm of" didn't exist before the book. If I recall correctly, it talks about how three separate weather events converged over the NW Atlantic to create a truly wicked storm that caught a number of mariners off guard with deadly consequences for some of them. The movie is pretty good (certainly better than that joke "Twister" that someone recommended), but it's a little short on weather geekery.
Sorry, no colorful pictures in any of these books, but the stories in them are plenty colorful. Congrats on your awesome study choice.
Isaac's Storm by Erik Larson gives some background on hurricane dynamics while going through a case study from one of the deadliest natural disasters in US history. it is a fantastic piece of non-fiction for both the story and the science.
People interested in diving and finding stuff, should read this book. It's totally awesome...
Shadow Divers: The True Adventure of Two Americans Who Risked Everything to Solve One of the Last Mysteries of World War II
https://www.amazon.com/dp/0375760989/ref=cm_sw_r_awd_Hhdfvb1PCVHAW
I cannot overstate how much I loved this book, and if maritime mysteries are your thing, stop reading this comment and find a copy!
Metaphysics
>The dual wave/particle nature of matter is something that Rand has trouble with.
Not so long as the duality is accounted for in a non-contradictory way. It's self-evident that you will never find both sides of a contradiction existing in reality. If you could, you would never be able to know anything about anything. I explain this point further here.
Epistemology
>Rand's epistemology posits a fundamentally knowable world, so much so that we can draw strong conclusions about ethics and politics from principles founded on literally any observation.
I think it's pretty clear that this was not Rand's view of how principles are derived and grounded. It certainly isn't Dr. Leonard Peikoff's view of the induction of ethical and political principles, and he studied under Rand for 30 years and, to the best of my knowledge, agrees with Rand on every philosophical principle she wrote on, (and some she never wrote on.)
An individual's conceptual knowledge is an integrated whole, with a network of relationships between the different concepts and propositions.
Inductions of principles are not made by any random observation, but by multiple, relevant observations that are then integrated with each other and with other concepts, by a certain method (inductive logic) ultimately forming a theory that explains the observations causally. There is a whole lecture course and a book extending Objectivist theories to the issue of induction.
>I think there is a very powerful case that the complexity of the real world is such that drawing universal conclusions from a tiny base of priors will lead you far astray.
As I mentioned earlier, Rand isn't basing principles on "a tiny base of priors," but on concepts and theories that rest on a large number of perceptions and observations. But I also want to emphasize that complexity does not preclude the derivation of principles. Issac Newton derived principles from a tremendously complex physical world. And these principles still work in the context (including the precision of measurement) in which they were derived, (i.e. when things are not too small, too large, or too fast.) (That is another thing about principles that Objectivism recognizes: they are contextual with respect to evidence. See: Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand.)
>She is also extremely uncharitable to Kant, who explores very similar ideas...
Not really similar, actually. Rand didn't take respresentationalism, or the causal theory of perception (in which external objects are the causes, but not the direct objects of perception) for granted as starting points. Nor did she make a distinction between "things-in-themselves" and "appearances," nor did she believe in the "synthetic a priori," nor did she posit that "objects must conform to our knowledge."
Rand was a direct realist (but not a "naive" one) about perception, and her philosophy goes on from there. (I recommend The Evidence of the Senses by David Kelley. If you want a more in depth explanation of what's wrong at the root of Kant's epistemology, I recommend this post, especially my last couple of comments: A Critique of Kant on the Noumenal World / Phenomenal World Distinction (“Thing-in-Itself” vs “Appearance”).)
Ethics
>However, Rand's conception of human happiness seems at odds with what we see in actual human lives. The deep and lasting connections of love that form among people and the genuine sacrifice people will make for their loved ones are such a big part of human behavior that it pushes me away from Rand's philosophy here.
If this is supposed to be persuasive, you're relying on an argumentum ad populum. The fact that many people behave a certain way doesn't make it right.
Now, you might say that the great prevalence of certain behaviors in people makes theories that condemn that behavior, prima facie, counter-intuitive. But to oppose the theory on these grounds, in the face of solid philosophical argument, is succumbing to the ad populum fallacy.
I would also like to note, for clarity here, that a genuine sacrifice is one in which a person willfully does net damage to his ability to carry forward with life, when everything, including his mental (conceptual and healthy emotional) needs over the long term are taken into account. I must say that I doubt that genuine sacrifices are quite as common as you indicate.
Politics
>Interpersonal relations are maddeningly complex, and a political system which presupposes to answer nearly all questions from basic principles is going to fail to account for that complexity.
Again, complexity does not preclude principles. Things that are varied and disparate in perceptual reality can be organized and kept track of conceptually. Principles can be derived from them.
>The modern liberal democratic welfare state has in fact worked really well.
To what are you comparing it and what standard of measurement are you using?
Countries today that can be called "modern" in the sense of technology and prosperity appear to be so, largely to the extent that they have been good at respecting the principles of freedom (that is, individual rights: life, liberty and property.)
Welfare, (redistribution based on need) on the other hand, exists, not only in these prosperous countries, but also exists in abundance in places like Cuba, North Korea, the former USSR, Haiti, and Somalia. (In these last two cases, the redistribution is in the form of international aid.)
This video shows the correlation between economic freedom and quality of life: Episode One: Economic Freedom & Quality of Life. Explanation of the causation can be found in works like Rand's Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal and Bernstein's The Capitalist Manifesto.
As Bono said,
>Aid is just a stop-gap. Commerce [and] entrepreneurial capitalism takes more people out of poverty than aid.
>In dealing with poverty here and around the world, welfare and foreign aid are a Band-Aid. Free enterprise is a cure.
>Entrepreneurship is the most sure way of development.
(Though I think that even calling welfare and foreign aid a "stop-gap" is giving them too much credit. I think it actually hinders economic progress by helping to insulate the county's people and--especially--leadership from the full consequences of their failure to uphold individual rights on principle.)
[Edit: Added the first sentence of the first response.]
Oh yeah you'll definitely have that in Waukesha, you're literally in one of the destination counties of "white flight"ers from the 40's and 50's, after southern blacks started coming up here looking for work. (Called the "WOW" counties anectodally - Washington, Ozaukee, Waukesha). Typically white, growing older, vote R, listen to talk radio, commute all the way to Milwaukee to work - if they have to. They talk about how much of a pity it is how "downhill" and "urban" (read: black) Milwaukee has gotten, considering how "nice" (white) it was in the mid 20th century. Despite the fact that there are parts of the city that are thriving and modernizing, and attracting young people to live there.
​
Source: my boomer parents live in Washington Co, and my grandma has lived in Ozaukee Co since the 50's. They are the exact epitome of all of these things.
​
Edit: this book has been on my to-read list for a while, I believe it covers some of these very concepts. Or just look up the racial history of Milwaukee to understand why they probably feel uncomfortable in Waukesha.
The challenge before us is very difficult, it is not easy to lift up a group of people that has been historically disenfranchised. But consider this, we had slavery for a longer period of time than we've had our independence. We have statistics, and we have the interpretation of statistics. Information helps us, but we need to look at the root causes of those statistics.
Why are more black Americans incarcerated? Why are more of them living in poverty? Is it biological? Or was it because of what we've done?
I highly suggest any material written Ta-Nehisi Coates to better understand and take in that broad view of how American and her citizens came to be.
> People are colorless and genderless as far as laws are concerned.
Statistically this is not true. Your color and gender have an astounding affect on the unique challenges you face. And we all face our own challenges, but that does not diminish the challenges others face. I highly suggest The Warmth of Other Suns and Crabgrass Frontier to better understand how policy and government has affected us.
Racism and bigotry is very, very alive today. We're not even seventy years out from the civil rights movement. 1960 was only 57 years ago. You can talk with people that lived with segregation, lived during periods of more lynching. We have to come to terms with this and address the harm we've done.
And yes it will be difficult, I don't have all the solutions to fix the problem, but being aware of our history helps us identify the wounds we need to treat. Listen to some James Baldwin, he says so much so well.
> This article seems to have some interesting points
I'm sorry, but it's nothing but pop history and armchair general's what-ifs IMHO.
It doesn't account for potential potent counter-attacks on the South flank of the over-stretched AGC, it assumes that the Soviets would themselves surround at Bryansk, it assumes that one of the most regular meteorological event of the Russian climate wouldn't happen, it assumes that AGC somehow has enough fuel and supplie to actually lead such a battle, it assumes that the Soviet would stand still and don't counter-attack everywhere they can, etc.
If you want an excellent book to get a good grasp on the situation of the Easter Front, I strongly commend When Titans Clashed from David Glantz – US Army historian specialized in Soviet military history – which is a cheap and incredibly good source of informations.
Seems like it's too long, so I'll split it up in two here:
General accounts:
When Titans Clashed
Russia at War
Thunder in the East
Absolute War
Hitler's War in the East
The Road to Stalingrad
The Road to Berlin
A Writer at War
THE ROLE OF THE SOVIET UNION IN THE SECOND WORLD WAR: A Re-examination
Why Stalin's Soldiers Fought: The Red Army's Military Effectiveness in World War II
If you're interested in memoirs I'd suggest:
Blood on the Shores
Over the Abyss
Sniper on the Eastern Front
GUNS AGAINST THE REICH: Memoirs of an Artillery Officer on the Eastern Front
PANZER DESTROYER: Memoirs of a Red Army Tank Commander
Through the Maelstrom: A Red Army Soldier's War on the Eastern Front, 1942-1945
Red Road From Stalingrad: Recollections Of A Soviet Infantryman
Red Star Against the Swastika: The Story of a Soviet Pilot over the Eastern Front
Penalty Strike: The Memoirs of a Red Army Penal Company Commander, 1943-45
BUT NOT FOR THE FUEHRER
Through Hell for Hitler
A Stranger to Myself: The Inhumanity of War : Russia, 1941-1944
Barbarossa:
War Without Garlands: Barbarossa 1941/42
BARBAROSSA DERAILED: THE BATTLE FOR SMOLENSK 10 JULY-10 SEPTEMBER 1941 VOLUME 1: The German Advance, The Encirclement Battle, and the First and Second Soviet Counteroffensives, 10 July-24 August 1941
Operation Barbarossa and Germany's Defeat in the East
Kiev 1941
Operation Typhoon: Hitler's March on Moscow, October 1941
THE VIAZ'MA CATASTROPHE, 1941: The Red Army's Disastrous Stand against Operation Typhoon
THE DEFENSE OF MOSCOW 1941: The Northern Flank
What Stalin Knew: The Enigma of Barbarossa
War of Annihilation: Combat and Genocide on the Eastern Front, 1941
Germany and the Second World War: Volume IV: The Attack on the Soviet Union
The Island at the Center of the World: The Epic Story of Dutch Manhattan and the Forgotten Colony That Shaped America is a fantastic read!
The beauty of NYC is that it's total chaos. That is something to dive into. People try to re/make NYC as kind of cleaned up Toronto. Doomed.
For in the middle of chaos, well that the secret of it all I guess. If you can't handle. Well I guess you can leave. No one will notice. It's a tough town. No tears will be shed. NYC is in/different to your suffering. Sorry.
But the good news, as they say (updated): "If you can make it here, you can make it anywhere, even on Mars."
Friend has an amazing rooftop view of Manhattan from Greenpoint. At night he points to the glimmering Manhattan skyline and says to us gathered there:
"We're all pirates here, we go to Manhattan and we plunder their gold and silver created from unfettered capitalism, and we bring it back to Brooklyn. That is our goal. To plunder Manhattan and bring those riches back to Greenpoint. Our true home, where the artists live and thrive. For this is what pirates do."
He is kind of a sane guy, thought that was an insightful observation of all things NYC.
OH, HIGHLY recommend this book, it's really a great read about the history of NYC, of all people, Charles Schumer pointed it out to us at a conference, and said "Read this book. It's cool." He was right. :-)
The Island at the Center of the World: The Epic Story of Dutch Manhattan and the Forgotten Colony That Shaped America (on amazon of course!)
https://www.amazon.com/dp/1400078679/ref=cm_sw_em_r_mt_dp_U_sZkACbVX4PEDT
If you liked this there's a fantastic book on the subject titled The Island at the Center of the World.
Kevin Ryan might have some answers: Demolition Access to the WTC Towers: Part Four - Cleanup by Kevin Ryan February 11, 2010 http://911review.com/articles/ryan/demolition_access_p4.html
His book "Another 19"- http://www.amazon.com/Another-Nineteen-Investigating-Legitimate-Suspects/dp/1489507833
Interview: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8-yMe2Nla5M
This is undoubtedly far more wonky than you're looking for, but it's an interesting read and speaks in interesting generalities about various parts of the US: American Nations: A History of the Eleven Rival Regional Cultures of North America.
There are definitely regional differences, but I think there are a lot of similarities as well, and you're probably not going to write the peculiarities of a place as well as someone who's lived there so agonizing over it will only bring you headache and frustration. Otherwise, I agree with someone else somewhere on this thread. Pick a town. You can wikipedia pretty much any town and find out its size, the primary thing it produces, geographic density, local flora/fauna, etc. You don't have to say you're writing that specific town. Just use it as a blueprint. You can google image it to get pictures of what the countryside looks like, and even describe interesting features about whatever town it is without embedding it too much in an actual town. Relying too much on stereotypes regarding the state or city might turn it into a caricature.
I find it hard to push for complete disarmament as long as the technology exists, but rolling back the stockpile to something less than needed to destroy a nation several hundred times over still sounds good.
I found the recent Eric Schlosser - Command and Control book pretty interesting with stories of how just managing the nuclear armaments carries plenty of risks, too.
I'm only a recently active poster, but I hope to remain so. I just moved and I'm between jobs so I started writing a novel (stave off madness from the job boards) and was looking for some strong critiques. I really like the premise of a semi-enforced give to get critical community, because it helps build the skills of everybody involved.
I was an English major, but also always an avid reader, so my favorite books have a bit of a range (representative not comprehensive):
I'm predisposed to find things I like in almost any piece, but because I can find really great gems I try to be rough on the rough spots. I'm most drawn to anything that is true to life, even in the most fantastical situations.
Simon Schama's Citizens is OK.
> After the war, the Great Migration caused thousands to leave their homes for a better life in the North and in Canada.
One of the best books I've read on the Great Migration is The Warmth of Other Suns by Isabel Wilkerson. A wonderful read, it's about three individuals who do just as you say, move to find a better life away from the oppression of Jim Crow.
edit: accidentally some words
"when titans clashed" by david glantz
examines all military campaigns in the east in great detail and even details the 10+ years of turmoil and upheaval within the soviet ranks prior to 1939 - stalin's purges, internal politics etc - which left the red army woefully underprepared for the war when it hit in 1941.
http://www.amazon.com/When-Titans-Clashed-Stopped-Studies/dp/0700608990
You'd think they would learn a thing or two about Winter Warfare after the Winter War no? They ''failed'' in the Winter war because of poor leadership (result of the purges in the Army) that sent Divisions from the Kiev military district to Finland without proper equipment.
Russians in WWII were much better prepared for winter. Just look at how the Red Army's major offensive operations in 1941-1942 were performed exclusively in Winter, when they knew they had an edge on the Germans.
> they just had unlimited supply of cannon fodder.
The manpower balance never went beyond 3:1 in Soviet favor in the entire war. Also combat losses ratio was around 1:1.3 in German favor, when you exclude the murder of POWs by the Germans.
TL;DR pick up a book on the Eastern Front and educate yourself. I'd recommend this one
If you want to learn more about 1550's - 1700's Dutch Manhattan, this book is one of the most interesting books I have ever read.
http://www.amazon.com/The-Island-Center-World-Manhattan/dp/1400078679/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1406703358&sr=8-1&keywords=island+at+the+center+of+the+world
> Paul Bremer
I think Kevin Ryan did some excellent research regarding Paul Bremer, in his book "Another Nineteen: Investigating Legitimate 9/11 Suspects"
Here's a video which I think covers that at least in part
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pogjpH20va8
Possibly because United 93 was, for whatever reason, unable to make its pre-scheduled stop at WTC7.
There are numerous reports that people in WTC7 were told to evacuate because "another plane was incoming".
If it was wired for collapse (like the other two towers may have been), it had to be destroyed. When United 93 didn't arrive, they may have risked being exposed due to the evidence of the explosives remaining in the building. (As well as all the other paperwork stored there to be destroyed). Also, if WTC7 was a staging area for coordinating some aspect of the attacks, that would be incriminating as well.
Kevin Ryan's new book details the officials (& others including JSOC & Navy explosives experts) who were in WTC7 that morning, the ones who fled, and the ones who never showed up but were supposed to be there.
Even though I know this is a loaded question and you really don't care, here are some books for you to read that will answer your question.
The Color of Law: A Forgotten History of How Our Government Segregated America.
This is one is more Baltimore specific Not in My Neighborhood: How Bigotry Shaped a Great American City .
Some more than others though. Baltimore has this horrible history of racist housing policy that segregated the city to this day.
Great book on it
American Nations by Mainer Colin Woodard might also help you make sense of cultural differences between the regions. It's a good read. Welcome to Yankeedom!
You're welcome! If you enjoyed that, you might also like this book. It's fascinating, though it's best to keep in mind that it's trying to tell an entertaining story and as such fuzzes the truth a little bit for the sake of entertainment.
> Sometimes that uses scientifically-valid concerns (anti-pipeline stuff), but more often its just crap
I wish a lot of our activists and tinfoil hat conspiracy folks would understand this. I doubt they realize they're becoming unwitting pawns of foreign powers.
China is getting better at this and there is already a lot of evidence they have tried implanting backdoors in many devices and backbone electronics they sell here in the states. The goal being to destroy our production of these devices via this kind of FUD and then provide them to us (with all their backdoors). Huawei is a government owned company largely known for their military contracts. They have been extremely cosy with lots of terrible Chinese government activities against their own, and foreign, peoples.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huawei#Controversies
Wired magazine did a huge, excellent piece on how the 'growing polarization' seen in all social media platforms in our country is being largely MANUFACTURED by foreign entities/bots posting articles/comments/etc. The goal being to destroy US confidence in the target political or economic effort. I recommend that as a great read too.
(many other articles as well on Wired as well as a great video from Smarter Everyday:)
https://www.wired.com/story/russia-election-hacking-playbook/
https://youtu.be/FY_NtO7SIrY
This also happened during the Cold War. There is a great book called 'Command and Control' that discussed this tactic and is a very highly recommended read. Russians used their intelligence gathering to discover any western nuclear accidents/failures/blunders - so they could report them to the news media and activist groups to make everyone think western military/government is incompetent. Then, you fund protest groups - ones legitimately concerned about nuclear proliferation - and get them protesting for complete bans. But only in the target countries. You suppress that in your own. Now you have a country internally fighting itself without having to lift a finger yourself. Funding protests groups cost next to nothing in an espionage budget. It's the same thing we did to de-stabilize Banana Republic countries for decades. In some ways, Dr Strangeglove was a masterpiece for Russia's goals.
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00C5R7F8G/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1
Yes, you can be right - but completely playing into the hands of your enemies. We must remember that we are all Americans - of every race, creed, religion, age, and gender. And that our strength is in our diversity all striving together towards the greatest good and dignity of every person. Not in tearing each other down. Not in fighting each other as factions. Not in disposing of arguing with ideas for moronic fist fights in the streets. Not for the destruction of liberties for 'safety'. Not in alienating and blaming anyone by age, race, or religion.
Having read about halfway through Command and Control: Nuclear Weapons, the Damascus Accident, and the Illusion of Safety, I can definitely say that it's is both an accomplishment of engineering (for the bomb itself) and a failure of engineering (for the failure modes that exist that undermine safety).
Not necessarily. The accident that led to the explosion of a Titan II at a launch facility in Damascus, AR proceeded over the course of several hours. Here's a great recent book about it. https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00C5R7F8G/ref=oh_aui_search_detailpage?ie=UTF8&psc=1
Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind by Yuval Noah Harari
Why the West Rules--for Now: The Patterns of History, and What They Reveal About the Future, by Ian Morris
Yo recomiendo el libro 'Sapiens, a brief history of human kind', que básicamente es un ligero y agradable recuento de la historia del humano a partir de los primeros rastros del homo sapiens, habla de la expansión del humano por el mundo, su etapa nómada, su revolución agrícola, evolución de; sus sistemas de gobierno, escrituras, monedas, mitos, etc. Básicamente lo que te enseñaron en primaria pero ahora sí pones atención xD, aparte más detallado.
https://www.amazon.com/Sapiens-Humankind-Yuval-Noah-Harari-ebook/dp/B00ICN066A/ref=mt_kindle?_encoding=UTF8&me=
Some of the things mentioned:
George Orwell is one of the great nonfiction authors. His work is compelling, beautiful. The first recommended is often Homage To Catalonia, which was his account of the Spanish civil war. It's not quite the story you are seeking, but his writing style is incredibly accessible, and his language and pacing certainly do read as story-like.
Well you've come to the right place, then!
For a cursory treatment of these ideas, like with many ideas, wikipedia is a good starting point.
History of capitalism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_capitalism#Origins_of_capitalism
Enclosure: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enclosure
History of modern policing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police#Early_modern_policing
Peter Kropotkin's The Conquest of Bread is kind of the go to introduction to classical anarchism. Its a good book, and it details the relationship between capitalism, the owner class, the working class, and police, as well as discussing alternatives to the our current social configuration: http://www.gutenberg.org/files/23428/23428-h/23428-h.htm
The Conquest of Bread is also available as a free audiobook: https://librivox.org/search?title=The+Conquest+of+Bread&author=Kropotkin&reader=&keywords=&genre_id=0&status=all&project_type=either&recorded_language=&sort_order=catalog_date&search_page=1&search_form=advanced
The concepts of biopower and the spectacle are developed by the writers Michel Foucault and Guy Debord respectively. Their writing can be a little dense, but these concepts and their authors have wikipedia pages which make these ideas a little more accessible:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biopower
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spectacle_%28critical_theory%29
Also, this is a reading of Debord's Society of the Spectacle laid over a collage of contemporary footage which conveys the concepts discussed. This is a sort of remake of a film Debord himself made in the '70s. Very very cool: https://vimeo.com/60328678
Terry Jones (of Monty Python fame) also happens to be an historian and has produced an excellent documentary about medieval Europe. In the first episode he discusses the lives of the peasantry which is somewhat relevant to this discussion. There are certainly aspects of medieval living that I'm not keen to revive. But there is a nugget of gold in that form of life that we've lost in our contemporary context. Anarchists want a return to that sense of autonomy and deep social bonds within communities: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YTWsUvT8nsw
An Anarchist FAQ is a very thorough, contemporary, and systematized introduction to anarchist ideas: http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/index.html
Noam Chomsky's On Anarchism is an accessible introduction to anarchism that focuses on a modern, large-scale, industrial anarchist society that existed in Spain in the 1930s, to illustrate the concepts underpinning anarchist thought. It's a bit of hokey in parts, especially in the little chapter introductions which are just quotes from Q&A sessions with Dr. Chomsky. But if you can get past that, its good: https://www.amazon.com/Anarchism-Noam-Chomsky/dp/1595589104
Chomsky also wrote Manufacturing Consent and Profit Over People, which are much less shallow than On Anarchism, and document how the state maintains a facade of legitimacy and some of the things that the contemporary state (circa 1999... its a little out of date, but not terrible in that respect) does to sophisticate the relationship between owner and worker. Chomsky is probably best known publicly for those two texts, but he has a lot of work in a lot of different fields. He's a pretty prolific intellectual with numerous contributions to political theory, linguistics, cognitive theory, philosophy, and computer science.
Richard Wolff is an economist who has taught at Yale, UMass, City College NY, and is currently teaching at New School. He does a monthly update on global capitalism where he kind of tries to give a bird's eye view of how our global economy shifts and develops from month to month. He also does weekly updates too, but I can never manage to stay up to date on those: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BdMCTlHl5RQ&t=1836s
Anthropologist David Harvey's book 17 Contradictions and the End of Capitalism details many of the ways in which capitalism appears to be constantly fighting against itself for survival, all the while heightening the conditions which cause capitalism to become precarious in the first place: https://www.amazon.com/Seventeen-Contradictions-Capitalism-David-Harvey/dp/0190230851
This is a film about where capitalism is headed, and what it will look like in 2030: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vApEgrLf7S4
Encirclement: Neoliberalism Ensnares Democracy is a documentary which discusses some of the ways that capitalism post-1968 has shifted so as to wrest more power away from communities. Its very similar to Noam Chomsky's Power Over People, and Chomsky is featured prominently alongside several other intellectuals: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uh44qlii6X4
We Are All Very Anxious is a really cool and short text by anonymous writers about how the different stages of capitalism impact the psychiatric health of the individual. Its availible as a free text, or as a short audiobook: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vP_5NlY-4mI
This is Albert Einstien's short introductory essay on socialism called Why Socialism. Its not an advocacy of Anarchism per se, and I'm skeptical about the (admitedly vague) path to socialism that he lays out. But some of the concerns he raises at the end of the essay are problems that Anarchism aims to directly address: https://monthlyreview.org/2009/05/01/why-socialism/
George Orwell (author of 1984 and Animal Farm) spent time living in and fighting for the Spanish Anarchist society that Chomsky focuses on in On Anarchism, and he documents his experiences in his memoir, Homage to Catalonia: https://www.amazon.com/Homage-Catalonia-George-Orwell/dp/0156421178
The Take, by Naomi Klein and Avi Lewis is a film that documents a growth of anarchist factories, offices, and communities following the 2001 financial collapse in Argentina. Today these communities still exist and control hundreds of workplaces: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cOCsfEYqsYs
This is a short film about the anarchist nation of Rojava (northern syria, western kurdistan) which formed in 2013 in the midsts of the Syrian civil war, and is currently the primary boots on the ground in the fight against ISIS: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1p40M1WSwNk&t=8s
Since the early-mid '90s most of Chiapas, Mexico has operated as an anarchist society in direct defiance of the Mexican government and NAFTA. In addition to providing for their own communities, Chiapas is also the 8th largest producer of coffee in the world. This is a short documentary about that society: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3HAw8vqczJw&t=2s
This is a children's film about the same people: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lDNuzFQW3uI&t=463s
Resistencia is a documentary about anarchist communities emerging in Honduras in the wake of the 2009 US-backed coup: https://vimeo.com/ondemand/resistencia
Marx' Capital is a foundational text in modern socialist thought. It lacks some of the cool ideas of the 20th century (a genealogy of morality, the spectacle, and biopower as examples) but is very thorough in providing an economic critique of capitalism. Capital is dense, massive (three volumes long), and incomplete, but David Harvey has a great series of lectures which go along with the texts: http://davidharvey.org/2008/06/marxs-capital-class-01/
This is another pretty dense one, but if you watch that lecture series and/or read Capital, Kevin Carson's Studies in Mutualist Political Economy is an interesting follow up text. Carson looks at the plethora of arguments that have developed since the publication of capital which try to recuperate economics to before Marx' critique. In it he discusses and critiques subjective value theory, marginalism, and time preference, which all ultimately argue in different ways that the the prices of goods are determined primarily by demand, rather than the cost of production, a rejection of an important conjecture in classical economics which Marx' critique incorporates. Carson's overarching critique of these responses to Marx and the Marxian approach isn't that these demand-focused understandings of value are entirely wrong or useless, but that as critiques of classical cost theory of value they kind of lose sight of what Marx and the classicals were actually saying. While demand is an important aspect of production, Smith, Ricardo, Marx, etc... are looking at the case where supply and demand have reached equilibrium. While demand may be a determining factor of price where this isn't the case, we know that competitive commodity markets tend towards a supply/demand equilibrium, so an analysis of the equilibrium case is useful for analyzing the form that markets take in the long-term. You can justify small gains through market arbitrage for example, or the way we value art and other unique works by looking at demand, but its not as useful for understanding how someone can see consistent long-term gains through investment: https://c4ss.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/MPE.pdf
In this post I provide a summary of some of the ideas that Carson discusses thats not anywhere nearly as thorough as Carson, but isn't quite as condensed as the above paragraph (If you look closely, you'll notice I recycled some of my earlier post from this one): https://www.reddit.com/r/CapitalismVSocialism/comments/53e0e8/socialists_from_ltv_to_exploitation/d7scmya/
(cont...)
Markets, Not Capitalism by various authors and essayists, collected by The Center for a Stateless Society
Homage to Catalonia by to often quoted and praised yet very much Socialist who wishes he could have joined the Anarchists: George Orwell
The Lord of the Rings by J.R.R. Tolkien. What? I fucking love The Lord of the Rings. It's probably my favorite book(s) ever. Fine, want to make it political?
-John Rogers
Read Orwell's Homage to Catalonia. It's a first-hand account of his time fighting alongside anarchist militia during the Spanish Civil War, and provides some good insight into how anarchists function during a wartime/revolutionary scenario.
Ain't No Makin' It: Aspirations and Attainment in a Low-Income Neighborhood
Naked Statistics: Stripping the Dread from the Data
Fablehaven
The Origins of Totalitarianism
Freakonomics: A Rogue Economist Explores the Hidden Side of Everything
[The Origins of Totalitarianism] (https://www.amazon.com/dp/0156701537/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_1CB6BbHQ60XPV)
>Israel and Iran were allies pre-Islamic revolution and there is even significant evidence that suggests they cooperated against Saddam post-revolution. There is no historical enmity between the Israelis and the Persians - you'll often see demonstrations where Iranian youth protest against the funding going to Hezbollah and Hamas. There are about 250,000 Persian Jews living in Israel.
For anyone interested in this relationship, I'm reading a very good book on the subject: "Treacherous Alliance: The Secret Dealings of Israel, Iran, and the United States" by Trita Parsi
I think this would come close though it is a a bit more academic and has footnotes 'n stuff
Treacherous Alliance: The Secret Dealings of Israel, Iran, and the United States
https://www.amazon.com/Treacherous-Alliance-Secret-Dealings-Israel/dp/0300143117
Normalized US-Iran relations are the nightmare scenario for both Israel and the Saudis
When Nixon decided to "Go to China" in the 1970s and recognize Communist China, the Taiwanese (who until then were official considered "China" by the US) were kicked aside.
Naturally Israel and the Saudis don't want that.
This book is all about that:
Treacherous Alliance: The Secret Dealings of Israel, Iran, and the United States
https://www.amazon.com/Treacherous-Alliance-Secret-Dealings-Israel/dp/0300143117
This has nothing to do with Sunni versus Shia though the Saudis would like it to be that way
In reality the reason why the Saudis hate Iran, is because Iran is a Republic that overthrew a US-backed absolute monarchy just like theirs
CIA Expert:
>Iran of course is the alleged sinister threat constantly trumpeted by Riyadh—and Israel—a policy designed ultimately to bring the US into a war with Iran. Here too Riyadh more fundamentally fears Iran as an evolving democratic state in an Islamic context; Iran’s elections and fairly transparent politics are all closely followed by the outside world, they matter. Basically Iran will preside over a functioning democratic state far earlier than Saudi Arabia ever will; Saudi Arabia indeed lacks any institutional foundations for such an open political order. Ihttps://lobelog.com/the-geopolitics-of-the-khashoggi-murder/
Paul Pillar explains why Israel sees Iran as a competitor http://nationalinterest.org/blog/paul-pillar/the-real-subject-netanyahus-congressional-spectacle-it-isnt-12337
Israel wants the US to go to war against Iran for it, or at least to make sure the two don't get along, because then Israel would not be as important if they do get along.
Here is an award-winning book explaining precisely that: http://www.amazon.com/Treacherous-Alliance-Secret-Dealings-Israel/dp/0300143117
So, pro-Israeli lobbyists have been active for quite a while in the US to push their agenda to start a US-Iran war, :
http://www.uscatholic.org/culture/war-and-peace/2008/06/iran-spam
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/israel-prodding-us-to-attack-iran/
just as they pushed for the US invasion of Iraq
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/israel-to-us-dont-delay-iraq-attack/
Remember, when the US decided to recognize Communist China, the non-Communist Taiwanese -- who until then were considered the legal govt of China by some -- were kicked to the curb. Many American foreign policy experts believe that in dealing with Iran, the US should "go to China" as President Nixon did by recognising and accepting Iran as a reality http://www.nationaljournal.com/magazine/if-nixon-can-go-to-china-20130303
But Israel doesn't want to be a third wheel. Iran has 80 million potential consumers of US goods and services as well as a growing well-educated middle class -- while Israel keeps getting the US into trouble and drags her down like ball and chain into a quagmire of war and ethnic cleansing. If the US and Iran get along, who needs Israel?
The Saudis are similarly concerned. They don't want to return to the days of the Shah when Iran was the "policeman of the Persian Gulf"
Also, the "Iran threat" is very useful for Israeli politicians who want to pretend to be the great defenders of Israel though in private they don't feel all that threatened. http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/livni-behind-closed-doors-iranian-nuclear-arms-pose-little-threat-to-israel-1.231859
Nuclear weapons "capability" is a bullshit scaremongering term, which they're using because they don't have any actual evidence of any actual weapons so they frame it as "capabilities".
In fact 40 nations already have a nuclear weapons capability, and this is simply because civilian and military nuclear technology is the same not because 1 out of 4 nations on the planet plan on making nukes. Beware of this "capability" weasel language. http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:8V0ezWHGCYAJ:www.seattletimes.com/html/nationworld/2002041473_nukes21.html+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
People just assume that Iran must want the bomb but that's just an assumption
http://nationalinterest.org/commentary/ten-reasons-iran-doesnt-want-the-bomb-7802
And note who these authors are who say that Iran's nuclear program is not in breach of international law http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/jun/09/iran-nuclear-power-un-threat-peace
But the US wants to keep the "Iranian nuclear threat" alive, since it is a convenient pretext to try to topple their government, just as "WMDs in Iraq" was just as a lie and a pretext to invade Iraq.
http://www.reddit.com/r/iranpolitics/comments/2xih2d/iran_offer_to_cut_centrifuges_by_a_third_led_to/cp0ed8x
Read more about Iran's nuclear program here http://www.amazon.com/Manufactured-Crisis-Untold-Story-Nuclear/dp/1935982338/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1425173705
For any of you book readin' types, The Shadow Factory is a pretty good book about the NSA since 9/11.
I read the book Shadow Factory because someone in some thread like this recommended it. It's scary.
I just finished reading Lost to the West, and it was a very fascinating and in-depth look at the broad history of the ERE as well as all the number of colorful and interesting people who sat on the throne. Although it does do some time skips, and glosses over some of the less important or less interesting emperors, I still enjoyed it none the less.
> http://www.amazon.com/Dreadnought-Robert-K-Massie/dp/0345375564/ref=la_B000AQ6XVE_1_6?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1406314026&sr=1-6[2]
>
> http://www.amazon.com/Castles-Steel-Britain-Germany-Winning/dp/0345408780[3]
Cannot recommend these books highly enough! Everyone on this sub should read them :)
Robert Massie is my favorite historian, and he has 3 amazing books on the period. Dreadnought, about the Anglo-German naval rivalry that led to WWI, Nicholas and Alexander, a biography of the last Czar and the fall of the Russian Empire, and the beautifully titled Castles of Steel, about the naval battles of WWI.
I have a Time-Life book titled Dreadnought which concentrates on the time period of 1900 thru 1919. At least a couple very large chapters are dedicated to Jutland.
http://www.amazon.com/The-Dreadnoughts-David-Howarth/dp/0809427117
Castles of Steel: Britain, Germany and the Winning of the Great War at Sea by Robert K. Massie is also right up your alley. Jutland is the centerpiece of the book.
http://www.amazon.com/Castles-Steel-Britain-Germany-Winning/dp/0345408780
I highly recommend John Keegan's The First World War - it's quite long, but very approachable to someone not familiar with the period.
EDIT: Fixed the link. That's what happens when I try to look up books on Amazon on my phone.
Et forslag kunne være John Keegans bog om krigen:
https://www.amazon.com/First-World-War-John-Keegan/dp/0375700455
Alt af John Keegan er generelt værd at læse, hans klassiker "The face of battle" har også noget om Somme slaget.
For en detaljeret generel gennemgang af krigen set fra Tyskland/østrig ungarns synspunkt er Holger Herwigs bog her fantastisk:
https://www.amazon.com/First-World-War-Austria-Hungary-1914-1918/dp/0340573481
> Perhaps you'd care to disclose the particulars of the metaphysical pincicples that cash out capitalism, and what the rational/axiomatic justification is for accepting them, then?
This is a start - http://campus.aynrand.org/more/selected-full-essays/
I know I sound like a broken record but it really helps to read and grok before seeking out discussions or debates.
Finally, the ARI offers some decent academic courses on Objectivism.,
Doubt: A History by Hecht
Decent springboard. http://www.amazon.com/Doubt-Doubters-Innovation-Jefferson-Dickinson/dp/0060097957
Second this! Of course use responsibly and in moderation. Tolerance can build up pretty quickly - even though weed is way less dangerous than alcohol, mcdonalds, much of advertising, and porn (all IMO), it's still good to be respectful of the plant and yourself, and not go overboard.
Try to expose yourself to meaningful, thought provoking things while high - don't just watch Airplane! and order a Pizza (although these are, of course, exceedingly enjoyable activities while high as well). Read a book on philosophy (Doubt: A History), physics (The Lightness of Being), or some great poetry, watch an awesome documentary (Baraka), go for a hike somewhere beautiful, take a long shower with the lights off and have some time alone with your thoughts, that kind of thing.
I'd also recommend a good nootropic stack to reduce the short term memory loss and paranoia that can come with cannabis - piracetam, bacopa, ashwaghanda, fishoii, and a COX-2 inhibitor like ibuprofin, naproxin, etc. There's a good longecity thread on this.
Also keep a notebook handy.
May I suggest you read the book "Doubt" by Jennifer Michael Hecht. It is fascinating, and covers "doubters" from Socrates to Jesus to Thomas Jefferson. It can help you a great deal.
http://www.amazon.com/Doubt-Doubters-Innovation-Jefferson-Dickinson/dp/0060097957
PS - You can get it at your local library free too.
One of the greatest parts of this book is the "quiz" she provides in the beginning - the results already give you an idea of where you are on the religious belief spectrum.
Note: The quiz gave me a result of "Non-materialistic agnostic"
Maybe Jennifer Michael Hecht.
Quite informed. I'm a Catalan :-)
Suggestions:
An interesting first person account of this would be George Orwell's (a Brit) Homage to Catalonia
I will answer part of your question.
The Spanish Civil War is a fascinating topic. If you want any reading on it, just check out some of the following books:
Homage to Catalonia by George Orwell. It is a first hand account of Orwell's experience in the war. It was quite fascinating to read about the different political views of people and the various issues which the Republican forces faced internally, as well as externally. It also gives you a first person perspective into the May Days in Barcelona.
The Battle for Spain is by Antony Beevors. I have picked it up and am currently about halfway through it. It is quite good, and it examines the various causes of the war, and the players associated with it.
This website lists other books although I have not read the others which are on that list, so I would not comment on their quality.
Also, don't be afraid to check out Picasso and Frederico Garcia Lorca. Popular artist and poet respectively, their works were heavily influence by the war.
Now, on to other wonderful things. If you still have an interest in the Spanish Civil War, after you read more on the subject, I would recommend the film Tierra y Libertad, or "Land and Freedom". It somewhat mirrors Orwells book, and it is actually a good look at the various people who took part in the war. One scene was particularly interesting, and that was the scene where a town was liberated, and the townspeople had to decide whether or not they would collectivize the farmland (basically a communist revolution, everyone works the land equally and gets the same amount) or to divide up the land and give everyone just a little bit more than what they had previously. This was a major issue during the war and actually caused a rift amongst the Republican forces, leading to (literal) internal fighting. The idea of revolution now vs. revolution later was a huge issue during the war, and this one scene (though fictional) was a good example of it. (I only recommend the film because it was a good cap to the subject. I wouldn't consider citing it as historical fact, as in I cannot say for certain these events happened, however, the scene mentioned was, in my opinion, a good example of the various sentiments which caused divides amongst the Republican Forces.)
As for the questions about WWII, please consult the Popular Questions Page.
> So we should wage war against everyone who has bad ideas?
If that bad idea involves the systematic murder of 6 million Jews, then yes, I'd say we should try and stop them, forcefully if necessary
> And how would one tell the difference between nazis and non-nazis?
You just need to know the signs to look for. If you want to learn more about them, I'd suggest reading Anatomy of Fascism or The Origins of Totalitarianism, both of which give you a good understanding of how to identify actual fascism. Also, while I'm linking to Amazon, I'd also like to recommend It Can't Happen Here, which is a novel written in the 1930s about how the rise in Fascism would look in America
Maybe if people put more thought or effort into understanding this guy's point of view.
To say that people "hate us" or "love us" is a bit simplistic
For example the same people of Iran massively support their nuclear program and resent US pressure on their country over that issue
http://www.rand.org/pubs/technical_reports/TR910.html
The same Iran cooperated with the US over the toppling of the Taliban and had even tried to turn over Al-Qaeda members to the US, but was refused by the Bush admin
http://content.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1913323,00.html
The real problem is Israel.
See, back in the 1970s when the US (under President Nixon) decided to recognize Communist China, they had to kick Taiwan to the curb (until then Taiwan was deemed to officially represent China in the US, not the communist govt in the mainland)
If Iran and the US start to get along, then Israel (and Saudi Arabia) become a third wheel. So israel has been pushing for a US-Iran war instead for a long time now and the pro-Israeli lobby has been active in the US to try to impose as many obstacles to improved relations between Iran and the US as possible
See for example this: http://www.uscatholic.org/culture/war-and-peace/2008/06/iran-spam
or This http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/world/article1985525.ece
This book is all about this issue
https://www.amazon.com/Treacherous-Alliance-Secret-Dealings-Israel/dp/0300143117
-Treacherous Alliance: The secret dealings of Israel, Iran and the United States, by Trita Parsi, Yale University Press, 2007
(Also from Parsi: https://www.ted.com/talks/trita_parsi_iran_and_israel_peace_is_possible?language=en)
-Arming Iraq : How the U.S. and Britain Secretly Built Saddam's War Machine pg. 20-34 specifically
-https://nsarchive.wordpress.com/2012/03/09/document-friday-when-iran-bombed-iraqs-nuclear-reactor/
-http://www.wrmea.org/1986-november/israeli-arms-sales-to-iran.html
Also, although not a "source," r/AskHistorians had a pretty interesting thread about it.
The podcast comprises large chunks of his book Lost to the West. While Popular History, it has gotten good reviews all around, including from academics. I recommend it.
By the way, there is another ongoing podcast, History of Byzantium, which goes over the same territory but in more detail. It is done in the same mold as the famous History of Rome podcast, and is quite good. I also recommend it.
https://www.amazon.com/Lost-West-Forgotten-Byzantine-Civilization/dp/0307407969
easy read, pretty pop-history but still a decent introduction.
I'm looking forward to reading this book: http://www.amazon.com/Lost-West-Forgotten-Byzantine-Civilization/dp/0307407969/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1334803636&sr=8-1
Also check out this article: http://blog.acton.org/archives/11693-review-how-the-byzantines-saved-europe.html
Byzantium, in brief, was the pinnacle of European civilization prior to modern times due to its location and strength. While surviving for a millennium, the empire had intimate contact with other cultures and traditions, as well as a long history of recording and transmitting ancient texts. While the Franco-latins were busy de-Christianizing the west and the Catholic Church subverting Christian doctrine and culture to their theocratic hegemony, Byzantium flourished and sustained itself as Christian Rome. Consider the following: No other region or society has had three successive stages of history. Western Europe has ancient, medieval, and modern. The rest have ancient and modern. The latter being characterized by western hegemony since the so-called "Holy Roman Empires". Food for thought!
Coincidentally, I finished reading this book last night. I'd highly recommend it as a brisk, light read that gives a great overview of the Eastern Empire.
Fascinating stuff.
I've all but stopped coming to this sub.
The idea that Christianity is a matter of opinion and personal interpretation has done immeasurable harm to those truly seeking Christ. Without guidance, "every man his own Pope" quickly becomes every man his own god, and his own holy writ.
I genuinely despair for the honest one seeking Christ that comes to this place in hopes of finding Truth. So much half-understood Scripture, so much heresy masked as "this is what I feel is true," and so much outright mental illness using the name of Jesus where someone else might use Xenu or Bigfoot.
This post will get downvoted all to hell and back, but to the true seekers, I say: don't look for Christ on an anonymous internet forum. Read the Epistle to the Romans – this new translation is amazing. Read Lost to the West, a great book on the history of the early Church in context of the Eastern Roman Empire. And find a church where you can be guided properly.
Dreadnought. It's a history of the naval build-up prior to WWI. And it's sequel Castles of Steel about the naval history of WWI coincidentally.
> The idea—to create a make-believe battle squadron that could pass itself off at sea as real—was entirely Churchill’s. On October 21, [1914] he wrote to Prince Louis, then still First Sea Lord:
>>It is necessary to construct without delay a dummy fleet; ten merchant vessels . . . mocked up to represent battleships. . . . The actual size need not correspond exactly, as it is notoriously difficult to judge the size of vessels at sea, and frequently even destroyers are mistaken for cruisers. We are bearing in mind particularly aerial and periscope observations where deception is much more easy. It is not necessary that the structures be strong enough to stand rough weather. Very little metal would be required and practically the whole work should be executed in wood and canvas. . . . Even when the enemy knows we have such a fleet . . . he will always be in doubt as to which is the real and which is the dummy fleet. . .
> [...] before the end of the month, steamships were commandeered and brought to the Harland and Wolff shipyard in Belfast. [...] Within a week, wood and canvas structures were reproducing guns, turrets, boats, tripod masts, and bridges. Because a liner rises higher out of the water than a battleship, the merchantmen were filled with thousands of tons of ballast to push the hulls lower. The shapes of bows and sterns were altered. False funnels were added and were equipped with fireplaces to burn combustible materials that would emit thick clouds of smoke. Navy anchors were made of wood or were simply painted on the bows.
> [...]
> No one was fooled. Real battleship squadrons were usually made up of generally homogeneous ships. But when the dummies came together, some were twice the size of the others. Their speeds varied greatly. Some could make 15 knots, others 10, others only 7, and, as a squadron’s speed must be that of the slowest member, 7 knots became the speed at which the dummies could steam together. A 7-knot squadron could not operate with the 20-knot Grand Fleet. “The ships,” said Jellicoe, “could not accompany the fleet to sea and it was very difficult to find a use for them in home waters.” The suggestion that they be used as bait was rejected. An encounter with the enemy would have led to massacre.
> [...] At the end of April, the dummy Queen Mary was sent to patrol off New York City as a message to the German liners interned in the harbor that, if they violated their internment and tried to break out, a British battle cruiser was waiting to gobble them up. The assault on the Dardanelles suggested another use; the dummy battle cruisers Indomitable and Tiger departed Loch Ewe on February 19. To avoid being seen, they passed through the Strait of Gibraltar at midnight, and they were forbidden to enter the harbors of Gibraltar or Malta where they could be studied close up. The dummy Invincible followed six weeks later. Churchill hoped that by sending them to the Mediterranean, where they might be seen at a distance, they might “mislead the Germans as to the margin of British strength in home waters” and tempt the enemy to come out and do battle in the North Sea. The Turks did misidentify the dummy Tiger and reported her to a German submarine. On May 30, she was hit and sunk by torpedo and four British seamen drowned. A British midshipman with the Dardanelles fleet found grim humor in the event, imagining the U-boat captain “astonished to see the surviving crew clinging to the floating wooden turrets.”
> Thereafter, the curtain came down on the theatrical. Once Churchill left the Admiralty, the dummy fleet, which had cost Britain £1 million and four lives and Germany a single torpedo, quickly disappeared.
from Massie, Castles of Steel
https://www.amazon.com/Castles-Steel-Britain-Germany-Winning/dp/0345408780/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1474414975&sr=8-1&keywords=castles+of+steel
This book was, in a word, riveting. I am not a naval history fan but I could not put it down. Covers this battle and the personalities involved in it and much more. Worth the time and money 100 times over to read it!
Rules of the Game is a must read for understanding Jutland.
The Rules of the Game: Jutland and British Naval Command https://www.amazon.com/dp/1591143365/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_i_W4MWCbDSQT8PP
Castles of Steel is a good book on the history of the war at sea.
Castles of Steel: Britain, Germany, and the Winning of the Great War at Sea https://www.amazon.com/dp/0345408780/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_i_F5MWCb3C2YZC0
The hopelessness and the inevitability leading up to it fascinate me. I find WWI (more so than any other) to be a pointless, depressing affair; it is like watching a train wreck in slow motion, with a 2 mile lead up. If you are interested in the causes, Robert Massie's book Dreadnought is a phenomenal read, and its followup Castles of Steel regarding the navel battle is equally interesting.
The First World War by John Keegan https://www.amazon.com/dp/0375700455/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_RKNLxbX912QTD
I also have this absolutely monstrous six volume set: The Great War: The Illustrated History of the First World War: 6 Volume Set https://www.amazon.com/dp/B000OTDY5A/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_YMNLxbPYYR9FQ
That one might be a little more than you're looking for though.
The First World War by John Keegan
Now this is something I'm into. We did a Western campaign with vampires, mythological creatures, magic, and all that a couple years ago. What system are you using? We used Edge of the Frontier, an Edge of the Empire reskin, for ours. Then we homebrewed the setting.
Also, have you read Issac's Storm? It is a non-fiction account of the Galveston Hurricane as framed around the U.S. Weather Bureau chief in town and his brother. It also dives into the history of the U.S. Weather Bureau and their relationship with other countries and organizations. Absolutely amazing read.
Not really Houston, but since you mentioned the 1900 hurricane, Isaac's Storm by Erik Larson is pretty damn interesting.
Thank you for the book suggestion. I read Shadow Divers years ago and it sounds like Torpedo Junction should be right up my alley.
If you want more, read this insane book.
And then this one.
One of my favorite books is Shadow Divers: The True Adventure of Two Americans Who Risked Everything to Solve One of the Last Mysteries of World War II
https://www.amazon.com/dp/0375760989/ref=cm_sw_r_awd_UuWPub08PTZA4
True story that reads like fiction about extreme deep sea divers and the mystery they found at the very edges of what is humanely possible to dive.
Funny, I often brought this to school during my AP American History and AP Psychology class as well, er, in fact, all my classes when I was 16. That and Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand: http://www.amazon.com/Objectivism-Philosophy-Ayn-Rand-Library/dp/0452011019
Hmmm, let's see.
On emotions, I can quote Peikoff in OPAR:
>Emotions play an essential role in human life, and in this role they must be felt, nourished, respected. Without such a faculty, men could not achieve happiness or even survival; they would experience no desire, no love, no fear, no motivation, no response to values. The epistemological point, however, remains unaffected: the role of emotions, though essential, is not the discovery of reality. One casts no aspersion on eating or breathing if one denies that they are means of cognition. The same applies to feeling.
>
>Objectivism is not against emotions, but emotionalism. Ayn Rand's concern is not to uphold stoicism or abet repression, but to identify a division of mental labor. There is nothing wrong with feeling that follows from an act of thought; this is the natural and proper human pattern. There is everything wrong with feeling that seeks to replace thought, by usurping its function.
Ayn Rand wrote about charity herself.
Objectivism is also not against children, either against having them or against taking care of them once you have had them.
He's an objectivist who took it one step further to anarcho-capitalism. His reasoning appears sound to me. I've never seen anyone take down his reasoning, only make personal rhetorical attacks against him. I can see how people would think he is a cult of personality because he is charismatic. Yet being a man of reason I have to judge a man on his reasoning, not on my "feelings" about him.
If anyone is interested in the logical reasoning why the initiation of the use of force against others is unethical I'd recommend this primer http://www.amazon.com/Objectivism-The-Philosophy-Rand-Library/dp/0452011019
Have you read this?
http://www.amazon.com/Objectivism-Philosophy-Rand-Library-Volume/dp/0452011019/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1348193405&sr=8-1&keywords=ayn+rand+objectivism
I have a pretty big box filled with philosophy books that I bought when Borders closed two years ago. This is part of my little collection. I'm not particularly conservative, but I was a little interested. Do you read any other philosophers?
Probably about as in-depth as you'd need for assassins creed. Also the further reading at the bottom.
But I'm going to go ahead and recommend Citizens: A Chronicle of the French Revolution by Simon Schama. His works are very accessible for people who want a good, non-fiction narrative history that also isn't incredibly academic.
The Making of the Atomic Bomb. A wonderful, Pulitzer Prize winning mix of history and science that reads almost like a thriller. One of the most gripping and educational works of narrative history I've ever read.
Citizens - Simon Schama's glorious revisionist history of the early stages of the French Revolution.
The Civil War - A Narrative - Shelby Foote's magesterial trilogy on the American Civil War, made justifiably famous by Ken Burn's PBS documentary series. Perhaps the best history of the war, but certainly the most beautifully written.
Citizens is a really good account and a really good read. It's not a novel but I still highly recommend it
This one's really good, though not sure if there's an audiobook.
Christianity: I've heard that Christianity by Diarmaid MacCulloch is fantastic. I haven't read it. It's called "Christianity", not "Catholicism", but it might work for you given that Catholicism pretty much was Christianity until (relatively) recently.
French Revolution: Citizens by Simon Schama.
Can't help you with Zoroastrianism.
Schama's Citizens is a fascinating, readable book on the revolution.
Here's a review: >
>
> This well-written, thoroughly documented book should be on every high-school library shelf. It explains the self-destructive, bloody orgy that occurred in France but not in England or Prussia, countries in similar states of poverty and with similarly deprived, disenfranchised populaces. Schama theorizes that the cause of France's revolution lies in the self-deception of the ruling intelligentsia, who believed that they could make a Utopian France by allowing controlled violence, murder, and the destruction of property in the name of liberty, and all to exist simultaneously with good government. Schama presents Talleyrand, Lafayette, and others with more understanding than they are given in most histories, setting them amidst a web of violence of their own making. This book speaks to today's world, as nations strive to move from despotism to democracy. A more modern view of these same problems is found in Z. Brzezinski's The Grand Failure (Scribners , 1989) .
>-Barbara Batty, Port Arthur I.S.D., TX
Even if the ratio was 1:2, that's still a far cry away from the soviets using human waves
This essay does a good job evaluating german and soviet causalities: http://sti.clemson.edu/publications-mainmenu-38/publications-library/cat_view/33-strom-thurmond-institute/153-sti-publications-by-subject-area/158-history
Skip to page 13-14 to dig right into casualty comparison.
For further reading this book is high quality and on the shorter side:
https://www.amazon.com/When-Titans-Clashed-Stopped-Studies/dp/0700608990
My understanding is that there is consensus on the USSR's motives for invading Poland, which was to by time for the inevitable war with Germany.
I've been reading this recently, and the author sure interprets the things that way.
https://www.amazon.com/When-Titans-Clashed-Stopped-Studies/dp/0700608990
The T-34, and especially in terms of its sloped armour, was some of the most advanced in the world at that time. Initially in 1941 the Pz IV was armed with a low velocity 75mm gun. This was entirely inadequate against both the T-34 and the KV-1. Later, the F and G series would reach parity with the T-34, being armed with a High V 75mm. But by the time the G series came out, 1943, the Panther outclassed the Pz IV, and tank like the IS-2 and T-34-85 also outclassed the Pz IV.
As for the Russian deficiencies, they largely came from the Great Officer Purge of 1937. The Soviets and the Germans pioneered mobile warfare during the joint research Treaty of Rapallo. Yet by 1937, while Heinz Guderian was writing his book, basically outlining German wartime doctrine, the Soviets were busy arresting and executing all of its top leadership. This was especially true of the officers who championed armor theory similar to the Germans (who were also veterans of Rapallo). And, in classic Stalinist Purge fashion, these experienced officers were replaced by rookies who lacked experience commanding large formations, let alone any experience commanding in actual combat conditions. Further, these new officers had military regulations drummed into them. Officers were "encouraged" to follow only the textbook maneuvers and dispositions (and when you get your job because the last guy was executed, it makes a person far less likely to argue). When it came to the war, the Soviets were indoctrinated in how they should fight. This led to many mistakes which would have to be corrected during 1942 an '43. The real flaw of the Red Army in 1941 and early 1942 wasnt that they lacked technology or the tactics to use it. Its that they wernt able to properly employ it, except in rigid and obvious attacks which the Germans could easily identify, or simply ignore. By 1943, the Red Army resurrected theory developed at Rapallo and created an army very much the equal of the German army. Further, the Soviets perfected the maskirovka or deception. Not only could the Soviets create breakthroughs just as well as the Germans, they were able to deceive the German army as to where the attack would fall. This would draw off reserves from the initial breakthrough, which would only allow the exploitation phase to start earlier and last longer. In fact, by Operation Bagration, the Soviets were only really limited by their logistical train in how deep they could penetrate the German line.
If youre interested in a good book on the Eastern Front, David Glantz's When Titans Clashed. Glantz is an expert on the Eastern front, and he goes through the Eastern Front from the Russian perspective. He discusses their failings and their origins, then later how the Red Army overcame those flaws and created an army which, by 1944, resembled the German army of 1940.
The Island at the Center of the World
By Russell Shorto
Book
Author
basically new york
Island at the Center of the World by Russell Shorto. A great history of the Dutch establishment within Manhattan.
http://www.amazon.com/The-Island-Center-World-Manhattan/dp/1400078679
The War That Made America for an excellent overview of the French & Indian War. While often talked about in school, it's often just a prelude to the Revolution. While it was that, there is so much more to the struggle, and it's results changed and defined much of what came after.
The Island at the Center of the World the origins of New York, and the struggles of the Dutch Colony.
Here you go: http://www.amazon.com/The-Island-Center-World-Manhattan/dp/1400078679
It's a fun read, although occasionally a bit too speculative.
Edit: Oh, and Delirious New York: A Retroactive Manifesto for Manhattan is really speculative, but also brilliant and fantastic. One of my favorite books of all time.
http://www.amazon.com/Another-Nineteen-Investigating-Legitimate-Suspects/dp/1489507833
^^^^
I haven't read it personally but this book might cover it:
http://amzn.com/1489507833
Indiana (where my folks are from) was the klan capital for several years. It’s still pretty backwards there. When my dad thought about retiring there, my mom said she would have to call a divorce attorney if he did. :) They’re both really, really liberal and I don’t think it would have been a good idea.
I used to live just north of Boston (in a town known for its own long past problems, Salem) and I gotta say I heard the n word in Boston almost as much as I heard it when I lived in Tennessee.
It’s fucking everywhere.
I live in Baltimore now. We’ve got the Black Butterfly/White L issue because of years of decades of racist policies. Not in My Neighborhood: How Bigotry Shaped a Great American City is a great book all about it!
> I disagree because, much like the "Left vs Right" rhetoric, I think that labeling things as "racist" and blaming issues on "racism" is just too shallow of a discussion. Every issue that a country faces is almost never caused by a single factor. There are decades, if not centuries, worth of ongoing circumstances that lead to the present state of affairs.
Well, I'd say at least the problems we are seeing now have started with a racist foundation that was built upon rapidly without equal hastily accountability, and in the case of Baltimore, it's the White flight of the early 20th century in response to affluent Blacks moving into places like Bolton Hill that were the catalyst. This then spread to actions and polices implemented by municipal officials, realtors and housing developers like someone above mentioned such as Redlining. Add in Blockbusting where realtors used White Flight to sell the same property that was sold for pennies on the dollar for more than their actual value to Blacks. The exemption of Blacks from the G.I. bill after World War II that basically propelled many white families(which worked in tandem with Blockbusting as the rowhomes were abandoned for a suburban lifestyle) and was itself a key factor for laying the foundation for the American middle class. There's a few others like the creation of the interstate highway system(bottom of page 14) that also helped segregate these communites further.
So, to answer your question,
> Is racism a part of it?
Yes, in fact it's overwhelmingly the case here.
Annnnnd if you're interested in some light, well-sourced reading, I think you should check out a book that was recommended to me in this very sub called "Not My Neighborhood" Which focuses primarily on how Baltimore's segregated communities came to be.
This is a huge question, if I were you, I would do a combination of reading the book "American Nations"
And to get a better political understanding(which does in general inform culture quite a bit), read this report https://hiddentribes.us/
It's well regarded, long, but very very good. I think the report is fascinating.
By no means. A guy literally wrote a book about it
> Name me two countries on Earth that have cultures more similar than the US and Canada
Uh... Russia and Ukraine/Belarus? Austria and Germany? Australia and New Zealand? Rwanda and Burundi? You could even make a case that Canada is more similar culturally to the UK than to the US.
There's literally a book written on the subject of American regional culture
I mean, hell, using the phrase "northern states" to refer to places as culturally different as Ohio and Montana and New York and Vermont is hilarious. Let alone that you're claiming that Canada has a lot in common with the parts of the US that are not the south where a majority of black Americans live.
> People in the North and South also have vastly different experiences with Spavery, reconstruction, and segregation. Are you going to argue that only one of those groups can understand black culture?
Yeah, I think it's pretty well-accepted among Americans that people from different areas of the US have a different and incomplete understanding of American culture. But hear comes Johnny Canada to tell us about how listening to Eminem makes him understand American culture.
First off, welcome! I have a book to recommend for you OP, American Nations, it provides some great perspective and history about the cultures in the US.
The book mentions something really interesting--the US isn't becoming more homogenous, it's instead becoming more divided as people move to areas with cultures they identify with. We're 'self-sorting'.
Anyway, I'm with a lot of others here. The government doesn't really represent anyone but the wealthy and powerful. From what I understand, BC is underrepresented in it's government.
The US government is not only violating our rights (NSA etc) but is either unwilling or unable to deal with environmental and social problems. We're looking at a future with increased automation (where are the jobs going to come from), climate change disasters, sustainability problems, oil reliance, etc. As I see it the government is paralyzed because of how the current system works. The country is too big, too divided, and too reliant on lobbyists. I don't think change has much of a chance that way.
Also, the Cascadia movement isn't just about independence. A lot of folks don't care about independence. The Cascadia movement is also about recognizing our shared culture and working together in this region. I'm a huge fan of this idea--we have to work together to deal with climate change and to deal with future natural disasters.
Edit: I want to add, I think it's easier to take risks and try new things when you're smaller and more localized. As a California transplant, I feel like the culture up here is more accepting of trying out new ideas.
For some extra nightmare fuel, give "Command and Control" by Eric Schlosser a go. It tells the story of accidents and "almost-escalations" with the US nuclear arsenal.
It's based on the premise that for nuclear deterrence/mutually assured destruction to work, the systems controlling the nukes and the devices themselves have to have a 100% reliability rate. Always work when they should (deterrence), never work when they shouldn't (accidental first strike as a "retaliation").
The accidents, mishaps and aborted apocalypses described in the book are nothing short of terrifying.
So yeah, it really would be a smart decision to get rid of those things - even though I doubt it'll ever happen. Let's hope they won't be our Great Filter after all.
I do read a few history books a year. Currently reading Command and Control.
Gaming wise I'm a Civilization guy. Those Paradox games intimidate me, though I've fallen into a few Let's Play/write-up rabbit holes of people's games over the years.
Natural laws are not imposed on man like the prescriptive laws imposed by a government. I am capable of disobeying state-imposed laws, and the justice system is in place to take care of people who do, but I am unable to disobey the law of gravity. It is simply a fact of nature that gravity works as it does, not a prescriptive law imposed on man by an institution. The same goes for other natural laws.
Besides that, an institution is something instituted by people. In Sapiens, Noah Yuval Harari talks about how we create fictions that help shape how society works. One example is money. Money works because we all agree that it does, not because of any property inherent in the stuff we use for money. This would be an example of an institution. Likewise, the family is an institution among humans because of agreement among humans that it is one. Cats also mate and have children, but for them, there is no institution of the family, because they are unable to consider it as such and agree on making it one.
The power nature has over us is not due to how we think about nature, and we don't have the option of violating natural laws. Nature is a concrete reality we are subject to, not an institution.
Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind
Is a nice one , I suppose it's good for reading at work if you have kindle (The physical book can be a little uncomfortable because of its size)
​
And there's also an audio-book if you're interested in that
Sapiens History of Humankind
Currently reading that. It's really interesting to learn about all other other ape species and how Homo Sapiens interacted with them.
My two favorites of the year:
I would like this ebook.
Thank you.
Earlier this week I just finished up Schama's Citizens: A Chronicle of the French Revolution & McLynn's Napoleon: A Biography, both of which I highly recommend if you're at all interested in the French Revolution.
Citizens by Schama. http://www.amazon.com/Citizens-Chronicle-Revolution-Simon-Schama/dp/0679726101/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1408839675&sr=8-2&keywords=citizens
900 pages long.
Yeah, we'd all be so much better off with an angry mob "in charge." Read Citizens. Seriously, if you're going to run around advocating mob rule, at least first read a scholarly work that describes the results of such rule. I suspect you might change your mind.
https://www.amazon.com/Religion-Magic-Ancient-Egypt-Rosalie/dp/0140262520 This book i found to be very interesting when talking about old egyptian history. It gives a look into early society and how they went from scattered communities to a kingdom, but it focuses on the religious aspect.
I would think a book on Napolean would be a good start, and also a book on the French Revolution.
https://www.amazon.com/Napoleon-Life-Andrew-Roberts/dp/0143127853
https://www.amazon.com/Citizens-Chronicle-Revolution-Simon-Schama/dp/0679726101/ref=pd_sbs_14_t_0?_encoding=UTF8&psc=1&refRID=TS49J5H345TC8T3XXSS5
Citizens by Simon Schama well written and a compelling read, though with a somewhat anti-Jacobin slant
a good but less thorough book is Paris in the Terror by Stanley Loomis
Citizens by Simon Schama gives you an in depth view of the entire revolution. Best read after you've mastered the basics of chronology and character though, it's too detailed to be a good intro.
Black people are concentrated in urban areas in the US as a direct consequence of discriminatory mortgage lending and realty practices in the mid 20th century that forced them into de-facto segregated neighborhoods.
Now, granted. Dems have taken advantage of that concentration to use these folks as a power base constituency. But those neighborhood circumstances were not created for political advantage. They were created to marginalize black people as much as possible during the period now known as the Great Migration when so many were fleeing the Jim Crow south.
Sources:
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2014/06/the-case-for-reparations/361631/
The Warmth of Other Suns: The Epic Story of America's Great Migration https://www.amazon.com/dp/0679763880/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_i_vlJkDbTN6HPGS
The Warmth of Other Suns is about the migration Northeast and to the Midwest to escape the Jim Crow laws of the South.
And early on, NYC absolutely had slaves, freed slaves and indentured servants. Look up the NYC Slave Revolt of 1741.
I'd recommend these books to anyone in this conversation:
Neither the north nor the south did anything for some time. The Warmth of Other Suns is an AMAZING book about southern blacks moving north and west during the first half of the 20th century, and just generally depicts how terrible it was for them even decades after emancipation.
> hundred year old talking points
Official redlining didn't start until 1934. Other forms of discrimination and segregation existed during that same time period. For example, the realtors association of Grosse Pointe had an informal racial point system until the 1960s. This is hardly a hundred-year-old issue. Elderly people alive today spent a good portion of their lives living under these conditions. There are plenty of excellent, thoroughly-sourced books on the subject. Enjoy!
1 2 3 4
p.s. Wealth may not last for three generations, but that doesn't necessarily mean that poverty (and its effect) also does not last for three generations. It's much easier to lose wealth than it is to gain it in the first place.
Read this book, it's written by a German soldier from his eastern front experiences.
What exactly do you mean by Nazi anyway, do you mean a solider specifically in the Waffen SS (the military wing of the Nazi party) or more broadly a German solider?
Not all Germans were Nazis, and not all Nazis were German. There were many in the German army that were no friends of the Nazis, indeed there were many times they planned attempts on Hitler's life.
If you want to learn more about WW2, then I would also suggest this written from the Soviet perspective. It's concerned mostly with overall strategy, so most people might find it boring, but I find it incredibly interesting. If you don't understand the eastern front in ww2 then you don't understand the history of the war, imho.
> 36,183 IL-2s were produced between 1941 - 1945.
IL-2s were known for being dependable after working out teething problems during first trials. Very widely known of taking awful amounts of damage and still being able to fly home. Pilots loved them mostly because of this fact. It was dubbed the "Flying Tank" due to the amount of damage it could handle and still be flyable. I'd say that is some great quality. Just because an aircraft is produced in huge numbers, does not make it shit.
>Should I also check casualty numbers of WW2 alone to prove that Russia tends to take the brute force approach?
Being that Russia was on the offensive for nearly 4 years of the war, I'd say that's quite an easy thing to grasp. A defensive military will almost always take less casualties than a military on the offensive. This is a commonly accepted fact that has been known since the dawn of warfare.
>That's the thing with having lots of resources and a chain of command focused only on wining.
What else are you supposed to concentrate on during a war? Kill ratios? Propaganda? I'd say winning is by far the most important aspect of a war. Wouldn't you agree?
>They can just keep throwing bodies at a problem until it goes away.
No. They did no such thing. I recommend reading this book and this book especially because it addresses the Goebbels propaganda of "Soviet human wave" bullshit. You realize that's where this thought comes from correct? Nazi propaganda. It was meant to make Soviets look like barbaric animals....and it apparently still holds salt in some minds today. Your's for example.
>Look at the battle of Stalingrad. 1,129,619 casualties, 4,431 lost tanks, and 2,769 lost aircraft.
First off, your numbers are ridiculously way off. Approximately 4400 tanks? The Soviets lost around 1500 tanks total. Your number is probably including half tracks, SPGs, and things of that nature which makes it look like something it is clearly not. When adding up Axis vehicles total, it nearly triples the losses if I simply pass them all off as "tanks".
"Look at the Battle of Stalingrad. ~900,000 casualties, ~1,000 aircraft, ~700 tanks (actual tanks, not armor in general) and 5,500 artillery pieces for the Axis." I'm unsure of the point you are trying to make. It was the absolute biggest loss of human life in the history of warfare and there were huge losses on both sides.
>This is also the same military force that had a secondary line of soldiers behind the front lines that was ordered to shoot any deserters running from the battle.
Enemy at the Gates is not a documentary. The NKVD attachments were there to corral deserters or broken down men who could not take the front anymore. Most were put into hospitals. A minuscule amount were executed. Let me make this a point, every one of the belligerents in WW2 executed deserters.
Back to the NKVD:
>The order also directed that each Army must create "blocking detachments" (barrier troops (заградотряд, заградительный отряд)) which would capture or shoot "cowards" and fleeing panicked troops at the rear. Both measures were cited in the preamble of the order as having been successfully used by the Germans during their winter retreat. The requirement for Armies to maintain companies of barrier troops was withdrawn after just three months, on October 29, 1942. Intended to galvanize the morale of the hard-pressed Soviet Army and emphasize patriotism, it had a generally detrimental effect and was not consistently implemented by commanders who viewed diverting troops to create barrier units as a waste of manpower, so by October 1942 the idea of regular blocking units was quietly dropped.[3] By 20 November 1944 the blocking units were officially disbanded.
So after 3 whole months the blocking detachments were not a thing anymore. And most commanders did not execute anyone retreating. A lot were simply put back at the front. To think this happened throughout the war is naive at best.
So much of what you said is just ignorance. Hopefully not willfully. I'd highly recommend the two books I mentioned. It shows the way the Soviets truly operated and quite frankly, it's damn impressive.
Edit for quotes
Most of my information is from sporadic readings of Wikipedia over the years and following /r/AskHistorians and /r/badhistory. I can recommend the Soviet Storm documentary series, which should be on YouTube. It gives an almost neutral overview of the Eastern Front, although it kinda glosses over Soviet war crimes.
I've also heard good things about When Titans Clashed, but I haven't read it myself.
Thanks for the video with barebones information and kids animation. Here are some academic sources that you can cross-reference it with.
https://www.questia.com/library/journal/1P3-26324710/the-rommel-myth
https://www.amazon.com/When-Titans-Clashed-Stopped-Studies/dp/0700608990
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sbim2kGwhpc
Eigentlich war der Krieg an der Ostfront schon von Anfang an verloren. Wen das Thema interessiert:
When Titans Clashed: How the Red Army Stopped Hitler
It depends on what you want to go into.
For a general history of colonization I can't recommend Alan Taylor's "American Colonies" enough. It's a good overview of European colonization in North America.
If you're mostly into Slavery (that sounds weird), Slave Ship. I definitely have some issues with things he says, but it's still a good beginning.
The Island of the Center of the World talks about the Dutch in North America.
If you want more about Slavery in what would become the U.S. you could get American Slavery American Freedom.
That's all I can think of off the top of my head. I'll edit more in later. But yeah, I'd start with Taylor's book first.
Island at the Center of the World.
https://www.amazon.com/Island-Center-World-Manhattan-Forgotten/dp/1400078679
>I was talking about "The New Pearl Harbor", are they part of the same conspiracy?
"The New Pearl Harbor" was written by PNAC. They are the origin of the phrase.
>I'm going to try to find everyone involed in the set up of 9-11 and research them and see what role each person played, same thing with organisations, and government administrations, etc.
You're biting off more than you can chew. There are dozens of books about this. Your paper would be thousands of pages long.
This book names 19 people "involved in the set-up of 9/11".
If you don't read that book, here are 5 hours of interviews with the author which discuss the 19 suspected individuals:
http://www.kpfa.org/archive/show/34/2013/08
http://www.kpfa.org/archive/id/95210
You should skip the first hour -- start with any other hour -- then end with the first hour, which is background information.
If you don't buy the book, the author has many articles on the Internet and his website that contain chapters from the book.
If I were you, I'd skip trying to explain the entirety of 9/11 for your project and work on a much smaller project, such as "Who were PNAC and what did they want". PNAC contains many of the probable 9/11 conspirators who were later in the Bush Administration and government. Looking to explain "everyone in 9/11" will take you years.
Orangutan: ^^original ^^reddit ^^link
Hopefully you are thinking about getting this book: http://www.amazon.com/Another-Nineteen-Investigating-Legitimate-Suspects/dp/1489507833/
>I agree conspiracies are real but that does not mean everything is a conspiracy.
Nobody made that claim. But 9/11 very clearly is.
>You look at years worth of investigations by experts that present perfectly plausible explications for the events and just dismiss it because "they're in on it".
That sentence doesn't even make sense. YOU were the one uttering the line "they were in on it". It's ridiculous to assume that anyone would reject what they say for merely making the assumption that they were part of the conspiracy. We reject what they say because it is bunk science that is not supported by the evidence they themselves provide. Let alone the evidence they tried to ignore, cover up, and ship off to China.
This is what real experts have concluded, not a handful of bought off crooks who lie through their teeth.
So no, they do not present perfectly plausible explanations for the events, their explanations are completely preposterous in fact, in the case of WTC7, the explanation breaks the laws of physics.
>The federal government planned and executed the most complex conspiracy ever
This just goes to show how little you really know and how much of what you believe is the result of silly things you hear on the internet. Of course "the federal government" didn't orchestrate 9/11.
Here's a book that might interest you. https://www.amazon.com/Another-Nineteen-Investigating-Legitimate-Suspects/dp/1489507833
> in 17 years not one shred of hard evidence has been shown
Coming from someone who claims the official story has a perfectly plausible explanation this is meaningless. I think that you, just like most people who defend the official story, do so because you like the story, it makes sense to you. And the evidence is really irrelevant. If evidence was important to you, then why on earth would you be defending something for which there is no evidence? They can hardly prove any of the hijackers were on board the planes, and at least 7 of them turned up alive after the facts.
"We have no hard evidence linking Bin Laden to 9/11" - FBI
Bin Laden denied responsibility on three separate occasions, and his confession tape was found to be deliberately mistranslated in exactly those spots that were supposed to incriminate him, according to an investigation by German national TV "Das Erste".
Entire books have been written about the issues, have you bothered reading any of them?
>19 guys with box cutters hijacked 4 planes and crashed them into buildings
Of course, if all you did for the past 17 years is mock alternative stories without bothering to look what it actually is that you defend, then yea sure, I'm sure that terrorist story is really comfortable. But that's nothing but an argument from ignorance. There are so many impossibilities you need to believe before the official story is able to stand that anyone who defends it obviously has not taken the time to look into what it entails.
Daniel Hopsicker says "These guys, their bench doesn't go very deep."
Each of the 9/11 commissioners are tied to major conspiracies from recent U.S. history.
Example:
Richard Ben-Veniste was Barry Seal's lawyer. This arrangement was set-up by George H.W. Bush. Ben-Veniste arranged to have Barry Seal transferred to a halfway-house, where Seal was then assassinated.
Seal, the famous CIA cocaine trafficker, was trained as a pilot by David Ferrie (played by Joe Pesci in Oliver Stone's JFK) and was friends with Oswald through Ferrie.
After Ben-Veniste got Seal killed, Poppy Bush's son made him a "statesman" who deserved to be on the 9/11 Commission.
http://spitfirelist.com/for-the-record/ftr-503-the-death-of-barry-seal/
Both David Ray Griffin & Kevin Ryan dismantle Zelikow as well.
If you haven't read Kevin Ryan's Another Nineteen or heard the 5-hours of interviews, many of the 9/11 suspects were on "terrorism commissions" that "predicted 9/11" years before, including Michael Canavan.
Many of the terrorism commissions studied things like hijackings and the effects of terrorism on mass psychology, and all of the people involved wound up in some way connected to 9/11, in key positions on the day of 9/11 or on the 9/11 Commission.
It's a small world, after all.
Not a message board, but a blog by scientist/engineer Kevin Ryan who also wrote the thoroughly investigated book "Another 19" called Digwithin
well without getting too in depth I'd like to first say you should look into and read up on the issue because I will undoubtedly get something wrong here. It's overwhelmingly complicated and I'm not an expert. If you want a quick easy intro you could start with netflix's 13TH. Many of the authors you should be reading if you're interested in the theory of structural racism are quoted or interviewed in that documentary.
 
The New Jim Crow - Michelle Alexander
Not in my Neighborhood - Antero Pietila (caveat: I read about redlining quite a few years ago now, from someone interviewed in 13th. forget who. would cite them instead but in a rush RN. I think I read a snippet of this book at one point but tbh it's been a long time since I went to school)
 
are both probably good places to start. I have a collection of academic journals and sources from undergrad I might be able to find at home too (although my life is busy this holiday season so no promises). the basic idea is that after the civil rights movement many things aligned to marginalize minorities in place of the more openly racist system of segregation. After WWII vets were given houses, but black vets were encouraged to move into new houses in black neighborhood, which were "redlined" - essentially the houses in black neighborhoods were deemed less valuable and if you lived in these neighborhoods it became progressively harder to get good loans and build your financial assets. so white vets sent their kids to free using the assets their GI bill houses gave their family, while black vets watched their neighborhoods slowly fall into poverty and marginalization.
 
Meanwhile a rhetoric of "criminality" was cultivated in politics - Nixon ran on an anti-crime platform and his adimistration allegedly used drugs and crime to split up hippies and black, keeping them from unifying politically. Reagan grew these policies and next thing you know The New Jim Crow emerged - sorry for wiki but incarceration skyrocketed and disproportionately hit minorities and the lower classes. Check the sources at the bottom of the wiki it's a much more complex issue than one sentence and I don't have time to cite you a million sources. Although democrats don't like to talk about it, Bill Clinton actually resided over a very large part of this trend of mass incarceration and even enacted some of the harshest laws - like three strikes and you're out and mandatory minimums. It's possible this hard stance on crime helped win back the presidency for the Democrats - by then crime had become such an integral part of campaigning that the only way to beat the republicans was to join them.
 
during this time you can actually also find some strong examples of more direct violence against major outspoken black voices - there was the time philadelphia bombed itself - here's an op-ed on that one too and there was the assasination of Fred Hampton while he was asleep next to his wife
 
complicating matters is the privatization of prisons. With so many people in prison states were slow and overcrowding became an issue so profits started to be had in the private prison sector. it didn't take long for other industries to join the party -Lots of big names in American consumerism use or used labor in prison camps to cut labor costs and stay local. Which just makes it more profitable to be tough on crime and run prisons.
 
tl;dr: it pays to have cheap labor and infrastructure/governement can be used to maintain the status quo with a new spin
http://www.amazon.com/Not-My-Neighborhood-Bigotry-American/dp/1566638437 I have a bit of a different take on it that Pietila has.
Not in My Neighborhood is a great place to start.
And though some ethnogeographers posit the existence of specific nations within the USA, Canada, and Mexico (Colin Woodard identified eleven he associated with the US, Canada, and to a lesser extent Mexico) none of the federal and few of the internal borders actually correspond with any of those nations.
> Trumps level of popular support is not surprising at all
Some of the reasons why Trump supporters are angry are understandable. The fact that they believe anything he says, think he gives a shit about them, or will in any way make their lives better is asinine.
> The idea being that whether the founding fathers were libertarian in their ideals is actually quite debatable
You could make the argument that some founding fathers (using the broadest possible definition of that term) may have held some points of view that square with modern libertarian thought. Hell, I share some views with libertarians as well, with respect to personal and civil liberties, for example.
But it's a ridiculous leap to declare that they were united in their belief in libertarianism and a weak central government, or that the country was founded on those principles.
When people speak of the founding fathers they're generally referring to the authors of the Constitution (mainly Madison and Jefferson), and other highly influential characters that included George Washington, Ben Franklin, John Adams, and Thomas Payne. It's amusing to hear conservatives using these historical figures to support their positions considering they all held many political views that were in stark contrast to those held by today's Republicans or Libertarians.
There were many other signatories to the Constitution, some of which you might find more ideologically compatible with your beliefs, but those folks were on the margins and cannot claim the title of architects of the Constitution or intellectual founders of the nation.
The quotes I cited, not to mention the extensive historical literature available on the topic, make it clear that the country was founded by people with widely varying and often bitterly conflicting points of view and ideologies, and were united only by their determination to gain independence from England.
Suggested reading:
American Nations: A History of the Eleven Rival Regional Cultures of North America
https://www.amazon.com/American-Nations-History-Regional-Cultures-ebook/dp/B0052RDIZA/ref=tmm_kin_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=&sr=#nav-subnav
I found American Nations by Colin Woodward to make a lot of sense with respect to Canadian and American cultural overlaps.
Potential borders:
The Emerging Megaregions
American Nations
Command and Control by Eric Schlosser. He wrote Fast Food Nation which I really enjoyed. The book is about the near-misses and accidents with nuclear weapons during the Cold War. There are a lot of dangers I didn't really think about before, like the use of corrosive rocket fuel and rocket fuel leaks. It's a really interesting and informative read.
I've read quite a few WWII books (Bands of Brothers, If You Survive, that tank book by Zaloga), but the one that stuck out to me the most was Command and Control. It's a book that's loosely about the Damascus incident, but also talks a lot about the "safety" features on America's nuclear arsenal during the cold war, and to a slight extent, today. That book taught me that human incompetence has no upper limit, and the ability to predict what could go wrong is incredibly difficult. You guys have no idea how close we came to accidentally bombing ourselves with a hydrogen bomb and/or accidentally going full nuclear against Russia by accident.
It even got turned into a documentary on Netflix going by the same name. It's pretty short, so I'd highly recommend watching it.
The problem with elaborate risk analyses of rare events is that it is very hard to assign probabilities to events that have not (yet) happened. There are many opportunities for motivated reasoning.
Two recent books that look at how things actually went wrong DESPITE elaborate risk modeling are:
Fukushima: The Story of a Nuclear Disaster
Command and Control: Nuclear Weapons, the Damascus Accident, and the Illusion of Safety
The 1% statistic DOES ignore a lot of details, but it IS based on actual events that cannot be explained away as being "to unlikely to even consider".
You should read Sapiens.
I think the book Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind might be an enlightening read for you. Particularly the first half has great information about the emergence of religion and how certain religions came to be dominant in the world we know today.
It’s not a mistake. A good read of which one chapter talks about the purpose of corporations and limited liability and the social good it creates: Sapiens
(Obviously within limitations; eg corporate vale should be breached under fraud and certain circumstances)
This would be my recommendation: Doubt: A History: The Great Doubters and Their Legacy of Innovation from Socrates and Jesus to Thomas Jefferson and Emily Dickinson
So, that's from this book? http://www.amazon.com/Doubt-Doubters-Innovation-Jefferson-Dickinson/dp/0060097957
Did you just read it?
Doubt doesn't have to be a faith-killer. Doubt is actually a pretty common theme among religious texts, amd can serve as a strengthener. Don't be afraid of inquiry and heavy thinking about this stuff. If you're interested in the subject itself.
I think you'd like reading Doubt: A History, by Jennifer Michael Hecht. It belongs on every bookshelf in every home.
I agree with the above. Dawkins has an agenda which can sidetrack the important scholastic work that is available. One of Dawkins' references is an important compilation of all that you may need. It is called "Doubt" - not the movie or play but a real study of the notion of doubt and the way it is suppressed by religion's "belief."
Doubt: A History: The Great Doubters and Their Legacy of Innovation from Socrates and Jesus to Thomas Jefferson and Emily Dickinson by Jennifer Michael Hecht (Paperback - Sep 7, 2004) The Amazon link
I posted a link to this book earlier today, but I'll recommend it here, too:Doubt: A history
It's a great intellectual history and if one of your concerns as you move away from the familiarity of faith is that you are alone, this book should assuage that. It's a truly vibrant and storied intellectual tradition. (And this is an inspiring book)
Hey, anarchy worked pretty well the last time
https://www.amazon.com/Homage-Catalonia-George-Orwell/dp/0156421178
http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/5470.1984
I'm surprised that in 5 years of study you never came across any of this stuff. Or maybe you weren't quite clever enough to understand it? Have you even read the Eco article I've already linked twice yet? Oh dear, I wasn't aware you had special needs; I'll give you a few months to catch up.
Анархо-синдикалізм ніколи не був метою непорушного союзу. Комунізм був, гегемонія пролетаріату була. Анархо-синдикалізм ні.
Більше того совєтські комуністи об'єднались з іспанськими монархістами в 1937 аби придушити суспільство анархо-синдикалістів в Каталонії. Орвел був свідком цих подій. http://www.amazon.com/dp/0156421178/?tag=googhydr-20&hvadid=34078847231&hvpos=1t1&hvexid=&hvnetw=g&hvrand=1652952024868718721&hvpone=3.65&hvptwo=&hvqmt=b&hvdev=t&ref=pd_sl_6hgkfj8ivl_b
You need to learn your history. The last time that was tried was in Spain after a fascist coup. The socialist and anarchist resistance was later sold out by Stalin.
I really recommend my favorite George Orwell book, Homage to Catalonia, about his experiences in the Spanish Civil War.
Another good author on the subject is Hannah Arendt including The Origins of Totalitarianism, specifically section three. She's not as popularly known and is now a bit outdated but her books are astoundingly profound.
Repeating over and over a slogan or talking point until it becomes part of daily discourse and people accept it without further proof is an informal logical fallacy/propaganda technique known as "The Big Lie." Hannah Arendt wrote in her influential work "The Origins of Totalitarianism" that "The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists."
This isn't explaining it to you like you're five, but here's one of the most important books ever on the subject. It's about totalitarianism which is often closely related to fascism and talks about both in fairly easy to understand language. I read it in high school.
http://www.amazon.com/Origins-Totalitarianism-Hannah-Arendt/dp/0156701537/
Hannah Arendt might fit.
https://www.amazon.com/Origins-Totalitarianism-Hannah-Arendt/dp/0156701537/ref=mp_s_a_1_2?keywords=hannah+arendt&qid=1562118076&s=books&sr=1-2
Shameless plug for Hannah Arendt's The Origins of Totalitarianism... it's just this work was an exact description of the power networks described in her book.
Israel openly armed Iran against Saddam.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel%27s_role_in_the_Iran–Iraq_war
The CIA broke relations with Iran, Mossad did not.
According to David Menashri of Tel Aviv University, a leading expert on Iran:
>"Throughout the 1980s, no one in Israel said anything about an Iranian threat - the word wasn't even uttered."
and
>“Iran is Israel's best friend and we do not intend to change our position in relation to Tehran, because Khomeini's regime will not last forever.”
-Yitzach Shamir, 1987
https://www.amazon.com/Treacherous-Alliance-Secret-Dealings-Israel/dp/0300143117
Trita Parsi is reviled by neocons, just so you know.
>You've done the same thing here as you did on the Iranian sub; 'Israel took a side'. No, my smart friend, far-right government in Israel taking inspiration from the Yinon Plan did not take a side. They wished to ensure that both countries bled each other out seeing as they were both a target for regime change.
The Yinon Plan was created because of the threat Saddam posed. Sharon viewed Saddam as enemy #1. Israel tried to kill him three times. They tried it in the 70s while they were aiding the PUK and KDP against him, during Bramble Bush in 1992 and Bramble Bush II in 1999
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Bramble_Bush
https://www.afio.com/sections/wins/1999/notes0599.html
https://www.timesofisrael.com/mossad-tried-to-kill-saddam-in-the-1970s-new-documentary-reveals/
Yes and it has happened many times.
For example in the 1970s the US under Nixon decided to recognize Communist China as officially being "China" -
https://www.nixonfoundation.org/exhibit/the-opening-of-china/
https://thediplomat.com/2017/01/the-one-china-policy-what-would-nixon-do/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/nixons-great-decision-on-china-40-years-later/2012/02/10/gIQAtFh34Q_story.html
Similarly, there are experts who say that the US should start "Going to Tehran"
https://www.amazon.com/Going-Tehran-America-Islamic-Republic/dp/1250043530
In fact this is why the Israelis and the Saudis want to start a war between Iran and the US -- because they fear that if the US and Iran start to get along then they will become Taiwan.
This book is all about that:
Treacherous Alliance: The Secret Dealings of Israel, Iran, and the United
https://www.amazon.com/Treacherous-Alliance-Secret-Dealings-Israel/dp/0300143117
You're full of opinions with no basis and I have better things to do that teach you
You didn't read the book -- it discusses why the Israelis (and Saudis) fear Iran: it has nothing to do with Persian v Arab, Sunni v Shia, Muslim v Jew, it is because the Israeli and Saudis see the chance of US-Iran detente as coming at their expense
https://www.amazon.com/Treacherous-Alliance-Secret-Dealings-Israel/dp/0300143117
Now don't bother me if you cna't be bothered
Therefore we have nothing to discuss
Iran and Israel actually cooperated afrer the 1979 Islamic Revolution.
According to the award winning book by Trita Parsi, it was actually Israel that escalated the conflict with Iran, because they feared that if the US and Iran start to get along then Israel will become a third wheel.
https://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/0300143117
>But it wasn't Iran that turnedthe Israeli-Iranian cold war warm – it was Israel...The Israeli reversal on Iran was partially motivated by the fear that its strategic importance would diminish significantly in the post-cold war middle east if the then president (1989-97) Hashemi Rafsanjani’s outreach to the Bush Sr administration was successful. https://www.opendemocracy.net/democracy-irandemocracy/israel_2974.jsp
Even Israeli politicians quietly concede that Iran isn't actually the threat they make it out to be
http://www.haaretz.com/livni-behind-closed-doors-iranian-nuclear-arms-pose-little-threat-to-israel-1.231859
It was widely reported in this book
http://www.amazon.com/The-Shadow-Factory-Eavesdropping-America/dp/0307279391/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1371883104&sr=8-1&keywords=james+bamford
I can recommend James Bamford's The Shadow Factory.
Great book.
http://www.amazon.com/The-Shadow-Factory-Eavesdropping-America/dp/0307279391/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1370907802&sr=8-1&keywords=The+Shadow+Factory
That is I recommend it if you actually want to know about SIGINT and the NSA.
If you just like to post endless platitudes about how Orwell predicted "todays" America and what not, forget about it...
The first problem you're going to run into is that no one (with good reason) wants to tell you what "works" because as soon as that becomes public knowledge, people will craft means and methods against it. There's absolutely no value to disclosing what works aside from for public relations. So understand that.
Books like this and this are great for grasping a bit of knowledge and getting a storyline, but don't share much about the nitty gritty. I've read them both, and though I have no experience in operations in the 40s-70s, I do with what Bamford speaks of and there's quite a bit of fearmongering there. Either way, it's helpful to find the perspective of what's trying to be done. These aren't people trying to trample your friends, it's people trying to find a balance between freedom and security.
A book like this is basically just a nice story. It's a few biopics in one and the writer clearly likes the people he's writing about, so he's extremely pretty sympathetic to them. Still good for motivations and perspective, though.
These two are extremely useful because they get into that nitty-gritty that I spoke of earlier.
But as I said, it basically comes down to the balance between freedom and security. If you- like a crazy amount of redditors and young people seem to be- are way way way more interested than freedom than you are security, you're never going to like what people in the IC do. And that's your preoperative, but it seems that many people that of that cloth usually live within a secure environment and just don't really worry about. It's easy to not give a shit about heavy jackets when you live in West Maui. Moreover, the craze that I've seen in reddit is just...amazing? So many people with so little experience of education in these things that insist they know just so much. These same people will flip shit if you wander into their area of expertise acting like you know what's up when you clearly don't but...if someone's talking about CIA/NSA/FBI/etc or even just international politics in general? Suddenly they're the expert. It's weird.
This is why I chuckle when people think the redacted portions of the 9/11 Commission Report somehow point to an inside job, letting it happen, or a vast Saudi conspiracy. The redacted portions were redacted because of classification, and things are classified to protect means and methods, 99% of the time. Sometimes technology is classified, but it's rare and I don't know much about that anyway.
Alexander of Macedon 356-323 B.C.: A Historical Biography
https://www.amazon.com/Alexander-Macedon-356-323-B-C-Historical/dp/0520071662
Lost to the West: The Forgotten Byzantine Empire That Rescued Western Civilization
https://www.amazon.com/Lost-West-Forgotten-Byzantine-Civilization/dp/0307407969
Shadows in the Desert: Ancient Persia at War (General Military)
https://www.amazon.com/Shadows-Desert-Ancient-General-Military/dp/1846031087
There's a great write up on this in the book Castles of Steel
If you haven't read it already, you would probably enjoy this book.
The new hotness in WWI history right now is "Sleepwalkers", but that has a lot in common with the scope of Catastrophe 1914. It's mainly focused on the lead-up to the war, beginning with the turmoil in Eastern Europe around the start of the 20th Century and zooming into much more in-depth diplomatic history about why the war actually started. It's excellent (if you're into that sort of thing) and offers a long, gripping tick-tock that is much more up-to-date than the classic "Guns of August".
If you're interested in reading about the military conflict itself, it's hard to go wrong with Keegan's The First World War. It's a broad overview history of the war that is very readable and might give you some ideas of topics worth further diving into.
/r/AskHistorians provides a Book List in their Wiki including [WWI] (https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/wiki/books/wwi) books.
I listened to "Blueprint for Armageddon" and liked it. Dan Carlin cites John Keegan a lot who wrote The First World War.
I personally like Margaret MacMillan's books The War that Ended Peace and Paris 1919 which deal with the political steps toward the war and the attempts at a permanent peace, respectively.
For an accessible book that represents the expanse of WWI, I love Eugene Rogan's The Fall of the Ottomans: The Great War in the Middle East.
John Keegan's The First World War is a well written one-volume history.
I don't know how badly out of date it is, since it was written in 2000, but Keegan is a top-notch military historian.
I'm actually in the middle of First World War by John Keegan and he makes the same claim (except for Britain). I don't know what his primary sources are though.
I can recommend two. 1) politics https://www.amazon.com/Sleepwalkers-How-Europe-Went-1914/dp/0061146668. Military https://www.amazon.com/First-World-War-John-Keegan/dp/0375700455.
Good book. Interesting how the Cuban weather people predicted the storm would hit Galveston but the US Weather Bureau didn't believe them and prevented their predictions from being reported.
http://www.amazon.com/Isaacs-Storm-Deadliest-Hurricane-History/dp/0375708278
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1900_Galveston_hurricane
Read this awesome book, http://www.amazon.com/Isaacs-Storm-Deadliest-Hurricane-History/dp/0375708278
Galveston used to be the larger city, but after the Hurricane of 1900, Houston took over while Galveston tried to rebuild. Source: Issac's Storm. The book also mentions the streetcar.
Read Issac's Storm. A great story, even if you know how it ends...
How 'bout this onethis one?
Up front: I believe Climate Change is happening and it's 100% been accelerated by Humanity.
BUT - This article reeks of my favorite climate change denier argument against climate change. One I hear every winter in Minnesota.
"It is cold, where I live, therefore climate change doesn't real."
Until we have a LARGE dataset demonstrating a trend in increasingly severe hurricane seasons we cannot point at a single event and say "SEE CLIMATE CHANGE!" Texas has been hit by severe hurricanes before.
Climate change is proven by the trends, not the single data points.
You can't ask people to believe good science with one sentence and the very next use the same garbage arguments they are using against your points.
Isaac's Storm. Read the first few sample pages and see what you think.
Ernest Shackleton's South - the early 20th century polar explorer's account of the ill-fated Endurance voyage that was trapped in Antarctic ice.
Yamamoto Tsunetomo's Hagakure: The Way of the Warrior - the 18th century Japanese book on the samurai code that gets quoted a lot in the 1999 Jim Jarmusch movie "Ghost Dog: Way of the Samurai".
Erik Larson's Devil in the White City and Isaac's Storm - two excellent non-fiction accounts of the 1893 World's Fair in Chicago and the gruesome murders that surrounded it and the 1900 storm that destroyed Galveston, Texas.
Steven Pressfield's Gates of Fire - it may be fiction, but it doesn't get any manlier than 300 Spartans facing off against thousands of invading Persians at Thermopylae.
Non-fiction for sure. I do really like history but sometimes its just too dense. I like to switch it up with non-fiction (or some sci-fi) that are kinda self-contained and only relate tangentially to larger events or just a lighter biography. Thinking Shadow Divers, The lost city of Z, Lost in Shangri-La, At Ease - Eisenhower or An American Doctor's Odyssey
Shadow Divers is a great book about the discovery and subsequent identification of a U-Boat off the coast of New Jersey
It's kind of a niche genre but I too am a history buff. I'm also a certified scuba diver and my all time favourite book is Shadow Divers by Robert Kurson.
https://www.amazon.ca/Shadow-Divers-Adventure-Americans-Everything/dp/0375760989
It's the true story of a WWII U-Boat found off the coast of New Jersey by a couple of divers. The book jumps back and forth between present day while the divers are trying to figure out what the heck the wreck is and figure out how it got there, and the ships history.
I've probably read it half a dozen times now! History, real life adventure and scuba :)
Shadow Divers by Robert Kurson.
From the book description: In the tradition of Jon Krakauer’s Into Thin Air and Sebastian Junger’s The Perfect Storm comes a true tale of riveting adventure in which two weekend scuba divers risk everything to solve a great historical mystery–and make history themselves.
The audio book is particularly good with great narration by Michael Prichard with his raspy and dramatic voice.
http://www.audible.com/pd/ref=sr_1_1?asin=B002V57VVS&qid=1348609611&sr=1-1
Here is the mobile version of your link
https://www.amazon.com/Objectivism-Philosophy-Ayn-Rand-Library/dp/0452011019
?
Ask your BF to watch this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v4kAVRc68v0
And if he likes it, read this book https://www.amazon.co.uk/Objectivism-Philosophy-Ayn-Rand-Library/dp/0452011019/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=objectivism&qid=1567360507&s=gateway&sr=8-1
Please elaborate. How is a moral code where man's life is the standard to determine that which is good or bad an improper starting point for a moral basis? Which other starting point would be preferable? Be specific.
People who follow Rand aren't suggesting that nobody before has thought out a system of morality. What many -myself included - have determined is that morality has historically determined by religious institutions like the Catholic Church, or political systems which did not recognize or uphold the concept of individual rights.
Because Rand is not recognized by a few prestigious, Ivy League institutions, she deserves no credibility?
Where by the same institutions would hold up a thinker like Kant- who offered to the world a secularized version of the Catholic Church code of morality- is recognized as an important thinker? I think your basis for objectivity and validity is flawed, especially when you rely on Ivory Tower thinkers to determine which philosophy is relevant or applicable rather than take the time and energy to think for yourself.
More over, have you ever actually read any of the more in depth works, exploring her philosophy? Or just cherry pick a few chapters from VoS and decide you don't agree?
The justifications you are interested in have been concealed from you in the following books: They were first presented in her Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology(1979) and were further expanded in Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand(1991).
Many contemporary Philosophers are continuing her work. Including Douglass B. Rassmusen, with his Groundwork for Rights
and Tara Smith with Ayn Rand's Normative Ethics: The Virtuous Egoist.
The fact that you were previously unaware that this information existed does not discredit her Philosophy. That is what we call: The argument from personal incredulity.
A really brief but super-informative survey of 20th century Middle Eastern history is Avi Shlaim's War and Peace in the Middle East.
David Lesch's The Arab Israeli Conflict: A History focuses primarily on the eastern Mediterranean but discusses the region more broadly as well.
Trita Parsi's Treacherous Alliance covers the history Israeli-Iranian relations in a really engaging way.
How is that relevant to the US? If anyting that makes Israel a competitor for US high tech.
Until the revolution, Iran was a backward dictatorship run by a corrupt tin pot tyrant installed by the US and average literacy rates were below 50%. No longer.
As for relations with israel, it was the Israelis that decided that a stable and prosperous Iran with good relations with the US threatened their privileged relations and decided to try to get the US and Iran to go to war. http://www.amazon.com/Treacherous-Alliance-Secret-Dealings-Israel/dp/0300143117/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1381252527&sr=8-1&keywords=trita+parsi
Iran is perfectly capable of performing R&D and contributing to the sciences too. Anyone is, because Israelis are not inherently smarter or more scientific that anyone else. It is simply a matter of having resources. In fact Iran is the worlds' fastest growing country, scientifically-speaking, and there is a long long history of academic relations between the US and Iran. If ties were improved, all of this can create a great market for US products and services in Iran, from low-tech to hi tech ... and who needs Israel? What actual function does israel serve other than to create a mess in the Mideast and make 2.5 million peole homeless?
Elements of Murder: A History of Poison
Ignore the pulpy cover, there's a lot of depth here.
Also:
The Shadow Factory
The Ayatollah Begs to Differ
Just started that last one. Seems ok so far, but the Amazon reviews are promising.
This.
http://www.amazon.com/Lost-West-Forgotten-Byzantine-Civilization/dp/0307407969
http://www.plasticsplus.com.au/contact.html
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/
https://www.coursera.org/
http://socialevolutionforum.com/2012/12/05/does-history-cycle/
I thought it was a strange array, so I decided to make this :3
I second this, The Historic Pleasure Pier is fun for kids but no more historic than just standing on the Seawall.
You can't swing a dead cat without hitting something old or historic in Galveston. Most of which don't have websites, so until you go you just won't know. But when you get there you will have no shortage of things to do.
Read this, not super happy pregnancy material, but the best book about Galveston by far. This one is supposedly pretty good to, bit I haven't read it yet.
> You can judge people, but you're judging them by your standards (or your group's standards), not an absolute standard.
Such a judgement, absent a reference to reality as you insist it must be, is just irrelevant personal preference. George Washington = Stalin in this paradigm.
>In fact, the only places I've ever seen the idea of an absolute standard being defined is in religious texts.
May I suggest you look into Objectivism then.
Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand
and
The Virtue of Selfishness
are probably the most relevant.
Objective means based on facts. Subjective means not based on facts.
The Is-Ought problem asks how do you get shoulds (or oughts) from facts. If you could solve that, you'd have an Objective morality. You'd have a morality based on facts.
There is great disagreement about about this. Is it even possible? If it is possible how do you do it?
I think the answer is as follows. You can get a morality based on facts if you base the morality on what kind of creature humans are. If a human chooses to live and live as a human, he should do certain things and live a certain way.
To get an understanding of what I mean, imagine that spiders had free will and could make choices like humans. If they could do that, they'd need a morality.
Imagine a spider that tried to live like a beaver. It tried to chew down trees to build a dam and a home. It would not be very successful. It would die pretty quickly.
Imagine a spider that tired to live like a lion. It chased gazelles across the plains looking for a meal. It too would not live very long.
Imagine yet another spider that sat around and did nothing. It wouldn't live very long either.
Now imagine a spider that lived like a spider. It built a web. It patiently waited for bugs to get trapped in the web. Etc. That spider would have a chance to live a full spider life.
So, in light of the above facts, a spider that wanted to live should do certain things. It should live as a spider lives. It should build a web. It should wait for bugs to get trapped in the web. Etc. So, with this example, I was able to get a list of shoulds from facts. I was able to get a morality for spiders based on facts.
By a similar but more complex process, you can get an objective morality for humans.
What I outlined above is essentially the answer given by the philosophy of Objectivism. If you want to read more about it, this a good book: http://www.amazon.com/Objectivism-The-Philosophy-Rand-Library/dp/0452011019
Classism definitely exists, but like everything else doesn't exist in a bubble. Class, race, gender, sex, age...these things all intersect and interact in ways that make social realities for people. Academics (which I am not) have different opinions about the extent to which one is more important than another. I would say yes, historically it has been far more difficult for a person of color to move up in American society and yes, that is still the case today. But I'm just a guy on reddit who likes to read. If you're interested in this stuff here's where I started: The Color of Law, New Jim Crow, Ta-Nehisi Coates, the autobiography of Malcolm X, The Warmth of Other Suns
Because humans have agreed upon rules that have evolved to be socially beneficial. This set of rules could take the form of cultural norms, language, or a constitution. What's important is that these systems (usually) exist because the confer some type of net benefit to the community that adopts them. In this case we can weigh the pros and cons of allowing non-citizens to vote in school board elections:
pro: They have more control over how their child is educated.
con: Inherent cultural norms could mean they advocate for a less effective education system.
And we can weigh the pros and cons of allowing non-citizens to vote in presidential elections:
pros: greater representation of the total world (idk I'm kinda reaching for this one)
cons: China can just decide our president.
Because we want a system that does the most good for citizens of the US we can easily say that allowing non-citizens to vote in presidential elections is bad. I'd argue that allowing non-citizens to vote in school board elections is much more up for debate.
If you're interested in the argument I was trying to present in the first paragraph I recommend Sapiens. The way Harari explains cultural norms is incredible! :)
Edit: grammar
There's a really good book about this in regards to the U.S. ICBM stockpile (specifically, the Titan missile) and a really bad accident that happened in Damascus Arkansas in the 80s. It also gives a great history of the various American nuclear weapons programs, including a bunch of accidents where I'm still not sure how the bombs didn't go off, or how we haven't had a full-detonation nuclear accident yet.
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00C5R7F8G if you're interested in the book.
Ayn Rand was a writer and philosopher. Objectivism is the philosophy.
I imagine you have never read the no-fiction about the philosophy or you are just dishonest.
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Objectivism-Philosophy-Ayn-Rand-Library/dp/0452011019/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1540044626&sr=8-1&keywords=Objectivism%3A+the+Philosophy+of+Ayn+Rand
I reply, asking you have you read, “The origin of totalitarianism” by Hannah Arendt?
https://www.amazon.com/dp/0156701537/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_i_gxByDb433BW5H
Hannah Arendt's definitive work on totalitarianism and an essential component of any study of twentieth-century political history
The Origins of Totalitarianism begins with the rise of anti-Semitism in central and western Europe in the 1800s and continues with an examination of European colonial imperialism from 1884 to the outbreak of World War I. Arendt explores the institutions and operations of totalitarian movements, focusing on the two genuine forms of totalitarian government in our time—Nazi Germany and Stalinist Russia—which she adroitly recognizes were two sides of the same coin, rather than opposing philosophies of Right and Left. From this vantage point, she discusses the evolution of classes into masses, the role of propaganda in dealing with the nontotalitarian world, the use of terror, and the nature of isolation and loneliness as preconditions for total domination.
Not a denier, but not a hypocrite either. I am sure Vice President Gore has flown many times around world to educated us all on the climate. He probably lies awake in his mansion ringing his hands about the damage I am doing to the environment.
A great book on the formation of U.S. Weather Bureau...
https://www.amazon.com/Isaacs-Storm-Deadliest-Hurricane-History/dp/0375708278
> Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld. Rudy Guilani, Paul Bremer, Bernard Kerik, Richard Armitage, Colin Powell, Michael Canavan
FTFY
The list of 9/11 suspects and people who were supposed to be doing their job but were absent (those in the towers, Rumsfeld in the Pentagon, WH officials, all the big shots were missing that day), it's a loooong list
Another Nineteen is a book that shows just some of the potential persons of interests in what was obviously an inside job/cover up.
Where is this fantastical pragmatic world you live in? The stuff that matters, gets classified. The stuff the public SHOULD know. The only shit that should be classified is the launch codes. You could make an argument about classifying locations, but even that, after reading Eric Schlossingers Command and Control our government can't be trusted to keep a hen in a henhouse.
Meh, seems like I’ve already read it: https://www.amazon.com/Not-My-Neighborhood-Bigotry-American/dp/1566638437#productDescription_secondary_view_div_1519095686004
>So what? Infosec is a hard problem, when you're operating at government scale and trying to break good crypto fast then you're going to pay through the nose. If you want to get upset about government waste on tech spending, start with https://www.amazon.com/Shadow-Factory-NSA-Eavesdropping-America/dp/0307279391 -- 900k is inconsequential.
+1
>edit: also, as always, fuck Diane Feinstein and everything she says or does.
-1
God forbid we read books to understand history better and not make caricatures out of people.
https://www.amazon.com/Stalin-I-Paradoxes-Power-1878-1928/dp/0143127861
https://www.amazon.com/Origins-Totalitarianism-Hannah-Arendt/dp/0156701537
http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/166566.The_Opium_of_the_Intellectuals
Let me pose it this way, why do you think Stalin did what he did? Because he's an evil statist? Grow up.