(Part 2) Best conservatism & liberalism books according to redditors
We found 525 Reddit comments discussing the best conservatism & liberalism books. We ranked the 204 resulting products by number of redditors who mentioned them. Here are the products ranked 21-40. You can also go back to the previous section.
"Don't Think of an Elephant" by George Lakoff did a good job of explaining this phenomenon ten years ago.
This article begins on a flawed premise. There's one every year (by someone high profile). It reminds me of that episode of Mad Men where the democrats were supposedly finished forever. The dems said the same thing about the GOP in 08. The GOP is saying the same thing about the dems now.
Don't take my word for it though. Take it from someone who is much smarter and better at this than the author or myself. A five thirty eight article: http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/limited-influence-of-median-voter/
If the republicans "lose their grip" they'll just move to the left. Always and every time.
edit:
I almost forgot. Look for no further evidence of this than the democrats who turned against Obama in 2014.
"We love guns too, we promise!"
"We didn't really think Obamcare was a good idea but what were we going to do? We've learned our lesson."
edit 2: http://www.amazon.com/40-More-Years-Democrats-Generation/dp/B008SMV8PI
Seems the author needs to read The Liberal Defence of Murder to understand the dynamics of left wing politics.
It explains a lot about this historic split within left wing thought (broadly between whats today termed "Humanitarian Interventionists" and Anti-War/Anti-Imperialists). The split is not new. It goes back to the Enlightenment in the 1700's when founders of left wing ideals also sought to defend the British Empire and other European Empire's under the concept of "the White Man's Burden".
Friedrich Engels who co-wrote The Communist Manifesto with Karl Marx, showed himself to be one of these "humanitarian interventionists".
When the French Empire invaded Algeria in 1830, you would expect a man like Engels to rage against Imperialism and Empire. Instead he wrote:
>
> Upon the whole it is, in our opinion, very fortunate that the Arabian chief [Abd-el-Kader] has been taken. The struggle of the Bedouins was a hopeless one, and though the manner in which brutal soldiers, like Bugeaud, have carried on the war is highly blamable, the conquest of Algeria is an important and fortunate fact for the progress of civilization. The piracies of the Barbaresque states, never interfered with by the English government as long as they did not disturb their ships, could not be put down but by the conquest of one of these states. And the conquest of Algeria has already forced the Beys of Tunis and Tripoli, and even the Emperor of Morocco, to enter upon the road of civilization.
Of course in the 1960's when Algeria waged a war of independence from the French (in what became France's Vietnam war), many French Communists supported the French military invasions and crushing of the FLN.
In America of course this split also travelled from Europe.
Woodrow Wilson, the father of American progressive thought with left wing policies only rivalled by FDR was a similar "humanitarian interventionist" launching wars all across South America (Mexico, Haiti, Dominican Republic, Cuba and Panama) before joining World War One.
Where the US went wrong in Vietnam was that they didn't sell it as a left wing project and in the end it was left wing Anti-War forces that undermined the war support fatally.
US has rarely made that mistake again. Nowadays the military always sells wars in terms left wingers can get onboard with. Syria its supporting a revolution (and what Left-Winger doesn't support revolutions) Afghanistan it was bringing women's rights to a tribal land. Using this tool they can divide any left wing opposition to what is a policy of Empire.
get "Big Agenda" instead, trump's plan to make america great again!
https://www.amazon.com/Big-Agenda-President-Trump%C2%92s-America/dp/1630060879
If you're serious, I've heard good things about the book "Run for Something." I haven't read it myself, but it's a guide for getting involved and elected at a local level.
This brings up a very interesting scenario. Local LE and state attorneys could and are refusing to enforce/prosecute gun laws. This invalidates the authority of the state. At what point does state law enforcement step in, and will local law enforcement tangle (both figuratively and literally) with state LE?
Will it just be Super Trooper antics? Or will it devolve into violence between law enforcement officers and agencies? Will the staties shoot local cops over some stupid law?
In his collection of short stories 'Conservative Insurgency', - Kurt Schlichter has a tale where (book is from 2014) HRC rams through a total ban on handguns and most rifles. Texas tells her to fuck off. A planeload of Fibbies and ATF types fly to Dallas to pull some 'respect my authoritah' bullshit.
Local LE and the Texas Rangers are on hand to prevent the Feds from disembarking. There's a firefight with casualties on both sides, though eventually our Texas friends prevail.
Mental health issues:
Republicans healthier minds.
http://news.gallup.com/poll/102943/Republicans-Report-Much-Better-Mental-Health-Than-Others.aspx
Books on the matter:
https://www.amazon.com/Liberal-Mind-Psychological-Political-Madness/dp/0977956318/ref=sr_1_3?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1327282904&sr=1-3
https://www.amazon.com/Liberalism-Mental-Disorder-Savage-Solutions/dp/1595550062
----
Bonus material they're also fat and ugly.
Conservatives tend to be strong and more fit, liberals not so much:
https://www.brunel.ac.uk/news-and-events/news/articles/Muscular-men-less-likely-to-support-social-and-economic-equality-study-suggests
Grayson is doing exactly what liberals should have been doing all along: fight fire with fire.
The Democrats have been letting the Republicans walk all over them with catch phrases and memes for years. The standard response for Democrats has been "well, we are the party that thinks rather than uses catch phrases." You can actually do both: let the thinkers think and let those that don't have their catch phrases. By ignoring the catch phrase voters, the Democrats were, to use a catch phrase, just shooting themselves in the foot.
For more on this: http://www.amazon.com/Dont-Think-Elephant-Democrats-Progressives/dp/1931498822
This. The book "wrecking crew" makes a compelling case that corrupt and incompetent governance helps advance the republican "government is the problem" case. Even if it's the republicans being the corrupt bastard, since the media always goes with the "both sides are equally corrupt" memento.
The Student Debt crisis is largely the effects of liberals saying "everyone should be able to go to college" so they passed a huge amount of legislation that made it so anyone could take out of a loan. If a private foundation denied you because you had bad credit, or no family history of paying off a debt of that size, then the government would give you a loan. This was not the case 20 years ago, if you couldn't pass a credit score, you didn't get a loan, and didn't go to school. The legislation allowed for droves of new people going to higher education.
However, this has resulted in literal hundreds of thousands of people with loans they can't afford to pay. There's now programs in place where people can default on their loans, and the only bad thing that happens is that they receive bad credit. Given the type of loan they had, that doesn't mean much because they probably didn't have very good credit to start with. Meanwhile that loan they couldn't pay is offloaded onto other students who took out loans, and are using the system as intended, because the rates have gone up to compensate for those who can't pay. There's even entire schools and businesses dedicated to preying upon the type of person who takes out this type of loan (Trump University is one of them, among other for-profit Universities).
University sizes have doubled in the past decade but quality of education has stagnated. This is due to the institutions dealing with an unnatural spike in attendance rates caused by legislation. You could even attribute a host of other issues to a huge influx of students who don't usually go to college, suddenly going. Those institutions are also in a bit of a pickle, because if we reverse the legislation, there would be a Higher-Education crash, since almost every single campus has had mass renovations and dumped millions of dollars to expand their campuses for expected higher-attendance. We've practically put our entire High Education system at risk all for the sake of the ideology that "everyone should be able to go to college," and this is being furthered pushed by Sanders who wants to make it free.
Whatever your beliefs are, you need to make them work within the system, or else there are unintended consequences.
FWIW - I agree with the goal that everyone should go to college, but in retrospect, it's easy to see this was a poor execution.
This has been central to the Republican/conservative playbook since Reagan:
https://www.amazon.com/Wrecking-Crew-Conservatives-Government-Themselves/dp/B004KAB618
Closer to 40 unless the GOP gets their shit together.
What was so good here was watching Bernie be super respectful and thorough when deal with people who clearly had opposite opinions of him.
For anyone who doesn't know - Bernie was a weekly guest for 10 years on Thom Hartmann's radio show. Thom has a book on how to win over peoples hearts and minds. Its called Cracking the Code. I highly recommend.
https://www.amazon.com/Cracking-Code-Restore-Americas-Original/dp/1576756270
Carville's a smart guy, but I don't think he has the best record in predicting elections. Take this book he wrote in '09 in which he predicts the Democrats will hold onto Congress for the next 40 years. In the past, he has also said that Al Gore would run in '08, and that Kerry would defeat Bush in '04. To Carville's credit, he owned up to the '04 fail, and smashed an egg on his face after Kerry had lost.
The Republicans have gone from "no apology" to "we're not so innocent" in one presidential cycle. Amazing.
Honestly, I was sitting a training by Indiana Democrats and the person next to me said he read a great book called Run for Something. I picked up a copy, read it, saw they were endorsing candidates and applied for it and got it. I could probably use the slack a bit more, but for me, they hooked me up with a mentor who was GREAT to talk to and really just encouraged me. They also have created a lot of resources like a Canva style guide that helped for fast graphic creation. They have been great and I love being a part of it and the work they are doing.
I have also been active in a program by Indiana Democrats called the Emerging Leaders which has been AMAZING in preparing me for being a candidate. They have equipped us a lot with basic skills, how to fundraise, use voterfiles, etc..
If people want to run, I'd recommend reading the Run for Something book.
For me, the biggest challenge is name recognition and getting in front of voters. People start out as republican here, but if i can get in front of them, tell them why i am running and the issues that concern me, then I can get them on my side. At the local level its less political party and who is the person who can get things done.
As far as savvy, I use weebly for the website, crowdpac to online raise $$$, and canva for everything else. You gotta have some tech sense if you want to kick butt, but you also have to have the personality to connect with strangers and meet people.
I think as a party we need to invest in more pipelines for future candidates and start up funds for local races that can cover some basics like yard signs, ads in papers, digital advertising.
https://www.amazon.com/Big-Agenda-President-Trump-s-America/dp/1630060879/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1497497149&sr=1-1&keywords=trump+president
I really wish someone other than Vox day would, effectively, re-write this book. His name has so much baggage that you can't just hand a copy out to normies.
​
Looking at his related books... (Holy shit, linking these are a nightmare due to Amazon's tracking buillshit in the URLs)
https://smile.amazon.com/So-Youve-Been-Publicly-Shamed-ebook/dp/B00L9B7IRC/
https://smile.amazon.com/How-Trump-SJWs-Alinskys-Radicals-ebook/dp/B01JFOM1LM/
https://smile.amazon.com/Social-Justice-Warrior-Handbook-Millennials-ebook/dp/B074N6968P/
https://smile.amazon.com/Bullies-Culture-Intimidation-Silences-Americans-ebook/dp/B008GULMDK/
https://smile.amazon.com/New-Church-Ladies-Extremely-Uptight-ebook/dp/B06VVHV1DX/
​
Nothing short and to the point, but some good stuff there for normies to read.
Intellectual Morons: How Ideology makes Smart People fall for Stupid Ideas
Oh boy have I got some books for you:
The editor of National Review Online argues the path to a better conservatism lies in a marriage with libertarianism.
National Review's Roving Correspondent argues that the American government is collapsing under its own weight and that's a good thing.
A former marine and Yale-educated lawyer gives a powerful account of his upbringing in a Rust-belt town and his family's connection to Appalachia.
The Fellow of the Royal Society and member of the House of Lords describes how spontaneous order is behind a great many advancements of the modern age and why centralized "design" is ineffective and prone to failure.
The popular freshman senator describes the crisis of America's youth, and how the solutions lay beyond the realm of politics.
One of America's leading constitutional law scholars explains why Americans would benefit from a renewal of our Republican Constitution and how such a renewal can be achieved.
A curated collection of Buckley's best eulogies, A Torch Kept Lit provides invaluable insight into both the eminent twentieth century conservative and an unrevised conservative account of the great lives of the twentieth century.
This volume of Justice Scalia's finest speeches provides intimate insight on the justice's perspectives on law, faith, virtue, and private life.
The Wrecking Crew - How Conservatives Rule by Thomas Frank
http://www.amazon.com/Wrecking-Crew-How-Conservatives-Rule/dp/0805079882
Cracking the Code is a great read. It goes over the various communication modalities sighting many examples of powerful speeches and as a bonus, breaks down the philosophical differences between progressive and conservative mindsets.
Follow the
moneyincentive gradient.Obviously not OP. But give Run For Something a read. Maybe you don't end up running for office. But it can help give you an appreciation of why it's important to engage with and help candidates even for smaller positions. Your school board, your city council members, your township trustees can have a huge impact. It can be the difference that gives you quality schools, roads that don't swallow your car, and maybe even forward thinking policies such as municipal internet access. Those things impact your life as much or more than national level elections.
Find out who's running for positions in your area and talk to them, find out what they want to achieve and decide if that's something you think would be good. Then help out in any way you can. Maybe it's volunteering or working for them. Maybe it's simply making sure your friend's and family are registered to vote and know when the elections are and their voting location and how they're going to get there.
I think this question is something that people assume they know, but few people have real answers.
When it comes to immigration, there has been a very strong recent change on the matter by Democrats:
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/04/15/americans-views-of-immigrants-marked-by-widening-partisan-generational-divides/
>Between 1994 and 2005, Republicans’ and Democrats’ views of immigrants tracked one another closely. Beginning around 2006, however, they began to diverge. In October that year, the partisan gap between Republicans and Democrats grew to 15 percentage points. Since then, the share of Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents saying that immigrants strengthen the country steadily increased, from 49% then to 78% now, while the share with this view among Republicans and Republican leaners has shown little change (34% then, 35% today).
Democrats now think that immigrants strengthen this country, but this is a recent opinion for them. Unfortunately, Pew does not track the opinions on illegal immigration in this article back before 2013, which means it doesn't capture if this change was also about illegal immigrants. I believe it does, but that's a guess.
For comparison, I found this article on the immigration debate in the 90s. I believe it shows that Democrats have recently changed their opinion on illegal immigration and that this is a new policy. However, while it shows that immigration was highly debated, it lacks any clear polls on Democratic opinions.
https://web.stanford.edu/group/SHR/5-2/dittgen.html
There are probably at least two reasons for the change, one honest and one cynical.
First, research shows that immigrants eventually end up as economic net positives.
https://clas.berkeley.edu/research/immigration-economic-benefits-immigration
Second, the crass reason. In 2001 there was a book predicting an "inevitable demographic majority" that would put the Democrats permanently in power. https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0036QVPEU/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1
Since the article was published, the pundits have gone back and forth on whether the book is right, but over and over the book comes back up in major media. When the Republicans win, the "emerging democratic majority" is either unreliable, or too far away in the future to count on. When Democrats win, the majority is here and we never have to worry about Republicans again (until they win again, then the pundits think the sky is falling anew.)
A series of articles through the years to demonstrate that this book and its prediction is repeatedly brought up, and thus people are probably aware of it:
2016
2015
2014
2012
2011
2010
2009
TLDR: The support of illegal immigrants is mostly recent and is driven, like a lot of things, by the partisan political divide. The Democrats are supportive of all types of immigration today, and they have very good valid reasons for it, but also a belief that immigration will give them political power.
https://www.amazon.com/Liberalism-Mental-Disorder-Savage-Solutions/dp/1595550062
If you're counting on college to knock some sense into her, you may be disappointed.
Academia has been almost completely captured by the SJW mindset, outside of STEM departments, but including most aspects of residential life. It's pretty horrifying to even read a prospectus these days -- SJW buzzwords abound ("safe space", creepy, vaguely-worded policies against "harassment", etc.).
What? He wrote a book? Dear lord.
I just finished the audio version of FIRE President Greg Lukianoff's Unlearning Liberty: Campus Censorship and the End of American Debate about a week ago.
I've been reading David Simon's Homicide: A Year on the Killing Streets, and I'm about 75% through it.
I've been watching the entire run of the original Law and Order since February, and I've finished 10 seasons of the 20 total.
I gave the USA Network show "Graceland" a shot this morning since the first episode was free on Google Play, so I watched it on my tablet. It was alright, so I might watch it on TV going forward.
I don't listen to a lot of music, I mostly listen to podcasts. I've fallen really far behind on my podcasts (I listen to about 6 regularly) because I stopped listening to them to focus on studying for finals.
Rand Paul makes a great case himself in his book, showing regulation and government overreach:
Government Bullies: How Everyday Americans Are Being Harassed, Abused, and Imprisoned by the Feds
2004, I miss you
Intellectual Morons: How Ideology Makes Smart People Fall for Stupid Ideas - 2004 by Daniel J. Flynn
"Why do well-educated antiwar activists call the president of the United States “the new Hitler” and argue that the U.S. government orchestrated the September 11 attacks?
Why does Al Gore believe that cars pose “a mortal threat to the security of every nation”?
Why does the Princeton professor known as the father of the animal rights movement object to humans eating animals but not to humans having sex with them—and why does PETA defend that position?"
If you haven't already, give that author's books a read. I've read People's Republic and I keep meaning to buy this one too.
"Imagine flipping that rhetoric when Obama won, if a Fox New anchor said this was a "black-lash" and that he doesnt know how to explain this to his kids."
While I don't know about the kids part, that exact thing already happened, in book form.
https://www.amazon.com/Blacklash-Driving-Americans-Government-Plantation/dp/1451643640
"to imply one race is somehow exempt from all hate speech, or all hate speech in the media, is simply inaccurate."
And I agree with this, I just don't think white people really get much of it directed at them. The media itself is massively controlled by white people, so you often can see self-criticism there, but not what I would call hatred.
Sadly, with what's been done to the environmental regulation, industrial policy and our institutions (medias, statcan, etc.), we're in for at least 15 years of shit. You see what 8 years of Bush managed to do to the US after things were so good during the Clinton era? Yea... Welcome to the wrecking crew.
No Apology.
List of Hillary Clinton Flipped Stances:
http://m.imgur.com/uEyVm8Q
List of Hillary Clinton Scandals:
Whitewater:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whitewater_controversy.
Travelgate:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_House_travel_office_controversy
Private Investigators Hired to Dig Dirt on Alleged Rape Victims of Bill Clinton:
A Book about it:
https://www.amazon.com/Target-Caught-Crosshairs-Hillary-Clinton/dp/0974670162
Filegate:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_House_FBI_files_controversy
Benghazi:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Benghazi_attack
Email scandal:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Clinton_email_controversy
Project Veritas: A covert journalist gets Clinton campaign associates to admit on camera that they pay people to incite violence at Trump rallies, along with an entire series of videos scrutinizing the Clinton campaign through a very thorough investigation of dishonesty, corruption, fraud and unaccountability. All found here:
http://projectveritas.com
Wikileaks: DNC conspired against Bernie Sanders before the campaign even began:
http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_579381fbe4b02d5d5ed1d157
Wikileaks: Hillary admits in email that Saudi and Qatar governments are funding ISIS, she did an $80 Billion arm deal with them when she was Secretary of State in exchange for money funneling to her foundation:
https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/3774
Clinton Cash: A documentary about the Clinton foundation in all its glory:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=7LYRUOd_QoM
Wikileaks: Emails reveal that Bernie was possibly forced to endorse Clinton, Assange agrees:
https://www.google.com/amp/www.inquisitr.com/3680558/new-wikileaks-emails-suggest-bernie-sanders-was-leveraged-into-endorsing-clinton/amp/?client=safari
Senator Ron Paul reveals all of the reporters that colluded with Hillary campaign:
http://www.ronpaullibertyreport.com/archives/revealed-the-real-fake-news-list
You got a lot of catching up I'll leave you to it.
http://www.amazon.com/Liberalism-Mental-Disorder-Savage-Solutions/dp/1595550062
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AEwVcsHnf3o
https://www.amazon.com/Blacklash-Driving-Americans-Government-Plantation/dp/1451643640
https://www.amazon.com/No-Apology-Case-American-Greatness/dp/0312609809
Here is the mobile version of your link
The Wrecking Crew: How Conservatives Rule
Trying to figure that out. I'm going back over "How to Win Friends and Influence People" and checking out new books like "Cracking the Code" to refresh and challenge myself. Man audio books are great.
Target: Caught in the Crosshairs of Bill and Hillary Clinton
> “They threatened my children. They threatened my friend’s children. They took one of my cats [Bullseye] and killed another [Blarney]. They left a skull on my porch. They told me I was in danger. They followed me. They vandalized my car. They tried to retrieve my dogs from a kennel. They hid under my deck in the middle of the night. They subjected me to a campaign of fear and intimidation, trying to silence me.”
And:
> Two days after Kathleen’s deposition (1-10-98) in the Paula Jones case, Hillary’s goons were at it again (1-12-98):
“On Monday, two days after I was deposed, I was home alone. Just as the sun was coming up, I opened my front door to let my dogs out. On the porch in front of me was a new horror. A small animal skull was lying on the bricks staring at me. It was bare bone, empty, dry, sitting a few feet from the door. It was the size of a cat’s skull.
I thought of Bullseye. Had they killed my wonderful old cat?”
And:
> “They threatened my children. They threatened my friend’s children. They took one of my cats and killed another. They left a skull on my porch. They told me I was in danger. They followed me. They vandalized my car. They tried to retrieve my dogs from a kennel. They hid under my deck in the middle of the night. They subjected me to a campaign of fear and intimidation, trying to silence me.”
Federalist 39.
Also, Our Republican Constitution by Randy Barnett is a great commentary on the subject.
>Just a quick WSJ article detailing the Clintons' slandering of Bill's victims.
I've seen that article. You basically concede lower down in your comment that there's no real evidence of Hillary actively participating in any slander.
>Personally, either way, I find it anti-feminist to remain married to, defend when you know you're lying, and pledge to put in a top position of your White House a man who has a long history of sexual abuse.
I find it anti-feminist to presume to tell a woman how to manage her personal relationships on the grounds that you deem her personal choices insufficiently feminist.
>What matters is her actions, not her political statements.
Sure. So. Why didn't you post an article talking about what those actions are?
Oh. Unless all you mean is that she has an obligation to get divorced?
I mean, that's pretty fucking weak if that's your strongest evidence that she doesn't believe in women's rights.
>And just btw, you are truly downplaying the proven actions of Bill, it goes far beyond accusations.
Oh do tell. The right has been trying to pin shit on him for decades so I'm really interested to see how you've managed to find more proof than the GOP machine dredged up working overtime for years.
There were three accusers. One of them filed a federal lawsuit against him while he was president. He settled to keep it from spiraling even further out of control after it began to eclipse his time in office. One of the accusers was so unreliable that even Ken Starr declined to investigate. He also had some extramarital affairs. Go ahead, let's hear your "feminist" argument that Hillary had an obligation to divorce him for cheating.
>The Clintons have gone on to destroy the viability of the careers of Bill's victims while Hillary still uses Bill as a valuable team member.
Uh. Lolwhut?
Juanita Broaddrick continued to run her nursing home business until 2008, when she sold it and retired. Paula Jones was a clerical worker who was paid almost a million bucks in settlement of her lawsuit against Bill Clinton. And Kathleen Willey, a former volunteer WH aide, leveraged her accusations into a book deal and a paid spokesperson gig with a pro-Trump Super PAC.
So... How have their encounters with the Clintons "destroy[ed] the viability of their careers," again?
Even critics of Hillary agree that this is a poor attack vector. You're putting yourself on the side of people who are seriously suggesting that it is less offensive for a man to consistently, throughout his career, make lewd and piggish remarks about women (including his own daughter), and demean and marginalize women - even running billion-dollar business industries that directly benefit from the objectification of women - than it is for a woman who, when put in an awkward, uncomfortable, humiliating position by her husband, makes the eminently human and perfectly rational decision to choose an allegiance to the powerful person she knows and trusts (to at least some extent) over the chance to maybe help empower a couple of women she doesn't know and to whom she has no loyalty, which would likely have been at the expense of her own marriage and career.
Fuck people who think she has an obligation to make that fucked-up awful choice and that her failure to do so somehow means she has no right to criticize Donald Trump for his lifelong, consistent pattern of misogyny. And double fuck you to those who try to argue that they are being feminists by doing it. You wanna talk about a double fucking standard?? There it is. Right the fuck there, in your bullshit argument.
It still is.
No Apology: The Case for American Greatness by Mitt Romney
> Is it just me or are feminists a bit stupid
Not stupid, but brainwashed. Ideology is very good at making smart people believe dumb shit
If you are interested in a deeper dive at how Fox uses all sorts of dirty psychological tricks to manipulate the masses, check out Thom Hartmann's book: Cracking the code:
http://www.amazon.com/Cracking-Code-Restore-Americas-Original/dp/1576756270/ref=sr_1_fkmr1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1332710778&sr=1-1-fkmr1
Don't forget about the book version: http://www.amazon.com/40-More-Years-Democrats-Generation/dp/B008SMV8PI
The book has just come out, I don't have excerpts yet (still looking). Voltairenet and Thierry Meyssan are a reliable source.
Edit: here's the book at Amazon.
https://www.cnn.com/2018/07/27/politics/kfile-jason-lewis-government-assistance/index.html
https://www.amazon.com/Blacklash-Driving-Americans-Government-Plantation/dp/1451643640
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Runaway_Slave_(film)
​
I don't see these people being ostracized from the GOP for calling black democrats slaves.
​
Tell me why you think a black person should vote Republican. Just for shits and giggles.
​
Archives for the links in comments:
----
I am Mnemosyne 2.1, I rate this link 3 out of 5 stars, "it was ok" ^^^^/r/botsrights ^^^^Contribute ^^^^message ^^^^me ^^^^suggestions ^^^^at ^^^^any ^^^^time ^^^^Opt ^^^^out ^^^^of ^^^^tracking ^^^^by ^^^^messaging ^^^^me ^^^^"Opt ^^^^Out" ^^^^at ^^^^any ^^^^time
https://www.amazon.ca/Liberal-Defence-Murder-Richard-Seymour/dp/1844672409
Our Republican Constitution by Randy Barnett is a fantastic discussion of the history of the Constitution and how it has evolved over time.
https://www.amazon.com/Our-Republican-Constitution-Securing-Sovereignty/dp/0062412280/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1497708785&sr=8-1&keywords=randy+barnett
...and then check out Frank Luntz who does the focus group testing to find out the exact words and phrases.
Then check out George Lakoff who has written extensively about this practice of framing in his book Dont Think of an Elephant
It's a lot like marketing a product / service. Before you say, "of course" I would ask you to ask yourself if Democrats do these language tricks. In fact, Democrats are victims as their politicians adopt the memes like how low taxes lead to job creation...
You're not even attempting to provide anything constructive in your criticism of the popular figures of political discourse. If I were to ask you who provides honestly liberal policies that isn't built on fear of current Republican authority taking office, who would you point to?
The sad reality is that Bill Maher is the most liberal popular figure out there and yet he isn't that liberal. So lamenting that Maher's liberalism still contains strands of neoconservative thinking, that just means the liberal thinking of today in America is rather weak.
Right now the only places available to absorb honest liberal thinking is through literature. And case in point of responding to Maher's advocacy of Israeli militarism is the book by British Marxist Richard Seymour, who wrote Liberal Defense of Murder, which is a takedown of prominent figures on the left advocating war.
It's just a reflection of what McCarthyism has done to intellectual liberalism in America. And saying that we shouldn't care for people like Maher is an implicit attempt to hide how weak the left has become.
Thomas Frank wrote about this a number of years ago.
That's factually untrue in regards to business. Not only are there less regulations than in the past but the departments that regulate have been defunded so that even the current regulations are poorly or not at all enforced. Don't be fooled that the heavily watered down health care bill and wall street reform bill actually changed anything.
You should really read The Wrecking Crew scary stuff.
First thing's first...
>Twenty years later, we are still told by important professors and politicians that ‘identity politics’ are dangerous, a genuine threat to civilization. Rather than the Jewish thinkers of the Frankfurt School, an idea with roots in anti-Semitic ‘cultural bolshevism,’ the new intellectual source for mainstream right-wingers is now ‘postmodernism’ — a dubious source given post-modern’s distinctive brand of skepticism towards all-encompassing systems.
That is a filthy lie.
Now that this is done, the author is doing one big sleight of hand... pretending that because Republicans leveraged identity politics to win the South back in the 70s that they and they alone bear the fault for identity politics today. This is a form of whataboutism, trying to deflect criticism by pretending someone else did something similar first.
The reality is that both can be true: Republicans can have leaned on white identity politics to gain the South AND leftist activists can be deeply involved in identity politics today for political gains. These are not mutually exclusive claims, and the author's whole argument hinges entirely on the reader accepting the implied statement that they are mutually exclusive. The author also pretends that this flirtation with "white identity politics" has never ended in the Republican party, which is not at all supported in hist text nor in reality.
The facts are that leftist thinkers have been harping about "The Emerging Democatic Majority" and the "Coaltition of the Ascendant", focusing on identity politics to attract the votes of rising demographics of college-educated women, ethnic minorities and the like to fashion a new coalition. Just saying "buh the Republicans did it too decades ago!" is not a defense.
i checked and they are full of conservative people praising the book & there are no top reviews from liberals criticizing it.
[The Cost of Our Silence: Consequences of Christians Taking the Path of Least Resistance ] (https://www.amazon.com/dp/1622452712) 4.8 stars
ERADICATE: Blotting Out God in America: Understanding, Combatting, and Overcoming the Anti-Christian Agenda 4.3 stars
Big Agenda: President Trump’s Plan to Save America 4.7 stars
The Big Lie: Exposing the Nazi Roots of the American Left 4.6 stars
Rediscovering Americanism: And the Tyranny of Progressivism 4.7 stars
Understanding Trump - Newt Gingrich 4.8 stars
Dangerous - Milo Yiannopoulos 4.9 stars
most liberals have more work to do than write negative reviews for tripe that can be found on any facebook comment section. see, that is the difference ; most conservatives detest and loathe liberals while most liberals want to convince conservative to let progress happen.
but sitting and stewing in your echo chamber has made you believe that liberals are evil baddies