Best history & theory of politics books according to redditors
We found 211 Reddit comments discussing the best history & theory of politics books. We ranked the 83 resulting products by number of redditors who mentioned them. Here are the top 20.
We found 211 Reddit comments discussing the best history & theory of politics books. We ranked the 83 resulting products by number of redditors who mentioned them. Here are the top 20.
If you can read a 1,000+ page book on a political campaign, What It Takes goes into Bob Dole's early life in detail. The book is about everyone running in the 1988 Presidential election, and almost certainly the best book you will ever read about what makes people become successful politicians and what a major election campaign is really like.
Anyway, back to Dole. It wasn't just his hand that was injured in WWII, his whole body was mangled. There were several years where he was bedridden and likely suicidal afterwards, and he was generally expected to stay that way and die within five, maybe ten years. The surgery on his shoulder that turned his arm into a pen cup was an extremely risky, experimental procedure when he had it done, and it was basically as a last ditch effort.
Then he spent a few more years relearning how to do every basic task you take for granted, and went to law school, where he learned everything by memory because he had no way to take notes. Then he was a small-town lawyer who got into politics.
I'm not a fan of his politics or his weird third-person self-reference affectation, but he has an incredible backstory.
"Military spending doesn’t redistribute wealth, it’s not democratizing, it doesn’t create popular constituencies or encourage people to get involved in decision-making. It’s just a straight gift to the corporate manager, period."
...
"They understood that social spending could play the same stimulative role, but it is not a direct subsidy to the corporate sector, it has democratizing effects, and it is redistributive. Military spending has none of these defects."
link
https://www.amazon.com/Vidal-History-National-Security-State/dp/1494887991
It's The History of the National Security State by Gore Vidal
​
https://www.amazon.com/Vidal-History-National-Security-State/dp/1494887991
The Guardian reports it as a Gore Vidal book on the Security State.
Probably this one:
https://www.amazon.com/Vidal-History-National-Security-State/dp/1494887991
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Vidal-History-National-Security-State/dp/1494887991
I found it!
Gore Vidal History of The National Security State: Includes Vidal on America https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/1494887991/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_i_okZRCbFG8NG2R
Interesting choice of arrest book, I have a follow up for anyone reading, what was Assange shouting as he was arrested?
Sky News are reporting he’s telling the U.K. to refuse the Trump Administration with large portions of what he is saying labels as “inaudible”.
Wouldn’t that statement go against the whole point of Wikileaks who leaked Hillary’s emails?
Ex-army here. I did six years in the Army Reserve and a one year deployment to Iraq in 09.
The military is the most extreme example of hierarchy I can think of. There are literally dozens of layers of it, in the rank system and the chain of command, and you wear it on your chest in the form of your personal rank.
The purpose of the military is to destroy and conquer human beings, so it isn't surprising that those in the military experience what we dish out. It's why we have higher rates of suicide, mental illness, crime, etc. Everybody's experience is different of course, but I would call mine a "socially acceptable abusive relationship". Those on the top would engage in verbal abuse and physical abuse (in the form of corrective action through physical exercise, as well as sending us on pointless mission that put our lives at risk).
The military is about power, just as corporations and other big businesses are about power. Power is how you take more than you create. It's how a CEO can pay himself a million bucks a year but give his employees minimum wage. The military is how capitalists and states maintain their power at home and overseas. When foreign nations refuse to part with their natural resources or labor for a pittance, that's when those in power have to take action. I'd suggest reading Understanding Power to get the specifics here.
I could always feel there was something wrong with this system, but it took experimenting with a number of different philosophies before I came to anarchism. Abolishing all hierarchies and tools of oppressions...that's what really got me.
Seems to be. One aspect it doesn't cover, however, is that the Rubio and Trump views come from primary campaigning versions of themselves. Even with Trump, it's reasonable to assume their true views aren't quite as stringent as the rhetorically simple messages they put out for primary voters. And I say that being personally as far from a Rubio/Trump/Cruz supporter as you might find.
The revealing part is that about Bush—he really did couch the argument that starkly, at least publicly. The author writes:
> Bush called al-Qaeda “the heirs of all the murderous ideologies of the 20th century … they follow in the path of fascism, Nazism, and totalitarianism.” Many Republicans still see the “war on terror” in these epic terms.
In my opinion that's rare for a president, aside from instances of actual threats of world domination, like that of the Nazis and USSR; and it's an unwise thing to do...but that's also my opinion. That un-nuanced, all/nothing choice was successful at the time. But I've since seen even conservatives criticize this, saying it ended up weakening the U.S. position. Yet most of the republican candidates are now back where Bush/Cheney left off.
The portion about Obama subscribing to the Robert Pape argument is interesting.
> ...that the great driver of suicide terrorism is not jihadist ideology but occupation
I've not seen this argument made about Obama before. It does seem correct. I'm looking forward to reading the essay cited... which is actually a book, here on Amazon. (As I was writing this I assumed it was shorter form, online content. Good as the book maybe, if anyone can point me to online content discussing Pope's argument, I'd love to see it.)
On a related note, something I got off another redditor:
> Robert Pape Uni. of Chicago, studied every suicide bombing and attack around the globe from 1980 through 2003 - 315 attacks in all:
>"The data show that there is little connection between suicide terrorism and Islamic fundamentalism, or any one of the world's religions. . . . Rather, what nearly all suicide terrorist attacks have in common is a specific secular and strategic goal: to compel modern democracies to withdraw military forces from territory that the terrorists consider to be their homeland" - Source
Well...I agree History is key...but...
You really need to read Political Theory first for a foundation. Every modern day political ideology is based off of these books in one way or another.
-Jean-Jacques Rousseau - The Basic Political Writings
Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel - Introduction to the Philosophy of History
And....
Bentham and Mill - The Classical Utilitarians: Bentham and Mill
Karl Marx, Freidrich Engels -The Marx-Engels Reader -Second Edition Don't worry, it still contains the Communist Manifesto.
Machiavelli couldn't hurt to know either.
For some basis on International Organizations - whether it be trade theory, regimes, etc.... this book is top of its class.
Friedrich Kratochwil, Edward D Mansfield - International Organization and Global Governance: A Reader
You also should really read into and understand the Treaty of Westphalia
Then from there
You can look into History, Economic Theory, and/or whatever specific part of the political spectrum you have interest in.
If you are a student try to take advantage of JSTOR...if you aren't a student...you can always purchase access if you are genuinely interested in this stuff.
AFTER you atleast have a foundation under your belt.
You can then use Think Tanks most of what I will link are Internationally known and used and are unbiased, non partisaned.
*Think tank for Action on Social Change - Based out of Ireland
All of these are widely used, widely respected. Whether you agree with their stances or not. Each of them have had their fair share of Criticism.
I firmly believe that Think Tanks provide the best source of political information, and that they allow one to mold their own political views on grounds of academia and not propaganda and misinformation. (I'm looking at you MSN and Fox news)
Conservative
Acton Institute
American Civil Rights Union
American Enterprise Institute
Bradley Foundation
Center for Security Policy
Claremont Institute
Employment Policies Institute (Fiscal)
Goldwater Institute
The Heritage Foundation
Manhattan Institute for Policy Research
National Center for Policy Analysis
Libertarian
Ludwig von Mises Institute
Cascade Policy Institute
Cato Institute
Competitive Enterprise Institute
Foundation for Economic Education
The Heartland Institute
The Independent Institute
Reason Foundation
Progressive
Center for American Progress
Center for Economic and Policy Research
The Century Foundation
Drum Major Institute
Institute for Policy Studies
New Democrat Network
Third Way (Independent - Dem leaning)
World Policy Institute
Liberal
Economic Policy Institute
Economic
American Institute for Economic Research
Analysis Group
Committee for Economic Development
Global Financial Integrity
James Madison Institute (Free Market)
Milken Institute
National Bureau of Economic Research
Peterson Institute for International Economics
Political and Economic Research Council
Tax Foundation
National
Center for a New American Security
Center for Defense Information
Discovery Institute This one has a religious agenda. It's a good use...but beware they are attacking Religion
International
American Foreign Policy Council
Aspen Institute
Atlantic Council
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
Center for Global Development
Council on Foreign Relations
EastWest Institute
Foreign Policy Research Institute
Inter-American Dialogue
Migration Policy Institute
RAND Corporation VERY good Think-Tank
Washington Institute for Near East Policy
Non-Partison Public Policy
Brookings Institution
Center for Ethical Solutions
Center for Governmental Studies
Center for Immigration Studies
Center for International Policy
Center for Media and Democracy
Center on Budget and Policy Priorities
Foundation for Excellence in Education
Global Development and Environment Institute
Hoover Institution
Hudson Institute
Information Technology and Innovation Foundation
James Baker Institute
New America Foundation
Pew Research Center (I love Pew)
Urban Institute
Bi-Partison
Center for Strategic and International Studies
Constitution Project
Most Universities around the World have think tanks also
The only one I care about and rely on is the Think Tank at the University of Virginia.
The University of Virginia's Miller Center
Think Tank Directory
Elections, Candidates
Vote Smart
On The Issues
Sorry in advance if the Format is shit
It's a simple extension of an analysis of power. I'd encourage you to look at this book (also available in audiobook).
If you are truly interested and can't afford it, PM me.
https://www.amazon.com/Understanding-Power-Indispensable-Chomsky-Noam/dp/1522694358
> Understanding Power is just as relevant too.
Understanding Power is the best overall book on modern politics i have ever read. Really challenged/changed a lot of my preconceived opinions about politics
SS:
here is the video of julian #HERO assange being dragged out of solitary confinement :
he can be heard shouting “you must resist”.
here is the book he is holding:
Shame on UK
Shame of Ecuador
Shame on USA
Shame on Australia
If you want a broad view of Chomsky, I suggest The Essential Chomsky. It's a collection of some of his most influential writings. If you want to skip the linguistic stuff and focus on political writing, Understanding Power has been suggested. I haven't read that one, though. The linguistic stuff, in my opinion, is interesting but very hard to follow if you're not into linguistics already. The opening piece from Essential Chomsky is a 50+ page essay which is a critical examination of a linguistics writing. It took a long time to read and I retained little.
Here is more info on the first book I recommended. Here is the second.
It's not really a paper, so to speak, he organized it really well in a book. Simple read, very straight forward, authentic sources and well cited.
You can find it here: http://www.amazon.com/Dying-Win-Strategic-Suicide-Terrorism/dp/0812973380/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1373188706&sr=8-1&keywords=logic+of+suicide
Chomsky's views on postmodernism aren't at all new. He dismisses pomo in Understanding Power (2002); I don't have my copy handy to give a page number, but I'm pretty sure it's in the index. He said things to the effect that he can hardly read pomo literature and that it's hardly amenable to serious analysis because its claims are so obscure or indeterminate. His latest remarks are a quite-consistent extension of his earlier ones.
Have you read Gore Vidal History of The National Security State: Includes Vidal on America ? (This is the book Julian Assange was holding when he was carried out of the embassy.)
It is a very short book but VERY easy to read and super interesting. Your time will not be wasted. It addresses the incestual relationship between Washington and the media as well.
Someone identified it as Gore Vidal: History of The National Security State
Dude, it's in almost any book written about Bush's time in office. He read them, but he also got an in-person briefing by a CIA officer. Normally the VP and other people sat in on the brief. It's not up for dispute whether or not he read them. The question is why he didn't take them seriously, which is a different question.
Edit:
Here's a surprisingly topical book. link
https://www.amazon.com/What-Takes-Way-White-House/dp/0679746498
I think it may be 'The President's Book of Secrets: The Untold Story of Intelligence Briefings'
Until relatively recently, the foremost practitioners of suicide bombing were the Tamil Tigers of Sri Lanka, who are... well, nominally non-religious, though probably majority
BuddhistHindu, trying to oust a majority-HinduBuddhist population (the Sinhalese).At the time Robert Pape's book on suicide bombing, Dying to Win, came out, the Tamil Tigers were still top of the game.
That's getting inside the 20-year limit this sub likes to impose, though.
Longer ago, you might get something out of reading up on the Sabra and Shatila Massacre, carried out by the Christian Falange in Lebanon and the ethnic cleansing during the Bosnian War (including Srebrenica massacre), carried out by units of the (nominally Christian) Serbian army.
In both cases, there's a Christian force on one hand carrying out atrocities against a Muslim population on the other... but the Christian forces are state sponsored, and the Muslims are just kinda... there.
---
EDIT: fixing who's likely to be worshipping who in Sri Lanka; thanks /u/TheOneFreeEngineer.
https://www.amazon.com/Star-Spangled-Crown-Simple-American-Monarchy/dp/1944339051
https://www.amazon.com/Royalist-Revolution-Monarchy-American-Founding/dp/067473534X
These are the other 2 books usually recommended.
I just searched it on DDG and the first link that came up was Amazon?
https://www.amazon.com/Vidal-History-National-Security-State-ebook/dp/B00MX4LILG#mobile-udp-contributor-popover-id_1554993001425
Iirc it was this one https://www.amazon.co.uk/Vidal-History-National-Security-State/dp/1494887991
Understanding Power - The Indispensable Chomsky (footnotes)
Side note: the footnotes are incredible. They source all the obscure and seldom-publicized historical events and documents that Chomsky cites as evidence to support his arguments.
A bit of a different book from me.
The Politics Book - Paul Kelly
https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/1409364453/ref=cm_sw_r_other_apa_VvB1xbAZFK029
It is a good, fairly unbiased, summary of politics and philosophy from history and is great for beginners who want to grasp political ideas and understand political history at a basic level.
The layout is modern and easy to understand so I highly recommend it.
https://www.amazon.ca/Leviathan-Thomas-Hobbes/dp/0199537283/ref=sr_1_1/154-5195785-5062237?ie=UTF8&qid=1481467964&sr=8-1&keywords=leviathan+hobbes
https://www.amazon.ca/Social-Contract-Jean-Jacques-Rousseau/dp/0140442014/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1481468107&sr=8-1&keywords=rousseau+the+social+contract
https://www.amazon.ca/Second-Treatise-Government-John-Locke-ebook/dp/B004UJCSBG/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1481468187&sr=8-1&keywords=locke+second+treatise
Otherwise, I don't think what you're looking for exists. I know the Supreme Court has written some flowery words about where the government derives its powers whenever it feels the need, but it's not in any one document, and I wouldn't know where to find it. We don't reinvent the wheel every time we build a car, and we don't rejustify the existence of the state every time we form a new one.
It's from Understanding Power, A collection of talks he's done over the years. This one's from talks he gave at Rowe, Massachusetts.
https://www.amazon.com/Understanding-Power-Indispensable-Chomsky-Noam/dp/1522694358
I'm surprised no one's mentioned this one:
Understanding Power: The Indispensable Chomsky
It's pretty comprehensive in terms of covering the essentials of his positions on most major issues, but the editors did a fantastic job of presenting all of it as a question/answer type of format. Another cool thing, the footnotes/citations were so voluminous they made it a .pdf online because it would've probably doubled the size of the book:
The Footnotes to Understanding Power
He appears to be holding a book as they drag him out of the Embassy, but I don't recognize the face of the man on the cover. Anyone recognize the book that's such a page turner he can't put it down to be man-handled by a bunch of cops?
EDIT: found someone else in the comments had already pegged it: https://www.amazon.com/Vidal-History-National-Security-State/dp/1494887991 Good ol' Gore Vidal. Worth a read.
If you are interested in more the function of politics rather than its subject matter of policy, then here is a decent list of foundational texts to get you started:
On theory:
The Federalist and Anti-Federalist Papers
Democracy in America
On Campaigning:
What it takes
Game Change
Campaigns and Elections- American Style
On Legislating/Governing:
Congress- The Electoral Connection
Party Politics in America
Political Polarization of American Politics
Interest Group Politics
Obviously this is quite a bit to read- but renting or using library resources will soften the blow to your wallet.
If I have misread your question, and you are interested in policy rather than politics, more recommendations can be provided depending on both your political persuasion and your specific interests.
PS: Assumed you meant American politics. If not- can provide other texts.
>Former Central Intelligence Agency briefer David Priess, the author of a book about PDBs, said that traditionally, Trump and Pence's predecessors sat for "daily or near-daily intelligence briefings" between their elections and their inaugurations.
>He said Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan did not start receiving their daily briefings until later in November, while the delayed election result in 2000 meant that George W. Bush did not start receiving his until December.
If you want the number of days each sat for a briefing before inauguration you will need to read Priess' book. Here ya go. Have a ball!
Noam Chomsky has been talking about this since before most of us were even born.
Depends. What topic interests you, and at what level? He's written on philosophy, politics and of course lingustics.
For an overview of his political beliefs, I like Understanding Power, whose footnotes are web-only, because otherwise they would've more than doubled the book. (It's also very readable, since it's taken from question & answer sessions, where he's looser with language than in prepared talks or in print. And even Chomsky uses the book to look up stuff, praising the duo who assembled the book.)
Language and Politics is also interesting, and touches more on philosophy and lingustics.
There's much on the web. He also used to participate on ZNet's old message forums; however his years of posts (probably in the thousands) answering people's political questions may be lost.
Political works by Chomsky:
The Responsibility of Intellectuals (1967),
At War With Asia: Essays on Indochina (1969),
Government in the Future (1970),
The Fateful Triangle (1983, 2015),
The Chomsky Reader (1987, 2010),
Manufacturing Consent (1988, 2002),
Year 501: The Conquest Continues (1992, 2015),
Understanding Power: The Indispensible Chomsky (2002),
Hegemony or Survival (2003),
Failed States (2006).
Works on Chomsky:
Noam Chomsky: A personal bibliography, 1951-1986 (1986),
Noam Chomsky: A Life of Dissent (1998),
Chomsky: Ideas and Ideals ( 1999, 2002, 2016),
The Cambridge Companion to Chomsky (2005, 2017),
The Social and Political Thought of Noam Chomsky (2000, 2002, 2004),
The Chomsky Effect: A Radical Works Beyond the Ivory Tower (2007), Noam Chomsky (2015)
Also this, this, this and this.
https://www.amazon.com/Social-Contract-Jean-Jacques-Rousseau/dp/149617268X
https://www.amazon.com/Leviathan-Thomas-Hobbes/dp/1463649932
Robert Pape is a political scientist at the University of Chicago, and the auth of Dying To Win: The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism - original paper as a pdf. He's written and been interviewed about terrorism, especially Daesh. In this interview, he argues against What ISIS Really Wants, and makes the case that they are primarily a nationalist group:
>Wanting territory means there’s a community that wants a state. ISIS, and most suicide groups, are driven by an ideal of nationalism; they want to control their destiny with a state. ISIS is composed of a leadership of about 25 people, which is one-third very heavily religious, for sure; one-third former Saddam [Hussein] military officers who are Baathists, who are secular; and one-third who are Sunni militia, Sunni tribal leaders. That just conveniently is lost in the Wood piece.
It’s definitely the case that ISIS wants to kill people who are not part of its community. But this is normal in nationalist groups. (Hutu wanted to kill Tutsi; they also wanted to kill moderate Hutu who didn’t want to kill Tutsi.)
what it takes: the way to the white house
just the most incredible, enjoyable study of politics and what makes a person great.
If you enjoy talking about politics, or find elections interesting, your world view will be made so much wider by this book.
I'm sure no-one else will have heard of it, so here are links to:
the rather short wiki
the amazon page with excellent reviews
the goodreads page with more reviews
the author discussing the book on cspan
Gore Vidal's History of the National Security State.
https://www.amazon.com/Vidal-History-National-Security-State/dp/1494887991
The first one I read was Media Control: The Spectacular Achievements of Propaganda, which was a great introduction. It's short and very easy to get into. You can read it in an afternoon. It's actually from a speech he gave, so you can probably find the audio online for free and listen to it instead if you prefer.
But his best book, in my opinion, is Understanding Power. It's more of a collection of essays, speeches and interviews, but it really shaped my understanding of the world better than any other book I have read. I can't recommend this book enough.
If you're more interested in libertarian socialism, in addition to Understanding Power, read Chomsky on Anarchism. He presents the theories in very clear language, instead of being overly theoretical.
If you're more interested in his writings on US foreign policy, also read either Failed States or Hegemony or Survival.
Enjoy!
Seconding /u/ivanthecurious 's suggestion of Manin's Principles of Representative Government, its a really readable historical account of the rise of consent and representation in democracy.
I'm reading JS Mill's 'On Representative Government' and it seems like it might be exactly what you're looking for, not contemporary by any means, but a thorough defence of the principles of representation
I looked around but didn't see anything. Robert Pape worked on a similar database for the University of Chicago, and a lot of the data from that project was published in his book Dying to Win: The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism -- which, incidentally, came to conclusions very similar to those in the linked-to article.
if you're not excited by Biden, go dig out What It Takes: The Way To The White House and read his chapters. Also it's the best book ever written.
warning: may result in write-in votes for Gary Hart
Same here. Understanding Power: The Indispensable Chomsky
>My plan this time around is to base a collection of ten threads each based on a chapter of 'The Politics Book' published by Dorling Kindersley.
I bought that yesterday! Asdas for £8, cheaper than Amazon, I thought it was a bargain considering how clear and yet how jam packed it was.
If you prefer it in its more thorough form, might I suggest to you The Social Contract by Jean Jacques Rousseau. It is what the administration means when they say relationships, they just don't know it. Your classroom is a society, the students the people, and you are the ruler. If you do not have acceptance from the people of the rules by which you intend to govern then you have nothing.
How do you have students buy into those rules? The fear of God? The fear of the administration at your school? The fear of you? The grudging respect? Machiavelli will give you different options, and those options are all open to you in a theoretical world, but you have to choose the one that works for you.
A) You should wallow in pity about how nothing has changed since 1972.
B) If you want more HST I recommend The Rum Diary or Hell's Angels.
C) If you want more politics I recommend Game Change which was about the 2008 election and was pretty great if not overly shocking or if you really want to get deep into something try the 1,000 page opus about the 1980 election What It Takes
"Our Enemy, The State" by Albert Jay Nock
https://www.amazon.com/Vidal-History-National-Security-State/dp/1494887991
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Vidal-History-National-Security-State/dp/1494887991
It was this from Gore Vidal... History of The National Security State
That looks like Roger Stone to me but that would be ridiculous.
I'm def wrong: https://www.amazon.com/Vidal-History-National-Security-State/dp/1494887991
>But I've not yet found a good discussion on power.
Noam Chomsky is your huckleberry if you lack the stomach for French verbosity.
Power & Ideology
Understanding Power
Indeed. When Harris writes:
> Our humanities and social science departments are filled with scholars and pseudo-scholars deemed to be experts in terrorism, religion, Islamic jurisprudence, anthropology, political science, and other diverse fields, who claim that where Muslim intolerance and violence are concerned, nothing is ever what it seems. Above all, these experts claim that one can’t take Islamists and jihadists at their word: Their incessant declarations about God, paradise, martyrdom, and the evils of apostasy are nothing more than a mask concealing their real motivations.
any skeptic should wonder how it's possible that only Harris manages to see the Truth while all others fail. Are they really biased by wishful thinking? Do they have no evidence to support their conclusions?
Atheists often claim to follow a rational and scientific method, willing to follow the evidence whereever it may lead.
Well, then. What sort of evidence does Harris provide? All I have ever seen is anecdotes, counter-factuals, and an appeal to intution. This is hardly good evidence. He never managed to get a paper published in a peer-reviewed journal about the topic, as far as I know.
What about the so called "pseudo-scholars" in the humanities and social science departments? What sort of evidence do they have? It seems they do take terrorists by their word. They do in-depth interviews with former terrorists. They do statistical analysis where terrorists come from. They do a careful comparison of the available data.
What's more: Their explanation is consistent with what we know about motivations for violence, in general, and what we know about the relative impotence of religious doctrines for getting people to do good.
There's hardly any doubt who's closer to the truth, here.
"Understanding Power: The Indispensable Chomsky" is outstanding. It's based on speaking engagements and the the footnotes are an actual website, so they're exceptionally thorough and even include some official documents. It covers many, many topics, so best of all, you can jump around and read sections you're interested in. An Amazing book. For the table of contents check it out on Amazon, but buy the book from The New Press link given above.
For Enjoyable Political Science stuff, I would suggest A More Perfect Constitution by Larry Sabbato.
For the best election reading, go for [What It Takes] (http://www.amazon.com/What-Takes-Way-White-House/dp/0679746498/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1371747306&sr=1-1&keywords=what+it+takes) by Richard Ben Kramer.
Here is the book you're mentioning.
And here are all of the book's footnotes online along with excerpts. Very, very informative and a huge time saver for research nuts.
There's is hope! Turns out representative government is not democracy, so if you want a democracy, you can fight for that.
Source: Aristotle, Montesquieu, French revolutionaries, Bernard Manin.
Salvador Allende is a good example to see the effect America has on other countries.
Understanding Power by Noam Chomsky wonderfully links the domestic struggle with American Imperialism.
Violence by our boy Slavoj Zizek, refracts outbursts of violence into his own unique way of looking at events. Really eye opening.
America has historically exported some of the worst, murderous violence overseas for the pettiest of reasons, its own gain regardless of the consequences to liberators struggle.
I'm glad to hear of someone interested in learning, hope I've helped!
Without pressure from the left they will continue to slide right. They will continue to accept money from corporations and they will continue to support their causes, they will fail to represent us and continue to rig elections.
They organize wedge issues specifically designed to split us up into groups, squabbling over issues that do not fundamentally alter society or power structures, while silently passing legislation which consolidates power for the wealthy. Many wedge issues we deal with today would essentially be trivially solved in a world where our government was run by and worked for the people rather than the wealthiest 1%.
I highly recommend reading this book: Understanding Power: The indispensable Chomsky
The people arguing that terrorism doesn't work assume that terrorists' stated goals are their actual ones. That's a problematic assumption. Terrorists have all sorts of reasons to misrepresent their goals; recruitment and fundraising, for instance, would probably fall off if they started saying that their followers were suicide bombing for a slightly improved bargaining position.
This article presents one side of an ongoing academic debate as if it were concluded. If you'd like the other side of the argument, Robert Pape's study of suicide terrorism is fairly accessible and makes the case for effectiveness in certain areas.
>coming up with a coherent political theory
For what it's worth, my personal impression is that intellectuals on the far right are more coherent in their politics than intellectuals on the far left. Intellectuals on the far right can often point to specific things they think work well, such as Singapore, or European monarchies. Sometimes they even have radical new proposals... but at least they are concrete. I less often here of concrete ideas coming from the far left. My general impression is that the far left has strong ideals about radical egalitarianism, but no plan for how to achieve it that's more sophisticated than "destroy everyone who disagrees with us".
Of course, most of the people on both sides who show up for events like this one are not intellectuals and don't have coherent views.
Chomsky's Understanding Power is a long, organized Q&A and has sections where he discusses libertarian socialism directly, but the entire book is about the same general philosophy.
It was this book:
https://www.amazon.com/Vidal-History-National-Security-State-ebook/dp/B00MX4LILG/ref=sr_1_44?keywords=gore+vidal&qid=1554992621&s=gateway&sr=8-44
The art style? Well it's kinda like a deliberately simple sort of thing, couldn't find any pictures of the inside but the cover should give you an idea of what it's like: https://www.amazon.co.uk/Politics-Book-Paul-Kelly/dp/1409364453
Could definitely go that way at this point. Glad my weak starter was enough to interest you though. The main text on Patchwork was published by Moldbug, here are the 4 chapters:
Chapter 1
Chapter 2
Chapter 3
Chapter 4
Moldbug has an interesting style, he writes like he's just shooting the shit but the guy understands insane amounts of political and economic theory.
There are a lot of blogs on Patchwork as well, which go at it from various perspectives that aren't as far-right as Moldbug. The blogger Xenogoth in particular compiled a "patchwork reader" of all the writings on it, but that's escaping my googling right now.
It isn't about Islam. Before 2003 the Tamil Tigers were responsible for the most suicide bombings. Good book on suicide terrorism
Amazon says 64 pages
http://www.amazon.com/Art-War-Sun-Tzu/dp/161382288X/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1411579391&sr=8-3&keywords=art+of+war+sun+tzu
You've yet to provide a single piece of evidence for anything you have stated. I cannot go through all your points as they are assertions rather than supported statements. Let's try a few and then call it a day. What I am going to do is offer a citation EVERY SINGLE TIME. If you do not reply in kind, I will use this as evidence that you are talking shite.
Absolute shit. Total and utter. I honestly don't know where you are getting this from. Please read "How the Weak Win Wars".
nationalist (this is the majority of terrorist movements);
No it is not. You're wrong. Flat out wrong."
No, I didn't say "who cares what they think" You are the one offering a one-size-fits-all explanation that refuses to take their claims seriously. I am the one saying that different groups have different goals. On trends in the movement, while it is true that nationalist and ethnic goals are declining, they still account for most terrorist movements in the world. See this RAND report's conclusions. Or are RAND not as wise as you? (also note, note that ideology is treated as a political motivator, not inherently terroristic - i.e. used the way I define it; not you).
3."No it is false, naive, and dangerous to glorify them by claiming their ideals are complex and motivations are all different. They do these things because they want to kill people, people that they emotionally hate. They are irrational. They are motivated by various ideologies but they all have one common ideology: That destroying property and killing innocent random people within the area of your enemy, will result in social change."
You really seem to be struggling with the differences between means and ends. Just because a group targets civilians it does not mean the group's goals are to target civilians. It might mean that they do this because they think it will meet other goals. By your logic, the US army only goes to war because it likes to blow stuff up; not because blowing some stuff up might have political effects. Read Clausewitz. On terrorists and extreme violence read Pape
How is saying that terrorist groups have various goals and various beliefs "oversimplify" the issue. It adds complexity. You are the one offering a monocausal explanation. I never said they didn't have beliefs. I am saying they have different beliefs. Oh, and by the way, saying "it's complex" does not mean "it's random" or "we can't understand." It simply means simple answers may not work. On the various goals of terrorists, see Hoffman.
I was referring to things that you said political scientists ignored. I was telling you they didn't. So don't get your nose out of bent when I contradict you. Admittedly my tone is not nice. But then neither is yours.
You haven't mentioned a single person by name. Everyone I have mentioned is a peer-reviewed political scientist. Show me your sources. I hope you are smart enough to know that some sources are less credible than others.
And how does that make any logical sense? Absolutely it is necessary to make accurate analysis which you clearly failed to do."
You said that you cannot study terrorism without clearance. I said you can as (a) there are tons of cases one can study that are now declassified, (b) many viable methods don't require clearance (e.g. interviews), and (c) unless you are trying to explain a specific operation or attack you do not necessarily need every single bit of fine-grained information. Your question determines your method. On designing research please see KKV or Brady & Collier
Yeah so admit that you are wrong and ignorant."
I have been wrong on many things, many times. It took me some time to become smart enough to figure out when to let go of ideas. It is not easy for most people. But buddy, don't fucking fool yourself, you are not winning this argument.
I am not trying to justify anything. I am trying to explain it. Studying lung cancer doesn't mean you are in favor of cancer, or against cigarette companies for that matter. It simply means trying to explain it. I'm not the one with blinkers on here.
"It is said that if you know your enemies and know yourself, you will not be imperiled in a hundred battles; if you do not know your enemies but do know yourself, you will win one and lose one; if you do not know your enemies nor yourself, you will be imperiled in every single battle." - Sun Tzu.
If you don't respond with proper citations don't expect a reply. But, whatever you do don't chalk it up as an intellectual win.
EDIT: for formatting, before I gave up.
>As an example I bet that the majority in the U.S. would accept serious restrictions on Muslims, something I oppose.
How merciful of you, but I don't think the majority of the US would do such a thing.
>I also think you are well aware that the Brotherhood did so well because of organization not simply popularity.
Regardless of what actually happened, your tidbit is irrelevant because I'm talking about democracy, which is determined by popularity (ideally).
>Do you want a history of wars based on religion? On the horrors in Europe and the Islamic world because of fights over religion? There is a saying that has lots of truth: good people can do good things and bad people can do bad things, but it takes religion to make good people do bad things.
Always a go to argument among atheists while completely disregarding ulterior motives for many of the past wars and also ignoring the thousands of wars that had nothing to do with religion at all. The fact is mankind loves to go to war whether there are religious reasons or not, having an excuse just makes it that much easier. There are a lot of books on these things.
Also, I am of the opinion that if you don't agree with the ideals set by your country, you are more than welcome to leave. No one will be completely ok with everything every country does. Don't like Islam's view on public adultery? Don't live in an Islamic state. Simple.
>Why should I care what a semi-mythic first state was like?
Because that is what this religion is (or rather should be) basing it's ideals on, whether you think it's mythic or not.
>Do you think the Islamic parties in Egypt are going to try for something like that first state or more like Saudi?
Probably like the first Islamic state. The majority of the Muslim world sees the ridiculousness of Saudia Arabia's government.
Understanding Power gives a pretty broad overview of his ideas.
Understanding Power: The Indispensable Chomsky
No doubt about it, I'm in a niche ideology.
As far as "selling" it to the masses, that's been the focus of my thoughts for a while now. I don't feel that libertarian socialism is as radical an ideology as it might appear at first, especially in the context of the United States' political traditions.
The broad concepts aren't particularly complex, and they can be easily understood even by children. In the late 19th and early 20th century when leftist ideologies were more common, their ideas were spread through town hall assemblies, discussions in union meetings, popular songs, and, perhaps most importantly, a robust, widely-available working class press.
I don't want to harp on Chomsky too much, but the Propaganda Model presented in Manufacturing Consent goes a long way toward explaining why leftist ideologies have fallen by the wayside in the last 150 years or so. There's a great summary of this in Understanding Power, but I don't have my copy handy and google searches aren't turning anything up (as an aside, I'd highly recommend giving Understanding Power a read as it offers a great example of just how accessible and easy-to-understand anarchism can be)
So to me, it's not really a question of whether or not these ideologies are comprehensible to the average Joe. In fact, I'd argue that the current neoliberal capitalist paradigm demands much more complex and illogical reconciliations (2+2=5) from non-elite adherents.
To sum it up, in my mind there are two primary hurdles that need to be overcome in order for the idea to gain traction: (1) our perspective on private property (income-producing property; i.e. the 'means of production'--not your toothbrush), and (2) our understanding of "human nature"
Happy to go into more depth on those points, but I want to keep my comment brief(ish).
As far as coming up with a workable, realistic path, my personal opinion is that the specifics of Marxist and Syndicalist approaches to organizing are largely irrelevant in today's context (but the broad ideas are still on point).
Economically, I don't think it's realistic to expect everyone to abandon the idea of markets as a way of allocating resources, so a solid first step would be embracing a Mutualist approach that democratizes workplace control but retains a market. However, my long-term view is that markets are corrupting and should eventually be phased out.
Politically, I'm drawn to Bookchin's Libertarian Municipalism as a workable framework that doesn't require immediate and total revolution (though the expectation would be that eventually there would be a confrontation with the state)
I'm rambling at this point, so I'll shut up now. But I hope that all makes sense and answers your question(s).
BTW the blueprints of this are freely available for purchase on the internet:
https://www.amazon.com/Prince-Nicolo-Machiavelli/dp/1494461943
Understanding Power is a collection of lectures and Q&A sessions, and as such it is in a conversational style that is much easier to digest than his more scholarly works. I would definitely recommend this over books like Manufacturing Consent as an introduction to Chomsky's ideas. Manufacturing Consent was made into a documentary which does a good job of outlining his critique of the mass media.
I thought this author sounded familiar! Turns out he wrote this book which I quite enjoyed.
Yes they took pictures of bodies. A photograph of a pile of bodies tells you nothing about how it got there. German infrastructure was almost completely destroyed in 1944. By 1945 when the Allies finally began to reach the camps as they were closing in on Berlin, internal supply routes had been decimated, factories were bombed out, civilian industry was all but dead.
Food, water, medicine, all of these goods that were supposed to be circulating into the labor camps ceased. Hundreds of thousands of people starved to death. Hundreds of thousands of people died of Typhus. This was because the Allies focused their attacks from the middle of the war forward, on Germany's civilian population, rather than on military targets. Much like how we chose to attack Japan's civilian cities rather than any type of military targets when we nuked Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Clearly this was the mindset our leaders were in at this time. So they utterly destroyed Dresden, they utterly destroyed Berlin, and the rest of the German cities too. The idea that 350,000 to 500,000 German civilians died is disgusting revisionist propaganda. 3 million Germans were killed from 1945-1949 alone, after the Soviet occupation of East Germany began. Here's a link from a reputable, mainstream source.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/books/3664526/How-three-million-Germans-died-after-VE-Day.html
And that's just the Germans that were Holocausted after the combat ended, many more were killed in the total destruction of Germany. Just because the Allies used their total victory to control the narrative and adjust the death toll of their indiscriminate bombing raids on totally civilian areas doesn't mean you should believe them. You know, the British air force mass carpet bombed German civilians for 3 months before Hitler responded in kind with bombings of English cities. In Dunkirk, Hitler had the entire British army completely routed and pushed against the sea. He could have ended the war then, but he spared them and let them return to England, in the hopes that this would be sign of his desire for peace.
I'm guessing that you are operating under the false pretense that the Germans were the aggressor in World War 2. I would recommend reading "How Britain Initiated Both World Wars" by Nick Kollerstrom.
https://www.amazon.com/Britain-Initiated-both-World-Wars/dp/1530993180
Winston Churchill said before the war, ""We will force this war upon Hitler, if he wants it or not." He said after the war, "Germany’s most unforgivable crime before the Second World War was her attempt to extricate her economic power from the world’s trading system, and to create her own exchange mechanism which would deny world finance its opportunity to profit."
Around now is when someone usually brings up Poland, so let's get into that. It has been obscured by "history", but the German action in Poland was most certainly defensive. After the Treaty of Versailles, huge swathes of Germany were cut off and given to the neighboring countries. This left a large amount of ethnically German, German speaking people artificially outside of their own borders, and living under the whim of foreign governments, like the Poles.
The Germans in Danzig were being ethnically cleansed by the Polish government. It is known by history, but not cared much about, that Germany held diplomatic channels open with Poland for some time, requesting that the Germans who were stuck on the wrong side of the new and reduced German border to be allowed to return to Germany. Poland refused, and continued the slaughter of Germans in Danzig and in East Prussia, which became a political island, totally separated from direct German borders.
People forget that reuniting all the Germans who were forced out of the German borders by the shrinking of Germany after the Treaty of Versailles was essentially a major part of what Hitler ran on. With the Polish occupying East Germany and ethnically cleansing the population there, Hitler had moral high ground to attack "Poland", or really reclaim that which was classical German territory only 25 years earlier, to save his own people.
Why were the Polish attacking Germans, and refusing them the right to leave for Germany? Were they just cartoon villains as Hitler is portrayed by the official story? No, this was political. Britain had a world financial system and an empire to think of, their goal was nothing less than world hegemony, and Germany's rise to economic power was an existential threat to what became the bloc of NATO/EU/IMF/BIS. They needed precedent for war, and this is how they arranged it. Knowing that Hitler would not stand by and watch ethnic Germans be cleansed, on traditional German land at that, they were able to manipulate and outmaneuver him, luring him into a trap that started World War 2.
You speak of diaries, documents, etc. all proving that the Holocaust happened. Produce one. Produce one authentic quote, or captured video or audio, or written document, that shows Adolf Hitler, or the Nazi party, mentioning a "Final Solution" for the Jews, a mass extermination. You won't be able to find one. Instead you just got hoodwinked because they spoke so confidently that you assumed that they must have some proof. They don't. If they had Hitler saying directly, "We will kill all the Jews", or a NatSoc document saying the same, it would be the central imagery to the Holocaust story, it would be the most famous and repeated thing ever seen. That footage or evidence does not exist.
All of the purported "Death Camps" fell on the wrong side of the Iron Curtain. Every single West German work camp, of which Americans had the same for Japanese and Germans, was inspected by the Allies and the Red Cross, and were proved to be plain old labor camps, not death camps. The Soviets never let us see the evidence or inspect it ourselves, but they claimed that every single labor camp on their side of the line was a cartoon villain extermination camp. The Allies took them at their word on this, because it fit their narrative. No one wants to be the people who razed a nation of normal people, of human beings. So they dehumanized the country that we completely destroyed so that everyone could feel better about it.
The official death toll at Auschwitz has been reduced to from 4 million to 1 million in the years since World War 2, yet the official overall death toll of Jews killed in the Holocaust is still 6 million. In fact, Jews were claiming that 6,000,000 of them were dead or dying since the late 1800s, and also through World War 1, as dozens of preserved newspapers can attest to. It's a number with religious significance to them, not a literal total. The Torah tells them that they have been expelled from Israel, and that to return, they must return minus 6 million. They seemingly don't realize that this isn't literal. Israel in the ancient sense means what the Hindus would call Satori, a state of spiritual enlightenment. Their book is trying to tell them that they have lost this spiritual state, not a worldly political state. And what the 6 million means, I do not know, but ancient esoteric Judaism, the Qabbalah, is heavily based around numerology. It is very unlikely that 6 million in this case is a literal headcount of 6 million people, and has some more subtle meaning to them.
It's very easy to listen to the official version of history, and assume, "why would they lie?", assume that if everyone else believes it, it MUST be right... right? It's much more difficult to fact check the official story with your own long hours of study and effort, and find the places where it clearly doesn't all quite add up. Get your hands dirty, and apply your critical thinking to what you are told rather than accepting it at face value, and you will find that very little that they tell you is true has anything to do with reality.
The idea is that Germany found a way to operate independently from the international banking system - Britain then embarked on a campaign to use war to weaken Germany. I was not sure if this was related to Holocaust denial or not. See https://www.amazon.com/Britain-Initiated-both-World-Wars/dp/1530993180
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B01LE0NVMS/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1
Charles Coulombe has written a book about this very topic.
No, this is false. Have a read of Stephen Pinker's Better Angel's of our Nature. It shows clearly, in many graphs detailing information about many different types of violence; that all types of violence have been in steady decline over the last thousand years.
This trend of a steady decline also continues over the last 100 and last fifty years and he documents this.
Further, US military strength has been in steady decline over the same period.
Your argument is not backed by data if your argument is that greater military strength produces greater peace. The inverse is true. Also if you want some political discussion about why this is the case have a read of this book.
>Most Trots are anti-Americanist.
And most anti-Americanists aren't Trots.
>Cite your arguments.
https://www.amazon.com/Anti-Chomsky-Reader-Peter-Collier/dp/189355497X
http://www.paulbogdanor.com/chomskyhoax.html
This but without sarcasm
Highly recommended, btw though I can't really vouch for this specific translation:
https://www.amazon.com/Prince-Nicolo-Machiavelli/dp/1494461943
Also see Thrasymachus' quote about justice
[Understanding Power] (http://www.amazon.com/Understanding-Power-The-Indispensible-Chomsky/dp/1565847032#productDescription_secondary_view_div_1450851636683) USA good one. I linked to it in Amazon just so you can read the description. Just a heads up, Chomsky is widely considered to be one of the greatest modern thinkers, but because of that, he can be pretty formidable and at times difficult to follow, but if you can you will definitely be smarter because of it.
I haven't heard much from Dr. Pape since youtube videos of several of his presentations starting proliferating around 2010. I've been wanting to hear, 5 years later, if the conclusions from his - books regarding the motivations of suicide terrorists still hold true with ISIS as they did al Qaeda years earlier.
I am also curious about his views on Libya now. He was interviewed weeks after the multi-national intervention in Libya had begun and he listed it as an example, a precedent, of "healthy" intervention. There's a comment on that video that asks several important questions:
> So my question(s) for Dr. Pape -
There is also in America at least the possibility of it happening in a similar way as Mr. Coulombe lays out in Star Spangled Crown. In Europe all that needs to happen is for enough of the population of any country to lose faith in democracy to give back control of the nation to its rightful ruler.
>>So having a political leaning makes one biased as to what facts to focus on and report?
>It very well can. More importantly why suggest a left wing pundit when there's going to be hundreds of other reports on the documents from other sources that aren't biased?
I don't see an answer to my question here. That it "very well can" doesn't show that Maddow in particular is biased just because she has obvious political leanings. (It's actually the obviousness of the political leanings that would incentivize her to be as unbiased as she can - you know, for credibility's sake, which you preemptively deny to her for no good reason.) As to "why Maddow," it's because she notably spends a lot of her shows being on Mitt Romney's case, trapping him with facts and his own statements, that's why.
>And why the mention of chompskey? Do you even understand his views? He spoke out against mainstream media regularly so I don't think he would be suggesting we listen to a cable news reporter either. More importantly chompskey holds very different views from a modern liberal like Maddow. Chompskey is heavily influenced by classicaly liberal philosophy which is completely different from modern liberalism. If anything chompskey would be a sort of neo libertarian. Do you know who noam chompskey is?
First off, it's spelled Chomsky. I've read his book Understanding Power and numerous columns of his at tomdispatch.com. So yeah, I know a thing or two about the guy. Even had a short e-mail exchange with him a couple weeks back. And I know how he's influenced by classical liberal philosophy and calls himself a libertarian socialist, the socialism (and, e.g., his stated support for the OWS movement) being what places him quite prominently on today's political left. And he's very clued into factors that generate bias in the media, and he inspires his more adept readers to identify and combat any biases in their own cognitive endeavors. Which brings me to my original question which you really haven't answered.
Again, writing them off for taking a position you don't like is YOUR bias, not theirs.
For one, the wall annexes large tracts of land and doesn't even wall off all Palestinian communities, seriously questioning the "security" rationale. Further, most studies, such as this one and especially this one suggest that suicide bombing is caused by military occupation, and doesn't occur randomly or because of religion or culture. So assuming that suicide bombings are some kind inherently Palestinian problem that can only be solved by walling them off is pretty loaded. But in any case the wall doesn't wall them off, it goes THROUGH many of their communities in order to annex land.
What were we talking about again?
Yes there is a way to reason; pull out and apologize. Stop funding pro-western dictators like in Saudi Arabia (aka MECCA) and let them run their own lives. Eventually they'll come around and emulate us voluntarily... only difference is our corporations won't have access to their sweet, sweet oil.
A huge issue is Israel. If we took a more hands off approach Israel would be forced to compromise, and the "terrorists" would lose one more reason to hate the US.
Check out Robert Pape's book "Dying to Win"
There are plenty of people who have proposed alternative solutions to violence, such as Michael Scheuer look into it.
https://www.amazon.com/Vidal-History-National-Security-State/dp/1494887991
This is the book he's holding. History of the National Security State by Gore Vidal.
Understanding Power
Hoffman's book represents the orthodox western security agencies view of terrorism, it's superficial, partisan in its approach, and there are far better books out there. Its good for describing the media/Terror relationship but not much else.]
This is well worth a read, Dying to Win: The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism
and this: Understanding Terror Networks
I'll have you know that What it Takes is a brilliant book!
And if it's on sale in a used bookstore, so be it, internet sir!
The Law - http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1936594315/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&tag=thmariwi-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=1936594315
Economics in one lesson - http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0517548232/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&tag=thmariwi-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=0517548232
That which is seen and is not seen - http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1453857508/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&tag=thmariwi-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=1453857508
Our enemy, the state - http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B001E28SUM/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&tag=thmariwi-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=B001E28SUM
How capitalism save america - http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1400083311/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&tag=thmariwi-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=1400083311
New Deal or Raw Deal - http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1416592377/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&tag=thmariwi-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=1416592377
Lessons for the Young Economist - http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1933550880/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&tag=thmariwi-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=1933550880
For a New Liberty - http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1610162641/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&tag=thmariwi-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=1610162641
What Has Government Done to Our Money? - http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/146997178X/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&tag=thmariwi-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=146997178X
America's Great Depression - http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/146793481X/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&tag=thmariwi-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=146793481X
Defending the Undefendable - http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1933550171/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&tag=thmariwi-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=1933550171
Metldown - http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1596985879/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&tag=thmariwi-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=1596985879
The Real Lincoln - http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0761526463/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&tag=thmariwi-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=0761526463
The Road to Serfdom - http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0226320553/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&tag=thmariwi-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=0226320553
Capitalism and Freedom - http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0226264211/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&tag=thmariwi-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=0226264211
Radicals for Capitalism - http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1586485725/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&tag=thmariwi-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=1586485725
Production Versus Plunder - http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0979987717/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&tag=thmariwi-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=0979987717
Atlas Shrugged - http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0452011876/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&tag=thmariwi-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=0452011876
The Myth of the Rational Voter - http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/0691138737/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&tag=thmariwi-21&linkCode=as2&camp=1634&creative=19450&creativeASIN=0691138737
Foutainhead - http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0452273331/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=0452273331&linkCode=as2&tag=thmariwi-20
Anthem - http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0452281253/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=0452281253&linkCode=as2&tag=thmariwi-20
There are of course more books, but this should last you a few years!
One of the main reasons for writing this essay is to point out that we must make sure that our "solutions" are not more dangerous than the problems themselves.
For example, the Washington Post noted that the government forced a switch from one type of chemical to another because it was believed the first was enlarging the ozone hole. However, according to the Post, the chemical which the government demanded be used instead is 4,470 times more potent as a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide.
Currently, "government scientists are studying the feasibility of sending nearly microscopic particles of specially made glass into the Earth's upper atmosphere to try to dampen the effects of 'global warming.' " Others are currently suggesting cutting down trees and burying them. Other ways to geoengineer the planet are being proposed.
And Noam Chomsky has said that he would submit to fascism if it would help combat global warming:
"Suppose it was discovered tomorrow that the greenhouse effects has been way understimated, and that the catastrophic effects are actually going to set in 10 years from now, and not 100 years from now or something.
Well, given the state of the popular movements we have today, we'd probably have a fascist takeover-with everybody agreeing to it, because that would be the only method for survival that anyone could think of. I'd even agree to it, because there's just no other alternatives right now."
(page 388).
Are those ideas any better than pouring soot on the North Pole?
Our primary responsibility must be to ensure that we are not doing more harm than good.
He was carrying the Gore Vidal book "History of the National Security State" as he was carried out of the Embassy.
>You have been racist
No, as I said, that was your misunderstanding. Facts about someone else's racist propaganda, and facts about how your attitudes fit into a particular Eurocentric and culturally condescending ideological tradition that is obscuring your objectivity, aren't themselves racist.
>you have lied
No I haven't, rather, you are in denial.
>So when I asked, I was thinking of the French invasion of Algeria that happened in 1830, which was 185 years ago, But that's why I asked, rather than simply asserting
This reflects even worse on your level of knowledge and understanding. What demon could possibly have possessed you into believing that colonial tensions somehow disappear after the colonized have officially become a subject people? Forget academic standards, this is just an absence of common sense.
You know what, I can't stand much more of this. If at some point in time you do feel like learning rather than spewing nonsense that you pull out of your ass, you can get started by reading these:
-Here is a pdf book I am currently reading on the psychology of terrorism. Know thy enemy.
-Here is an Amazon link to Robert Pape's Dying to Win: The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism. It only deals with suicide terror, though, but it's good to provide an orienting paradigm and is a solid introduction to this field of political science/anthropology. Funny that I always thought atheists were supposed to be big on science, but I guess ethnic conflicts are a universal mind-killer.
-[Here](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orientalism_(book) is a Wikipedia page on Edward Said's Orientalism, a huge and dry tome that is nevertheless a seminal work in postcolonial studies and one for which its core thesis is generally regarded to be true for the time period studied.
edit: The Orientalism article mentioned Bernard Lewis as a critic of Said, and he is actually a good read too. His book (in pdf here) What Went Wrong chronicles history from the Muslim side, and discusses how certain shortcomings and attitudes in Middle Eastern culture contribute to the violence and backwardness we see today.
https://www.amazon.com/Prince-Nicolo-Machiavelli/dp/1494461943 /s
Suicide terrorism first gained traction in the 80s with Hezbollah. The bombers were not overwhelmingly religious, nor muslim. The Tamil Tigers learned from this and conducted a number of suicide campaigns. They are a Hindu group.
The PKK also started suicide bombing campaign against the Turks.
Muslims absolutely do not have a monopoly on suicide bombings and to argue it is to argue from a position of ignorance.
If you want to know what suicide bombers do have in common, I suggest you read 'Dying to Win'. They include:
http://www.amazon.com/Dying-Win-Strategic-Suicide-Terrorism/dp/0812973380
>an entire country wants to stay at war
I never said that; I was referring to the state of Israel, not the public of Israel. But thanks strawman-ing my argument, sardonically prove reductio ad absurdum, and then make fun of me. I appreciate it.
You didn't specify which point you wanted proof for, but I'll give you my favorites. Here's the evidence:
Byman-Do Targeted Killings Work?
Noam Chomsky-Sheer Criminal Aggression. with no Credible Pre-text
B'Tselem-Fatalities
Noam Chomsky-Understanding Power
No it hasn't been debunked at all. What happened in Nice is a tragedy (I lived there for 6 months and had to message several friends to make sure they weren't dead), but we cannot simply ignore the other side of the dynamic, specificially the racist and imperialist policies of the West.
I am reading a book on the topic currently, and the common myths about religion being the primary cause are fallacious and perpetuate the problem. Suicide attackers sometimes frame their violence in religious terms, but the goals are almost always nationalistic and unfortunately more effective after the use of such violence.
Let's stop with the tribalistic, ethnocentric blabbering.