Read this:
http://www.voxday.net/mart/SJW_Attack_Survival_Guide.pdf
This is written by a guy who has the #1 best selling book on Amazon about SJWs: SJWs Always Lie.
The biggest and most important advice I can give is: NEVER APOLOGIZE

Most have no clue what's really going on in the world... the elites are afraid of political awakening.

This (mass surveillance) by the NSA and abuse by law enforcement is just more part and parcel of state suppression of dissent against corporate interests. They're worried that the more people are going to wake up and corporate centers like the US and canada may be among those who also awaken. See this vid with Zbigniew Brzezinski, former United States National Security Advisor.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ttv6n7PFniY

Science on reasoning, reason doesn't work the way we thought it did:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PYmi0DLzBdQ

Brezinski at a press conference

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0kmUS--QCYY

The real news:

http://therealnews.com/t2/

http://www.amazon.com/Democracy-Incorporated-Managed-Inverted-Totalitarianism/dp/069114589X/

http://www.amazon.com/Shadow-Government-Surveillance-Security-Single-Superpower/dp/1608463656/r

http://www.amazon.com/National-Security-Government-Michael-Glennon/dp/0190206446/

Look at the following graphs:

IMGUR link - http://imgur.com/a/FShfb

http://www2.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/images/wealth/Actual_estimated_ideal_wealth_distribution.gif
http://www2.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/images/wealth/Net_worth_and_financial_wealth.gif
http://www2.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html

And then...

WIKILEAKS: U.S. Fought To Lower Minimum Wage In Haiti So Hanes And Levis Would Stay Cheap

http://www.businessinsider.com/wikileaks-haiti-minimum-wage-the-nation-2011-6

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hnkNKipiiiM

Free markets?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WHj2GaPuEhY#t=349

http://www.amazon.com/Empire-Illusion-Literacy-Triumph-Spectacle/dp/1568586132/

"We now live in two Americas. One—now the minority—functions in a print-based, literate world that can cope with complexity and can separate illusion from truth. The other—the majority—is retreating from a reality-based world into one of false certainty and magic. To this majority—which crosses social class lines, though the poor are overwhelmingly affected—presidential debate and political rhetoric is pitched at a sixth-grade reading level. In this “other America,” serious film and theater, as well as newspapers and books, are being pushed to the margins of society.

In the tradition of Christopher Lasch’s The Culture of Narcissism and Neil Postman’s Amusing Ourselves to Death, Pulitzer Prize-winner Chris Hedges navigates this culture—attending WWF contests, the Adult Video News Awards in Las Vegas, and Ivy League graduation ceremonies—to expose an age of terrifying decline and heightened self-delusion."

Important history:

http://williamblum.org/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OcA1v2n7WW4

>What the actual fuck is wrong with politicians.

You're slowly becoming aware of how corrupt and fucked up the world really is... You're not seeing what's going on behind the scenes... they fear the net and hence want to lock everything down.

The (mass surveillance) by the NSA and abuse by law enforcement is just more part and parcel of state suppression of dissent against corporate interests. They're worried that the more people are going to wake up and corporate centers like the US and canada may be among those who also awaken. See this vid with Zbigniew Brzezinski, former United States National Security Advisor.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n7ZyJw_cHJY

Brezinski at a press conference

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VWTIZBCQ79g

Snowden on terrorism/spying.

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/video/2015/sep/25/edward-snowden-treaty-glenn-greenwald-mass-surveillance-terrorism-video

Democracy Inc.

http://www.amazon.com/Democracy-Incorporated-Managed-Inverted-Totalitarianism/dp/069114589X/

Intereference in other states when the corporations dont get their way

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8mxp_wgFWQo&feature=youtu.be&list=PLKR2GeygdHomOZeVKx3P0fqH58T3VghOj&t=724

From war is a racket:

"I helped make Mexico, especially Tampico, safe for American oil intersts in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefits of Wall Street. The record of racketeering is long. I helped purify Nicaragua for the international banking house of Brown Brothers in 1909-1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for American sugar interests in 1916. In China I helped to see to it that Standard Oil went its way unmolested."[p. 10]

"War is a racket. ...It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives." [p. 23]

"The general public shoulders the bill [for war]. This bill renders a horrible accounting. Newly placed gravestones. Mangled bodies. Shattered minds. Broken hearts and homes. Economic instability. Depression and all its attendant miseries. Back-breaking taxation for generations and generations." [p. 24]
General Butler is especially trenchant when he looks at post-war casualties. He writes with great emotion about the thousands of tramautized soldiers, many of who lose their minds and are penned like animals until they die, and he notes that in his time, returning veterans are three times more likely to die prematurely than those who stayed home.

http://www.amazon.com/War-Racket-Antiwar-Americas-Decorated/dp/0922915865/

https://www.amazon.com/Vidal-History-National-Security-State/dp/1494887991

An administration employee of Kushner's prep school was shocked when he got into Harvard.

​



My book exposed a grubby secret of American higher education: that the rich buy their under-achieving children’s way into elite universities with massive, tax-deductible donations. It reported that New Jersey real estate developer Charles Kushner had pledged $2.5 million to Harvard University in 1998, not long before his son Jared was admitted to the prestigious Ivy League school. At the time, Harvard accepted about one of every nine applicants. (Nowadays, it only takes one out of twenty.)

I also quoted administrators at Jared’s high school, who described him as a less than stellar student and expressed dismay at Harvard’s decision.

“There was no way anybody in the administrative office of the school thought he would on the merits get into Harvard,” a former official at The Frisch School in Paramus, New Jersey, told me. “His GPA did not warrant it, his SAT scores did not warrant it. We thought for sure, there was no way this was going to happen. Then, lo and behold, Jared was accepted. It was a little bit disappointing because there were at the time other kids we thought should really get in on the merits, and they did not.”

​

https://www.propublica.org/article/the-story-behind-jared-kushners-curious-acceptance-into-harvard

This is a great question that I have thought about a million times. I have actually spent a lot of time trying to find a book on it, but I have not come across one that is specifically about Sociology or Psychology.

I first started to think about this when I was getting my masters degree (in Sociology). Often times I was super excited to share the things I would learn with my family and friends, and how the things I was (and still am) learning are often in contradiction to the things I was told/learned growing up. For context, I'm a white girl who grew up in an upper-middle class politically conservative suburb in a large city with successful parents, and I was always given everything I wanted/needed. I considered myself a Christian and I told people that I was a republican (although I knew nothing about politics and was just identifying with my parents).

Then I started studying Soci and my entire perspective on the world changed. It opened my eyes and forced me to look beyond my tunnel vision of society. It was really hard at times to come to terms with things that I thought I already understood, especially social issues that I had never thought about before or issues that had always been presented to me in a one-sided, biased manner.

A good example of this is the trope of the Welfare Queen. I was told that poor people, esp. poor black people, were moochers and only wanted handouts because they were lazy and didn't want to get a job. Of course, I learned that the Welfare Queen (and welfare "fraud") is a myth that was promulgated by Ronald Regan in order to stigmatize people in poverty so that he could convince Americans that rolling back the social safety net was justified because it was only being used by poor black (read: undeserving) citizens. The truth is that most people on welfare do have jobs (i.e. the 'working poor'). Also, the welfare reforms of 1996 created a 5-year maximum lifetime cap on benefits so that welfare "cheaters" (which did not exist anywhere near the level that we're often told) were literally unable to collect benefits for life (also, contrary to popular opinion, women do not have more babies to get more benefits. In fact, if a woman has a child while receiving benefits, she and her family will be removed from the rolls). Welfare is probably one of the least understood/mischaracterized social issue in American society.

Science in general is often met with the sting of anti-intellectualism, which is part of the answer to your question. However, I think social science in particular gets it worse than the 'natural' sciences like Biology and Chemistry. I used to say that it was because people were generally more suspect of social sciences, but I think it's more than that. People like to dismiss facts about social issues that they don't agree with or have a different view on because it's much easier to disagree that we live in a post-racial society (we don't) than it is to disagree on the functions of bodily organs. People also tend to conflate their individual life experiences with overall reality (i.e. "well, i've never experienced [blank] so it must not be true or its exaggerated" or "well, I know someone who is [blank] but [blank] doesn't happen to them"). You get what I am saying here? Most people don't question or critically think about social norms or commonsense 'truths' because these 'truths' are so embedded in our milieu that its hard to imagine otherwise. So instead of thinking critically, people dismiss sociological knowledge as either "elitist" or "not real science" so that they can remain undisturbed in their own little worlds.

Once I saw a question on r/askreddit that asked what the slogan of your college major or job would be. I would say, "Sociology: reminding people of uncomfortable truths since 1838" or "Sociology: everything you were taught about society was a big lie" lol.

I'm sorry I can't find any literature for you, but I can recommend these instead:

Anti-Intellectualism in American Life

The Death of Expertise: The Campaign Against Established Knowledge and Why it Matters.

I think the issue here is that there's no protection for cities and high density populations within our current system. For example in 2012 in Pennsylvania Democrats won 51% of the vote for Congressional house seats but lost as seat in Congress. To me that's what busted. The representation in each state is skewed to represent smaller, often whiter, communities.

Lets take this example for instance:

Say a state has 5 congressional Districts:

District 1 voted 55-45 Dem

District 2 voted 60-40 Republican

District 3 voted 52-48 Dem

District 4 Voted 53-47 Republican

District 5 voted 65-35 Dem

Now after a landmark wave like 2010 the Republicans redraw the lines of the district

District 1 redrawn to be 58-42 Republican

District 2 wasn't redrawn Remained 60-40 Republican

District 3 was redrawn became 59-41 Republican

District 4 was redrawn became 59-41 Republican

District 5 was redrawn became 80-20 Democrat

Visually speaking Wapo had a great piece on it. Also the grab the book Ratf**ked

On average, black Americans are poorer than white Americans. This was initially due to pre-Civil Rights Movement blatant racism and discrimination. After the Civil Rights Movement, blatant racism started to fade away, but our educational system has kept blacks from escaping from their poverty. Schools are funded by local taxes, so when the people are poorer, the schools aren't as good. The abundance of land and quality of roads has allowed the wealthy to geographically isolate themselves from the poor (usually black, but also white and Hispanic).

However, African American culture may also play a detrimental role, as addressed in this book by anthropologist John Ogbu.

I looked into his background and I swear to god this is true, I can't post where his dad works etc, but it is true. This kid has legacy status and his dad is a c-suite level executive. They are affluent from the Beverly Hills area.

The real question gamergate and sjws need to ask themselves is......

Should these affluent people be given affirmative action, when they come from wealthy backgrounds?

I hope that gamergate and the sjws can come together to oppose legacy status in society.

Why are the Zoe Quinn's (VV Family), Lifschitz's, Romero's, Graner's being given preferential treatment in the video game industry, when they come from affluent backgrounds? Why can't they help poor inner city people, Appalachian people, etc. Theres plenty of homeless in San Francisco that need help too. It's always these damn legacies that get help.

How legacy status works

http://www.amazon.com/The-Price-Admission-Americas-Colleges/dp/1400097975

> Isn't this what Correct the Record actually did? And in a way, still doing?

The three laws apply:

• SJWs Always Lie
  
  
• SJWs Always Project
  
  
• SJWs Always Double-down

It's The History of the National Security State by Gore Vidal

​

https://www.amazon.com/Vidal-History-National-Security-State/dp/1494887991

This article shouldn't have focused on just North Carolina; they make it sound like this was just something the GOP members of one state did, when it is not.

This was a systematic attack planned and executed across the nation. The GOP looked at every state in the country, determined which seats they could easily flip to gain control of the bodies that make the congressional maps, and then funded the republican candidates there.

This was a concerted effort named Project Redmap, and they used every dirty trick in the book. Attack ads, lies, slander, plotting out districts so that they concentrate minorities or democrats or whatever else they could do.

Get a copy of Ratf**ked. It covers it all, in much greater detail.

The GOP made their plans to take over the country, and they executed it perfectly. They have control of the country now, and it's only going to tighten.

The only way to fix it is a massive wave election for democrats in 2018, which will take a concentrated effort just like the Republicans put forth, and that's not going to happen. You see, they planned for that too, and have been working to keep it from happening.

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

I'm not quite done with it yet, but I was listening to Clinton Cash over the weekend. In addition to this, they raise the question of why all of these foreign entities need to funnel money through the Clinton Foundation at all rather than simply donating the money to local charities.

I'm only on chapter 7 or 8 so far, but they also discuss how much the Clintons' income for speeches increased during Hillary's tenure as SoS and how she used a special rule that had previously been used to employ experts like scientists to allow operatives to work for the State Department and the Clinton Foundation simultaneously.

It's pretty disgusting. It's as nakedly corrupt as you could possibly want without a full-throated admission of guilt. This is the Clintons' stock in trade. I cannot fathom how all of the liberals who bitched about the war crimes of the Bush administration and the foul influence of money in politics (typically vis a vis the Koch brothers) can possibly support this woman. If I had to dream up a character that embodied corruption I would never be able to supply you with a sketch more on the nose than Hillary Clinton.

I think Scott Adams is right. The only thing potentially stopping Trump is the "crazy racist" charge. If he can neutralize that, he wins in a landslide. There's simply no reason to support Hillary Clinton on the merits and a mountain of objective reasons to oppose her every holding any public office ever again.

No, there isn't. The stated strategy of the house Republicans from the day Obama was elected was to not compromise and try to thwart the new administration.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/25/robert-draper-anti-obama-campaign_n_1452899.html

No amount of wineing and dining was going to get the House Republicans to deal.

Look at the book "Its even worse than it looks" by Norm Ornstein and Thomas Mann. Goes thru in detail how every negotiation was blown up by the younger house leaders for political gain, not for the good of the country.
https://www.amazon.com/Even-Worse-Than-Looks-Constitutional/dp/0465031331

The Price of Admission: How America's Ruling Class Buys Its Way into Elite Colleges

----------------Diversity and Ethnocentrism Hate Facts------------------

More diverse neighborhoods have lower social cohesion. http://www.citylab.com/housing/2013/11/paradox-diverse-communities/7614/

Diversity increases psychotic experiences. http://bjp.rcpsych.org/content/201/4/282.abstract?etoc

Diversity increases social adversity. http://bjp.rcpsych.org/content/201/4/282.abstract?etoc

A 10% increase in diversity doubles the chance of psychotic episodes. http://bjp.rcpsych.org/content/201/4/282.abstract?etoc

Diversity reduces voter registration, political efficacy, charity, and number of friendships. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-9477.2007.00176.x/abstract;jsessionid=279C92A7EB0946BBA63D62937FC832A9.f04t03

Ethnic diversity reduces happiness and quality of life. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-9477.2007.00176.x/abstract;jsessionid=279C92A7EB0946BBA63D62937FC832A9.f04t03

Diversity reduces trust, civic participation, and civic health. http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2007/08/05/the_downside_of_diversity/?page=full

Ethnocentrism is rational, biological, and genetic in origin. http://www.pnas.org/content/108/4/1262.abstract

Ethnic diversity harms health for hispanics and blacks. http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/abs/10.2105/AJPH.2012.300787

Babies demostrate ethnocentrism before exposure to non-whites. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-7687.2012.01138.x/full

Ethnocentrism is universal and likely evolved in origin. http://www-personal.umich.edu/~axe/research/AxHamm_Ethno.pdf

Diversity primarily hurts the dominant ethnic group. http://www.theindependentaustralian.com.au/node/57

Ethnic diversity reduces concern for the environment. http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10640-012-9619-6

Ethnic diversity within 80 meters of a person reduces social trust. http://curis.ku.dk/ws/files/130251172/Dinesen_S_nderskov_Ethnic_Diversity_and_Social_Trust_Forthcoming_ASR.pdf

Ethnic diversity directly reduces strong communities. https://www.msu.edu/~zpneal/publications/neal-diversitysoc.pdf

Ethnically homogenous neighborhoods are beneficial for health. https://www.mailman.columbia.edu/public-health-now/news/living-ethnically-homogenous-area-boosts-health-minority-seniors

Diversity in American cities correlates with segregation. http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-most-diverse-cities-are-often-the-most-segregated/

Races are extended families. Ethnocentrism is genetically rational. http://www.amazon.com/The-Ethnic-Phenomenon-Pierre-Berghe/dp/0275927091

It is evolutionary rational to be friends with someone genetically similar to you. http://www.livescience.com/46791-friends-share-genes.html

Racism and nationalism are rational and evolutionary advantageous strategies. http://jasss.soc.surrey.ac.uk/16/3/7.html

Homogeneous polities have less crime, less civil war, and more altruism. http://www.theindependentaustralian.com.au/node/57

States with little diversity have more democracy, less corruption, and less inequality. http://www.theindependentaustralian.com.au/node/57

There is extensive evidence people prefer others who are genetically similar. http://psychology.uwo.ca/faculty/rushtonpdfs/n&n 2005-1.pdf

.

.

.

-----------------------Gender and Sexuality Hate Facts-----------------------

Gay men are 60x more likely to have HIV than straight men. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3462414/

Women with more sexual partners are more likely to divorce. http://s3.amazonaws.com/thf_media/2003/pdf/Bookofcharts.pdf

Women with more than 20 sexual partners have an 80% chance of divorce. http://s3.amazonaws.com/thf_media/2003/pdf/Bookofcharts.pdf

White and Asian women have more successful marriages than black or Hispanic women. http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhsr/nhsr049.pdf

Gay people are 2-3x more likely to abuse alcohol than straight people. http://www.amazon.com/Unequal-Opportunity-Disparities-Affecting-Bisexual/dp/0195301536

A women’s number of sex partners is linearly linked to alcohol and drug abuse. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3752789/

Gay men are six times more likely to commit suicide than straight men. http://www.amazon.com/Unequal-Opportunity-Disparities-Affecting-Bisexual/dp/0195301536

Gay men are 12x more likely to use amphetamines than straight men. http://www.amazon.com/Unequal-Opportunity-Disparities-Affecting-Bisexual/dp/0195301536

Gay men are 10x more likely to use heroin than straight men. http://www.amazon.com/Unequal-Opportunity-Disparities-Affecting-Bisexual/dp/0195301536

Liberal arguments in favor of homosexuality are based on logical fallacies. http://hrcak.srce.hr/index.php?show=clanak&id_clanak_jezik=19028&lang=en

Transsexuals who undergo sex reassignment surgery are more likely to commit suicide. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21364939

College majors with a greater proportion of women have lower average IQ’s among their students. http://www.randalolson.com/2014/06/25/average-iq-of-students-by-college-major-and-gender-ratio/

Less attractive women are more likely to want careers. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2129456/Do-girls-want-career-attract-man-Provocative-study-casts-high-fliers-new-light.html

.

.

.

--------------------------------ISLAM HATE FACTS--------------------------

35% of Palestinians have a favorable opinion of Al Qeada. http://www.pewglobal.org/files/2013/09/Pew-Global-Attitudes-Project-Extremism-Report-Final-9-10-135.pdf

40% of British Muslims want Shariah law. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1510866/Poll-reveals-40pc-of-Muslims-want-sharia-law-in-UK.html

1 in eight Muslims worldwide has a favorable view of al Quaeda. http://www.pewglobal.org/files/2013/09/Pew-Global-Attitudes-Project-Extremism-Report-Final-9-10-135.pdf

1 in 3 Muslims favorably views Hamas, a known terrorist organization. http://www.pewglobal.org/files/2013/09/Pew-Global-Attitudes-Project-Extremism-Report-Final-9-10-135.pdf

25% of Egyptian Muslims support terrorist attacks to enforce Shariah law. http://www.pewglobal.org/files/2013/09/Pew-Global-Attitudes-Project-Extremism-Report-Final-9-10-135.pdf

1/5 British Muslims sympathize with the 7/7 terrorist attack. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1510866/Poll-reveals-40pc-of-Muslims-want-sharia-law-in-UK.html

65% of European Muslims believe that Shariah law is more important than the law of the country they reside in. https://www.wzb.eu/sites/default/files/u6/koopmans_englisch_ed.pdf

European Muslims are 7.5x more likely to be fundamentalists than Christians. https://www.wzb.eu/sites/default/files/u6/koopmans_englisch_ed.pdf

45% of European Muslims believe that Jews cannot be trusted. https://www.wzb.eu/sites/default/files/u6/koopmans_englisch_ed.pdf

60% of European Muslims are explicitly homphobic. This is not due to poverty or education. https://www.wzb.eu/sites/default/files/u6/koopmans_englisch_ed.pdf

40% of Palestinians support attacks on US civilians in America. http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/pdf/feb09/STARTII_Feb09_rpt.pdf

87% of Egyptians agree with Al Qaeda’s goals. http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/pdf/feb09/STARTII_Feb09_rpt.pdf

78% of Egyptians support attacks on US soldiers in the Middle East. http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/pdf/feb09/STARTII_Feb09_rpt.pdf

62% of Palestinians support the use of suicide bombings. http://www.pewglobal.org/files/2013/09/Pew-Global-Attitudes-Project-Extremism-Report-Final-9-10-135.pdf

28% of British Muslims would like for Britain to become a fundamentalist Islamic state. http://www.cbsnews.com/news/many-british-muslims-put-islam-first/

68% of British Muslims support criminalizing criticism of Islam. http://www.cbsnews.com/news/many-british-muslims-put-islam-first/

3 out of 4 British Muslims support criminalizing drawings of Mohammed. http://www.cbsnews.com/news/many-british-muslims-put-islam-first/

9% of British Muslims define themselves as “hardcore Islamists”. http://www.cbsnews.com/news/many-british-muslims-put-islam-first/

Only 3% of British Muslims support free speech. http://www.cbsnews.com/news/many-british-muslims-put-islam-first/

0/500 British Muslims believe that homosexuality is morally acceptable. http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2009/may/07/muslims-britain-france-germany-homosexuality

38% of Muslims believe 9/11 was partially or wholly justified. http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/policy-analysis/view/just-like-us-really

62% of Canadian Muslims want Shariah law. http://www.torontosun.com/2011/11/01/strong-support-for-shariah-in-canada

More than 1 in 3 Canadian Muslims refuses to repudiate Al Qaeda. http://www.torontosun.com/2011/11/01/strong-support-for-shariah-in-canada

Britain will become a Muslim country by 2050 if demographic trends continue. http://www.thecommentator.com/article/3770/the_islamic_future_of_britain

At least 85 legally binding Sharia courts operate in Britain. http://www.civitas.org.uk/pdf/ShariaLawOrOneLawForAll.pdf

85% of rapists in Sweden were non-Swedish immigrants. http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/5195/sweden-rape

North African migrants to Sweden are 23 times more likely to rape than native Swedes. http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/5195/sweden-rape

African migrants to Sweden are 16 times more likely to rape than ethnic Swedes. http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/5195/sweden-rape

Iraqi migrants to Sweden are 2000% more likely to rape than real Swedes. http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/5195/sweden-rape

More than 1/2 of rapists in Denmark are immigrants. http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/5195/sweden-rape

No. The situation right now is something of a repeat of the worst excesses of the Nixon administration, yet for a lot of people paying attention to politics now they never lived through the Nixon scandals. This, along with a series of long-term trends, combine to make a 'new normal' that I don't think a lot of people understand.

I'm not sure how far back to go with this but I'll start with the ultra partisanship that exploded around Obama's time in office. Mann and Ornstein had been warning for years that political extremism was starting to harm good governance, and we saw quite a bit of evidence in that with the no holds barred, scorched earth policy of Newt Gingrich's new GOP in the '90s, which forswear any compromise. This by itself was not really an issue until the American electorate turned more and more partisan over the 2000s, and most especially during the Tea Party movement under Obama. The displacement of traditionally conservative or otherwise 'moderate' Republicans by Tea Partiers happened in a wave that unseated, most ironically, Eric Cantor...yet Cantor, Ryan, and Marco Rubio themselves emboldened the Tea Party out of the realization that this clearly partisan movement could get them votes. So Cantor then losing to a Tea Partier (David Brat) for being a 'RINO' probably should have been the first warning sign that things were getting out of control (Anybody listening to conservative AM radio around tea party time knows what I'm talking about).

Despite what excuses people may make for the government shutdown during Obama's term and certain obstructionist efforts, they still had a deleterious effect on Congressmen and Senators solely because they proved that a partisan position for the sake of appearing extreme could actually enhance one's standing with the electorate. The GOP waves during the Obama administration and into state-level elections was largely the result of simply radicalizing the base against Obama and the Democrats. In turn, Democrats turned more partisan as well. This would itself not have been an issue until Trump was elected, and has thoroughly ruined political discourse in the country by completely dividing Americans into 'loyalists' versus 'The Enemy.' The issue is getting exacerbated, not cured, mostly because the system has changed to favor extremist pandering and none of the political compromise that is actually necessary for good governance or confidence in political institutions. Consider the divide in media consumption based on one's political preference. Probably the most striking part of America society and its politics is how absolutely delusional each side is about one another. There's little to no understanding about how the other end feels. Coming out of a Democrat administration, the right-wing forces that propelled Trump (Breitbart, internet personalities, Bannon, Yiannopoulos) were especially bad (YET EFFECTIVE, can't deny that) about portraying a cartoonish idea about 'the Left' and perpetuating cultural grievances/race-baiting. The polarization has gotten so bad that the most radical, poisonous elements of the right-wing spectrum are not being sufficiently recognized by those who just consider themselves Trump supporters or typical Republicans. To illustrate this, consider the tragedy at Charlottesville, where the endless feedback loop of cultural grievance and moral relativism led to a murderer's mother not even being aware her son was in a white supremacist organization versus a regular Trump rally. The more extreme organizations are always seeking normalization, and there's pretty good evidence they're going to get somewhere under this administration if things don't change soon.

The shoe could well be on the other foot come next election. But this is the new normal. It's less likely Trump's man-child antics disappear and get replaced by someone more presidential, and more likely someone savvy to 'the game' like Senator Tom Cotton will step in to replace him. The Trump administration is a whole new level of incompetence compared to past administrations, but this itself is not really noteworthy if it wasn't coupled with the extreme polarization of the electorate, making endless excuses for it. The scandals of the Trump administration have been normalized by one side and absolutely outrage the other, even though under any other administration there would be far more diligence and scrutiny over such issues by the majority of Americans and the media, not just one side. My particular specialty is in foreign policy. I won't go into details but the near-comic bumbling of Trump officials when it comes to dealing with other countries and their envoys is already legendary. Virtually nobody else would make these mistakes. Yet the American public is divided on a sports-team-esque basis, and thus simple questions like 'Should someone like Tom Price have ever been approved for his job?' go ignored in favor of cheerleading.

So, no, this isn't normal. The politicization of the Special Counsel, by its nature Independent, out of fear it will cost one party votes or face should never be considered normal. But it's going to be. This is not some aberration in American history: this is just how it's going to be. For a while, at least. Likely through the next administration, too.

Hope this helps!

Also read Mann and Ornstein's It's Even Worse Than It Looks: How the American Constitutional System Collided With the New Politics of Extremism to understand why 'our political dysfunction is largely because of the transformation of the Republican Party into an extremist force that is “dismissive of the legitimacy of its political opposition.”'



https://www.amazon.com/Even-Worse-Than-Looks-Constitutional/dp/0465031331

Yes, obviously. Perception IS reality in people's minds. And when people are acting on false and extremely negative information, it can lead to racial discrimination, attacks, fear, hate, and even war. Look at what lots of people believe.

Tibetan genocide

Uyghur cultural genocide

Eating dogs is widespread

Steals hundreds of billions in ip each year

China's state subsidies to companies are unfair [this is common among numerous Western nations]

T square massacre

OBOR Debt trap

China is a colonizer

China is just as bad as America [https://github.com/dessalines/essays/blob/master/us_atrocities.md]

Live organ harvesting

Huawei is a spying system

etc

On top of that

America is NOT an empire so we don't need to worry where it goes [http://www.amazon.com/Rogue-State-Guide-Worlds-Superpower/dp/1567513743/]

America cares about human rights so when a massacre is reported we brush it off as an isolated incident [http://www.amazon.com/Kill-Anything-That-Moves-American/dp/1250045061/]

America's debt are transparent and fair [http://www.amazon.com/Confessions-Economic-Hit-John-Perkins/dp/0452287081/]

American dream is alive and well [social mobility is one of the lowest of developed nations]

America does not conduct economic espionage. [yes, it does since at least 1990's]

None of these things are true yet are widely believed. They aren't believed by everyone but they are believed by enough people that it's massively harming China's reputation.

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Vidal-History-National-Security-State/dp/1494887991

I don't have any off the top of my head, but I own (have yet to do any substantial reading of) a book called Fight Club Politics that goes back to pre-Lewinsky era Gingrich and talks about how this poison has been seeping through Congress for a long time. There's also a similar book called It's Even Worse Than It Looks which I haven't read, but I'm lead to understand (by reviews and, among other things, the title) that despite the American electorate believing collectively that on some level all of this is just political theater, that this is actually really really bad partisanship.

Those might not be exactly what you're looking for, but they're surely in the right vein. The other thing when it comes to Obama to remember is that he's black. I'm not saying that everyone who opposes him is an old-fashioned, biological racist. Many are what's referred to sometimes in microaggression theory as "symbolic" racists (whereas when conservatives accuse liberals of being "the real racists" they're accusing them of being "aversive" racists. It's a different thing).

When Obama got elected, he ran on a platform of "hope and change". I think this scared a lot of white people, because for white people, they don't need much hope and they don't want change because things have been going pretty well for them. If you don't recall (I'm not sure how old you are), the rhetoric coming from the right was not far off the shaking in the boots that we're seeing Linsey Graham doing now over ISIS. Obama was going to come for your guns, and then give all your money to the (lazy) black people, and that's based on socialism. Etc. etc. etc... Worse, socialism takes away FREEDOM and, in modern practices has involved DICTATORS, which is likely how people came to a lot of these crazy conclusions.

I'm not sure exactly where in the last 25 or so years--I'm sure it talks about in the books that I mentioned--the word liberal became this weird pejorative. It's funny to me, because I'm a dyed-in-the-wool lefty so I'm proud to call myself liberal and progressive, but whenever someone starts saying "The liberals" or better yet "those libs", I know they're about to spout some baller-level ignorance. My point is, somehow liberals became un-American to the true patriots.

In fact, watch Jon Stewart's clip from last week ripping Fox News for the latte-salute while followed immediately by the awful boobs-on-the-ground joke. "Fuck your false patriotism" he says. It's pretty powerful, and he doesn't pull any punches.

So yeah, I'm sure someone has done better research on it than me, but combine all those toxic elements and you've got the people convinced that Obama is the Antchrist.

George Friedman is terrible at East Asian geopolitics. Absolutely terrible.

​

In his 1991 book that he published/authored, entitlted: "The Coming War with Japan", available on Amazon with a measley 3 star rating, he predicts US will go to war with Japan in the future. The guy has been wrong for 27 years and counting!

​

He doubled down on Japan by predicting in the next 100 year's book that Japan will be the Leader of Asia, and China/India somehow disappears from relevance from internal upheaval. A fiction sci-fi American nationalistic narrative.

​

What a complete farce.

​

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?

Ill be honest, none of the whole "gaming journalism" thing is why Im a KiA supporter. Ive always been a gamer, but Ive never followed any sort of gaming media or journalism aside from Thoorin's videos in League of Legends.

I dont buy triple-A titles outside of Blizzard games. I dont own a PS3, PS4, XBox 360, or Xbox One. I have a Wii because of Xenoblade (and I think I bought one of the Zeldas), Ill get a Wii U for the next Xeno game. None of the journalist shit affects me much because I already dont use their sites.

Its the censorship, the SJW post-modernist bullshit, the lying, the professional victims, the way it spills over into Wikipedia lacking neutrality. Its the way that I, just some random guy who goes to work, goes running, and plays video games, am blamed as a misogynist shitlord just for being a white cis male who is willing to discuss both sides of an issue. Its the way that white upper class people dictate to women and minorities about how they are doing all this FOR THEM, unless those women and minorities disagree in which case they are internalized misogynists (Please Stop helping Us). Its the way that being an egalitarian makes me a misogynist in their eyes, and a racist, and probably other things as well.

THATS the shit that pushes me to this "side".

Attempting to blame democrat migration for the state of gerrymandered districts is weak tea and intellectually dishonest. While gerrymandering has always existed in our country, it has never been conducted on the scale which the GOP engaged in gerrymandering after the 2010 census and tea party rise to power. All of this is well documented in this book which shows a coordinated effort by the GOP and their donors to subvert democracy through gerrymandering of congressional districts. We are not only talking about red states here either but also blue and purple states where the majority of voters are dem but are represented primarily by republicans since 2010.

Fortunately gerrymandering is fairly easy to prove in court and we have seen a number of successful legal challenges to the practice over the last year. If this continues, dems may not have such a steep road to re-taking the house, especially when one considers the recent results in special elections...

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.)

Unity comes when people within the party know their leader cares for them.

Do you honestly think that Hillary (and Bill) Clinton care about you AT ALL?

Reality check: SHE DOESN'T. (AND HE DOESN'T.)

She'll do whatever to make it SEEM like she cares, but SHE DOESN'T CARE ABOUT US (99% of Americans).

She's in this presidential election to win so her rich donors can get their federal appointments on boards and commissions and their interests lobbied and heard in DC, and implement laws that will ONLY benefit them.

Hillary Clinton is a puppet that's being manipulated by corporate interests.
ie. Clinton Cash

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7LYRUOd_QoM

https://www.amazon.com/Clinton-Cash-Foreign-Governments-Businesses/dp/0062369296/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1469736845&sr=8-1&keywords=clinton+cash

If it comes down to Trump and Hillary, I am NOT voting for the lesser of the two evils that are Trump and Hillary.

Progress will only be made with someone like Jill Stein of the Green Party, who shares the most similar values and beliefs as those of Bernie Sanders.

If you are a true Bernie Sanders supporter, you would vote for Green Party's Jill Stein in 2016.

The only reason Bernie endorsed Hillary is to save his political career.
If Bernie had held out until the very end and refused to endorse Hillary at the Democratic National Convention, then establishment Democratic politicians would not like him, and this would further impede his influence and progress in the Senate, where establishment Democrats make up a good amount of the Senate seats.

So the next best thing we can do is to elect progressive leaders to Congress to impede Trump or Hillary from furthering their top 1% interests and fighting for the 99% (the American people).

Since this was front-paged I'm gonna hijack the top post and link to the work of Karen Straughan. She posts here occasionally and will hopefully chime in on this thread.

Me a feminist? No way:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PqEeCCuFFO8

Is Feminism hate? [skip to the 20 min. mark]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EDYAVROaIcs

How Feminism conned society

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RozEFVPDxeg

Benevolent sexism?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2VupEC0cAWo

The Tyranny of Female Hypoagency

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KBgcjtE0xrE

Feminism and the Disposable Male.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vp8tToFv-bA

-----

A few good videos by Lindy Beige on female power in history:

Women power in the past

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xrgovSZ32Yg

Sex Power: when women were different and men were disposable

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wSX7iT0n65Q

---------

Nice summary of Issues here: Why we need a men's rights movement

http://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/2xmm3p/i_cant_believe_people_think_we_dont_need_a_mens/

------

Good reading:

The Myth of Male Power

http://www.amazon.com/Myth-Male-Power-Warren-Farrell-ebook/dp/B00IDHV5EM

The Privileged Sex

http://www.amazon.com/Privileged-Sex-Martin-van-Creveld-ebook/dp/B00EX5PJC2/ref=sr_1_sc_1?s=digital-text&ie=UTF8&qid=1427403378&sr=1-1-spell&keywords=privilged+sex

No More Sex War

http://www.amazon.com/More-Sex-War-Neil-Lyndon/dp/1856191915/ref=sr_1_cc_1?s=aps&ie=UTF8&qid=1427403395&sr=1-1-catcorr&keywords=no+more+sex+war

The Second Sexism

http://www.amazon.com/Second-Sexism-Discrimination-Against-Boys/dp/0470674512/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1427403501&sr=1-1&keywords=second+sexism

The War Against Boys

http://www.amazon.com/War-Against-Boys-Misguided-Policies/dp/1451644183/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1427403440&sr=1-1&keywords=war+against+boys

One of the best books out there about redistricting is Rat F**ked. A must-read.

Hopefully this also will include members of Cambridge's Women's Center, users of Cambridge's Women's Health Center, Cambridge's women's only gyms (2) (3), the Association for Women in Science, members of Women Travelling Together, members of the Cambridge Women's Heritage Project, and the many, many other women's only organizations in town.

After all, they wouldn't want to be sexually biased in their enforcement of their Code of Conduct, would they?

.

More diverse neighborhoods have lower social cohesion. http://www.citylab.com/housing/2013/11/paradox-diverse-communities/7614/

Diversity increases psychotic experiences. http://bjp.rcpsych.org/content/201/4/282.abstract?etoc

Diversity increases social adversity. http://bjp.rcpsych.org/content/201/4/282.abstract?etoc

A 10% increase in diversity doubles the chance of psychotic episodes. http://bjp.rcpsych.org/content/201/4/282.abstract?etoc

Diversity reduces voter registration, political efficacy, charity, and number of friendships. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-9477.2007.00176.x/abstract;jsessionid=279C92A7EB0946BBA63D62937FC832A9.f04t03

Ethnic diversity reduces happiness and quality of life. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-9477.2007.00176.x/abstract;jsessionid=279C92A7EB0946BBA63D62937FC832A9.f04t03

Diversity reduces trust, civic participation, and civic health. http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2007/08/05/the_downside_of_diversity/?page=full

Ethnocentrism is rational, biological, and genetic in origin. http://www.pnas.org/content/108/4/1262.abstract

Ethnic diversity harms health for hispanics and blacks. http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/abs/10.2105/AJPH.2012.300787

Babies demostrate ethnocentrism before exposure to non-whites. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-7687.2012.01138.x/full

Ethnocentrism is universal and likely evolved in origin. http://www-personal.umich.edu/~axe/research/AxHamm_Ethno.pdf

Diversity primarily hurts the dominant ethnic group. http://www.theindependentaustralian.com.au/node/57

Ethnic diversity reduces concern for the environment. http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10640-012-9619-6

Ethnic diversity within 80 meters of a person reduces social trust. http://curis.ku.dk/ws/files/130251172/Dinesen_S_nderskov_Ethnic_Diversity_and_Social_Trust_Forthcoming_ASR.pdf

Ethnic diversity directly reduces strong communities. https://www.msu.edu/~zpneal/publications/neal-diversitysoc.pdf

Ethnically homogenous neighborhoods are beneficial for health. https://www.mailman.columbia.edu/public-health-now/news/living-ethnically-homogenous-area-boosts-health-minority-seniors

Diversity in American cities correlates with segregation. http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-most-diverse-cities-are-often-the-most-segregated/

Races are extended families. Ethnocentrism is genetically rational. http://www.amazon.com/The-Ethnic-Phenomenon-Pierre-Berghe/dp/0275927091

It is evolutionary rational to be friends with someone genetically similar to you. http://www.livescience.com/46791-friends-share-genes.html

Racism and nationalism are rational and evolutionary advantageous strategies. http://jasss.soc.surrey.ac.uk/16/3/7.html

Homogeneous polities have less crime, less civil war, and more altruism. http://www.theindependentaustralian.com.au/node/57

States with little diversity have more democracy, less corruption, and less inequality. http://www.theindependentaustralian.com.au/node/57

A Reference book of men's issues is probably your best bet for finding relevant studies.

[MRRef] (https://www.reddit.com/r/MRRef/) is more extensive but will require more digging.

Videos:

The Red Pill (NYA)

Everything by Karen Straughan

Everything by Janice Fiamengo

Books:

[Is There Anything Good About Men?] (https://gendertruce.files.wordpress.com/2014/04/baumeister-roy-is-there-anything-good-about-men.pdf) (full book online) by Roy Baumeister

The Myth of Male Power: Why Men are the Disposable Sex by Warren Farrell

The Privileged Sex by Martin Van Creveld

The Second Sexism: Discrimination Against Men and Boys by David Benetar

The Fraud of Feminism (full book online) by Earnest Belford Bax

Who Stole Feminism? by Christina Hoff Sommers

The War Against Boys by Christina Hoff Sommers

Spreading Misandry: The Teaching of Contempt for Men in Popular Culture by Paul Nathanson and Katherine Young

Legalizing Misandry: From Public Shame to Systemic Discrimination Against Men by Paul Nathanson and Katherine Young

Sanctifying Misandry: Goddess Ideology and the Fall of Man by Paul Nathanson and Katherine Young

Replacing Misandry: A Revolutionary History of Men by Paul Nathanson and Katherine Young

No More Sex War by Neil Lyndon

A few works that I think deserve more attention. Some are directly related to Men's Rights, others tangentially.

Hierarchy in the Forest: The Evolution of Egalitarian Behavior by Christopher Boehm

War, Peace, Human Nature: Converging Evolutionary & Cultural Views by Douglas Fry et. al

Female Forms of Power and the Myth of Male Dominance: A Model of Female/Male Interaction in Peasant Society (paper online) by Susan Carol Rogers

Favoured or oppressed? Married women, property and ‘coverture’ in England, 1660–1800 (paper online) by J. Bailey

The Mothers: A Study of the Origins of Sentiments and Institutions (full book online) by Robert Briffault

Gynocentrism: From Feudalism to the Modern Disney Princess by Peter Wright

Sex and Culture (full book online) by J.D. Unwin

The Manipulated Man (full book online) by Esther Villar

Unknown Misandry (website)

Real Sexism (website)

The more they double down (because SJWs always lie, SJWs always project, SJWs always double down), the more they will be disliked, the more fringe they will be come, the more they will have nothing but identity politics (which is basically hate speech) to rely on.

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

It's not about obvious conflicts like race riots, so much as it's a general lack of social cohesion. Here are some examples I've copied from another comment on how diversity degrades quality of life.

More diverse neighborhoods have lower social cohesion. http://www.citylab.com/housing/2013/11/paradox-diverse-communities/7614/

Diversity increases psychotic experiences. http://bjp.rcpsych.org/content/201/4/282.abstract?etoc

Diversity increases social adversity. http://bjp.rcpsych.org/content/201/4/282.abstract?etoc

A 10% increase in diversity doubles the chance of psychotic episodes. http://bjp.rcpsych.org/content/201/4/282.abstract?etoc

Diversity reduces voter registration, political efficacy, charity, and number of friendships. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-9477.2007.00176.x/abstract;jsessionid=279C92A7EB0946BBA63D62937FC832A9.f04t03

Ethnic diversity reduces happiness and quality of life. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-9477.2007.00176.x/abstract;jsessionid=279C92A7EB0946BBA63D62937FC832A9.f04t03

Diversity reduces trust, civic participation, and civic health. http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2007/08/05/the_downside_of_diversity/?page=full

Ethnocentrism is rational, biological, and genetic in origin. http://www.pnas.org/content/108/4/1262.abstract

Ethnic diversity harms health for hispanics and blacks. http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/abs/10.2105/AJPH.2012.300787

Babies demostrate ethnocentrism before exposure to non-whites. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-7687.2012.01138.x/full

Ethnocentrism is universal and likely evolved in origin. http://www-personal.umich.edu/~axe/research/AxHamm_Ethno.pdf

Diversity primarily hurts the dominant ethnic group. http://www.theindependentaustralian.com.au/node/57

Ethnic diversity reduces concern for the environment. http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10640-012-9619-6

Ethnic diversity within 80 meters of a person reduces social trust. http://curis.ku.dk/ws/files/130251172/Dinesen_S_nderskov_Ethnic_Diversity_and_Social_Trust_Forthcoming_ASR.pdf

Ethnic diversity directly reduces strong communities. https://www.msu.edu/~zpneal/publications/neal-diversitysoc.pdf

Ethnically homogenous neighborhoods are beneficial for health. https://www.mailman.columbia.edu/public-health-now/news/living-ethnically-homogenous-area-boosts-health-minority-seniors

Diversity in American cities correlates with segregation. http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-most-diverse-cities-are-often-the-most-segregated/

Races are extended families. Ethnocentrism is genetically rational. http://www.amazon.com/The-Ethnic-Phenomenon-Pierre-Berghe/dp/0275927091

It is evolutionary rational to be friends with someone genetically similar to you. http://www.livescience.com/46791-friends-share-genes.html

Racism and nationalism are rational and evolutionary advantageous strategies. http://jasss.soc.surrey.ac.uk/16/3/7.html

Homogeneous polities have less crime, less civil war, and more altruism. http://www.theindependentaustralian.com.au/node/57

States with little diversity have more democracy, less corruption, and less inequality. http://www.theindependentaustralian.com.au/node/57

https://www.amazon.com/Problem-Political-Authority-Examination-Coerce/dp/1137281650

https://www.amazon.com/Private-Governance-Creating-Economic-Social-ebook/dp/B00XCTPVAU/

https://www.amazon.com/State-Collected-Papers-Anthony-Jasay/dp/0865971714

https://www.amazon.com/Against-Politics-Government-Routledge-Political/dp/0415513650/

https://www.amazon.com/Machinery-Freedom-Guide-Radical-Capitalism/dp/1507785607

https://www.amazon.com/Chaos-Theory-Essays-Market-Anarchy/dp/1479258377

https://www.amazon.com/Legal-Systems-Very-Different-Ours/dp/1793386722

https://www.amazon.com/Myth-Rational-Voter-Democracies-Policies/dp/0691138737

The book the writer was working on at the time, the strikingly but misleadingly titled Redneck Manifesto, is truly great. It's like a print version of the most biting, knowledgeable, and funny commentary at TiA—but written two decades ago. It was "ahead of its time," as people say when they don't know how long the world's already been the same kind of fucked up it is now.

Reviewers I'd expected to embrace it all had the same wrongheaded complaints about it. The first was that it's a "Marxist" book. Nobody (to this day) seemed to recognize it as a unique entry in a long tradition that's recently come to be called libertarian class analysis, a framework that the non-establishment right (and some of what refuses to call itself the "right" because "right" means redneck cooties) is just now finally coming (back) around to. It's the original, irrecuperable, not bullshit version of "privilege" talk, the one longed for by everyone who thinks there's something to it but it's gone too far now. That's not quite what happened.

Reviewers' other complaint was that too much of a book that said Redneck on the cover was about the proto-"hipster" scene the author lived in, the conspicuous alterna-consumers and self-obsessed public diarists ("'zine" makers) of the post-punk world. '90s tumblrinas! He accurately pegged their cultish pen-pal network as a hazardously overspilling poison vat of hypocritical upper-class white assholery, cultivated pseudo-illness and pseudo-guilt, etc.—everything that makes us here today wonder "Where the fuck did all this shit come from?!"

He saw it first. He even predicted the "trucker hat" fad and the return of lumberjack beards. How the fuck?!

A lot of Goad's other work is crazy and/or trollin', but Redneck is a monster truth bomb about the one thing he truly understands. Non-referrer Amazon link because Thought Catalog is fuccbois. Best $1 (plus shipping) you can spend right now.

Yes, agreed, everyone should. But most won't. And many who do read it either fail to understand it and/or refuse to believe it because they are more comfortable with the fantasy that America is some sort of great, leading Democracy. The cognitive dissonance is simply too much for many Americans. A very false sense of American exceptionalism tends to win out. If you notice, Wikipedia is even considering doing away with the individual Inverted Totalitarianism page.

Anyway, here are more links for those interested.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nelGtSOimwQ

https://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&v=AV_c1ElZl7Q

http://www.amazon.com/Democracy-Incorporated-Managed-Inverted-Totalitarianism/dp/069114589X/ref=tmm_pap_title_0/180-0382729-1464265

http://www.alternet.org/news/85728/

Manufacturing consent:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KwU56Rv0OXM

https://vimeo.com/39566117

Testing theories of representative government

https://scholar.princeton.edu/sites/default/files/mgilens/files/gilens_and_page_2014_-testing_theories_of_american_politics.doc.pdf

Democracy Inc

http://www.amazon.com/Democracy-Incorporated-Managed-Inverted-Totalitarianism/dp/069114589X

US distribution of wealth

https://imgur.com/a/FShfb

http://www2.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html

>Is there any politician out there willing to fight for Canadians? Is that too much to ask?

Sorry to tell you the government doesn't work for you.

These links will take a while to digest, but if you want to understand what's going on in the world, you owe it to yourself to become informed about the true state of the world.

Our brains are much worse at reality and thinking than thought. Science on reasoning:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PYmi0DLzBdQ

Rd wolf on economics

http://www.rdwolff.com/

"Intended as an internal document. Good reading to understand the nature of rich democracies and the fact that the common people are not allowed to play a role."

Crisis of democracy

http://trilateral.org/download/doc/crisis_of_democracy.pdf

http://www.amazon.com/Crisis-Democracy-Governability-Democracies-Trilateral/dp/0814713653/

Education as ignorance

https://chomsky.info/warfare02/

Overthrowing other peoples governments

http://williamblum.org/essays/read/overthrowing-other-peoples-governments-the-master-list

Wikileaks on TTIP/TPP/ETC

https://youtu.be/ABDiHspTJww?t=17

Energy subsidies

https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/survey/so/2015/NEW070215A.htm

Interference in other states when the rich/corporations dont get their way

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8mxp_wgFWQo&feature=youtu.be&list=PLKR2GeygdHomOZeVKx3P0fqH58T3VghOj&t=724

Manufacturing consent (book)

http://www.amazon.com/Manufacturing-Consent-Political-Economy-Media/dp/0375714499/

Protectionism for the rich and big business by state intervention, radical market interference.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WHj2GaPuEhY#t=349

Manufacturing consent:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KwU56Rv0OXM

https://vimeo.com/39566117

Testing theories of representative government

https://scholar.princeton.edu/sites/default/files/mgilens/files/gilens_and_page_2014_-testing_theories_of_american_politics.doc.pdf

Democracy Inc

http://www.amazon.com/Democracy-Incorporated-Managed- Inverted-Totalitarianism/dp/069114589X

From war is a racket:

"I helped make Mexico, especially Tampico, safe for American oil intersts in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefits of Wall Street. The record of racketeering is long. I helped purify Nicaragua for the international banking house of Brown Brothers in 1909-1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for American sugar interests in 1916. In China I helped to see to it that Standard Oil went its way unmolested."[p. 10]

"War is a racket. ...It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives." [p. 23]

"The general public shoulders the bill [for war]. This bill renders a horrible accounting. Newly placed gravestones. Mangled bodies. Shattered minds. Broken hearts and homes. Economic instability. Depression and all its attendant miseries. Back-breaking taxation for generations and generations." [p. 24]

General Butler is especially trenchant when he looks at post-war casualties. He writes with great emotion about the thousands of tramautized soldiers, many of who lose their minds and are penned like animals until they die, and he notes that in his time, returning veterans are three times more likely to die prematurely than those who stayed home.

http://www.amazon.com/War-Racket-Antiwar-Americas-Decorated/dp/0922915865/

Blum:

http://williamblum.org/aer/read/137

US distribution of wealth

https://imgur.com/a/FShfb

http://www2.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html

The Centre for Investigative Journalism

http://www.tcij.org/

Some history on US imperialism by us corporations.

https://kurukshetra1.wordpress.com/2015/09/27/a-brief-history-of-imperialism-and-state-violence-in-colombia/

The real news

http://www.therealnews.com

> Any different between races is negligible to the point that social conditions can make up for them.

You're gonna want to hold onto your tendies for this one:

Humans can be genetically categorized into five racial groups, corresponding to traditional races.
http://pritchardlab.stanford.edu/publications/pdfs/RosenbergEtAl02.pdf

Genetic analysis "supports the traditional racial groups classification."
http://psychology.uwo.ca/faculty/rushtonpdfs/PPPL1.pdf

"Human genetic variation is geographically structured" and corresponds with race.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15508000

Race can be determined via genetics with certainty for >99.8% of individuals.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15625622

Oral bacteria can be used to determine race.
http://medicalxpress.com/news/2013-10-oral-bacteria-fingerprint-mouth.html

Race can be determined via brain scans.
http://www.cell.com/current-biology/abstract/S0960-9822(15)00671-5

96-97% of whites have no African ancestry.
http://www.theroot.com/articles/history/2013/02/how_mixed_are_african_americans.3.html

97% of Whites have no black ancestry whatsoever.
http://www.unz.com/isteve/nyt-white-black-a-murky-distinction-grows-still-murkier/

There was "minimal gene flow" between archaic Europeans and Asians.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/20/science/20adapt.html

Common-sense racial categories have biological meaning.
http://www.ln.edu.hk/philoso/staff/sesardic/Race2.pdf

Human intelligence is highly heritable.
http://www.nature.com/mp/journal/v16/n10/abs/mp201185a.html

Scientific consensus is that IQ tests are not racially biased.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289608000305

Very poor Whites are comparably intelligent to very wealthy blacks.
http://www.jbhe.com/features/49_college_admissions-test.html

Privately, intelligence experts hold more hereditarian views than they express in public.
http://www.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/reprints/1994egalitarianfiction.pdf

Black children raised in White households have similar IQs to black children in black households.
http://psycnet.apa.org/psycinfo/1977-07996-001

The average African IQ is estimated at 79.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0191886912003741

The average African-American IQ is 85, compared to the average White IQ of 100.
http://www.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/reprints/1997mainstream.pdf

The white-black gap in SAT scores, a proxy for IQ, is increasing.
http://www.jbhe.com/features/49_college_admissions-test.html

Genes for large brains, linked to high IQ, are common everywhere except Africa.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB115040765329081636

Intelligence has a 40-50% genetic basis.
http://articles.latimes.com/2011/aug/10/news/la-heb-genetic-study-intelligence-20110809

IQ scores are the best predictor of success in Western society.
http://psychology.uwo.ca/faculty/rushtonpdfs/PPPL1.pdf

IQ is 75% heritable among Whites.
http://psychology.uwo.ca/faculty/rushtonpdfs/PPPL1.pdf

More diverse neighborhoods have lower social cohesion.
http://www.citylab.com/housing/2013/11/paradox-diverse-communities/7614/

Diversity increases psychotic experiences.
http://bjp.rcpsych.org/content/201/4/282.abstract?etoc

Diversity increases social adversity.
http://bjp.rcpsych.org/content/201/4/282.abstract?etoc

A 10% increase in diversity doubles the chance of psychotic episodes.
http://bjp.rcpsych.org/content/201/4/282.abstract?etoc

Diversity reduces voter registration, political efficacy, charity, and number of friendships.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-9477.2007.00176.x/abstract;jsessionid=279C92A7EB0946BBA63D62937FC832A9.f04t03

Ethnic diversity reduces happiness and quality of life.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-9477.2007.00176.x/abstract;jsessionid=279C92A7EB0946BBA63D62937FC832A9.f04t03

Diversity reduces trust, civic participation, and civic health.
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2007/08/05/the_downside_of_diversity/?page=full

Ethnocentrism is rational, biological, and genetic in origin.
http://www.pnas.org/content/108/4/1262.abstract

Ethnic diversity harms health for hispanics and blacks.
http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/abs/10.2105/AJPH.2012.300787

Babies demostrate ethnocentrism before exposure to non-whites.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-7687.2012.01138.x/full

Ethnocentrism is universal and likely evolved in origin.
http://www-personal.umich.edu/~axe/research/AxHamm_Ethno.pdf

Diversity primarily hurts the dominant ethnic group.
http://www.theindependentaustralian.com.au/node/57

Ethnic diversity reduces concern for the environment.
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10640-012-9619-6

Ethnic diversity within 80 meters of a person reduces social trust.
http://curis.ku.dk/ws/files/130251172/Dinesen_S_nderskov_Ethnic_Diversity_and_Social_Trust_Forthcoming_ASR.pdf

Ethnic diversity directly reduces strong communities.
https://www.msu.edu/~zpneal/publications/neal-diversitysoc.pdf

Ethnically homogenous neighborhoods are beneficial for health.
https://www.mailman.columbia.edu/public-health-now/news/living-ethnically-homogenous-area-boosts-health-minority-seniors

Diversity in American cities correlates with segregation.
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-most-diverse-cities-are-often-the-most-segregated/

Races are extended families. Ethnocentrism is genetically rational.
http://www.amazon.com/The-Ethnic-Phenomenon-Pierre-Berghe/dp/0275927091

It is evolutionary rational to be friends with someone genetically similar to you.
http://www.livescience.com/46791-friends-share-genes.html

Racism and nationalism are rational and evolutionary advantageous strategies.
http://jasss.soc.surrey.ac.uk/16/3/7.html

Homogeneous polities have less crime, less civil war, and more altruism.
http://www.theindependentaustralian.com.au/node/57

States with little diversity have more democracy, less corruption, and less inequality.
http://www.theindependentaustralian.com.au/node/57

There is extensive evidence people prefer others who are genetically similar.
http://psychology.uwo.ca/faculty/rushtonpdfs/n&n 2005-1.pdf

A book was literally written about how poor a candidate for admission to Harvard Kushner fils was, how much Kushner père had to pay that university to buy the former entrance, and how that process writ large contributes to structural inequalities throughout America.

Cf., The Price of Admission

John Ogbu?

http://www.amazon.com/Black-American-Students-Affluent-Suburb/dp/080584516X

> if I have a ton of POC family whom I never saw as any different until people got angry for me for seeing them as equals, how could I be racist?

Colorblindness ("I don't see race") is a step backwards. See this book.

>Actual racists aren't friends with people of color

Considering how it's a cliche now that racists say "But some of my best friends are black!," this is also bullshit.

I haven't read it, but I think people have pointed to David Benatar's The Second Sexism: Discrimination Against Men and Boys as an example of something you're looking for.

SS:

• Julian Assange is a Hero;
  
  here is the video of julian #HERO assange being dragged out of solitary confinement :
  
  
• https://twitter.com/r0eland/status/1116277676174659585?s=21
  
  he can be heard shouting “you must resist”.
  
  here is the book he is holding:
  
  
• https://www.amazon.com/Vidal-History-National-Security-State/dp/1494887991
  
  Shame on UK
  
  Shame of Ecuador
  
  Shame on USA
  
  Shame on Australia

If anyone is interested in reading more about the gerrymandering on steroid that the Republicans been using since 2010 I recommend RatFuck by David Daley

https://www.amazon.com/Ratf-ked-Behind-Americas-Democracy/dp/1631491628

Congrats on being a big part of the reason why this book was published.

Jag tycker det är okej att betala så mycket till fattiga länder så att vår välfärd försvinner, men jag tycker inte det är okej att betala ineffektivt. Dvs att hjälpa de som kommit till västvärlden, istället för att hjälpa i närområdet.

Etnisk heterogenitet inom ett område sänker det sociala kapitalet.

Inte ens genom att i teorin kombinera alla kända insatser lyckas man i genomsnitt åtstadkomma den etniska homogenitetens höga sociala sammanhållning (Neal & Neal 2013)

Andra effekter av ökad etnisk heterogenitet inom ett område är att de försämrar ekonomi, demokrati (Vanhanen, 1999), altruism (Salter, 2004), villighet att investera i det allmänna (Alesina, Glaeser & Sacerdote, 2001; Salter, 1999; Schubert & Tweed, 1999) och ökar korruption (Easterly & Levine, 1997).

Desstuom ökar risken dramatiskt för för etniska konflikter (Vanhanen, 2012) samt (Van Der Bergh, 1987)

Dessa problem, bl a brist på trygghet och tillit skapar en störande skolmiljö som försämrar de nya generationernas möjligheter att utbilda sig till de exceptionella nivåer som ett toppland bland kunskapsländer kräver.

Kom ihåg att de vetenskapliga och teknologiska framsteg som världens främsta åtstadkommer kommer så småninom hela världen till nytta. Så när man sackar den globala spjutspetsmotorn så får Eritrea färre nya hjälpmedel att resa sig ur fattigdom med.

Are any of these claims...wrong?

For example, take:

> Anti-conservative sentence of the oped: " the reality of American politics is asymmetric polarization: extremism on the right is a powerful political force, while extremism on the left isn’t." Hmm.


This isn't a hot take from Krugman. It's conventional wisdom in political science. See https://voteviewblog.com/2015/06/10/more-on-assymmetric-polarization-yes-the-republicans-did-it/ or https://www.amazon.com/Even-Worse-Than-Looks-Constitutional/dp/0465031331

Pat McCrory was a pretty decent Republican mayor in Charlotte as a counter balance to the Dem controlled city council & county board of commissioners. He was likable and worked across the aisle to get things done. When he won the governorship the N.C. legislature had a supermajority due to gerrymandered districts and had been drunk with power. McCory was ill prepared. Art Pope, a long-time right-wing operative, became his chief of staff like Cheney was to Bush. McCrory went along with Art Pope's reckless ideas and never pushed back to the wacko republican legislature and lost his soul.

Charlotte Observer columnist Mark Washburn nets out McCrory's astonishing record. Eleven nice words to describe the reign of Gov. McCrory

North Carolina is a purple state suffering from gerrymandered districts that followed the 2010 census as are these states: Wisconsin, Ohio and Pennsylvania.
Here a good book on subject:
Rat F*cked

>Dude, when I worked at Barnes and Noble, a ton of old white dudes (always Republican/tea party types) would practically burst at the rim when coming up to the counter to buy Glenn Beck and Ann Coulter books to talk about any and all racial issues.

Omg, when I worked there, this one guy asked if we had this book in stock, which we didn't. I kept my facial expressions as flat as possible to dissuade him from trying to engage, because he was trying.

>Am I missing much here?

Ignorance, racism, and hypocrisy. Their precious bible is sexist. Their ownership, control, and exploitation of Native Indian, Black, Asian, and even White women is sexist - during imperialism, slavery, before the civil rights movement, Native Indians in reservations, mass rapes in wars over seas, and even now at their foreign military bases. After they rape you, they blame you. Here, take a look.

 

Here's BEFORE:

"White women were encouraged to be chaste, while slave women were pictured as outlets for men's sexual desires...Despite the violent or coercive mistreatment of slave women, they were considered promiscuous. Their high birth rates and skimpy clothing--both consequences of their status as property--were used to justify the creation of negative imagery."

"This practice remained the status quo until 1967"

Gender and Legal History Paper Summary
https://www.law.georgetown.edu/library/collections/gender-legal-history/glh-summary.cfm?glhID=9737A959-C21A-47D3-75CF5754015C05F9

 

Here's NOW

>Racism and sexual harassment could lie behind the higher incidence of suicide attempts amongst teenagers adopted from foreign countries.

>Adopted teenagers from foreign countries are more than four times more likely to attempt suicide than other teenagers.

>The research team believe they've detected a pattern following interviews with young adopted women of Asian descent. 'People have preconceptions that [women of Asian descent] are promiscuous, prostitutes, have a strong sex drive and are considered to be exotic,' said Frank Lindblad, who believes that such sexual prejudices can be difficult for the women concerned to understand.

Racism behind suicide attempts - The Local

https://web.archive.org/web/20121006195710/http://www.thelocal.se/2942/20060126/

 

But, because white people tell the world they're great and egalitarian and simultaneously spread lies about Asian men (who are far less criminal across the board), the world ignores these inconvenient facts and goes along with their story - kinda like how "America is spreading freedom" even though they're the world's #1 terrorist group http://www.amazon.com/Killing-Hope-C-I-Interventions-II--Updated/dp/1567512526/ and http://www.amazon.com/Rogue-State-Guide-Worlds-Superpower/dp/1567513743/, and #1 drug traffickers http://www.amazon.com/The-Politics-Heroin-Complicity-Global/dp/1556524838

 

Here are some more areas where they are the world leaders in.

● World leaders in murdering their own families

>In almost all of these cases, the killer is a white, non Hispanic man. n most cases, the man exhibits *possessive, obsessive and jealous behavior.

Murder-Suicide in Families | National Institute of Justice http://www.nij.gov/topics/crime/intimate-partner-violence/pages/murder-suicide.aspx

 

● Pedophile profile: Young, WHITE, wealthy | ZDNet

http://www.zdnet.com/article/pedophile-profile-young-white-wealthy/

Sounds like you've read Democracy Incorporated: Managed Democracy and the Specter of Inverted Totalitarianism. The author Sheldon Wolin makes the point that the Democrats have failed as an opposition party and have become complicit in the neutering of the federal government. The book is an excellent read and eye-opening as well.

https://www.currentaffairs.org/2018/03/the-intellectual-we-deserve

Tämä on mielestäni ihan jees analyysi Petersonista. Käsittääkseni Petersonin ymmärrys postmodernismista ei ole edes hänen omansa, vaan se perustuu tähän kirjaan, joka ei myöskään ole mitenkään uskottava tulkinta. Tälläisen kuvan olen saanut, kun olen selaillut filosofisia keskusteluita aiheesta.

Naturally, almost all white people are like this.

They start by defining a contradictory term:

> Colour-blind racism

Gender-blind sexism anyone? Use contradictions to increase the edge!

> is racism that acts as if skin colour does not matter – even when it does.

This could be an interesting concept. Too bad they forget to write about it.

> also known as aversive racism

It's not, actually. Good thing they mentioned this though, because that seems to be what the rest of the post tries to talk about.

I don't really know what to say about this. Is it a strawman? It seems contradictory on multiple levels, and they never actually describe a racist behavior. They seem to just be saying that they're oppressed because white people just think racist things while somehow not realizing it. Then they complain about white people stereotyping others, while stereotyping white people like crazy.

What really gets me though is simply the terminology. It's not enough to call it racism, or 'stealth racism' or 'subconscious racism' - simply saying exactly what you mean is not postmodern enough. Apparently this particular term was made popular by a book which:

• Sets up a case of a white person discriminating
  
• Asserts that the white person is not a racist
  
• Concludes that you can have racism without racists
  
  I just can't anymore.

The Privileged Sex

Female Forms of Power and the Myth of Male Dominance

Female Power in the Past

The Myth of Male Power

The Second Sexism

Legalizing Misandry

And you're exactly right (the book by Sheldon Wolin is great, incidentally). No meaningful form of political democracy can survive in a society with a capitalist economic substructure. Capitalism inevitably creates a ruling class of wealth that puts itself far above the people in both legal and social status by subverting whatever form of government might exist. If we want egalitarianism and democracy to exist in the future, we must completely transform our economic system into some form of socialism, for which the capitalist ruling class's power base of private capital ownership does not exist.

The book that the term is coined from.

A Chris Hedges lecture where he discusses the term.

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

https://www.amazon.com/Rogue-State-Guide-Worlds-Superpower/dp/1567513743

Bin Laden recommended! (that is actually 100% true)

If I may make a recommendation, read The Death of Expertise by Tom Nichols. It explains why a yahoo with a computer who’s been in Florida a few days thinks he knows better than a multi billion dollar company, its suppliers and a veritable army of engineers and (actual) experts.

The degree thing is interesting... I just recently read a book (The Death of Expertise by Tom Nichols; https://www.amazon.com/Death-Expertise-Campaign-Established-Knowledge/dp/0190469412) which, among many topics, touches on the subject of how with the massive explosion of degrees and the fact that as college degrees have become more and more widespread, the value of the degrees diminishes. The author postulates that college was not necessarily meant to be the egalitarian thing that it has become and... honestly, I can't disagree with him.

And the downside of it all is that you have many who enter degree programs that are not well positioned to the modern workforce or (worse) folks who enter college when perhaps college was not the best course of action for them. We need to start encouraging more younger folks to look at the trades and other forms of employment... I think they often get overlooked and I know they were even 10 or so years ago go when I graduated high school.

Still waiting on our "coming war with Japan."

Here is where all of the "proof" comes from

His dad gave a shit load of money to them. There's even a book about it.

https://www.amazon.com/Price-Admission-Americas-Colleges-Outside/dp/1400097975/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1479403171&sr=8-1&keywords=the+price+of+admission

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

You are painting both "feminists" and "MRAs" with a very broad brush. Feminist thinking is not simple, there are classic feminists like Wollstonecraft, Mill & Taylor, moving to Friedan, Gloria Steinam, and more of the third-wave feminists who are (arguably) more essentialist about gender - but even there, there is a range. MRA and feminists on the most attention-getting parts internet are often reactionary and insular, but that does not mean the whole movement is.

I'm less convinced that the MRA has much of an intellectual wing, but here is one example.

Further, here is an explicit feminist writer on how gender equality hasn't gotten there yet in the US

It was you who claimed theft is a necessary evil. It's cute you think it's my responsibility to disprove your unproved positive claim, but I have no interest not playing that game. If you're actually interested in this discussion, I would recommend you read this book. You can find it online if you like.

Good luck

>She already did stuff - its well documented. In fact, there is a book about it.
>
>https://www.amazon.com/Clinton-Cash-Foreign-Governments-Businesses/dp/0062369296
>
>Liberals don't care about it.

Because it's plain and simply put not true. There's not a good damn thing about any of those claims that has been verified. At all.

>The biggest threat facing our country is globalism and that is why Trump literally saved our country.

Globalism is what made America rich.

You don't honestly think we did this by ourselves, do you?

> Facts don't care about your feelings

I'm glad you agree.

> Who told you it was a lie...?

Reality, common sense, and mountains of data.
__
> More diverse neighborhoods have lower social cohesion.

>Diversity increases psychotic experiences.
____

>Diversity increases social adversity.

> A 10% increase in diversity doubles the chance of psychotic episodes.
__
>Diversity reduces voter registration, political efficacy, charity, and number of friendships.
_
>Ethnic diversity reduces happiness and quality of life.
____
>Diversity reduces trust, civic participation, and civic health.
____
>Ethnic diversity harms health for Hispanics and Blacks.

>Diversity primarily hurts the dominant ethnic group.
____
>Ethnic diversity reduces concern for the environment.

>Ethnic diversity within 80 meters of a person reduces social trust.
____
>Ethnic diversity directly reduces strong communities.

> Ethnically homogeneous neighborhoods are beneficial for health.
__

> In America, more diverse cities have more segregation.


>Homogeneous polities have less crime, less civil war, and more altruism.


>States with little diversity have more democracy, less corruption, and less inequality.


>There is extensive evidence people prefer others who are genetically similar.


>Borders, not multiculturalism, reduce intergroup violence.


>Diversity reduces charity and volunteering.


>People who live in diverse communities rather than homogenous ones are poorer and less educated.


>Black people trust their neighbors less than do White people.


>Spanish speakers trust their neighbors less than do English speakers.


>Asians trust their neighbors less than do White people.


>Ethnically diverse workplaces have lower cohesion, lower satisfaction and higher turnover.


>Ethnic diversity reduces social trust.


>Ethnic diversity among members of the same race reduces infrastructure quality, charity, and loan repayment.
__

>Diversity of any sort makes people more likely to defect in game theoretic scenarios.
__

>Homogeneous military units have less desertion than diverse units.


>Diversity correlates with low GDP.
____

>Ethnic homogeneity correlates with strong democracy.
__

>Genetic diversity causes societal conflict.
__

>Ethnic diversity causally decreases social cohesion.


>Ethnocentrism is rational, biological, and genetic in origin.


>Babies demonstrate ethnocentrism before exposure to non-Whites.
_

>Ethnocentrism is universal and likely evolved in origin.
____

>Races are extended families. Ethnocentrism is genetically rational.


>Ethnocentrism is biological in origin and a superior evolutionary strategy to altruism.
__

>Humans are more altruistic to individuals who they are more closely related to.


>People subconsciously prefer those who are genetically similar to them for biologically rational reasons.


>Kinship between members of an ethnic group is greater than expected.


>Social trust is negatively affected by ethnic diversity: Case study in Denmark from 1979 to the present.


>Ethnic homogeneity and Protestant traditions positively impact individual and societal levels of social trust.


>“In longitudinal perspective, [across European regions], an increase in immigration is related to a decrease in social trust.”


>Immigration undermines the moral imperative of those who most favor welfare benefits for the neediest.


>The negative effect of community diversity on social cohesion is likely causal.


>In Switzerland, social peace between diverse factions isn’t maintained by integrated coexistence, but rather by strong topographic and political borders that separate groups and allow them autonomy.


>Increasing social pluralism (diversity) is correlated with increased chance of collective violence.
____

>In Germany, residential diversity reduces natives’ trust in neighbors, while it also reduces immigrants’ trust but through a different pathway.
_

>“Ethnic heterogeneity [diversity] explains 55% of the variation in the scale of ethnic conflicts, and the results of regression analysis disclose that the same relationship applies to all 187 countries."
__

>Genetic Similarity Theory (GST) could help explain why diverse groups in close proximity increases ethnic conflict and ethnic nepotism.
__

>Genetic diversity has contributed significantly to frequency of ethnic civil conflict, intensity of social unrest, growth of unshared policy preferences, and economic inequality over the last half-century.


>Using social science data and computer modeling, researchers found that policies that attempt to create neighborhoods that are both integrated and socially cohesive are “a lost cause”.


>The numbers and the genetic distance matter. Minority groups that get above a certain critical mass, and that are culturally distant from the majority culture, begin to self-segregate from the majority, moving society toward division and away from cooperation.


>School integration (forced proximate diversity) will not close race achievement gaps.


>As diversity increases, politics becomes more tribalistic.
_

>Company diversity policies don’t help minorities or women, and they psychologically discriminate against White men.
__

>Greater classroom and neighborhood diversity is linked to stronger tendencies to choose same-ethnic rather than cross-ethnic friends.
_

There's even more where that came from, but you should probably just take the L and move on.

(edit:Fixed some dead links, will fix the rest later. There's already more than enough there to discredit the baseless "diversity is our strength" neomarxist dogma though.)

I personally can connect better with people of my own race. That is not to say it is impossible for me or anyone to connect with someone of a different race, it is just easier. Humans evolved as social animals that live in tight-knit communities based on familiarity and trust. There actually have been many studies that have backed this idea up.

Just to link a few:


More diverse neighborhoods have lower social cohesion.

A 10% increase in diversity doubles the chance of psychotic episodes.

Diversity reduces voter registration, political efficacy, charity, and number of friendships. OP referred to this, and it's true.

Ethnic diversity reduces happiness and quality of life.

Diversity reduces trust, civic participation, and civic health.

Diversity primarily hurts the dominant ethnic group.

[Ethnic diversity within 80 meters of a person reduces social trust.] (http://curis.ku.dk/ws/files/130251172/Dinesen_S_nderskov_Ethnic_Diversity_and_Social_Trust_Forthcoming_ASR.pdf)

Ethnocentrism is rational, biological, and genetic in origin.

Ethnic diversity harms health for hispanics and blacks.

Babies demostrate ethnocentrism before exposure to non-whites.

Ethnocentrism is universal and likely evolved in origin.

Races are extended families. Ethnocentrism is genetically rational.

It is evolutionary rational to be friends with someone genetically similar to you.

Racism and nationalism are rational and evolutionary advantageous strategies.

Ethnically homogeneous neighborhoods are beneficial for health.

Homogeneous polities have less crime, less civil war, and more altruism.

States with little diversity have more democracy, less corruption, and less inequality.

> According to Stratfor's prediction

I'll be honest, Russia's current Federal structure isn't exactly a rock of stability, but a total USSR or Yugoslavia-style breakup/meltdown is a long-shot at best (worst). Besides, I wouldn't trust anything from Stratfor farther than I can throw George Friedman.

Ed Gillespie is the architect of modern gerrymandering. He is directly responsible for the mess we're in right now - the rise of donald trump and white nationalism. Without ed Gillespie, we would have had fair elections, we'd have fair representation in congress, and the few wouldn't be in control of hte many.

Im sorry poor Ed is getting "unfairly" judged as a racist extremist, but his policy of disenfranchising poor, black, uneducated voters, is something that a racist extremist would think up.

> Gillespie was chairman of the Republican State Leadership Conference, the national organization that supplied the money and minds necessary to install GOP majorities in the state legislatures, which, in turn, draw congressional seats.

> Because Republicans now hold two-thirds of the nation’s legislative chambers, it is no surprise that they are comfortably in charge of the U.S. House of Representatives.

http://www.richmond.com/news/virginia/government-politics/jeff-schapiro/schapiro-va-republicans-on-defense-over-redistricting/article_52ebb4a6-089d-5d1e-bd2f-737bc9ba86b6.html

https://www.amazon.com/Ratf-ked-Behind-Americas-Democracy/dp/1631491628/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1506446330&sr=1-1&keywords=9781631491627

SJWs always lie.

> So how do we stem the tide of this neo-Maoism now that their champion (who, after taking money from the most misogynist country in the world and inadvertently funding the most homophobic organisation in the world) is defeated, what now?

I'm going to refer you to the book "SJWs Always Lie: Taking Down the Thought Police" by Vox Day. You are obviously aware of one of the "rules" of being an SJW -- in that book, are some strategies for dealing with them.

• SJWs Always Lie
  
• SJWs Always Double Down
  
• SJWs Always Project
  

Cites you want?

There have been many studies done on the schools in Shaker Heights, Ohio, an affluent (generally middle class to very wealthy), racially integrated suburb of Cleveland. Even in one of the best funded districts in the state, black students perform worse than white students.

http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/csd/summary/v044/44.6jackson.html

Black American Students in an Affluent Suburb presents an interesting departure from traditional studies of the Black and White achievement gap. A trio of elements made this study uniquely different. First, the school district is considered to be one of the best in the nation. Second, Shaker Heights is an upper middle-class suburb with a median family income of $66,000. Third, Shaker Heights is a highly educated community with an estimated 61% of the residents over 25 years old holding at least a bachelor's degree. The presence of these three elements, which are traditionally used to explain the achievement gap, adds a perplexing dynamic to the research contained in this book.

The gap in academic achievement between Black and White students in Shaker Heights led to the fundamental question that guided this research: Why do Black students, who seemingly have the appropriate conditions of life that should lead to academic success, still perform far below their White counterparts? Interestingly, the academic performance of Blacks in Shaker Heights was above the state and national average for Black students.

A few more cites:

http://www.amazon.com/Black-American-Students-Affluent-Suburb/dp/080584516X (considered the most authoritative study)
http://wesscholar.wesleyan.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1565&context=etd_hon_theses (pdf)
http://generaltoolbox.files.wordpress.com/2011/10/the_canary_in_the_mine.pdf (pdf)
http://annenberginstitute.org/pdf/cj_acheivement_gap.pdf(pdf)


For several years, I lived in South Euclid, a lower middle- to upper middle-class, stably racially integrated suburb not too far from Shaker Heights. There was the same gap between black students and white students, with special programs at the high school targeted specifically towards black students to ensure they graduate.

http://www.clevescene.com/cleveland/class-action/Content?oid=1502634

TL/DR: the district didn't succumb to the soft bigotry of low expectations.

Meanwhile, district officials, led by Superintendent Bill Zelei, refused to let daunting national trends discourage them. Half of black male students drop out anyway. Why bother trying? They didn't ship the new arrivals to special ed or let them coast in dumbed-down classes. They didn't pull money out of the high school and into majority-white elementary schools. They kept the honors courses, the Japanese language instruction, the art classes, and the drama club.

If you're curious about a "survey overview" of postmodernism from conception to today, check out Explaining Post-Modernism. It's only $4 + change on kindle.

"Explaining postmodernism: read it, and feel all logic and sense drain away."
~ Prof. Jordan B. Peterson, U of Toronto.

Better men than me have already done that, but certainly no sickle-wielding communists are going to read them, much less assent to their conclusions.

Dr. Stephen Hicks wrote a very good book on the subject of how the failures of Marxism in the 20th Century gave rise to the postmodern philosophical tradition wherein its adherents eschew rationality and logic, aphoristically embodied by quotes such as:

>Postmodernism “seeks not to find the foundation and the conditions of truth but to exercise power for the purpose of social change.” —Frank Lentricchia


>“the normal fuck by a normal man is taken to be an act of invasion and ownership undertaken in a mode of predation” —Andrea Dworkin


>“everything is ‘in the last analysis’ political.” —Fredric Jameson


Dr. Hicks posits that only through the postmodernists’ assertion that reason and logic have failed and by appealing to people’s visceral emotions can they hope to usher in a politcoeconomic system that has been thoroughly disproven.

Postmodernity has gradually engendered the subversive notions of identity politics, political correctness, hate speech, radical feminism, transnormativity, and useless pseudoacademic institutions such as “gender studies,” all of which pervade academia.

Here’s an Amazon link to his book, Explaining Postmodernism

And here’s a fun web application called the Postmodernism Generator that uses abstruse terminology to randomly generate papers reflective of the garbage pumped out by postmodernists. The generator creates papers bearing titles such as The Defining characteristic of Sexual identity: Constructivist
libertarianism in the works of Burroughs that are utter hogwash, but humorous nonetheless and ironically calls to mind a Nietzschean quote:

>Those who know that they are profound strive for clarity. Those who would like to seem profound to the crowd strive for obscurity.

A book wholly worth checking out is The Price of Admission, which uses Jared Kushner as a case study of how the wealthy can subvert all types of academic rigor in order to get the correct looking resume.

I just hope that this whole process with Trump and Kavanaugh can snap people out of the whole meritocracy ideal once and for all, because god knows it's gotten us into a lot of trouble.

If you're new to econ, I would suggest either Basic Economics, as /u/snatchinyosigns suggested, or "Economics in One Lesson" by Henry Hazlitt.

http://www.hacer.org/pdf/Hazlitt00.pdf

https://www.amazon.com/Economics-One-Lesson-Shortest-Understand/dp/0517548232/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=economics+in+one+lesson&qid=1555251994&s=gateway&sr=8-1

From there, you might want to get into some of the morality-focused books, if you want a short/easy one, I suggest "Anatomy of the State" by Murray Rothbard

https://mises.org/library/anatomy-state

If you want to learn about how an anarcho-capitalist society could work, I'd read Machinery of Freedom by David Friedman

http://daviddfriedman.com/The_Machinery_of_Freedom_.pdf

https://www.amazon.com/Machinery-Freedom-Guide-Radical-Capitalism/dp/1507785607/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=machinery+of+freedom&qid=1555252140&s=gateway&sr=8-1

>It takes leadership and compromise to overcome differences in politics. Republicans are representing their constituents as well as the Democrat elected are doing the same.

>Get over it guys, this is normal. This is politics, this is the american way. Like it or leave it.

Actually, the filibuster has been used more during Obama's term than ever before. It is worse than it used to be.

I often beat the drum for Sheldon Wolin, as I found his book on our current political system illuminating. The Amazon description of the book explains it better than I can. http://www.amazon.com/Democracy-Incorporated-Managed-Inverted-Totalitarianism/dp/069114589X

I recently saw the Progressive writer and commentator Thomas Frank on C-SPAN's BookTV, where he was launching his latest book Listen Liberal. This one is a history of why the Democratic Party turned its back on the US working class and how it has become a second (and maybe, no longer just the spare) tool for financial interests. He ended his formal presentation with this alarming comment about the upcoming Presidential election. Choosing Trump is voting for 'Intolerance'; Choosing Clinton is a vote for 'Inequality', presumably to be perpetually increasing.

But does that get to the issue with Democracy?

*Note: I agree that the best system of governance is Democracy, but it is still a system created by humans, who have flaws, and no system is perfect*

The fundamental premise of Democracy is that an informed public will make the right choice on how to govern themselves. It assumes that the issues of the day do not invoke emotions, and that people are rational actors. So, like in Economics, there are fundamental assumptions on the theories that in reality are not true.

Another problem is, like you said, the death of debate. I would point you to the book "The Death of Expertise" which goes into how people seem to dismiss, if not outright question and delegitimize, educated professionals doing what they are trained to do. And, the Republican party especially, want to cast doubt on all research on climate change for the Gas & Oil company's benefits. So it's in their benefit to delegitimize them, but in doing so makes everyone question experts. I'm not saying no one should ever question experts, but I constantly hear this "Those researchers are just trying to get grant money." Which 1) is not how the grant approval process works and 2) is ignoring the massive amount of profit Oil companies makes and how anything that could jeopardize their money making scheme would be viewed as a threat. Now, that's just climate change. But think of flat earthers, anti-vaxxers, etc.

Also, on your theme of death of debate, what we call debates are not even debates. Take Ben Shapiro as an example, now he is educated but he also uses certain tactics that make an idea sound logical, when, in some cases, they are not. Now, it's not even about debate to find an ultimate truth and the best solution forward. No, it's about VICTORY. Well, how can you defeat someone if you feel that person is entitled to their position, whether that is on the battlefield, sports field, or in politics.

AND even more, we need less educated people because someone needs to dig ditches. So how do you educate people enough to be an informed public but don't dilute the value of an education? (because if everyone can be a doctor or lawyer, it wouldn't be worth much.)

So yeah, that's the flaw with Democracy. We are a large amount of people, with varying educational backgrounds, trying to understand something as unique and complicated like government, but elect people because they "keep it simple". We're fucked.

George Friedman's projections on Eastern Europe and Russia is spot on (likely because he is of Polish descent).

However, his projections and analysis on East Asian affairs leaves much to be desired.

Check out George Friedman's book published in 1991 called: The Coming War With Japan It's been 27 years, and his projections is completely off the mark, since US and Japan has not gone to war, and Japan remains a steadfast US ally.

Take what George Friedman says in The Next 100 years with a grain of salt, he predicts China and India to somehow magically disappear while Japan becomes the Leader of Asia.

If you want sheer awesomeness in the "failed predictions" genre, you can't go wrong with this.

Black American Students in An Affluent Suburb: A Study of Academic Disengagement

Minority Status, Oppositional Culture and Schooling

The book is in google books. You can read a lot of it.

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 Buddhist Hindu, trying to oust a majority-Hindu Buddhist 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.

>Actually, the fact that these conservatives were invited in the first place would suggest the opposite about academia.

Usually by much maligned campus groups, like The Federalist Society, College Republicans, and other organizations which liberals bunch their panties over. (Asuza's President made the call, among the usual cacophony of humanities student protest.)

I could cite entire books, like Allan Bloom's Closing of The American Mind or Bruce Bawer's The Victims' Revolution: The Rise of Identity Studies and the Closing of the Liberal Mind, both of which convincingly demonstrate the top-down liberal "worldview" (with blinders) of universities.

Look at the response toward Lawrence Summers at Harvard for suggesting cognitive differences between men and women are a partial source of women's lack of representation at the elite-level of STEM fields.

Or, for polling numbers:

>College Faculties A Most Liberal Lot, Study Finds

>By their own description, 72 percent of those teaching at American universities and colleges are liberal and 15 percent are conservative, says the study being published this week. The imbalance is almost as striking in partisan terms, with 50 percent of the faculty members surveyed identifying themselves as Democrats and 11 percent as Republicans.

>He clearly was very knowledgeable in knowing how to generate so much attention to him and to win the election.

No one disputes this. They dispute that this is sufficient qualification for the highest office in the land. The very real concern and fear is that the President will no longer matter after Trump, because his behavior will necessitate circumventing his office to get anything done.

You simply declare that the people who oppose Trump have no reason for it, that it's simply rabid SJW college students and resentniks (Alan Bloom term). This tells me you don't know enough about American politics, because there is an almost limitless volume of credible, well reasoned, and well supported arguments against Trump and his policies available to you. Here's a sampling of decidedly non-SJW voices:

The Weekly Standard

The National Review

Commentary

The American Conservative

Reason


You've said that all the critics you've heard so far are SJWs. If you come back with the canard that all these conservative and libertarian voices I just listed are RINOs or 'insiders', then ask yourself whether you're not the one dismissing all critics with name calling.

Iirc it was this one https://www.amazon.co.uk/Vidal-History-National-Security-State/dp/1494887991

David Friedman's new, 3rd edition of The Machinery of Freedom just came out. That seems like the perfect gift to me. Not only is it the best book on anarcho-capitalism ever written... it's the new updated edition. Perfect timing.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1507785607/

I've been doing a lot of reading trying to figure out this election and why the heck we are so divided as a county:

https://www.amazon.com/Politics-Resentment-Consciousness-Wisconsin-American/dp/022634911X

https://www.amazon.com/Complacent-Class-Self-Defeating-Quest-American/dp/1250108691

https://www.amazon.com/Glass-House-Economy-Shattering-All-American/dp/1250085802

https://www.amazon.com/Colony-Nation-Chris-Hayes/dp/0393254224

https://www.amazon.com/Tyranny-Twenty-Lessons-Twentieth-Century/dp/0804190119

https://www.amazon.com/Even-Worse-Than-Looks-Constitutional/dp/0465031331

https://www.amazon.com/Righteous-Mind-Divided-Politics-Religion/dp/0307455777

Woah looks like someone's falling victim to the second sexism https://www.amazon.com/Second-Sexism-Discrimination-Against-Boys/dp/0470674512

http://www.amazon.com/The-Redneck-Manifesto-Hillbillies-Scapegoats/dp/0684838648

While it covers a lot of subjects from racism to classism and the 'liberal' (read: modern SJW movement, SJW didn't exist in 99ish). This book will blow your mind. It takes about the exact things that SJWs are, products of an entitled family so hateful they direct their hate to anything that doesn't conform to their preconceived ideas about what is. I don't do it justice, but it pretty much outlines everything they are. The most hateful, vile people you will ever come in contact with.

It's even worse than it looks By Tomas Mann and Norman Ornstien is all about Republican obstructionism and how polarized our political system has become. There's plenty of evidence and specific examples in there, especially the first chapter.

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.

>Pretty clear human rights violations

Why do you think they care?

General Wesley Clark: Wars Were Planned - Seven Countries In Five Years - YouTube:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9RC1Mepk_Sw

http://www.amazon.com/Rogue-State-Guide-Worlds-Superpower/dp/1567513743/

I eagerly wait their reply. The movie was narrated and based on the book Clinton Cash: The Untold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and Businesses Helped Make Bill and Hillary Rich. I mean the title sounds like the book has already made up the author's mind, and I guess it has... I have not read the book, but it is on my list now. I'd like to see the counterpoints, but the way it is portrayed in the video, the evidence is pretty damning.

Most of the situations the film covers involve the Clinton Foundation or Bill Clinton getting massive speaking fees from foreign countries or businessmen who have an issue being debated by the State Dept. and soon after a check arrives, they get an agreement approved. It's A LOT of that. As the author states in the film: one or two times...OK, maybe coincidence, but it seems to happen A LOT. Beyond that, the deals she agrees to are part and parcel against the progressive values she spews out of her mouth (i.e. human rights, woman's rights, environment, etc.) ....all things she claims she fights for but then proffers favors for shady characters in exchange for cold hard cash.

More diverse neighborhoods have lower social cohesion.
http://www.citylab.com/housing/2013/11/paradox-diverse-communities/7614/

Diversity increases psychotic experiences.
http://bjp.rcpsych.org/content/201/4/282.abstract?etoc

Diversity increases social adversity.
http://bjp.rcpsych.org/content/201/4/282.abstract?etoc

A 10% increase in diversity doubles the chance of psychotic episodes.
http://bjp.rcpsych.org/content/201/4/282.abstract?etoc

Diversity reduces voter registration, political efficacy, charity, and number of friendships.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-9477.2007.00176.x/abstract;jsessionid=279C92A7EB0946BBA63D62937FC832A9.f04t03

Ethnic diversity reduces happiness and quality of life.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-9477.2007.00176.x/abstract;jsessionid=279C92A7EB0946BBA63D62937FC832A9.f04t03

Diversity reduces trust, civic participation, and civic health.
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2007/08/05/the_downside_of_diversity/?page=full

Ethnocentrism is rational, biological, and genetic in origin.
http://www.pnas.org/content/108/4/1262.abstract

Ethnic diversity harms health for hispanics and blacks.
http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/abs/10.2105/AJPH.2012.300787

Babies demostrate ethnocentrism before exposure to non-whites.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-7687.2012.01138.x/full

Ethnocentrism is universal and likely evolved in origin.
http://www-personal.umich.edu/~axe/research/AxHamm_Ethno.pdf

Diversity primarily hurts the dominant ethnic group.
http://www.theindependentaustralian.com.au/node/57

Ethnic diversity reduces concern for the environment.
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10640-012-9619-6

Ethnic diversity within 80 meters of a person reduces social trust.
http://curis.ku.dk/ws/files/130251172/Dinesen_S_nderskov_Ethnic_Diversity_and_Social_Trust_Forthcoming_ASR.pdf

Ethnic diversity directly reduces strong communities.
https://www.msu.edu/~zpneal/publications/neal-diversitysoc.pdf

Ethnically homogenous neighborhoods are beneficial for health.
https://www.mailman.columbia.edu/public-health-now/news/living-ethnically-homogenous-area-boosts-health-minority-seniors

Diversity in American cities correlates with segregation.
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-most-diverse-cities-are-often-the-most-segregated/

Races are extended families. Ethnocentrism is genetically rational.
http://www.amazon.com/The-Ethnic-Phenomenon-Pierre-Berghe/dp/0275927091

It is evolutionary rational to be friends with someone genetically similar to you.
http://www.livescience.com/46791-friends-share-genes.html

Racism and nationalism are rational and evolutionary advantageous strategies.
http://jasss.soc.surrey.ac.uk/16/3/7.html

Homogeneous polities have less crime, less civil war, and more altruism.
http://www.theindependentaustralian.com.au/node/57

States with little diversity have more democracy, less corruption, and less inequality.
http://www.theindependentaustralian.com.au/node/57

There is extensive evidence people prefer others who are genetically similar.
http://psychology.uwo.ca/faculty/rushtonpdfs/n&n2005-1.pdf

There's a great book by Thomas Mann and Norman Ornstein that explains a lot of the problems we face today in terms of partisanship. There are a few factors that caused both parties, but especially the republicans, to move to the extremes starting in the 1970's. They include:

The "Reagan Revolution" which brought social and religious conservatives together with fiscal conservatives.

Newt Gingrich, who encouraged GOP Congress members to avoid talking with Democrats or face severe repercussions. He later led the 1994 Contract with America.

The election of Barack Obama, who the conservative movement hates for a variety of reasons. Politicians are feeding off that hate.

Money in politics has made Republicans at the whim of major corporations, which paralyzes progress.

That's my response for the moment. I'll upvote and mention anyone who has something better.

EDIT: formatting and grammar

SJWs Always Lie. Particularly the part about Churchianity.

Absolutely.

Heres a personal story on how true it is.

http://www.amazon.com/Please-Stop-Helping-Us-Liberals/dp/1594037256/ref=tmm_hrd_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=&sr=

I love the guy praising Riley's book to defend the "It's actually the government damaging the black community". Dismissing the system's endemic problems that disproportionately target black people — largely lead by motherfuckers saying the same thing as the OP — is more lazy libertarian reasoning; at any point, any societal problem can be solved by this mythical hands-off approach that just happens to favor maintaining the status quo.

I haven't read this book but it has been getting praise, "White Girl Bleed A Lot". I've also been seeing this too but I haven't read it either, "Please Stop Helping Us".

Can anyone here who has read these books give a quick review for these books?

An excellent primer on the topic: The Price of Admission, by Daniel Golden (2007).

It's an interesting question of whether the admissions administrator accepting a direct bribe would be a crime; it probably would be if this is a public institution, while it would merely be unethical privately.

But just pulling strings ? Hell, that's called Tuesday.

Colorblind racism is a researched concept itself, you can read more about it here in lay terms or the actual scholarship here.

I also don't see them defining racism so much as explaining how they chose to measure racist attitudes given their data set. In academic settings racism is almost always defined as systemic, rather than your definition.

To answer your other questions, they likely rescaled variables to make the data easier to interpret and/or compare. To account for the oversampling, they used propensity score weights, which you can read about here.

That’s what I’m saying. The laws don’t explicitly target Black people but they disproportionately affect Black people. It’s like what GOP strategist Lee Atwater said:

>Y'all don't quote me on this. You start out in 1954 by saying, "Nigger, nigger, nigger." By 1968 you can't say "nigger" — that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights and all that stuff. You're getting so abstract now [that] you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites. And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I'm not saying that. But I'm saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me — because obviously sitting around saying, "We want to cut this," is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than "Nigger, nigger."

Bonilla-Silva has discussed this in Racism Without Racists, terming it “color-blind racism.” And Bobo et al have called it “laissez-faire racism”. And, of course, Michelle Alexander’s The New Jim Crow is popular as well on the topic. If you don’t want to read a book or article, Ava DuVernay’s Netflix film 13th is insightful too. Examples abound. Take a look at the disparity in sentencing between crack cocaine and powder cocaine. They’re essentially the same drug, but the former is more likely to be found in Black communities and the latter is more likely to be found in white ones, but the former has much harsher penalties. Or look at sentencing for marijuana. Surveys show that white and Black people use and sell it at the same rate, but Black people are put in jail for marijuana offenses at a rate of 20 to 50 times more than white people. So I’d point to the example of the war on drugs, mass incarceration, and broken-windows policing as ways that racism has evolved.

>Show me an example of a system like this working. I dare you.

https://www.amazon.com/Anarchy-Unbound-Self-Governance-Cambridge-Economics/dp/1107629705

https://www.amazon.com/Private-Governance-Creating-Economic-Social/dp/0199365164

https://www.amazon.com/Invisible-Hook-Hidden-Economics-Pirates/dp/0691150095

https://www.amazon.com/Not-So-Wild-West-Economics/dp/0804748543

https://www.amazon.com/Machinery-Freedom-Guide-Radical-Capitalism/dp/1507785607

https://www.amazon.com/Art-Not-Being-Governed-Anarchist/dp/0300169175

There is also a whole ton of economic literature out there about groups who resolve disputes using game theory, or long term contracts, things like that, instead of relying on a central governing body with a strong threat of violence.

I kinda feel like you lost the plot of this conversation:
You: "We need to pay taxes so the government can protect us from evil corporations."
Me: "But the government sends your taxes straight to the pockets of the evil corporations and directly creates the problems you're complaining about."
You: "Well, that's not the government's fault."

How do you square those two beliefs?

Still, you did ask for sources, so here's a few (plus an upvote):

1. This one is not primarily about the government's role in the food industry, but you can see the problems it creates woven throughout: The Ominivore's Dilemma
   
2. A podcast episode specifically about the Wholesome Meat Act, from the Tom Woods Show: Ep. 656 How the Wholesome Meat Act Gives Us Less Wholesome Meat
   
3. A book I highly recommend that attempts to explain, from a practical/pragmatic standpoint, why nearly everything the government does is either useless or outright counterproductive to its stated goals: The Machinery of Freedom

His book Redneck Manifesto should be required reading in high school.

There is an excellent book on this subject called [The Redneck Manifesto: How Hillbillies, Hicks, and White Trash Became America's Scapegoats] (http://www.amazon.com/Redneck-Manifesto-Hillbillies-Americas-Scapegoats/dp/0684838648). Highly recommended for people who are interested social history.

Does your dad read? The Death of Expertise by Tom Nichols, who's a conservative, got some conservative family members to stop watching Fox News. They still have terrible political views but it's warded off the more serious forms of brain worms.

Klingt für mich wie eine Wunschwelt.
"Es soll allen gut gehen".
"Jeder soll freie Bildung haben!"

Und wie will man so etwas machen?
"Keine Ahnung"

Wenn jeder Bildung umsonst kriegt, gibt es keine gute Bildung mehr. Es gibt keine millionen von Top-Professoren, die einer Hand voll von Superbegabten zur zukünftigen Intellektuellen Elite die etwas erreichen wird und das Volk bereichert, die magischerweise jeden unterrichten können.

Alles, absolut alles, auch gute Bildung, wird mit Blut und Schweiß erkämpft und über Jahrzehnte aufgebaut. Schau mal wie schnell wir alles zerstört haben. Die heutige Bildung ist ein absoluter Witz im vergleich zu den 30ern, unsere Frauen von heute sind schlechter gebildet als unsere Töchter im Mittelalter, sowie davor.

Klingt nach einem erfolgreichem Weltbild, muss man aber durch um die Realität zu sehen, schaffste schon haben wir auch gepackt.

PS: Ausländer sind keine Mitmenschen, sind höchstens deine Nachbarn. leider kenne ich nur des Buch, vllt gibts das iwo alsPDF

hier was anderes

ROFL at the George Friedman links. I think I'll pass. It's imprudent to learn geopolitics from a self-promoting moron. Here's another Friedman classic

Friedman has always had a boner for Japan for some reason.

Russia will become irrelevant, it's time is over as a global power.

Population is important, but geography is the name of the game. He does make some unorthodox prediction through the book, but I think he was completely right with Russia. It was pretty obvious if you were looking for it.

Follow the money. The Clintons have hundreds of millions from Russia but they just seem to get a pass.

To quote someone else in this thread.
> Facts don't care about your feelings

I'm glad you agree.

> Who told you it was a lie...?

Reality, common sense, and mountains of data.
__
> More diverse neighborhoods have lower social cohesion.

>Diversity increases psychotic experiences.
____

>Diversity increases social adversity.

> A 10% increase in diversity doubles the chance of psychotic episodes.
__
>Diversity reduces voter registration, political efficacy, charity, and number of friendships.
_
>Ethnic diversity reduces happiness and quality of life.
____
>Diversity reduces trust, civic participation, and civic health.
____
>Ethnic diversity harms health for Hispanics and Blacks.

>Diversity primarily hurts the dominant ethnic group.
____
>Ethnic diversity reduces concern for the environment.

>Ethnic diversity within 80 meters of a person reduces social trust.
____
>Ethnic diversity directly reduces strong communities.

> Ethnically homogeneous neighborhoods are beneficial for health.
__

> In America, more diverse cities have more segregation.


>Homogeneous polities have less crime, less civil war, and more altruism.


>States with little diversity have more democracy, less corruption, and less inequality.


>There is extensive evidence people prefer others who are genetically similar.


>Borders, not multiculturalism, reduce intergroup violence.


>Diversity reduces charity and volunteering.


>People who live in diverse communities rather than homogenous ones are poorer and less educated.


>Black people trust their neighbors less than do White people.


>Spanish speakers trust their neighbors less than do English speakers.


>Asians trust their neighbors less than do White people.


>Ethnically diverse workplaces have lower cohesion, lower satisfaction and higher turnover.


>Ethnic diversity reduces social trust.


>Ethnic diversity among members of the same race reduces infrastructure quality, charity, and loan repayment.
__

>Diversity of any sort makes people more likely to defect in game theoretic scenarios.
__

>Homogeneous military units have less desertion than diverse units.


>Diversity correlates with low GDP.
____

>Ethnic homogeneity correlates with strong democracy.
__

>Genetic diversity causes societal conflict.
__

>Ethnic diversity causally decreases social cohesion.


>Ethnocentrism is rational, biological, and genetic in origin.


>Babies demonstrate ethnocentrism before exposure to non-Whites.
_

>Ethnocentrism is universal and likely evolved in origin.
____

>Races are extended families. Ethnocentrism is genetically rational.


>Ethnocentrism is biological in origin and a superior evolutionary strategy to altruism.
__

>Humans are more altruistic to individuals who they are more closely related to.


>People subconsciously prefer those who are genetically similar to them for biologically rational reasons.


>Kinship between members of an ethnic group is greater than expected.


>Social trust is negatively affected by ethnic diversity: Case study in Denmark from 1979 to the present.


>Ethnic homogeneity and Protestant traditions positively impact individual and societal levels of social trust.


>“In longitudinal perspective, [across European regions], an increase in immigration is related to a decrease in social trust.”


>Immigration undermines the moral imperative of those who most favor welfare benefits for the neediest.


>The negative effect of community diversity on social cohesion is likely causal.


>In Switzerland, social peace between diverse factions isn’t maintained by integrated coexistence, but rather by strong topographic and political borders that separate groups and allow them autonomy.


>Increasing social pluralism (diversity) is correlated with increased chance of collective violence.
____

>In Germany, residential diversity reduces natives’ trust in neighbors, while it also reduces immigrants’ trust but through a different pathway.
_

>“Ethnic heterogeneity [diversity] explains 55% of the variation in the scale of ethnic conflicts, and the results of regression analysis disclose that the same relationship applies to all 187 countries."
__

>Genetic Similarity Theory (GST) could help explain why diverse groups in close proximity increases ethnic conflict and ethnic nepotism.
__

>Genetic diversity has contributed significantly to frequency of ethnic civil conflict, intensity of social unrest, growth of unshared policy preferences, and economic inequality over the last half-century.


>Using social science data and computer modeling, researchers found that policies that attempt to create neighborhoods that are both integrated and socially cohesive are “a lost cause”.


>The numbers and the genetic distance matter. Minority groups that get above a certain critical mass, and that are culturally distant from the majority culture, begin to self-segregate from the majority, moving society toward division and away from cooperation.


>School integration (forced proximate diversity) will not close race achievement gaps.


>As diversity increases, politics becomes more tribalistic.
_

>Company diversity policies don’t help minorities or women, and they psychologically discriminate against White men.
__

>Greater classroom and neighborhood diversity is linked to stronger tendencies to choose same-ethnic rather than cross-ethnic friends.

We shouldn't need science, since basic observation and understanding tells us everything we need to know, but cucks worship science as the new religion so it's useful to have on hand to hammer them with.

Some of the science, btw

“It is inaccurate to state that race is biologically meaningless.” Source: http://www.nature.com/ng/journal/v36/n11s/full/ng1435.html

Race is biologically real and represents “genetic clusters” of variation. Source: http://stx.sagepub.com/content/30/2/67.abstract

Humans can be genetically categorized into five racial groups, corresponding to traditional races. Source: http://pritchardlab.stanford.edu/publications/pdfs/RosenbergEtAl02.pdf

Genetic analysis “supports the traditional racial groups classification.” Source: http://psychology.uwo.ca/faculty/rushtonpdfs/PPPL1.pdf

“Human genetic variation is geographically structured” and corresponds with race. Source: http://www.nature.com/ng/journal/v36/n11s/full/ng1435.html

Race can be determined via genetics with certainty for >99.8% of individuals. Source: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15625622


Ethnocentrism is rational, biological, and genetic in origin. Source: http://www.pnas.org/content/108/4/1262.abstract

Babies demonstrate ethnocentrism before exposure to non-Whites. Source: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-7687.2012.01138.x/full

Ethnocentrism is universal and likely evolved in origin. Source: http://www-personal.umich.edu/~axe/research/AxHamm_Ethno.pdf

Races are extended families. Ethnocentrism is genetically rational. Source: http://www.amazon.com/The-Ethnic-Phenomenon-Pierre-Berghe/dp/0275927091

Ethnocentrism is biological in origin and a superior evolutionary strategy to altruism. Source: http://jasss.soc.surrey.ac.uk/16/3/7.html

Humans are more altruistic to individuals who they are more closely related to. Source: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17456276

People subconsciously prefer those who are genetically similar to them for biologically rational reasons. Source: http://www.psychology.uwo.ca/faculty/rushtonpdfs/Genetic%20Similarity%201989.pdf

Read this:

http://www.amazon.com/Democracy-Incorporated-Managed-Inverted-Totalitarianism/dp/069114589X

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism

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.)

Daniel Golden won a Pulitzer Prize in 2004 for his reporting on admissions preferences at elite American universities given to the children of wealthy donors and influential alumni.

He turned his reportage into an excellent book, released in 2007, titled "The Price of Admission: How America's Ruling Class Buys Its Way into Elite Colleges--and Who Gets Left Outside the Gates".

The context of his book is, of course, only partly related to the topic of this post, but it does add an important piece to the picture of how the wealthy and powerful receive advantages at every stage in the game. And how they are able to transmit said advantages to their children, to help them get a leg up in their rise to the top.

A lot of what you are describing of the Trivium appears to be very similar to the (lost?) Liberal Arts: are those subjects or skills that in classical antiquity were considered essential for a free person (Latin: liberalis, "worthy of a free person") to know in order to take an active part in civic life, something that (for Ancient Greece) included participating in public debate, defending oneself in court, serving on juries, and most importantly, military service. Grammar, logic, and rhetoric were the core liberal arts, while arithmetic, geometry, the theory of music, and astronomy also played a (somewhat lesser) part in education. LINK

I believe what you are talking about is summarized in the book: Closing of the American Mind

The liberal arts have been largely removed from education, and is de-emphasized in colleges and universities. I took STEM, and when I was in college liberal arts were looked down upon. It's only recently that I have taken up an interest in the liberal arts and I know have a profound respect for it. St John's university runs a very interesting course on The Great Books that looks fascinating, and is what I believe is missing from our modern education.

The Great Books Curriculum: The four-year program of study, nearly all of which is mandatory, demands that students read and discuss the works of many of Western civilization's most prominent contributors to philosophy, theology, mathematics, science, music, poetry, and literature.

The program involves:

• Four years of literature, philosophy, and political science in seminar
  
• Four years of mathematics
  
• Three years of laboratory science
  
• Four years of language (Ancient Greek, Middle/Early English, and French)

If only people had started pointing this out a long time ago... 1987

Gore Vidal's History of the National Security State.

https://www.amazon.com/Vidal-History-National-Security-State/dp/1494887991

Socialism/Communism

A People's History of the World

Main Currents of Marxism

The Socialist System

The Age of... (1, 2, 3, 4)

Marx for our Times

Essential Works of Socialism

Soviet Century

Self-Governing Socialism (Vols 1-2)

The Meaning of Marxism

The "S" Word (not that good in my opinion)

Of the People, by the People

Why Not Socialism

Socialism Betrayed

Democracy at Work

Imagine: Living in a Socialist USA (again didn't like it very much)

The Socialist Party of America (absolute must read)

The American Socialist Movement

Socialism: Past and Future (very good book)

It Didn't Happen Here

Eugene V. Debs

The Enigma of Capital

Seventeen Contradictions and the End of Capitalism

A Companion to Marx's Capital (great book)

After Capitalism: Economic Democracy in Action

Capitalism

The Conservative Nanny State

The United States Since 1980

The End of Loser Liberalism

Capitalism and it's Economics (must read)

Economics: A New Introduction (must read)

U.S. Capitalist Development Since 1776 (must read)

Kicking Away the Ladder

23 Things They Don't Tell You About Capitalism

Traders, Guns and Money

Corporation Nation

Debunking Economics

How Rich Countries Got Rich

Super Imperialism

The Bubble and Beyond

Finance Capitalism and it's Discontents

Trade, Development and Foreign Debt

America's Protectionist Takeoff

How the Economy was Lost

Labor and Monopoly Capital

We Are Better Than This

Ancap/Libertarian

Spontaneous Order (disagree with it but found it interesting)

Man, State and Economy

The Machinery of Freedom

Currently Reading

This is the Zodiac Speaking (highly recommend)

I'm not a conservative, but "cutting holes in the social safety net" isn't the goal of the conservatives. Rather, they see that the social safety net is actively harmful, and often, believe that federal assistance is the worst way to effect benevolence unto the poor.

If it weren't for partisanship, we'd realize that both the liberals and the conservatives stated goals have merit, and are equally noble. Similarly, in practice, both are equally ignoble, and equally meritless.

That said, that conservatives have a different way of helping the poor than the one you prefer doesn't make them heartless.

This book might help understand their view:
http://www.amazon.com/Please-Stop-Helping-Us-Liberals/dp/1594037256

> Rather, they see that the social safety net is actively harmful, and often, believe that federal assistance is the worst way to effect benevolence unto the poor.

I'm British and a socialist, so while I can't speak to the efficacy of your specific social safety net I can say that desiring to see all such safety nets totally removed sounds pretty heartless to me. The assumption that the market fixes everything is demonstrably untrue and leaving the unfortunate at the mercy of a handful of benevolent philanthropists sounds highly unreliable. It could also be a smokescreen for "I don't care about them - I just want to pay less tax".

> If it weren't for partisanship, we'd realize that both the liberals and the conservatives stated goals have merit, and are equally noble

Can't speak for your American equivalents but here in Britain the noble sentiments of our political parties are much less interesting that the things they've actually done. Noble intentions are meaningless. Of course we'd all like to see an end to poverty, better schooling for everyone, etc, etc, but if your way of achieving those ends turns out to be suspiciously close to "letting the rich get richer while the poor get shafted" then I'm going to call shenanigans on your noble intent.

> This book might help understand their view: http://www.amazon.com/Please-Stop-Helping-Us-Liberals/dp/1594037256

Huh. So if American businesses could pay their workers at Chinese sweat shop levels then more black people would be employed? Forgive me for failing to see the altruism at work in that line of thinking. Alternatively you could all contribute a tiny fraction of a tiny fraction of your wages to pay for a better state education system that would help to enable a true meritocracy to exist.

Articles:

The Black Family: 40 Years of Lies
by Kay Hymowitz, City Journal, The Manhattan Institute

Liberalism Versus Blacks by Thomas Sowell, Creators Syndicated.

Books:

The Vision of the Anointed: Self-Congratulation as a Basis for Social Policy by Thomas Sowell.


Race & Economics: How Much Can Be Blamed on Discrimination? by Walter Williams.

Please Stop Helping Us: How Liberals Make It Harder for Blacks to Succeed by Jason Riley.

Absolutely not. Why would you think that?

I'm pretty sure we passed peak-Marxism recently. The alt-right is going mainstream, or rather the mainstream right is going alt. We are busy building new infrastructure. We are retiring our cucks and noble losers in favor of less-than-noble winners.

We've studied the left and are starting to fight back in big ways.

The Second Sexism.

http://www.amazon.com/The-Second-Sexism-Discrimination-Philosophy/dp/0470674512

The Decline Of Males

http://www.amazon.com/The-Decline-Males-First-Unexpected/dp/0312263112/ref=cm_cr_pr_product_top

in the meantime read this

Climate denialism is inextricably linked to the discursive dynamics of varying forms of conservatism (American libertarianism, nativism, anti-globalism, so on) and more broadly, capitalism. Though the wealthiest of the world could support climate change policies and initiatives and still remain grotesquely rich, we have clear evidence that capitalism has repeatedly and systematically discouraged and failed to incentivize action. Then consider that the wealthiest individuals in Western society and elsewhere own most of the media. Though many (e.g.) Americans like to claim they are skeptical of the media, the overwhelming majority are absolutely plugged in to their reality, capitalist realism. Though not strictly on climate, check out Sheldon Wolin's Inverted Totalitarianism. A proper democracy would not tolerate the inaction on climate we see today.

The corporate control of the media and de facto control of the government is corporate fascism, or what the political theorist Sheldon Wolin called “inverted totalitarianism.” Check out his book: https://www.amazon.com/dp/069114589X/ref=cm_sw_r_sms_awdb_t1_Qx9qDbZ87KK29

Even fascists have unions. So do communists. So do socialists. So do dictatorships. They too have their orgs. For Benito it was black shirts, for Hitler, the SS. For the US, the KKK and later American Bund.

Per Wolin and his magnum opus, I know there isn't one democratic institution in the United states.
https://www.amazon.com/Democracy-Incorporated-Managed-Inverted-Totalitarianism/dp/069114589X

The NRA can't be a democratic institution. The united states is hybrid to authoritarian when stripped of American execeptualism.

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.

I think the best readable overview is Explaining Postmodernism by Stephen Hicks (also there's an audio version free on his website here). Critical Theory is an outgrowth of Postmodernism (and Marxism more broadly), and Hicks's book is a great and accessible overview of what it means today.

That's not true. He was referring to people like Heidegger and Paul de Man, left wing European intellectuals who were nazis and then became heroes to the new left and post modernists. Insinuating that anybody you disagree with is an anti semite or racist is a stalinist tactic of ziofascist neocons and establishment liberals. Richard Wolin has written about the phenonomena of nihilist, anti enlightenment, anti capitalist, and anti science romanticist European intellectuals who were first nazis and then whose ideas were supported in America by post modernists.

http://www.amazon.com/The-Seduction-Unreason-Intellectual-Postmodernism/dp/0691125996

http://www.amazon.com/Explaining-Postmodernism-Skepticism-Socialism-Rousseau/dp/0983258406/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1375668152&sr=1-1&keywords=stephen+hicks

http://www.amazon.com/Deconstruction-Literature-Criticism-after-Auschwitz/dp/0874515661/ref=sr_1_6?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1375668256&sr=1-6&keywords=david+hirsch

http://www.amazon.com/Anti-Enlightenment-Tradition-Zeev-Sternhell/dp/0300135548/ref=sr_1_3?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1375668499&sr=1-3&keywords=zeev+sternhell

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romantic_nationalism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counter-Enlightenment

The two intellectual movements Molyneux was referring to. Supported by European intellectuals like Herder, Heidegger, and Fichte.

Hi, rogerd,
Thanks for understanding Castle so well. I might have to break this into separate replies:

1. I don't think the trend has died down, if anything it's worse. I can certainly write a book a year, but at that time I had a lot of other things to deal with -- repairing my house, neighbours bullying, noise pollution, chronic pain, lack of money -- so I suffered a great deal of stress. I moved house and I'm in a better position now. Small presses are probably the answer for me. I'm 107K words into the next novel, and I'll finish it next year.
   
   
2. Exactly! And it mirrors some things I've seen in the real world -- I'm fascinated by different character types and what people will do for fame. And what fame actually entails. I've studied the careers of, say, Lance Armstrong, Jim Slater, and I'm looking at Donald Trump. These people have done extraordinarily nasty things in order to gain success (fame & fortune) and -- what's amazing is -- society lets them. Not only lets them, but upholds them. There is a myth that if they're successful, they must have done something right. Things which people will excuse, because they're famous, or because they have built a personal myth in which people want to believe. So [Ata](/s "gets away with killing Shearwater Mist"), because the unspoken rules of our society are reflected in theirs.
   
   Another aspect is what sort of people gain success? We have a belief that, if you are naturally blessed with talent, or if you work hard you'll be successful. That's a myth too -- the book Outliers shows the processes that are really going on. Also a Vice article. Another book.
   
   Jant is more laid-back than the others (horizontal, in fact), because he can fly, he can take a bunch of drugs and still maintain immortality. The immortals are on a spectrum -- at one end are the biological freaks like Jant (and Simoon), and at the other end are people who practise all the time, like Hurricane. Lightning is somewhere in the middle.
   
   And I'm showing the other ways people rise to success, or 'get in to the Circle'. I was very naive at the beginning. I thought success in our world was due to personal effort. But you can see how Mist and Ata were both born to seafaring lives -- Shearwater Mist was a coastal trader (so was his father). Ata was from Grass Isle. In Fair Rebel and the next book it's deeper so for example [Gayle](/s "the Lawyer has been "hothoused" into it by her parents -- also lawyers -- who started her in law at an early age"). I'm interested in the effect that has on her, and also to compare her with [Simoon](/s "the Treasurer, who finds his mathematics effortless and enjoyable").

Two books I'd recommend.

http://www.amazon.com/The-Narcissism-Epidemic-Living-Entitlement/dp/1416575995

http://www.amazon.com/The-Age-Acquiescence-Resistance-Organized/dp/0316185434

One is a psychological perspective of Millennials, while the other is a Sociological perspective of Millennial politics, when compared to history.

I would also read this one.

http://www.amazon.com/Closing-American-Mind-Education-Impoverished/dp/1451683200

If there isn't any reading of this, then bascially there is going to be a tremendous misconception about the reality of things. The book will lack any basis in reality, because the former three books have strong empirical backing, but their conclusions are highly unpopular, and so modern intellectuals don't want to deal with the fact that excessive overconfidence has removed the capacity for people to politically organize.

Fuck any other conclusion, this is what the data states over and over again. Preach excessive individualism to the masses, and the masses dissolve their bonds with each other. More importantly, people lose the capacity to see the point of group work all together, and therefore a common project is impossible.

Things like this cannot be understand unless one is prepared to go against the status quo established in the 1960s.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4r7cwWegXCU

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

If the fruit of your labor belongs to someone else without your consent, you are a slave. Taxation is ethically unjustified, and has only to do with power. As far as states go, well functioning democratic ones are usually less terrible than autocratic ones.

If you want to see how a plausible set of institutions could be made without the use of the tax-slavery system, you could check out this book by David Friedman.

The FBI was tipped off by a (NYT bestselling) book?

Ok. That explains a lot

The Republicans need to read this book by one of their own and 5 time Jeopardy champion, Dr. Tom Nichols.

In fact, I would say a high percentage of Redditors need to read it also.

Check out this book: https://www.amazon.com/Death-Expertise-Campaign-Established-Knowledge/dp/0190469412
Society is quickly evolving to not trust real information, but somehow we feel like crowd sourcing some randos killing time on reddit is trustworthy. /shrug/

You might enjoy The Death of Expertise by Tom Nichols. He goes over that exact same issue. Check out his AMA. Follow him on twitter if you want the perspective of a sane, snarky, conservative.

the key isnt that the normal folk like you and me should pay more.

The top 1-2% pay jackshit compared to the rest of us.

have stocks? they pay even less.

> Traditional classroom Education is meaningless for these people. Teach them a TRADE, something worth while.

100% totally agree! https://www.amazon.com/Death-Expertise-Campaign-Established-Knowledge/dp/0190469412

this is a great read. he actually talks about how college has become a money making scheme more than a concerned about education.

Sure, friend

More diverse neighborhoods have lower social cohesion. Source:http://www.citylab.com/housing/2013/11/paradox-diverse-communities/7614/

Diversity increases psychotic experiences. Source:http://bjp.rcpsych.org/content/201/4/282.full

Diversity increases social adversity. Source:http://bjp.rcpsych.org/content/201/4/282.full

A 10% increase in diversity doubles the chance of psychotic episodes. Source: http://bjp.rcpsych.org/content/201/4/282.full

Diversity reduces voter registration, political efficacy, charity, and number of friendships. Source:http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-9477.2007.00176.x/abstract

Ethnic diversity reduces happiness and quality of life. Source:http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-9477.2007.00176.x/abstract

Diversity reduces trust, civic participation, and civic health. Source:http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2007/08/05/the_downside_of_diversity/?page=full

Ethnic diversity harms health for Hispanics and Blacks. Source:http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/abs/10.2105/AJPH.2012.300787

Diversity primarily hurts the dominant ethnic group. Source:http://www.theindependentaustralian.com.au/node/57

Ethnic diversity reduces concern for the environment. Source:http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10640-012-9619-6

Ethnic diversity within 80 meters of a person reduces social trust.
Source:http://curis.ku.dk/ws/files/130251172/Dinesen_S_nderskov_Ethnic_Diversity_and_Social_Trust_Forthcoming_ASR.pdf#page=2

Ethnic diversity directly reduces strong communities. Source:https://www.msu.edu/~zpneal/publications/neal-diversitysoc.pdf

Ethnically homogeneous neighborhoods are beneficial for health. Source: https://www.mailman.columbia.edu/public-health-now/news/living-ethnically-homogenous-area-boosts-health-minority-seniors

In America, more diverse cities have more segregation. Source:http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-most-diverse-cities-are-often-the-most-segregated/

Homogeneous polities have less crime, less civil war, and more altruism. Source:http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10464-013-9608-0

States with little diversity have more democracy, less corruption, and less inequality. Source:http://www.theindependentaustralian.com.au/node/57

There is extensive evidence people prefer others who are genetically similar. Source:http://psychology.uwo.ca/faculty/rushtonpdfs/n&n%202005-1.pdf

Borders, not multiculturalism, reduce intergroup violence. Source:http://arxiv.org/abs/1110.1409

Diversity reduces charity and volunteering. Source:http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-9477.2007.00176.x/abstract

People who live in diverse communities rather than homogenous ones are poorer and less educated. Source:http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-9477.2007.00176.x/abstract

Black people trust their neighbors less than do White people. Source: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-9477.2007.00176.x/abstract

Spanish speakers trust their neighbors less than do English speakers. Source:http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-9477.2007.00176.x/abstract

Asians trust their neighbors less than do White people. Source:http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-9477.2007.00176.x/abstract

Ethnically diverse workplaces have lower cohesion, lower satisfaction and higher turnover. Source:http://jom.sagepub.com/content/23/3/239.short?rss=1&ssource=mfc

Ethnic diversity reduces social trust. Source:http://www.nber.org/papers/w5677

Ethnic diversity among members of the same race reduces infrastructure quality, charity, and loan repayment. Source:http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-9477.2007.00176.x/abstract

Diversity of any sort makes people more likely to defect in game theoretic scenarios. Source:http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-9477.2007.00176.x/abstract

Homogeneous military units have less desertion than diverse units. Source: http://www.nber.org/papers/w8627

Diversity correlates with low GDP. Source:https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2013/05/16/a-revealing-map-of-the-worlds-most-and-least-ethnically-diverse-countries/

Ethnic homogeneity correlates with strong democracy. Source:https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2013/05/16/a-revealing-map-of-the-worlds-most-and-least-ethnically-diverse-countries/

Genetic diversity causes societal conflict. Source:https://www.nber.org/papers/w21079

Ethnic diversity causally decreases social cohesion. Source:http://esr.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2015/08/20/esr.jcv081.full

Ethnocentrism is rational, biological, and genetic in origin. Source:http://www.pnas.org/content/108/4/1262.abstract

Babies demonstrate ethnocentrism before exposure to non-Whites. Source:http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-7687.2012.01138.x/full

Ethnocentrism is universal and likely evolved in origin. Source:http://www-personal.umich.edu/~axe/research/AxHamm_Ethno.pdf

Races are extended families. Ethnocentrism is genetically rational. Source: http://www.amazon.com/The-Ethnic-Phenomenon-Pierre-Berghe/dp/0275927091

Ethnocentrism is biological in origin and a superior evolutionary strategy to altruism. Source:http://jasss.soc.surrey.ac.uk/16/3/7.html

Humans are more altruistic to individuals who they are more closely related to. Source:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17456276

People subconsciously prefer those who are genetically similar to them for biologically rational reasons.
Source:http://www.psychology.uwo.ca/faculty/rushtonpdfs/Genetic%20Similarity%201989.pdf

Kinship between members of an ethnic group is greater than expected. Source: http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.372.1009

----------------Diversity and Ethnocentrism Hate Facts------------------

More diverse neighborhoods have lower social cohesion. http://www.citylab.com/housing/2013/11/paradox-diverse-communities/7614/

Diversity increases psychotic experiences. http://bjp.rcpsych.org/content/201/4/282.abstract?etoc

Diversity increases social adversity. http://bjp.rcpsych.org/content/201/4/282.abstract?etoc

A 10% increase in diversity doubles the chance of psychotic episodes. http://bjp.rcpsych.org/content/201/4/282.abstract?etoc

Diversity reduces voter registration, political efficacy, charity, and number of friendships. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-9477.2007.00176.x/abstract;jsessionid=279C92A7EB0946BBA63D62937FC832A9.f04t03

Ethnic diversity reduces happiness and quality of life. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-9477.2007.00176.x/abstract;jsessionid=279C92A7EB0946BBA63D62937FC832A9.f04t03

Diversity reduces trust, civic participation, and civic health. http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2007/08/05/the_downside_of_diversity/?page=full

Ethnocentrism is rational, biological, and genetic in origin. http://www.pnas.org/content/108/4/1262.abstract

Ethnic diversity harms health for hispanics and blacks. http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/abs/10.2105/AJPH.2012.300787

Babies demostrate ethnocentrism before exposure to non-whites. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-7687.2012.01138.x/full

Ethnocentrism is universal and likely evolved in origin. http://www-personal.umich.edu/~axe/research/AxHamm_Ethno.pdf

Diversity primarily hurts the dominant ethnic group. http://www.theindependentaustralian.com.au/node/57

Ethnic diversity reduces concern for the environment. http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10640-012-9619-6

Ethnic diversity within 80 meters of a person reduces social trust. http://curis.ku.dk/ws/files/130251172/Dinesen_S_nderskov_Ethnic_Diversity_and_Social_Trust_Forthcoming_ASR.pdf

Ethnic diversity directly reduces strong communities. https://www.msu.edu/~zpneal/publications/neal-diversitysoc.pdf

Ethnically homogenous neighborhoods are beneficial for health. https://www.mailman.columbia.edu/public-health-now/news/living-ethnically-homogenous-area-boosts-health-minority-seniors

Diversity in American cities correlates with segregation. http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-most-diverse-cities-are-often-the-most-segregated/

Races are extended families. Ethnocentrism is genetically rational. http://www.amazon.com/The-Ethnic-Phenomenon-Pierre-Berghe/dp/0275927091

It is evolutionary rational to be friends with someone genetically similar to you. http://www.livescience.com/46791-friends-share-genes.html

Racism and nationalism are rational and evolutionary advantageous strategies. http://jasss.soc.surrey.ac.uk/16/3/7.html

Homogeneous polities have less crime, less civil war, and more altruism. http://www.theindependentaustralian.com.au/node/57

States with little diversity have more democracy, less corruption, and less inequality. http://www.theindependentaustralian.com.au/node/57

There is extensive evidence people prefer others who are genetically similar. http://psychology.uwo.ca/faculty/rushtonpdfs/n&n 2005-1.pdf

.

.

.

-----------------------Gender and Sexuality Hate Facts-----------------------

Gay men are 60x more likely to have HIV than straight men. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3462414/

Women with more sexual partners are more likely to divorce. http://s3.amazonaws.com/thf_media/2003/pdf/Bookofcharts.pdf

Women with more than 20 sexual partners have an 80% chance of divorce. http://s3.amazonaws.com/thf_media/2003/pdf/Bookofcharts.pdf

White and Asian women have more successful marriages than black or Hispanic women. http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhsr/nhsr049.pdf

Gay people are 2-3x more likely to abuse alcohol than straight people. http://www.amazon.com/Unequal-Opportunity-Disparities-Affecting-Bisexual/dp/0195301536

A women’s number of sex partners is linearly linked to alcohol and drug abuse. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3752789/

Gay men are six times more likely to commit suicide than straight men. http://www.amazon.com/Unequal-Opportunity-Disparities-Affecting-Bisexual/dp/0195301536

Gay men are 12x more likely to use amphetamines than straight men. http://www.amazon.com/Unequal-Opportunity-Disparities-Affecting-Bisexual/dp/0195301536

Gay men are 10x more likely to use heroin than straight men. http://www.amazon.com/Unequal-Opportunity-Disparities-Affecting-Bisexual/dp/0195301536

Liberal arguments in favor of homosexuality are based on logical fallacies. http://hrcak.srce.hr/index.php?show=clanak&id_clanak_jezik=19028&lang=en

Transsexuals who undergo sex reassignment surgery are more likely to commit suicide. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21364939

College majors with a greater proportion of women have lower average IQ’s among their students. http://www.randalolson.com/2014/06/25/average-iq-of-students-by-college-major-and-gender-ratio/

Less attractive women are more likely to want careers. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2129456/Do-girls-want-career-attract-man-Provocative-study-casts-high-fliers-new-light.html

.

.

.

--------------------------------ISLAM HATE FACTS--------------------------

35% of Palestinians have a favorable opinion of Al Qeada. http://www.pewglobal.org/files/2013/09/Pew-Global-Attitudes-Project-Extremism-Report-Final-9-10-135.pdf

40% of British Muslims want Shariah law. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1510866/Poll-reveals-40pc-of-Muslims-want-sharia-law-in-UK.html

1 in eight Muslims worldwide has a favorable view of al Quaeda. http://www.pewglobal.org/files/2013/09/Pew-Global-Attitudes-Project-Extremism-Report-Final-9-10-135.pdf

1 in 3 Muslims favorably views Hamas, a known terrorist organization. http://www.pewglobal.org/files/2013/09/Pew-Global-Attitudes-Project-Extremism-Report-Final-9-10-135.pdf

25% of Egyptian Muslims support terrorist attacks to enforce Shariah law. http://www.pewglobal.org/files/2013/09/Pew-Global-Attitudes-Project-Extremism-Report-Final-9-10-135.pdf

1/5 British Muslims sympathize with the 7/7 terrorist attack. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1510866/Poll-reveals-40pc-of-Muslims-want-sharia-law-in-UK.html

65% of European Muslims believe that Shariah law is more important than the law of the country they reside in. https://www.wzb.eu/sites/default/files/u6/koopmans_englisch_ed.pdf

European Muslims are 7.5x more likely to be fundamentalists than Christians. https://www.wzb.eu/sites/default/files/u6/koopmans_englisch_ed.pdf

45% of European Muslims believe that Jews cannot be trusted. https://www.wzb.eu/sites/default/files/u6/koopmans_englisch_ed.pdf

60% of European Muslims are explicitly homphobic. This is not due to poverty or education. https://www.wzb.eu/sites/default/files/u6/koopmans_englisch_ed.pdf

40% of Palestinians support attacks on US civilians in America. http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/pdf/feb09/STARTII_Feb09_rpt.pdf

87% of Egyptians agree with Al Qaeda’s goals. http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/pdf/feb09/STARTII_Feb09_rpt.pdf

78% of Egyptians support attacks on US soldiers in the Middle East. http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/pdf/feb09/STARTII_Feb09_rpt.pdf

62% of Palestinians support the use of suicide bombings. http://www.pewglobal.org/files/2013/09/Pew-Global-Attitudes-Project-Extremism-Report-Final-9-10-135.pdf

28% of British Muslims would like for Britain to become a fundamentalist Islamic state. http://www.cbsnews.com/news/many-british-muslims-put-islam-first/

68% of British Muslims support criminalizing criticism of Islam. http://www.cbsnews.com/news/many-british-muslims-put-islam-first/

3 out of 4 British Muslims support criminalizing drawings of Mohammed. http://www.cbsnews.com/news/many-british-muslims-put-islam-first/

9% of British Muslims define themselves as “hardcore Islamists”. http://www.cbsnews.com/news/many-british-muslims-put-islam-first/

Only 3% of British Muslims support free speech. http://www.cbsnews.com/news/many-british-muslims-put-islam-first/

0/500 British Muslims believe that homosexuality is morally acceptable. http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2009/may/07/muslims-britain-france-germany-homosexuality

38% of Muslims believe 9/11 was partially or wholly justified. http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/policy-analysis/view/just-like-us-really

62% of Canadian Muslims want Shariah law. http://www.torontosun.com/2011/11/01/strong-support-for-shariah-in-canada

More than 1 in 3 Canadian Muslims refuses to repudiate Al Qaeda. http://www.torontosun.com/2011/11/01/strong-support-for-shariah-in-canada

Britain will become a Muslim country by 2050 if demographic trends continue. http://www.thecommentator.com/article/3770/the_islamic_future_of_britain

At least 85 legally binding Sharia courts operate in Britain. http://www.civitas.org.uk/pdf/ShariaLawOrOneLawForAll.pdf

85% of rapists in Sweden were non-Swedish immigrants. http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/5195/sweden-rape

North African migrants to Sweden are 23 times more likely to rape than native Swedes. http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/5195/sweden-rape

African migrants to Sweden are 16 times more likely to rape than ethnic Swedes. http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/5195/sweden-rape

Iraqi migrants to Sweden are 2000% more likely to rape than real Swedes. http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/5195/sweden-rape

More than 1/2 of rapists in Denmark are immigrants. http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/5195/sweden-rape

The Coming War with Japan

I think that's a great argument for the rising importance and power of Poland. But his simultaneous argument that the EU is inevitably going to fail in the face of nationalism seems to gloss over the mammoth amount of thought every architect of the EU has given to exactly this problem. It's a huge obstacle to overcome, no doubt; but simply pointing to it doesn't make it insurmountable.

Let's just hope he's as wrong about this as he was when he predicted war between Japan and the US during the 90s.

You mean George Friedman's 1991 book titled: "The Coming War with Japan" ?

George Friedman's knowledge on East Asian geopolitics is a joke compared to Robert Kaplan, who is also employed at Stratfor.

I mean, he did write this in 1991, claiming that war with Japan was inevitable within the next 20 years. I don't think "crank" is too unjustified.

What happened was SJWs Always Lie

He has an awesome book too

Please Stop Helping Us: How Liberals Make It Harder for Blacks to Succeed

SJWs are everywhere. Even major corporations are using phrases like 'cis white male' when considering whom to hire. Check out some of the examples in this book:

SJWs Always Lie: Taking Down the Thought Police

Não, é ao contrário. O pessoal atrás do politicamente correcto é que usa esses argumentos/insultos com base na outra pessoa estar a levar as coisas demasiado a sério. A melhor resposta a isso é precisamente responder da mesma moeda.

Basicamente há 3 tipos de argumentos:

O mais raro é o lógico, baseado em estudos reais, e não na maioria dos estudos ficticios e com agendas que circulam pelas redes sociais, nomeadamente o Tumblr. A melhor resposta a este argumento é responder logicamente, com estudos e pesquisa objectiva.

O segundo, mais usado, é o pseudo-lógico, em que a lógica é misturada com a emoção. A melhor resposta a este passa por demonstrar parte da falicidade do argumento, e responder ao restante usando lógica.

O terceiro é retórica. É usar emoção, humilhar, desacreditar. Este é o mais usado, sobretudo por parte dos chamados SJWs. É isto que se faz quando se chama alguém de machista, sexista, quando se diz que a pessoa está zangada, etc. Também é isto que se faz com histórias que trazem emoções negativas, sobretudo o medo. De realçar a onda de histórias, entre as quais uma mulher que foi esfaqueada por um homem no campus, que foi partilhada no Twitter... E que recebeu uma resposta do departamento policial a dizer que nada tinha sido relatado e que a pessoa se deveria dirigir às autoridades (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rjmz9K59a7E). A melhor resposta é responder da mesma moeda, procurar desacreditar a pessoa também.

Ou então manda-se a pessoa para o caralho assim que ela começar com insultos baratos, que é o que eu faço.

O que tu estás a dizer faz parte deste terceiro grupo, e a maioria das pessoas que o usa é o pessoal atrás do politicamente correcto. Eu moro com uma "feminista de 3a classe" que me demonstra isto todos os dias.

Se estás interessada nisto, ficam os links:

https://www.amazon.com/SJWs-Always-Lie-Taking-Thought/dp/9527065682/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1481137936&sr=8-1&keywords=sjw+always+lie

https://www.youtube.com/user/Shoe0nHead/videos

>I suspect it is all a move by whiteys to mess up China

See the CIA's National Endowment for Democracy (NED), a fake ngo, that goes in to forment unrest, separatism, terrorism, etc. It is explained more in the book, http://www.amazon.com/Rogue-State-Guide-Worlds-Superpower/dp/1567513743/

Here is the mobile version of your link

I would also recommend William Blum's Killing Hope and Rogue State, as well as Chalmers Johnson's trilogy on empire, Blowback, Sorrows of Empire, and Nemesis.

Yes, Ratfucked summarizes the story pretty well

[Amazon link] (https://www.amazon.com/Ratf-ked-Behind-Americas-Democracy/dp/1631491628/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1497177188&sr=8-1&keywords=ratfucked)

But that's the thing - people didn't think they were voting against their interests. Trump promised jobs. He promised action. He promised to shake things up. He reached out to a segment of the population that has felt left out, and told them that what they've been through is horrible, and he can make it better. And he gave them a boogeyman in the news and "PC Culture".

I think you'd be surprised at how much of the country still is OK with racism. Still believes in white supremacy. They may not state that they are racist, but their policies and behaviors show they are.

Also, don't underestimate what happened the last couple of weeks of the election. Those letters, and subsequent gobbling up by the media is likely what pushed all of this over the edge.

Finally, read this book which goes into the strategy the GOP used to Gerrymander districts which made this no field day.

Just got done reading Rogue State, a MUST read for all Americans.

From my reading - This is the kind of guy who would have cheerfully thrown another man under the bus if the shoe were on someone else's foot.

That being said, the guy made a huge number of errors in handling this.

There is actually a book out there - on the best ways to handle these situations - a best seller no less :

https://www.amazon.com/SJWs-Always-Lie-Taking-Thought/dp/9527065682/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=sjws+always+lie&qid=1566789213&s=books&sr=1-1


SJWs Always Lie by Vox Day (Ted Beale).

​

There are ways to fight back against the Female Inquisition - and make no mistake, this IS an Inquisition by women against men.

The only good part of all this is that women are red pilling men at a phenomenal rate and guaranteeing that every man on the planet avoid them, most especially avoiding white women.

The social fallout of all this is going to reverb for decades to come.

Excellent list. I'd add:

Willing Accomplices: How KGB Covert Influence Agents Created Political Correctness and Destroyed America, where for simplification the author generally used "KGB" for the organization that started out as the Cheka and was the NKVD for a good part of what the book covers. He's an ex-counterintelligence officer, and uses analysis techniques from that field to go from the known operative Willi Münzenberg to known or likely "Willing Accomplices" his effort recruited before he was (inevitably) liquidated by Stalin (the effort was of course restarted later, but the lethal payload had already been delivered, in the US especially after the #1 goal of diplomatic recognition of the USSR was achieved early in FDR's administration).

I'd like to emphasize that anything relevant written or edited by Samuel Francis is going to be great, but you'll likely want to read some of his freely available or cheaper works before buying his $48 magnum opus Leviathan and Its Enemies. He's the guy who came up with the critical concept of anarcho-tyranny, which in classic Wikipedia fashion has been purged from his page, but they forgot to remove the redirect of that to it. (In short, it's a new version of the ancient pattern of top and bottom classes conspiring against the middle, criminals in particular are enabled to prey on us, rules and laws are enforced against us but not them and e.g. immigrants in California, native farmer Victor Davis Hansen has a lot of first hand observations about this.)

For a laser focused analysis of the current SJW phenomena and how to deal with them, you can't beat Vox Day's SJWs Always Lie: Taking Down the Thought Police, the genesis of which started with an unremitting out of the blue attack a decade and a half ago by some SF SJWs for really mild and unrelated to their domain badthink. He's a fighter, so it has a lot of good advice as to how to attack and counterattack them. /u/sciencemile recommends Mill's On Liberty, and per Vox Day, Mill would be relevant if for no other reason than his "defining [a] new idea of justice in a form that is still recognizable in the demands of today's SJWs" in his Utilitarianism. (On the other hand, view anything Vox Day writes about economics with extreme skepticism, and I note he's not fundamentally honest, he's quite willing to lie for tactical reasons.)

To get a taste of it, he's written a short SJW_Attack_Survival_Guide PDF that's [currently being discussed on KiA]
(https://www.reddit.com/r/KotakuInAction/comments/6gx2tl/in_light_of_recent_events_sjw_attack_survival/).

If you want to fight and are not equally adept at rhetoric as well as dialectic and know when to use each, he highly recommend's Aristotle's On Rhetoric: A Theory of Civic Discourse (that seems to be the best English translation, but I've not read it yet, for better or worse my upbringing made me good at both).

Martin van Creveld's recent Equality: The Impossible Quest ought to be very important as well, but I've not read anything by him.

If you're really brave, check out The Culture of Critique: An Evolutionary Analysis of Jewish Involvement in Twentieth-Century Intellectual and Political Movements, although I only sampled that before starting with the two previous books in his trilogy, in the middle of the third now.

Please Stop Helping Us is a great book on this subject, and a pretty easy and entertaining read.

This got a bit long, but I'm a bit passionate about the issue and it frustrates me that the very people who lament a problem are enabling it because they think they are being "good" and "nice" even though it causes more problems than it could fix.

Sorry, that's simply wrong. You should try to read the FBI's uniform crime statistics. You have no idea just how wrong you are. Just take a look, you'll find out that you have been made a fool all this time and have been eating that propaganda up hook, line, and sinker. All you have to do is look at the stats for things you really can't honestly believe can contain any real discrimination like violent assaults, murders, rape, robbery, burglary, etc. It's not like cops are going to say "oh, he's one of those white males we like to treat better. Carry on with your raping and robbing, white male. We don't see any problems here."

Don't worry. I don't judge you. Just have an open mind and be willing to accept reality. As someone who used to be on the center left and was part of both the '08 Clinton and Obama campaigns, I can tell you shit is really not what you've been led to believe even if it is done with good intent. But you know what is said about good intent, right? It paves the bleeding heart soaked path to hell.

You have to also try to remove that chip on your shoulder you were given to immediately knee-jerk to an assumption that reality will be used to justify racism. It's really the left that assumes racism that is making these topics racist and about race and perpetuating the racial divide that does not need to exist if we just solve the problems. It is actually quite thoroughly paternalistically racist to, e.g., say that we need different usually lower standards for blacks than other "races". Why don't blacks deserve to be measured by the same standards that are then not subject to diminishing their achievement? Why do we need to have lower standards for blacks that then leads to lower outcomes that then only contributes to negative and poor perceptions of blacks? It's the deepest kind of racism that really even still exists and liberals don't even know how to realize it, let alone comprehend it.

My perspective is that people on the left are doing exponentially more harm acting and lying to themselves and the world by ignoring, covering up, and just plain lying about reality. You simply cannot fix or change something you aren't even willing to be honest or truthful about acknowledging. It's like I'm dealing with a world or hoarders. Have you ever seen that show? Where the hoarder is like "What, I'm collecting take out food containers with samples of their fine cuisine in its natural setting and really really really like a lot of cats. This is perfectly fine!" and you are just watching it like. O__O

As long as the left wants to coddle, make excuses, and enable nothing will ever get solved just the way it has not been solved over decades now. But I guess when you just want a subset of dependent blacks you really don't have an interest in providing them the dignity of equal standards and expectations. Because just as the benevolent racists of yesteryear, blacks need to be helped, right? It causes so much damage and across generations.

Many problems in our country that liberals lament could have been solved if self-righteous, selfish liberals would simply stop trying to help all just so they can feel good about themselves. The black community has every right to be held to the same standards and expectations that you are held to, those include not ignoring or rationalizing away the reality that the black community has a crime problem that can only be solved if responsibility is accepted ... and not just blame some bullshit about cops arresting more blacks ... PRECISELY because the black community has a crime and violence problem you simply want to ignore and sweep under the rug.

They have indeed. This book lays out exactly how they did it too. Here's a hint: it wasn't because they had better candidates. They simply saw an opportunity to redraw all the maps... and took it.

Pretty evil stuff if you ask me.

See the book "Ratfucked" by David Daley, where he lays out exactly how it was done.

http://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/ratf-ked-david-daley/1123515748

https://www.amazon.com/Ratf-ked-Behind-Americas-Democracy/dp/1631491628/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1483937743&sr=8-1&keywords=Ratfucked

Thanks for sharing this!

In a similar vein, this book talks specifically about the Republican plan to control all state legislatures through systematic redistricting starting in 2008. They've been immensely successful in their plan, called REDMAP. (yes - REDMAP - Redistricting Majority Project)

The Amazon excerpts of the introduction give a good sense of the book, then a state by state breakdown of their actions starting in 2008. Wake County libraries have this book - I'd recommend it.

https://www.amazon.com/Ratf-ked-Behind-Americas-Democracy/dp/1631491628

Bullet three is exactly backward. Shaker Heights high school used to be ranked in the 90th percentile, but as the mix changed to the one you quote, the Percentage of Students Passing All Four Parts of the Ohio Graduation Test dropped to 67.4%, the high school stopped being one of the most desirable, and white flight has and is occurring.

I agree with you that Clevelanders do NOT fear integrated education, but people value education and will chase these rankings. So if an influx of black students changes a highschool's pass rate, you will see white flight based on the change in status of the highschool. It's also worth noting that the high desirability of these schools is a draw which creates demand for real-estate and as the rankings decline, people will abandon the community as it is a precursor to declining home values, which is where most of the middle-class has the majority of their wealth, exasperating the "white flight" scenario.

There was a Black American Students in An Affluent Suburb: A Study of Academic Disengagement written about the phenomenon.

The author John U. Ogbu was ostricized by the black community because of it.

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.

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.

Steve Hick's "Explaining Postmodernism" was reccomended to me the last time this came up on this sub (and is layman friendly for the most part) The publisher has released the audio version for free on youtube. (around 6 hrs total)

Goes through the historical roots of the movement (revival of early theological anti-enlightenment philosophy) and how the post modernist lens shapes ones worldview.

He's critical of post modernism (for the same reasons sam is) but focuses on explaining the base assumptions and precepts of the movement

Which is self is part of the larger, post-modern war on truth, facts and reason.

When reality is not on your side, deny reality.
This has been the nature of the left for a long, long time.
Philosophy has been corrupted since Plato, with a major wrong turn by the granddaddy of postmodernism, Immanuel Kant.

The Frankfurt School simply applied this nonsense to various disciplines.

For an overview of the wrong turns of philosophy, and how that has played out in various disciplines (economics, politics, art, etc.) I would recommend Piekoff's The DIM Hypothesis: Why the Lights Are Going Out in the West

Just started Explaining Postmodernism; looks as though it will be interesting!

Postmodern thought, which is infecting public discourse and is perhaps most prevalent within educational institutions, dictates that there are no individuals, only collective groups which we all belong to. Postmodern thinkers are obsessed with power, and with separating humans even from these groups into further sub-groups, and pitting those sub groups against each other – as the dominant and the submissive, the oppressor and the oppressed.

It’s this rejection of individual responsibility, and obsession with sub-group dominance hierarchies, which leads to the defence of Shamima Begum. There are those who say she cannot be held fully accountable because of the young age at which she joined ISIS, or plead mercy because she is pregnant. If she repented her actions, or displayed even the slightest hint of regret for her treachery, then perhaps I would have more sympathy for these arguments.

But what is really at the heart of her defence is a willingness to infer victimhood on any enemy of the West. If you listen closely to those on the far left, especially in academia, you will find a deep resentment of western societies, and a perverse forgiveness and understanding of her enemies.

The postmodern worldview holds that individuals are not responsible for their actions, but are either victims or villains based on their sub-group category. This world view positions Begum as a victim of evil western imperialism, since she was born into a particular group which has been oppressed, and cannot be held accountable for the decisions she has made. This line of thinking led Jean-François Lyotard, a postmodernist philosopher, to conclude that “Saddam Hussein (was) a product of Western departments of state and big companies”.

In order to understand how someone could draw such a ridiculous conclusion, we need to understand exactly how and why postmodern philosophy came about. During the latter half of the 20th century, it became strikingly obvious to the intellectual community that by any rational measure, communism had failed. Stephen Hicks hypothesises that left-wing academics had two choices: either to accept that communism had failed, or to construct a new way of measuring reality which would allow for communism to work. They chose the latter.

Communist apologists were presented with an overwhelming amount of evidence which rendered their political philosophy a crime against humanity. The collapse of the Soviet Union and revelations of the horrors of its death camps were enough to persuade many that communism had failed.

Left-wing academics had to give Marxism a makeover. Evidence and logic proved that socialist and communist societies have failed – but what if we simply reject logic and reason? Postmodern thinkers started to claim that everyone’s experience of the world is subjective, and that our knowledge is based on a group identity, which we cannot escape from. By rejecting reason, rejecting evidence, and dismissing the truth as subjective, postmodernist thinkers could dismiss the evidence against socialism and communism.

Furthermore, this commitment to collective group identities allowed for a new Marxist power struggle. They argue that some group identities are oppressed, and should rise up against their oppressors. Instead of the working class vs the  bourgeois, postmodern thought pitches race against race, gender against gender, and so on.

Thousands of words could be written about how postmodernists have given communist ideas a makeover, and I’ll be discussing this in more detail at an event in London this evening. For the purpose of this article, it is enough to say that their worldview which is based on group identity allows them to blame everything – even joining a terrorist group like ISIS – on the West.

Postmodernists and the far left are united in their hatred of Western civilisation. During the 2017 election, Jeremy Corbyn blamed the terrorist attacks such as the Manchester bombing on British foreign policy. Andrew Murray, a friend of Len McCluskey’s and advisor to the Labour Party, blamed the formation of ISIS on Western imperialism. The far left side with Britain’s enemies because they view them as victims, not as individuals responsible for their own actions.

Last week’s reaction to the story about Begum was a perfect example of this philosophy in action. Begum, a young girl who joins a terrorist group which has burnt alive pilots, beheaded journalists and thrown gay people off buildings, is apparently a victim. However, if you’re a straight white male who has sent some questionable tweets a few years ago, you are the villain, and there can be no understanding or forgiveness.

I’m sickened by this postmodern morality, and so every person reading this article should be. This worldview doesn’t allow for the fair judgement of human beings, based on the content of their character. Rather, it forgives the wrongs of individuals belonging to ‘oppressed’ groups, and blames all the world problems on the ‘oppressors’, i.e. the West. There are those who criticise British and American foreign policy, and in many cases rightly so, but it is only the extreme left which go so far as to infer victimhood on our enemies.

Our modern society has been founded on enlightenment ideals: a respect for knowledge and science, and a respect for the individual. Societies that respect these rights of the individual to produce, and buy and sell what they choose, far outperform societies which do don’t. That is why so many who take up arms against the West are quite keen to return to Britain to enjoy far superior living standards.

So the next time you hear someone attack western societies as oppressive or responsible for all the evils in the world, understand that, for many, this is based on an intense resentment that the capitalist west disproved socialist and communist theory. Postmodern philosophy is an intellectually bankrupt attempt to re-write history and position the societies which promote individual freedom and democracy as the ‘bad guys’.

I'd have to say a great place to start is with Dr. Stephen Hicks' Explaining Post-Modernism (2006). If you search the title on YouTube, you can find the full audio book available for streaming.

I havent read it, but this is supposed to be pretty good. Might be a good place to start:

The Price of Admission

> not smart enough to get into MIT

https://www.amazon.com/Price-Admission-Americas-Colleges-Outside/dp/1400097975

I agree with you to a degree. There is a paper called "color blind racism" that explains in America how society is systemically keep the rich, rich and the poor, poor. It is racism that doesn't target minorities (sounds weird right?). It does historically affect non Caucasians to a greater degree. Being poor in this country sucks because the rich keep you there. But being a minority and poor is still measureably worse.

Here's a link to the book: https://www.amazon.com/dp/1442202181/ref=cm_sw_r_sms_apa_i_ZDxDDb9T4C3TA

If anyone is seriously interested, because the book is pricey, I could link a paper I wrote on this for a college sociology course.

This was required reading for one of my classes in undergrad and I think it does a good job.

>'Racism' in the public consciousness ...

Jim Crow racism. People are now colorblind racists.

sources: https://www.amazon.com/New-Jim-Crow-Incarceration-Colorblindness/dp/1501260235
https://www.amazon.com/Racism-without-Racists-Color-Blind-Persistence/dp/1442202181

I just finished The New Jim Crow.

I was really expecting it to be much more slanted than it was. A few parts blew my mind -- especially that bit about the "war on drugs" having been thrust onto the public prior to the point that drug abuse was actually becoming a problem. Overall though, it really provides a vastly wider perspective whitewashed from most high school history classes and I cannot recommend it enough to understanding race relations in America.

I read this in conjunction with Racism without Racists: Color-Blind Racism and the Persistence of Racial Inequality in America . There was some overlap but both informed the other. I'd recommend if interested in the topic of race relations specifically; though I'd recommend Michelle Alexander's book to everyone -- regardless of interest level.

Thanks for the response.

Then let me be clear, I think the country has made great strides in the last 50 years. But, we still do have state racism within our justice system. If you are interested in learning more about the role of institutionalize racism, I encourage you to read

• The New Jim Crow by Michelle Alexander
  
  
• Racism without Racists by Eduardo Bonilla-Siva
  
  
• The Condemnation of Blackness by Khalil Gibran Muhammad
  
  
• Brainwashed: Challenging the Myth of Black Inferiority by Tom Burrell
  
  As for the genes of Black Americans, they are still an estimated 80% African on average.

I understand what you're saying completely, but I hope one day you can see that the reason this stuff happens is not because "black people are bad people" but rather "white people made black people bad people."

That's a pretty big claim to make, so let me explain myself.

From the moment we (I say we because I'm white) brought blacks over to be used as slaves, we stripped them of everything that they could be proud of. We took their tribal names, their tribal religions and customs, and put them at the absolute bottom of society with no way out.

When slavery ended, discrimination didn't. Jim Crow laws are something everyone knows about, but throughout the country, if you were black you were likely illiterate and poor because the education system for blacks just was not up to par. Additionally black workers (even skilled ones) had trouble finding work all over the country because no one wanted to risk hiring a "Negro" and having all the white workers get their panties in a bunch.

So in the 150 years since slavery ended we've slowly eroded away at the massive systems of inequality that placed and kept blacks at the bottom of society, but it hasn't been enough. Segregation might be over, but inner city schools are predominantly black and underfunded (because all the whites left and property values tanked leading to robber baron landlords buying up all the property to make a quick buck). The system is still heavily rigged against blacks.

And so what does it mean to be black in America? Especially if you're not one of the lucky few who can call themselves "Middle Class"? You grow up surrounded by other poor black folks, you learn very quickly that [White] society doesn't give a fuck about your or your family and you have to deal with the cognitive dissonance of being on welfare while the country calls you lazy and unmotivated and accuses you of stealing from the hardworking [White] citizens of the country.

It's hard. No one ever offers you a break, no one ever lets you cut a corner. Instead, society continually puts up barriers to your success (some mentioned above, some not), and so you grow to distrust the rest of [White] society, and you don't care about the system, and you're just going to take what you want because that's what the system has been doing to you for 300 years.

Does that excuse the behavior of people like the woman you talk about in your story? No, it absolutely doesn't. But these people aren't out to get you, per se, it's just something they've been trained to do by their peers and their families and implicitly by a society that repeatedly says "We don't care about you, you are scum and worthless."

I worked for the better part of a year in a low-pay part-time job where I was the only white person and the only person with a college degree; most people I worked with had several felonies and most didn't finish high school. It was rough and it was a big adjustment period for me (I transferred when I moved, the division that I worked for in my old place of residence was staffed by college students and retirees looking for a distraction).

But you know what? Over time, I became friends with a lot of these gang-banger types. I watched them do drugs on the clock, I had to cover a shift more than once because someone just didn't come to work (because they were still out partying from the night before, they couldn't get a ride to work, or just didn't want to go), and to this day I have nothing in common with any of them.

But I didn't judge them for the color of their skin. I listened when they talked. I heard a story from a co-worker (now a small-time molly pusher at the local clubs) about how he slept on the floor his whole childhood because he was the oldest of five kids, and the one bed they had only had room for the four youngest kids. He has screwed up and been in jail more than once in his life, but he's an okay guy overall.

But you know what? I also worked with his younger brother (one of the lucky four to have a bed), and he has a high school diploma, he's got some college classes under his belt, and he's got a good music career going such that he opens for all the big Hip Hop acts that come through our town. Maybe he hasn't quite made it yet, either, but I like to think that for all the shit his brother went through, he has more of a chance to make it because of it.

It's not easy being black in America. In fact, it downright sucks. There are a lot of shitty poor black people in America because society has pushed them into ghettos for the better part of the last 150 years.

Geez, I don't have the source completely handy, but I know it is referenced in Eduardo Bonilla-Silva's "Racism Without Racists" Amazon Link ...anyway, some Social Scientist determined that if all the institutional barriers that hold blacks down were instantly removed, it would take something like another 80 years to fully achieve equality between races.

TLDR - I don't blame your for your attitudes towards blacks at all, and it's not even wrong to say that your views of poor black people are correct, BUT there are a whole lot of reasons as to WHY this is the case, and acknowledging these reasons may actually get us to a point where something positive happens.

>My statement about the field studies was in response to you when you said that people don't know from anecdotal evidence that we're all the same. According to you, this can only be learned from "studying the field". So, you're claiming that Ethnic Studies is useless by your own standards because it doesn't study the field?

When you said "we're all the same" I was assuming you were referring to genetics (which isn't entirely, but mostly true). With regards to culture, history, and levels of discrimination, we're very different, but the white perspective is what gets expressed broadly in culture. In addition, it's inculcated by the idea of "colorblindness" which is in itself a form of racism. Here's an article that says as much although the book's much better.

> What does this matter to the kids who are studying? If we want more minorities with great educations, have them spend less time working on PC perfection and more time studying the subjects at hand.

That is what we currently do. No one's saying don't teach kids math, US history, English etc. That's what our culture and educational system demands, and so it would be a disservice not to educate kids. However, does it seem to be working that well? Our schools are the most segregated they've been since Jim Crow ended. As I stated in my post, I'm not arguing we replace anything, and as the districts that now have ethnic studies have shown, you don't have to.

> Combine that with the fact that minority communities tend to be uneducated and poor for some reason, this leads to yet another decrease in the chances of minorities leading the field in a certain subject.

Are you ok with this? If so, then I don't know why we're having this discussion because I'm guessing there's nothing I can say that will change your mind. Education is literally the main conduit out of poverty in this country. Your level of education does more to predict your income, your chances of staying out of prison, and your lifespan than any other factor for people of color.

> You seem to speak from a position of a "white privilege apologetic". It's true that I'm lucky to be where I am, but that doesn't change the validity of what I claim

No, I speak from a platform of white privilege. Unequivocally. And I don't apologize for anything. I just try and stand up for what's right.

E. D. Hirsch's Cultural Literacy often gets attacked as being too conservative. I haven't actually read it to give my own opinion, but that's the reputation.

Allan Bloom's Closing of the American Mind might interest you, too. Bloom was definitely conservative, but the book curiously gets a certain amount of play among leftist thinkers.

> And the book destroys SJWs and postmodern thought.

I feel it is appropriate here to give a shout out to The Closing of the American Mind by Allan Bloom which touches on those issues in a slightly more direct way than Rand.

Oh, you made up your own flavor of perennialism? You aren't the only one. It's very popular in the New Age crowd. Aquarius has a lot to answer for. Or hippies. Or Aquarius hippies.

> anyone who practices meditation practices zen.

Zen Masters don't teach this. So it isn't your opinion, just like it isn't your "opinion" that Abraham Lincoln said he was from the planet Grog and he had a wife there who was a lovely shade of cheese.

What you really have is a misrepresentation of Mumon. Which you flog, apparently, to validate your religious Perennialism.

I mean seriously man, come on. You can't go around telling people Abraham Lincoln said he was from Grog. That's BS. You know that. So why do you BS people about Zen?

There has got to be some area of your life in which you practice some intellectual integrity. Put yourself in my shoes. What if I showed up in your place of business and told people something about the field you studied for your job that was total BS that I made up?

I mean you don't have to go to school and get a degree in Zen, but read a book before you make up stuff and pretend Mumon said it.

If it isn't okay to do it about Abraham Lincoln, it's not okay to do it about Mumon or anybody else in his family, the family to which the name "Zen" refers.

.

I will add for those watching at home that I said Dogen's zazen was prayer-meditation. Note that this classification isn't as crazy cakes as some have suggested, at least to perennialists.

Wait, does that kind of evidence bolster my argument or not?

n/m.

Believe it or not, I actually have read that piece. These are issues I am very passionate about and follow closely. Free speech is still free speech and attempts to shut it down are totalitarian. What is considered 'hateful' has been expanding at an alarming rate and fewer and fewer views are considered acceptable. This is an incredibly dangerous trend.

I want to beg you to read: https://www.amazon.com/Closing-American-Mind-Education-Impoverished/dp/1451683200

I wish there was an article length synopsis, there might be one out there. I'm NOT saying you have to agree with it, we can agree to disagree but it's just another perspective.

Important edit

>“It just seems that in our quest to be tolerant of everything, we’ve become intolerant to everything,”

>That is a fantastic line.

I highly recommend the book, "The Closing of the American Mind" by Allan Bloom. It was written some time ago, but it pretty much nails today's intellectual landscape. I think even he'd be shocked to see the trends taken to the highest degree in 2015.

EDIT for link: http://www.amazon.ca/Closing-American-Mind-Education-Impoverished/dp/1451683200

For anyone interested, I suggest reading Alan Bloom's seminal work Closing of the American Mind which gives one explanation of how we ended up here (and it was published in the mid-80s)

DROs.

David Friedman, the brilliant son of Milton Friedman, head of the Chicago school of economics, can explain it better than I.

https://www.amazon.com/Machinery-Freedom-Guide-Radical-Capitalism/dp/1507785607

>>The Asian countries are largely undemocratic and uncosmopolitan and thus, I believe, more prone to divisiveness along racial boundaries.

No the source you gave me yourself says that China is less diverse than the US (3% vs 20%). Also you can't possibly think that China, Cambodia, Pakistan, and Burma are more democratic than any Western nation.


>Do you write speeches for the white house? This sounds like just total nonsense. http://www.amazon.com/Rogue-State-Guide-Worlds-Superpower/dp/1567513743/ and http://www.amazon.com/Confessions-Economic-Hit-John-Perkins/dp/0452287081/

Well that's just about one of the best compliments I've ever received haha. Also it's a well supported theory in international relations that nations with open trade are less likely to come into conflict.

>Racially charged crimes are a big problem in all these places with any sizable minority group.

Okay it was a bit hyperbolic of me top use"post-racial" but what i meant was that European countries largely don't come into conflict at all let alone on racial lines largely due to the moderating effect of the European Union

From a bipartisan source (one expert from Brookings, another from the Heritage Foundation), actually it's true.

>When one party moves this far from the mainstream, it makes it nearly impossible for the political system to deal constructively with the country’s challenges.

>“Both sides do it” or “There is plenty of blame to go around” are the traditional refuges for an American news media intent on proving its lack of bias, while political scientists prefer generality and neutrality when discussing partisan polarization. Many self-styled bipartisan groups, in their search for common ground, propose solutions that move both sides to the center, a strategy that is simply untenable when one side is so far out of reach.

It's Even Worse Than It Looks: How the American Constitutional System Collided With the New Politics of Extremism

Brilliant book that takes a very serious look in to both sides over the last decade. It's written by Thomas E. Mann and Norman J. Ornstein who have spend decades studying congress and pride them selves on being as non partisan as they can.

Edit: Didn't read the part about not being too wordy and this most likely falls in to that category. Excerpt Going to leave this here for others though.

Here's another one: https://www.amazon.com/Anatomy-female-power-masculinist-dissection/dp/9782651052

I haven't read it though. It seems like quite the meme.

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

Actually throughout history females were much, much more likely to survive to adulthood and reproduce. And they have always had their own set of privileges and their own forms of power.

Speaking of books/papers:

The Privileged Sex

The Myth of Male Power

Female forms of power and the myth of male dominance

Favored or Oppressed?

The Legal Subjugation of Men (1908)

The Boy Crisis

Legalizing Misandry: From Public Shame to Systemic Discrimination against Men

Replacing Misandry: A Revolutionary History of Men

The Second Sexism: Discrimination Against Men and Boys

Gender differences on automatic in group bias: whey do women like women more than men like men?

Sex Differences in the Ultimatum Game: An Evolutionary Psychology Perspective

Intrasexual Competition Shapes Men’s Anti-Utilitarian Moral Decisions

Moral Chivalry: Gender and Harm Sensitivity Predict Costly Altruism

The Gender Empathy Gap: Chivalry is not dead when it comes to morality

Note that with the exception of the first link, which leads to an historical study of female privilege written by a right wing military strategist, all of these books and papers were written by liberals and socialists.

Another recent [study](Objectivity and realms of explanation in academic journal articles concerning sex/gender: a comparison of Gender studies and the other social sciences) (conducted in Sweden, of all places) concluded that 'gender studies' is by far the most unscientific and biased discipline in all of the social sciences and possibly all of academia. Basically, if you've learned about gender solely through the lens of feminism, you've been wildly misinformed.

This is probably the best argument I've ever read describing what racism is really about. It is inflammatory at first, but you have to read on through to understand Goad's purpose. Cannot recommend it enough.

Wow, I'm surprised Jim Goad is still writing. I read his book The Redneck Manifesto about a decade ago, funny stuff.


The Redneck Manifesto: How Hillbillies, Hicks, and White Trash Became America's Scapegoats Paperback – May 5, 1998


>Culture maverick Jim Goad presents a thoroughly reasoned, darkly funny, and rampagingly angry defense of America's most maligned social group - the cultural clan variously referred to as rednecks, hillbillies, white trash, crackers, and trailer trash. As The Redneck Manifesto boldly points out and brilliantly demonstrates, America's dirty little secret isn't racism but classism. While pouncing incessantly on racial themes, most major media are silent about America's widening class rifts, a problem that negatively affects more people of all colors than does racism. With an unmatched ability for rubbing salt in cultural wounds, Jim Goad deftly dismantles most popular American notions about race and culture and takes a sledgehammer to our delicate glass-blown popular conceptions of government, religion, media, and history.

In case you're unaware of Mr. Goad...

http://takimag.com/contributor/JimGoad/205#axzz4TjM1td6E

The Redneck Manifesto: How Hillbillies, Hicks, and White Trash Became America's Scapegoats

https://www.amazon.com/Redneck-Manifesto-Hillbillies-Americas-Scapegoats/dp/0684838648

https://books.google.com/books?id=YG5YubNw1pgC&pg=PA102&dq=spin+jim+goad&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwihp9X30tDOAhVM6WMKHZeNDM0Q6AEIHjAA#v=onepage&q=spin%20jim%20goad&f=false

> It's so offensive to imagine resources being squandered on luxury yachts and sports cars just so that rich people have something to continue spending more and more money on.

This is what you get when you support capitalism. You'd have to strictly limit how much any one individual could gain. Note that it's a matter of history and population size, not that these people "earned" their money. Not to mention our current societies are based on massive historical slaughters and injustices.

http://www.amazon.com/Democracy-Incorporated-Managed-Inverted-Totalitarianism/dp/069114589X/

I suggest reading Democracy Inc [1]. Fun book!

[1] http://www.amazon.com/Democracy-Incorporated-Managed-Inverted-Totalitarianism/dp/069114589X

Here's a good book to start with.

Edit: The only thing people can say is "hur dur right wing" because facts and morals do not matter to these scumbags.

>How could changing the outcome of an election not lead to impeachment?

Putin probably cannot be impeached

>Hillary Clinton would have won 2016 had the Russians not intervened.

and asked Hillary to sell them the uranium which was exposed in

Clinton Cash: The Untold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and Businesses Helped Make Bill and Hillary Rich

which helped Trump win

nods wisely

Absolutely. Any time you want confirmation of a statement, just ask.

Harvard professor of political science Robert D. Putnam conducted a nearly decade long study how multiculturalism affects social trust. He surveyed 26,200 people in 40 American communities, finding that–when the data were adjusted for class income and other factors–the more racially diverse a community is, the greater the loss of trust. People in diverse communities “don’t trust the local mayor, they don't trust the local paper, they don't trust other people and they don’t trust institutions,” writes Putnam. In the presence of such ethnic diversity, Putnam maintains that “…we hunker down. We act like turtles. The effect of diversity is worse than had been imagined. And it’s not just that we don’t trust people who are not like us. In diverse communities, we don’t trust people who do look like us.

Even Halyard knows this is all a pile of “feel good” shit. Like a religion, it relies on persecuting those who don’t agree to keep itself mainstream thought.

After the study was released, Putnam was intimidated and harassed because he was accused of helping racists. He later came out and gave a very vague statement saying diversity “had problems but was worth it in the long run” to keep these morons appeased. This statement gives no indication of the “long run” and, in fact, is not quantified by anything.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-9477.2007.00176.x/abstract

~:~

According to conflict theory, distrust between ethnic groups rises with diversity, but not within a group. Putnam describes people of all races and socioeconomic statuses, ages, and both sexes as “hunkering down,” avoiding engagement with their local community–both among different ethnic groups and within their own ethnic group. Even when controlling for income inequality and crime rates–two factors which conflict theory states should be the prime causal factors in declining interethnic group trust–more diversity is still associated with less communal trust.

• Lowered trust in areas with high diversity is also associated with:
  
• Lower confidence in local government, local leaders, and the local news media
  
• Lower political efficacy–that is, confidence in one’s own influence
  
• Lower frequency of registering to vote, but more interest and knowledge about politics and more participation in protest marches and social reform groups.
  
• Higher political advocacy, but lower expectations that it will bring about a desirable result
  
• Less expectation that others will cooperate to solve dilemmas of collective action (e.g. voluntary conservation to ease a water or energy shortage)
  
• Less likelihood of working on a community project
  
• Less likelihood of giving to charity or volunteering
  
• Fewer close friends and confidants
  
• Less happiness and lower perceived quality of life
  
• More time spent watching television and more agreement that “television is my most important form of entertainment”
  
  Putnam’s study was published in 2001. Genetic cluster analysis of the micro satellite markers produced four major clusters, which showed near perfect correspondence with the four self-reported race/ethnicity categories. Of 3636 subjects, only 5 (0.14%) showed genetic cluster membership different from their self-identified race/ethnicity. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15625622
  
  ~:~
  
  Good Fences: The Importance of Setting Boundaries for Peaceful Coexistence
  
  Alex Rutherford, Dion Harmon, Justin Werfel, Shlomiya Bar-Yam, Alexander Gard-Murray, Andreas Gros, Yaneer Bar-Yam
  
  We consider the conditions of peace and violence among ethnic groups, testing a theory designed to predict the locations of violence and interventions that can promote peace. Characterizing the model’s success in predicting peace requires examples where peace prevails despite diversity. Switzerland is recognized as a country of peace, stability, and prosperity. This is surprising because of its linguistic and religious diversity that in other parts of the world lead to conflict and violence. Here we analyze how peaceful stability is maintained. Our analysis shows that peace does not depend on integrated coexistence, but rather on well-defined topographical and political boundaries separating groups. Mountains and lakes are an important part of the boundaries between sharply defined linguistic areas. Political canton and circle (sub-canton) boundaries often separate religious groups.
  
  Where such boundaries do not appear to be sufficient, we find that specific aspects of the population distribution either guarantee sufficient separation or sufficient mixing to inhibit intergroup violence according to the quantitative theory of conflict. In exactly one region, a porous mountain range does not adequately separate linguistic groups and violent conflict has led to the recent creation of the canton of Jura. Our analysis supports the hypothesis that violence between groups can be inhibited by physical and political boundaries. A similar analysis of the area of the former Yugoslavia shows that during widespread ethnic violence, existing political boundaries did not coincide with the boundaries of distinct groups, but the peace prevailed in specific areas where they did coincide. The success of peace in Switzerland may serve as a model to resolve conflict in other ethnically diverse countries and regions of the world.
  
  Report #: NECSI 2011-10-01 Cite as: arXiv:1110.1409v1
  
  More diverse neighborhoods have lower social cohesion.
  http://www.citylab.com/housing/2013/11/paradox-diverse-communities/7614/
  
  Diversity increases psychotic experiences.
  Diversity increases social adversity.
  A 10% increase in diversity doubles the chance of psychotic episodes.
  http://bjp.rcpsych.org/content/201/4/282.abstract?etoc
  
  Diversity reduces voter registration, political efficacy, charity, and number of friendships.
  Ethnic diversity reduces happiness and quality of life.
  http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-9477.2007.00176.x/abstract;jsessionid=279C92A7EB0946BBA63D62937FC832A9.f04t03
  
  Diversity reduces trust, civic participation, and civic health.
  http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2007/08/05/the_downside_of_diversity/?page=full
  
  Ethnocentrism is rational, biological, and genetic in origin.
  http://www.pnas.org/content/108/4/1262.abstract
  
  Ethnic diversity harms health for hispanics and blacks.
  http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/abs/10.2105/AJPH.2012.300787
  
  Babies demostrate ethnocentrism before exposure to non-whites.
  http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-7687.2012.01138.x/full
  
  Ethnocentrism is universal and likely evolved in origin.
  http://www-personal.umich.edu/~axe/research/AxHamm_Ethno.pdf
  
  Diversity primarily hurts the dominant ethnic group.
  http://www.theindependentaustralian.com.au/node/57
  
  Ethnic diversity reduces concern for the environment.
  http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10640-012-9619-6
  
  Ethnic diversity within 80 meters of a person reduces social trust.
  http://curis.ku.dk/ws/files/130251172/Dinesen_S_nderskov_Ethnic_Diversity_and_Social_Trust_Forthcoming_ASR.pdf
  
  Ethnic diversity directly reduces strong communities.
  https://www.msu.edu/~zpneal/publications/neal-diversitysoc.pdf
  
  Ethnically homogenous neighborhoods are beneficial for health.
  https://www.mailman.columbia.edu/public-health-now/news/living-ethnically-homogenous-area-boosts-health-minority-seniors
  
  Diversity in American cities correlates with segregation.
  http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-most-diverse-cities-are-often-the-most-segregated/
  
  Races are extended families. Ethnocentrism is genetically rational.
  http://www.amazon.com/The-Ethnic-Phenomenon-Pierre-Berghe/dp/0275927091
  
  It is evolutionary rational to be friends with someone genetically similar to you.
  http://www.livescience.com/46791-friends-share-genes.html
  
  Racism and nationalism are rational and evolutionary advantageous strategies.
  http://jasss.soc.surrey.ac.uk/16/3/7.html
  
  Homogeneous polities have less crime, less civil war, and more altruism.
  http://www.theindependentaustralian.com.au/node/57
  
  States with little diversity have more democracy, less corruption, and less inequality.
  http://www.theindependentaustralian.com.au/node/57
  
  There is extensive evidence people prefer others who are genetically similar.
  http://psychology.uwo.ca/faculty/rushtonpdfs/n&n_2005-1.pdf

Diversity is cancer. NOTHING good comes from muh diversity

Putnam's study: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1467-9477.2007.00176.x

Good Fences: http://necsi.edu/research/social/scienceofpeace.pdf

Self-identification study: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15625622

Everything else:

More diverse neighborhoods have lower social cohesion.

http://www.citylab.com/housing/2013/11/paradox-diverse-communities/7614/

Diversity increases psychotic experiences.

Diversity increases social adversity.

A 10% increase in diversity doubles the chance of psychotic episodes.

http://bjp.rcpsych.org/content/201/4/282.abstract?etoc

Diversity reduces voter registration, political efficacy, charity, and number of friendships.

Ethnic diversity reduces happiness and quality of life.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-9477.2007.00176.x/abstract;jsessionid=279C92A7EB0946BBA63D62937FC832A9.f04t03

Diversity reduces trust, civic participation, and civic health.

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2007/08/05/the_downside_of_diversity/?page=full

Ethnocentrism is rational, biological, and genetic in origin.

http://www.pnas.org/content/108/4/1262.abstract

Ethnic diversity harms health for hispanics and blacks.

http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/abs/10.2105/AJPH.2012.300787

Babies demostrate ethnocentrism before exposure to non-whites.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-7687.2012.01138.x/full

Ethnocentrism is universal and likely evolved in origin.

http://www-personal.umich.edu/~axe/research/AxHamm_Ethno.pdf

Diversity primarily hurts the dominant ethnic group.

http://www.theindependentaustralian.com.au/node/57

Ethnic diversity reduces concern for the environment.

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10640-012-9619-6

Ethnic diversity within 80 meters of a person reduces social trust.

http://curis.ku.dk/ws/files/130251172/Dinesen_S_nderskov_Ethnic_Diversity_and_Social_Trust_Forthcoming_ASR.pdf

Ethnic diversity directly reduces strong communities.

https://www.msu.edu/~zpneal/publications/neal-diversitysoc.pdf

Ethnically homogenous neighborhoods are beneficial for health.

https://www.mailman.columbia.edu/public-health-now/news/living-ethnically-homogenous-area-boosts-health-minority-seniors

Diversity in American cities correlates with segregation.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-most-diverse-cities-are-often-the-most-segregated/

Races are extended families. Ethnocentrism is genetically rational.

http://www.amazon.com/The-Ethnic-Phenomenon-Pierre-Berghe/dp/0275927091

It is evolutionarily rational to be friends with someone genetically similar to you.

http://www.livescience.com/46791-friends-share-genes.html

Racism and nationalism are rational and evolutionary advantageous strategies.

http://jasss.soc.surrey.ac.uk/16/3/7.html

Homogeneous polities have less crime, less civil war, and more altruism.

http://www.theindependentaustralian.com.au/node/57

States with little diversity have more democracy, less corruption, and less inequality.

http://www.theindependentaustralian.com.au/node/57

There is extensive evidence people prefer others who are genetically similar.

http://psychology.uwo.ca/faculty/rushtonpdfs/n&n_2005-1.pdf

Our analysis shows that peace does not depend on integrated coexistence, but rather on well defined topographical and political boundaries separating groups

http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0095660

The more integrated a neighborhood is, the less socially cohesive it becomes, and vice versa.

http://msutoday.msu.edu/news/2013/study-asks-is-a-better-world-possible/

The more ethnically diverse the people we live around, the less we trust them.

http://macaulay.cuny.edu/eportfolios/benediktsson2013/files/2013/04/Putnam.pdf

Ethnocentrism, often thought to rely on complex social cognition and learning, may have arisen through biological evolution.

http://jasss.soc.surrey.ac.uk/16/3/7.html

Diversity experiments in Germany end in disaster

http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany-s-immigrants-integration-in-theory-alienation-in-practice-a-433006.html

Immigrants in Norway are a net loss to the economy

http://www.emnbelgium.be/publication/report-norwegian-welfare-and-migration-committee

Immigrants in Sweden are a net loss to the economy

http://www.amid.dk/pub/papers/AMID_48-2006_Jan_Ekberg.pdf

Denmark saved billions by restricting immigration:

http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/putting-a-price-on-foreigners-strict-immigration-laws-save-denmark-billions-a-759716.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/denmark/8492822/Denmarks-immigration-laws-save-country-6-billion.html

Increases in diversity correlate with problems worldwide, and the downsides of diversity effect everyone, it’s a universal human problem:

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/higher-education/the-downside-of-difference/story-e6frgcjx-1111112914289

More diversity in police departments correlates with more abuse, poorer performance and less trust:

http://www.mediafire.com/?1fe8x0egftpbp6f

Decreased community spirit, decreased altruism, and depressed social capital, less ethical behavior, more crime, fear, isolation and depression:

http://www.city-journal.org/html/eon2007-06-25jl.html

Also, a nice little study from Cornell University about how segregation creates peace:

http://arxiv.org/abs/1110.1409

Multiculturalism doesn’t work:

http://books.google.com/books?id=zqMCc37dW1kC&pg=PA129

http://books.google.com/books?id=ZyAt3T1V4EcC&pg=PT97

http://books.google.com/books?id=TmlGzr4s0uMC&pg=PA16

ncreasing social pluralism (diversity) is correlated with increased chance of collective violence-http://docdro.id/D9GRWG7

Using data from Copenhagen school registers, researchers found that native Danes opt out of public schools when the immigrant population concentration hits 35% or more-https://web.archive.org/web/20170216222016/http://emilkirkegaard.dk/en/wp-content/uploads/School-Choice-Universal-Vouchers-and-Native-Flight-from-Local-Schools.pdf

UK immigrants segregate into their own ethnically homogenous communities-https://web.archive.org/web/20180627132302/https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/575975/The_Casey_Review_Executive_Summary.pdf

Increases in immigrant density at the school level triggered an important native flight from tuition-free, public schools toward private ones-

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0927537118300010

http://docdro.id/c1ahKvP

> but like it or not an age of war is coming

Every age is an age of war. Absent technology that neutralizes fission and fusion, mass deployment of conventional forces between major powers seems unlikely. Best leave the predictions to the experts.

----

> we will need them to drive trucks, push paper, and support logistics to free up bodies.

The US could easily draft a force of 15+ million men without resorting to children, the elderly, or women. How many shitty little proxy wars do we need to fight? Women are more expensive and less expendable.


Every woman employed in almost any military capacity represents a reduction in potential combat power.

-----

> ... the value in trained women as Intel officers...

This is the only solid point in in any of your posts. But I don't think anyone here would dispute that women have been extremely useful in intelligence gathering.

---

> bunch of edgelords

Am I wasting time arguing with an entryist?

While you're right that both parties have done some terrible things, technically, the Republicans are demonstrably MORE culpable in this bullshit. I highly recommend this book. It's pretty damning.

https://www.amazon.com/Even-Worse-Than-Looks-Constitutional/dp/0465031331

Whenever people make this false equivalency, it shows their lack of understanding of how Republicans have governed over the past 30 years.

Here's one and the other is all the shit Comey said.

I don't make shit up. I read more than just reddit headlines. Here are several things you should read:

Selling tainted blood

Uranium One was Clinton turning over control of most of USA uranium deposits to the Russians. It's akin to Obama selling control of our ports to the Chinese. While not illegal, it's a bit fucked.

Haiti Under Clinton: $1,300,000,000 in aid. 0.6% went to Haitian Organizations. 9.6% to the government. During this time Hilary's brother tried to open a gold mine using funds from The Clinton Foundation. Instead of rebuilding, they spent millions on a fee based system where you can use cell phone credits to pay for goods.

Would you like to know more?

There's no end to their corruption.

FBI’s top lawyer believed Hillary Clinton should face charges, but was talked out of it.

Did you forget about Whitewater?

Clinton Cash is a better choice.

https://www.amazon.com/Clinton-Cash-Foreign-Governments-Businesses/dp/0062369296

Submission Statement: How Universities have been part of the problem and how they can be part of the solution to America's Civic Crises.

​

>The United States has seen great increases in how many of us take part in higher education. The percent of Americans who’ve completed four years or more of college has grown nearly sevenfold  just since 1940. Illiteracy rates have plummeted. We have even seen consistent growth in Americans’ average IQ, the so-called “Flynn Effect” from the 1930s through the early 21st century. In addition, people have access to information on a scale hitherto unknown in human history, available in the palm of their hand, whenever and wherever they’d like.
>
>Yet levels of political and civic ignorance have remained astonishingly stable since the 1930s (when mass survey research really kicked off). We also see increasing governmental dysfunction. Increased political and cultural polarization. A general breakdown in civil society and civil discourse. Growing distrust in major social institutions – with particularly pronounced polarization around universities, expertise, and the media. We see declining trust in one another. People are increasingly reluctant to marry, date, or even befriend or live next to those who hold different socio-political views from themselves.

Not sure this is really an ELI5 question, but.... check this book out.

Jason Stanley, a Philosophy professor at Yale, has two recent books that might be of interest: How Propaganda Works, and How Fascism Works. Depending on how broadly you want to define "philosophy", US Naval War College professor Tom Nichols's book, The Death of Expertise, would also be fit the bill. The ideas in The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion by NYU ethics/business professor Jonathan Haidt also come up frequently in conversation.

If you're willing to look further back (and perhaps define philosophy even more broadly), the late NYU education professor Neil Postman's Amusing Ourselves to Death: Public Discourse in the Age of Show Business might be of interest.

Tom Nichols (GOP ALERT 🚨) wrote a book on this. Its pretty decent and he's given some good interviews about it:

https://www.amazon.com/Death-Expertise-Campaign-Established-Knowledge/dp/0190469412

You absolutely need to read "The Death of Expertise" by Thomas Nicols. You are a big bright shiny example of all of his arguments.

https://www.amazon.com/Death-Expertise-Campaign-Established-Knowledge/dp/0190469412/

>Promoting diversity if only for the sake of promoting diversity is recognized objectively as an inherent good. Being exposed to a diversity of people and ideas helps widen your own perspective and in general be a more aware and thoughtful citizen.

• More diverse neighborhoods have lower social cohesion.
  http://www.citylab.com/housing/2013/11/paradox-diverse-communities/7614/
  
• Diversity increases psychotic experiences.
  http://bjp.rcpsych.org/content/201/4/282.abstract?etoc
  
• Diversity increases social adversity.
  http://bjp.rcpsych.org/content/201/4/282.abstract?etoc
  
• A 10% increase in diversity doubles the chance of psychotic episodes.
  http://bjp.rcpsych.org/content/201/4/282.abstract?etoc
  
• Diversity reduces voter registration, political efficacy, charity, and number of friendships.
  http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-9477.2007.00176.x/abstract;jsessionid=279C92A7EB0946BBA63D62937FC832A9.f04t03
  
• Ethnic diversity reduces happiness and quality of life.
  http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-9477.2007.00176.x/abstract;jsessionid=279C92A7EB0946BBA63D62937FC832A9.f04t03
  
• Diversity reduces trust, civic participation, and civic health.
  http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2007/08/05/the_downside_of_diversity/?page=full
  
• Ethnocentrism is rational, biological, and genetic in origin.
  http://www.pnas.org/content/108/4/1262.abstract
  
• Ethnic diversity harms health for hispanics and blacks.
  http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/abs/10.2105/AJPH.2012.300787
  
• Babies demostrate ethnocentrism before exposure to non-whites.
  http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-7687.2012.01138.x/full
  
• Ethnocentrism is universal and likely evolved in origin.
  http://www-personal.umich.edu/~axe/research/AxHamm_Ethno.pdf
  
• Diversity primarily hurts the dominant ethnic group.
  http://www.theindependentaustralian.com.au/node/57
  
• Ethnic diversity reduces concern for the environment.
  http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10640-012-9619-6
  
• Ethnic diversity within 80 meters of a person reduces social trust.
  http://curis.ku.dk/ws/files/130251172/Dinesen_S_nderskov_Ethnic_Diversity_and_Social_Trust_Forthcoming_ASR.pdf
  
• Ethnic diversity directly reduces strong communities.
  https://www.msu.edu/~zpneal/publications/neal-diversitysoc.pdf
  
• Ethnically homogenous neighborhoods are beneficial for health.
  https://www.mailman.columbia.edu/public-health-now/news/living-ethnically-homogenous-area-boosts-health-minority-seniors
  
• Diversity in American cities correlates with segregation.
  http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-most-diverse-cities-are-often-the-most-segregated/
  
• Races are extended families. Ethnocentrism is genetically rational.
  http://www.amazon.com/The-Ethnic-Phenomenon-Pierre-Berghe/dp/0275927091
  
• It is evolutionary rational to be friends with someone genetically similar to you.
  http://www.livescience.com/46791-friends-share-genes.html
  
• Racism and nationalism are rational and evolutionary advantageous strategies.
  http://jasss.soc.surrey.ac.uk/16/3/7.html
  
• Homogeneous polities have less crime, less civil war, and more altruism.
  http://www.theindependentaustralian.com.au/node/57
  
• States with little diversity have more democracy, less corruption, and less inequality.
  http://www.theindependentaustralian.com.au/node/57
  
• There is extensive evidence people prefer others who are genetically similar.
  http://psychology.uwo.ca/faculty/rushtonpdfs/n&n2005-1.pdf

More diverse neighborhoods have lower social cohesion: http://www.citylab.com/housing/2013/11/paradox-diverse-communities/7614/


Diversity increases psychotic experiences: http://bjp.rcpsych.org/content/201/4/282.abstract?etoc


Diversity increases social adversity: http://bjp.rcpsych.org/content/201/4/282.abstract?etoc


A 10% increase in diversity doubles the chance of psychotic episodes: http://bjp.rcpsych.org/content/201/4/282.abstract?etoc

Diversity reduces voter registration, political efficacy, charity, and number of friendships: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-9477.2007.00176.x/abstract;jsessionid=279C92A7EB0946BBA63D62937FC832A9.f04t03

Ethnic diversity reduces happiness and quality of life: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-9477.2007.00176.x/abstract;jsessionid=279C92A7EB0946BBA63D62937FC832A9.f04t03

Diversity reduces trust, civic participation, and civic health: http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2007/08/05/the_downside_of_diversity/?page=full

Ethnocentrism is rational, biological, and genetic in origin: http://www.pnas.org/content/108/4/1262.abstract

Ethnic diversity harms health for hispanics and blacks: http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/abs/10.2105/AJPH.2012.300787

Babies demostrate ethnocentrism before exposure to non-whites: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-7687.2012.01138.x/full

Ethnocentrism is universal and likely evolved in origin: http://www-personal.umich.edu/~axe/research/AxHamm_Ethno.pdf

Diversity primarily hurts the dominant ethnic group: http://www.theindependentaustralian.com.au/node/57

Ethnic diversity reduces concern for the environment: http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10640-012-9619-6

Ethnic diversity within 80 meters of a person reduces social trust: http://curis.ku.dk/ws/files/130251172/Dinesen_S_nderskov_Ethnic_Diversity_and_Social_Trust_Forthcoming_ASR.pdf

Ethnic diversity directly reduces strong communities: https://www.msu.edu/~zpneal/publications/neal-diversitysoc.pdf

Ethnically homogenous neighborhoods are beneficial for health: https://www.mailman.columbia.edu/public-health-now/news/living-ethnically-homogenous-area-boosts-health-minority-seniors

Diversity in American cities correlates with segregation: http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-most-diverse-cities-are-often-the-most-segregated/

Races are extended families. Ethnocentrism is genetically rational: http://www.amazon.com/The-Ethnic-Phenomenon-Pierre-Berghe/dp/0275927091

It is evolutionary rational to be friends with someone genetically similar to you: http://www.livescience.com/46791-friends-share-genes.html

Racism and nationalism are rational and evolutionary advantageous strategies: http://jasss.soc.surrey.ac.uk/16/3/7.html

Homogeneous polities have less crime, less civil war, and more altruism: http://www.theindependentaustralian.com.au/node/57

States with little diversity have more democracy, less corruption, and less inequality: http://www.theindependentaustralian.com.au/node/57

There is extensive evidence people prefer others who are genetically similar: http://psychology.uwo.ca/faculty/rushtonpdfs/n&n2005-1.pdf

Could someone correct me in responding to the "Diversity and Ethnocentrism Hate Facts"?

------------------

(Detrimental) Effects of Multiculturalism

• More diverse neighborhoods have lower social cohesion.
  What is being controlled for? I would guess that wealth and diversity are related and so diverse poor neighborhoods would indeed have lower social cohesion, but not due to their diversity.
  
  
• A 10% increase in diversity doubles the chance of psychotic episodes. & Diversity increases psychotic experiences. & Diversity increases social adversity.
  This seems absurd on its face: I will have to read this carefully.
  
  
• Diversity reduces voter registration, political efficacy, charity, and number of friendships. & Ethnic diversity reduces happiness and quality of life.
  Very promising and enticing title.
  
  
• Diversity reduces trust, civic participation, and civic health.
  What definition is being used for "civic health"?
  
  
• Ethnocentrism is rational, biological, and genetic in origin.
  Sure.
  
  
• Ethnic diversity harms health for hispanics and blacks.
  This seems very complex, and we will have to be careful with "X causes Y claims".
  
  
• Babies demonstrate ethnocentrism before exposure to non-whites.
  I'll have to read this, but: does "ethnocentrism" demonstrated here imply a preference? It seems also that we would have to see how it changes after: does it become somewhat "neutral" or does it become negative? It doesn't seem contradictory for one to start in associating oneself with those around them. Additionally: are there any non-white babies? Is it a comparison between white babies and non-white people, or are there non-white babies compared with non-whites, of their same race and of different races?
  
  
• Ethnocentrism is universal and likely evolved in origin.
  Sure.
  
  
• Diversity primarily hurts the dominant ethnic group.
  I'll have to read this to see exactly what is being said, but this seems almost obvious: a dispersal from a dominant group to a spread of groups necessarily leaves them with less than they had. It seems almost tautological that it will affect most the largest group. I have to see what they meant by "hurt".
  
  
• Ethnic diversity reduces concern for the environment.
  Is it that those who are able to cause change with their vocalization are instead occupied with their concern for the diversity, and that if they redirected their focus back to the environment that this reduction of concern would disappear?
  
  
• Ethnic diversity within 80 meters of a person reduces social trust.
  This seems like a base human instinct that we should seek to overcome rather than fall victim to: there are many things that make humans feel in some way "negative" but that we would never suggest getting rid of.
  
  
• Ethnic diversity directly reduces strong communities.
  What does "reduces" mean?
  
  
• Ethnically homogenous neighborhoods are beneficial for health.
  What controls are being made? Richer neighborhoods are more likely to be homogeneous when contrasted with poorer heterogeneous neighborhoods, and so better health may be due to the wealth rather than the homogeneity.
  
  
• Diversity in American cities correlates with segregation.
  This is perhaps one of the only links here that seems to maybe hold some value (having not yet read it): why is it that diverse cities are also segregated cities?
  
  
• Races are extended families. Ethnocentrism is genetically rational.
  I can accept this: race is a kind of extended family, but I would not say the only one. Additionally, ethnocentrism in a weak sense is genetically rational.
  
  
• It is evolutionary rational to be friends with someone genetically similar to you.
  What is the definition of "friends"?
  
  
• Racism and nationalism are rational and evolutionary advantageous strategies.
  
  
• Homogeneous polities have less crime, less civil war, and more altruism.
  I could accept this: civil war is precisely war that is inward facing, and altruism in the context of a polity is similarly inward facing. It would seemingly follow then that less civil war and more altruism could be direct byproducts of homogeneity.
  
  
• States with little diversity have more democracy, less corruption, and less inequality.
  What definition is being used for "inequality"? "corruption"? "democracy"?
  
  
• There is extensive evidence people prefer others who are genetically similar.
  Sure.
  
  

  Major Themes
  

• The existence of a preference implies that it is "good".
  
• That something is natural implies that it is "good".
  
• Shaky "X causes Y" claims when X and Y are simply co-occuring.
  
• There is the mistake that "X is good for Y" is equivalent to "not-X is bad for Y".
  
• Little control for major confounding factors: wealth, geography, age distribution, etc.
  
• The same "theme" was stated multiple times with a link to the same article, effectively making it seem as if there are more pieces of evidence than there actually are. This is worsened when academic papers are linked and then media summaries thereof are linked.
  
  

  More diverse neighborhoods have lower social cohesion.
  

• "community-diversity dialectic": homophily & proximity; integration
  
• integration “provides opportunities for intergroup contact that are necessary to promote respect for diversity, but may prevent the formation of dense interpersonal networks that are necessary to promote sense of community.”
  
• "If diversity is unattainable at the neighborhood level, might it be possible at the level of the city, as essentially a network of more or less similar neighborhoods? Jane Jacobs liked to say that great cities are federations of neighborhoods."
  
• "Neal about this, he sounded a more optimistic note: “Their patchwork of segregated communities allows for both diversity and cohesion. We usually view segregation as problematic, but when it comes in the form of a patchwork of neighborhoods and enclaves that each have their own character, it may actually ‘work.’”
  
• "Robert Putnam distinguished between two types of social capital: “bonding,” which occurs within like-minded groups, and “bridging,” which occurs between them."
  
  

  A 10% increase in diversity doubles the chance of psychotic episodes. & Diversity increases psychotic experiences. & Diversity increases social adversity.
  

  This is an increase in risk in the minority group. Moreover, it's precisely due to an exclusionary force from the majority. This effect can not only be mitigated by higher group cohesion within the minority group, but less exclusion by the majority force.
  > In general, people living in areas of lower own-group density experienced greater social adversity that was in turn associated with reporting psychotic experiences.
  > People resident in neighbourhoods of higher own-group density experience ‘buffering’ effects from the social risk factors for psychosis.
  
  

  Diversity reduces voter registration, political efficacy, charity, and number of friendships. & Ethnic diversity reduces happiness and quality of life.
  

  > In the long run, however, successful immigrant societies have overcome such fragmentation by creating new, cross-cutting forms of social solidarity and more encompassing identities. Illustrations of becoming comfortable with diversity are drawn from the US military, religious institutions, and earlier waves of American immigration.
  
  (CONTINUED)

http://www.amazon.com/The-Coming-War-With-Japan/dp/0312058365

> Omul asta e unul dintre cei mai capabili din lume sa faca predictii. A scris si o carte foarte interesanta

Cum ar fi predictia asta. Stratfor mi se pare o sursa de propaganda cu o agenda proprie foarte pro-americana, asa ca incerc sa-i evit pe cat posibil sau sa fiu foarte sceptic la orice debiteaza.

Cum ar fi predictia asta. Stratfor mi se pare mie sau cele mai multe ori, e ultima soluție.

And almost as good as this guy.

They are not about reasonable, work together, get a functioning government.

They are about "oppose anything the Democrats suggest, all the time."

(Except for trade deals, of course.)

This is a pretty good book about it. It's Even Worse Than It Looks: How the American Constitutional System Collided With the New Politics of Extremism

https://www.amazon.com/Even-Worse-Than-Looks-Constitutional/dp/0465031331

https://www.amazon.com/Why-Right-Went-Wrong-Conservatism/dp/1476763801

https://www.amazon.com/Whats-Matter-Kansas-Conservatives-America/dp/080507774X

These are 3 examples of significant literary works on American politics written in recent times. And although I only own one, I'm probably going to buy "It's even worse than it looks" I'm pretty sure they attest the asymmetrical polarization of American politics today, that allows extremists to thrive, whereas they couldn't have in previous decades.

The problem with Fox News, is for a major news organization, even they have a mixed record on reporting actual "facts". Edit: To be fair, CNN and MSNBC also sometimes misinform their viewers as well, but not nearly as bad as Fox does.



https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/fox-news/

A study was done that found that people who don't watch news at all, were better informed on factually correct information, than people who religiously watched Fox News. One of our biggest media outlets in the nation, is routinely misinforming it's viewers on matters of national significance.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2016/07/21/a-rigorous-scientific-look-into-the-fox-news-effect/#443b3c5b12ab

Most the Right Wing media sources, play on stereotypes and emotionally driven headlines rather than factually reporting the news.

This is why now, in a country that has always honored Freedom of Speech, is now taking issue with "Fake News" making it's way into peoples facebook streams. Because a lot of media sites are now regularly failing to report factually correct information, and it's causing the electorate to vote for candidates who are consistently factually incorrect in what they say. And a major country like the United States, who leaders consistently believe in and base policy off of factually incorrect information, I don't see how that can possibly be good for my country, or the world for that matter.

It is no mere coincidence that for a Conservative party, globally speaking, only in America is the Republicans the only major Conservative party in a Western Democracy, that outright denies the realities of Climate Change.

Perhaps, but the average person also the sort of idiot who watches reality TV. That's the problem.

And it's frankly ridiculous to cast Democrats and Republicans as equally crazy. False equivalence. California is run by competent people who live in the real world, even if you disagree with their specific policy priorities. States like Kansas are run by people who think the Earth is 6,000 years old and the way to stop teenage pregnancy is to not tell them how to avoid it.

Even if you think the deregulation of licensing organizations should be prioritized, for example, you can't possible see the Republicans as a rationally equivalent organization. They've gone off the deep end.

Don't take my word for it. Ask actual conservatives.
https://www.amazon.com/Even-Worse-Than-Looks-Constitutional/dp/0465031331

Well educated people don't see it happening. Hedges and Wolin have spoken about this topic at length.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/069114589X

If revolution is going to happen its going to happen elsewhere first, former national security advisors are worried about the non north american peoples primarily but they are going full blown into 'protect the rich' mode.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n7ZyJw_cHJY

Evidence shows the differences in academic aptitudes among races are so small as to be negligible. The same is true about gender where females tend to be very slightly better at some tasks on average ... but who cares. It's negligible on average and says nothing about any individual.

The problems with inner city schools that you mention are primarily socio-economic and also cultural (see Shaker Heights: https://www.amazon.com/Black-American-Students-Affluent-Suburb/dp/080584516X ), not genetic.

I think you are arguing that teachers should be evaluated based on growth rather than proficiency.

Seriously you ask for my opinion and that's the reply I get? And I thought we were friends. I also find you attitudes on the achievement gap to be quaint. Here is a study by a black sociologist on the reasons black students perform poorly in a rich middle class school district. His conclussion...It isn't the teachers.

http://www.amazon.com/Black-American-Students-Affluent-Suburb/dp/080584516X

http://www.eastbayexpress.com/ebx/rich-black-flunking/Content?oid=1070459

Here is another perspective from a white teacher who chose to teach in a primarily black school district. I am sure the blame for the achievement gap rest on his shoulders as well.

http://martynemko.blogspot.com/2009/06/white-teacher-speaks-out-what-is-it.html

I didn't realize I had to do your homework for you. This was the top result of a google search for "shaker heights sociology study schools". When I saw this study last it was in article format but I am not surprised the author wrote a book about it.

Anyways, you are remembering the study incorrectly. It was a study of middle class black families in comparison to middle class whites within the same community. He found that the white parents were significantly more likely to preach the value of education and homework and hold their children responsible when they performed poorly academically, whereas the reverse was true with the black parents. They did little to reinforce the importance of school or homework and blamed the teachers/schools when their children did poorly. So yes, actually, it addresses this point directly.

Look, I do not care to "convert" you. I couldn't care less if you believe what I am saying. The link to the book is of zero help to you as you are not going to order it and read it and you have demonstrated an unwillingness to search for any evidence that is contrary to your claim (unless it is spoon fed to you), so what do you want? Shall I xerox the relevant pages of the article (assuming I ever find my copy) and mail them to you? Why is that my responsibility? I have told you that there is evidence to support my claim, I gave you a really good jumping off point, and you do not want to do any work. Fine. Again, I don't care. But do not make the mistake of assuming that your laziness or my apathy is reason enough to continue believing you are right about this.

You really, honestly should. Especially if you take your interest in sociology seriously. It would be like not reading The Bell Curve (which a bunch of people disagree with)

https://www.amazon.com/Black-American-Students-Affluent-Suburb/dp/080584516X/

You're just spamming the sub now with this.
Repeating the same things and not advancing your position.

Nor are you responding to my questions so that we can have a rational discussion by establishing what is "racism and privilege" exactly and how it pertains to the city.

Because right now it's all this fuzzy notion that makes excuses far too easy. Talking to you really does remind me of a good will hunting secene. I even brought up Howard Zin for cryin out loud.

Anyway, Perhaps something like John Ogbu's study "Black American Students in an Affluent Suburb: A Study of Academic Disengagement" would be of benefit here.

Otherwise this is isn't going anywhere and it's clear that no amount of reasoning is going to change whatever some militant BLM mantra crept into your mind.

Here's a book that more or less sums it up:
https://www.amazon.com/Black-American-Students-Affluent-Suburb/dp/080584516X

I agree with you on two points:

1. The condition blacks are in today is due in large part to being enslaved for ~100 years, then being subject to institutional racism for another ~100 years.
   
2. There are still people who hold positions of power that who knowingly or unknowingly hold black people back.
   
   
   After that our agreement ends. The position and opportunity of black people in society today is better than it has ever been. If they had the culture of Asians or Jews they could easily outpace white people in every metric. Further, whining and blaming everything on "white racism" will hold black people in the ghetto forever. Your viewpoints are actively oppressing African Americans.

Spoiler: it's black people.

I don't know if there's a single perfect book, because it's a difficult problem and nobody knows all the answers. Here's a decent book that tackles the politically correct part of the problem. For the politically incorrect part, you can read between the lines of books like this or you can delve into the horrible dark corners of the Internet like this. As to the validity of the politically correct and politically incorrect theories, who knows. Maybe it's a combination?

I figured that was what you were thinking but didn't expect you to admit it openly.

> Spoiler: it's black people.
>
> I don't know if there's a single perfect book, because it's a difficult problem and nobody knows all the answers. Here's a decent book that tackles the politically correct part of the problem. For the politically incorrect part, you can read between the lines of books like this or you can delve into the horrible dark corners of the Internet like this. As to the validity of the politically correct and politically incorrect theories, who knows. Maybe it's a combination?

It has been noted that voluntary immigrants (whites, asians) do far better than most involuntry immigrants (most african americans, native americans).

Amazon link to the printed studies and other of his works.

http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=John+Ogobu&x=10&y=22

http://www.amazon.com/Black-American-Students-Affluent-Suburb/dp/080584516X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1289444666&sr=8-1-spell

Black American Students in An Affluent Suburb: A Study of Academic Disengagement (Sociocultural, Political, and Historical Studies in Education)

http://www.amazon.com/Minority-Education-Caste-Cross-Cultural-Perspective/dp/0125242506/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1289444666&sr=8-2-spell

Minority Education and Caste: The American System in Cross-Cultural Perspective (A Carnegie Council on Children Monograph)

http://www.amazon.com/Next-Generation-Ethnography-Neighbourhood-anthropology/dp/0127855890/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1289444666&sr=8-3-spell

Next Generation: Ethnography of Education in an Urban Neighbourhood (Studies in anthropology)

Yeah really. Like it or not, he is pretty much correct.

For instance, check out this 30-year sociology study on academic habits.

Haven't you ever wondered why the scientific consensus is the opposite of your claims?

For starters, IQ isn't a great all-around measure of intelligence. It does accurately predict social outcomes and is highly correlated with many intellectual and academic accomplishments, but it has severe flaws. Take for example the Flynn Effect: previous generations had much lower IQ scores than today, when normalized to be on the same scale. The rapid increase of IQ globally (Great Britain saw an increase of 15 points in 70 years) cannot be explained by any plausible genetic explanation—the increase has simply been too fast. Genetic effects couldn't have spread throughout the entire population. There is also no plausible argument that general intelligence has improved by that much. If it had, 40% of the British population a century ago would be mentally damaged by today's standards.

The reasons for the Flynn Effect are unclear. A rise in standardized testing and formal schooling appears to be at least part of it. What is clear is that when comparing people from wildly different environments, IQ is a poor measure of general intelligence. (When comparing people from similar environments, it does remarkably well. The reasons for this are still being studied.)

_

Even if IQ were a good measure of intelligence (which it isn't), that doesn't mean IQ score differences are genetic. Indeed, we know for a fact that they aren't.

Take the Burakumin of Japan. They are an ostracized class and have been for centuries; due to complex religious/spiritual/social reasons, if you have an ancestor who engaged in an "unclean" profession (e.g., a prostitute, a butcher, an actor, etc.), you too are unclean and are socially inferior. The important thing is that the class is genetically identical to the rest of the Japanese population. You can't tell the difference by looking, which is why the Burakumin were forced to get tattoos, and why corporations started keeping lists of who was Burakumin so they knew who not to hire. Today, while those lists are banned, they are still socially stigmatized, and the group forms the ranks of the Japanese mafia, with the tattoos becoming a source of pride.

Anyway, the average have an IQ of the Burakumin is 10-15 points lower than the average Japanese person. See here. This is the same as the gap between white Americans and black Americans. Importantly, both gaps have been shrinking. Most interestingly, the Japanese gap completely disappears among immigrants to the United States—the people here don't know that they're supposed to discriminate against one of the groups.

Similar stories of vanishing IQ gaps appear all over the field. Adopting someone at three years old from Sub-Saharan Africa into a European family cuts the IQ gap by 15 points., cutting the IQ gap in half. The remaining gap, to reiterate, is the same sized that is known to be caused by discrimination. And note further that this is without any improved pre-natal care, which is known to be extremely important to a child's health.

_

Finally, this is all assuming that "race" is a thing, scientifically speaking, which it isn't. To draw an analogy, it's like constellations. Yes, some stars are closer to others. But the physical differences have little connection with how they appear in the sky, any anyways are not clustered into distinct groups. The stars and the distances between them exist; the pictures only exist in your head. I mean, the idea of "whiteness" isn't even self-consistent and varies across time. Are Poles white? Are Russians? Are Italians? Are Southern-Europeans? Are North-Africans and Middle-Easterners? Are Indians? Are Jews? Are Spaniards? Are Mexicans? Are Chileans? (The last few are the most hilarious currently—the jumps required to assert that South Americans are genetically inferior to "us", but "us" includes the Spanish and Portuguese, are hilarious.)

__

Race doesn't exist the way you think it does. Intelligence might, based on the g-factor (scores in completely different aptitude tests are correlated, suggesting a legitimate "general intelligence"), but IQ is not a good measure of it cross-populations. Intelligence is not a metric of moral standing; the Jews aren't naturally the superiors of everyone else just because they have higher IQ. And IQ differences are entirely explainable by environmental factors.

It isn't about Islam. Before 2003 the Tamil Tigers were responsible for the most suicide bombings. Good book on suicide terrorism

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.

1. "Something that works due to equal or superior forces, does not work with tiny inferior forces. The belief that it can work with tiny inferior forces, is an ideological belief not based on logic."
   Absolute shit. Total and utter. I honestly don't know where you are getting this from. Please read "How the Weak Win Wars".
   
   
2. "This is a silly thing to say. It's like saying "who cares what they think. They're crazy anyway."
   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
   
   
   
3. "I don't think you have read any literature at all. You're an ignorant person who wants to oversimplify terrorists to "oh they have all sorts of reasons" and "oh they don't have beliefs or anything, they can be just anyone." you don't make any rational or coherent logical sense. You're just blurting out things that don't follow logically."
   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.
   
   
4. "As they should. Duh. Why are you even mentioning this? Except to act like a little prick who wants to insult people? Grow up you little child. This is no way to talk to someone especially when you clearly show how ignorant you are on the subject."
   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.
   
   
5. "Yes analysts. And those analysts agree with me, not you."
   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.
   
   
6. "(which incidentally, is rarely necessary to be able to form a coherent analysis).
   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
   
   
7. "But learning begins with admitting you are wrong and/or ignorant
   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.
   
   
8. "You're the one trying to justify terrorism here and oversimplifying the issue into "oh we cannot claim they are motivated by any ideology. they are just motivated by what they are motivated by." Kind of insane bullshit that I don't know what blog you read it from but it's clearly incoherent."
   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.

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 -

• Do you still see the Libyan intervention as a successful "healthy" intervention precedent or do you wish to recant or change your view of the interventions in Libya expressed in this video?
  

• And if not "healthy", then do you, in retrospect, believe that the intervention itself was ill-advised?
  
• Or do you simply believe that certain (unforeseeable) events occurred after the intervention that led to the current mess?
  
  

• And if [it was unforeseeable events], what events and how would you have tried to avoid them?
  
  

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.

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

Reading this book would be a good intro to the problem:

https://www.amazon.com/Explaining-Postmodernism-Skepticism-Socialism-Rousseau/dp/0983258406/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&qid=1518811680&sr=8-1&keywords=stephen+hicks&linkCode=ll1&tag=epact&linkId=3b483174b8852dfc6e2d3c8f6139fd9e

For a really good introduction (from a critical perspective), I recommend Stephen Hicks's book Explaining Postmodernism.

Watch the lecture I attached, where a top philosophy professor is interviewed.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BwW9QV5Ulmw&t=1652s

Dr. Stephen R. C. Hicks (www.stephenhicks.org), Professor of Philosophy at Rockford University, Illinois, USA, Executive Director of the Center for Ethics and Entrepreneurship, and Senior Scholar at The Atlas Society in August of 2017 (http://bit.ly/306ggDQ), and decided that it was time for an update. Dr. Hicks received his Bachelor’s and Master’s degrees from the University of Guelph, Canada, and his Ph.D. in philosophy from Indiana University, Bloomington, USA. He has published four books, translated into sixteen different languages: • In 1994; 2nd ed 1998 The Art of Reasoning: Readings for Logical Analysis (co-edited with David Kelley, W. W. Norton & Co., 1994, second edition 1998). • In 2010, Nietzsche and the Nazis • In 2016, Entrepreneurial Living (co-edited with Jennifer Harrolle) The remaining book, published in 2004 and expanded in 2011, Explaining Postmodernism: Skepticism and Socialism from Rousseau to Foucault, has been particularly relevant to our discussions. It’s available at Amazon.com (https://amzn.to/2Jh4Uro) but also in pdf form on Dr. Hick’s website (http://bit.ly/2MaI9rH). I found it very helpful when trying to understand the intellectual roots of the ideas that appear so dominant in today’s universities.

If you think it's still possible to expand upon what you already know, you could start here. You can even pick your favorite discipline:

* Philosophy: Stephen Hicks, Explaining Postmodernism: Skepticism and Socialism from Rousseau to Foucault.

* Literature: John Ellis, Literature Lost: Social Agendas and the Corruption of the Humanities.

* History: Keith Windschuttle, The Killing of History.

* Science: Noretta Koertge, editor, A House Built on Sand: Exposing Postmodernist Myths About Science.

* Law: Daniel Farber and Suzanna Sherry, Beyond All Reason: The Radical Assault on Truth in American Law.

​

Or you could just accept that one does not need advanced degrees in philosophy to study, understand, analyze and interpret it - not to mention TO philosophize - and read this: https://jordanbpeterson.com/philosophy/postmodernism-definition-and-critique-with-a-few-comments-on-its-relationship-with-marxism/

Det finns olika grupperingar inom feminismen, men den som har varit på uppsving de senaste åren har ett otäckt förhållningssätt till objektivitet, logik ("uppfunnet av vita män för att förtrycka") etc.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GPnUOcsjqgA för en kort redogörelse
https://www.amazon.com/Explaining-Postmodernism-Skepticism-Socialism-Rousseau/dp/0983258406 för en längre, aktuell dissektion.

Troligen är det det nuvarande största hotet mot det moderna samhället.

The recommended book:

https://smile.amazon.com/gp/product/0983258406

https://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2010/dec/07/world-education-rankings-maths-science-reading

Scroll down to the regional rankings: Shanghai was #1, followed by South Korea.

> How would they be out studying someone who attends the same university? Wouldn't that mean they were equal, educationally?

I was referring to OP's stupid claim that 'Chinese cheat their way into Western universities'. No, they out-study their way into Western universities, because of the premium Chinese society places on education, and the way in which children spend their whole lives studying for super-competitive entrance exams which determine their entire futures.


>Where are you getting these numbers for your so-called "legacy" students? You do realize that even these students must have an education in the first place to attend these universities?

No. They literally buy their way into universities like Harvard, or are granted admission despite lacking the competitive requirements because their parents went there.

Sources:

CNBC: Harvard's incoming freshman class is one-third legacy—here's why that's a problem

The Price of Admission: How America's Ruling Class Buys Its Way into Elite Colleges--and Who Gets Left Outside the Gates

The Story Behind Jared Kushner’s Curious Acceptance Into Harvard

Though that's not necessarily true. There's even a book on it.
https://www.amazon.com/Price-Admission-Americas-Colleges-Outside/dp/1400097975

However, while we do know there is wiggle room in the SSS requirement, we also know that we don't meet the requirements for that exception.

It's funny that this is a Harvard study because their (and other Ivy League schools) less than fair admissions practices heavily contribute to aristocracies, which contribute to the rise of oligarchies.

Check out this book.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/1400097975?pc_redir=1410065014&robot_redir=1

Racist prejudice can exist in the absence of intention to be racist. This is the whole point of books like Racism without Racists. Systems can be set up to be systematically biased for/against particular races without individuals in those systems intending the result. The reason I mention intent specifically is that your comment was that people portraying interracial relationships had "intent to weaken or destroy" white people.

Everyone cares subconsciously about what someone’s skin color is. My argument (and what the data shows) is that everyone has prejudice and you are most likely to fall victim to prejudice when you think you have none. It’s not racist to admit you have prejudice and attempt to overcome it and analyze each situation to understand when that bias was unwittingly applied to your decision making.

To use an analogy: Alcoholics are most at risk of relapse when they think they are can easily resist the temptation of alcohol. It lets them put their guard down which in turn makes them more likely to fall victim to temptation.

To be color blind is to be ignorant of our own biases and culturally laden judgements.


This form of color blind racism is considered to be racism without racists. It is when people are good-intentioned but blind to their biases.

I suggest you read the 3rd book since when I’m proposing is a major shift in world view for most people, which it often takes an entire book to truly convey the extreme degree to which color blindness is harmful.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/07/150715103510.htm

https://www.psychologicalscience.org/news/releases/color-blind-policies-could-make-diversity-harder-to-achieve.html

https://www.amazon.com/Racism-without-Racists-Color-Blind-Persistence/dp/1442202181

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/culturally-speaking/201112/colorblind-ideology-is-form-racism?amp

Yes, it does. I practice the hide + 1-star Quickmatch treatment.

It's an absolute dealbreaker, no matter what race the person is. I don't care if there's racial animus behind it or if it's a mere "preference"; as many cool, open-minded people as there are in my area who don't strongly prefer to date intra-racially, I can't be bothered to parse out what lies in the hearts who do prefer it. I realize that people of color have reasons for selecting "yes" that aren't rooted in white supremacy, but I still don't have time for it, especially since I'm the kind of person who, not fitting neatly into any particular cultural box, tends to focus more on individuals rather than groups. A lot of the pushback against the notion that selecting "yes" is racist (which it is, even under the narrow Merriam-Webster definition of "racism") is a byproduct of a modern Western society shot through with racism without racists.

For the record, I'm not white.

Read a book: http://www.amazon.com/Racism-without-Racists-Color-Blind-Persistence/dp/1442202181

This book was mentioned.

The conservative viewpoint of the humanities tends to be focussed on the Western Canon and the great books curriculum or Classical education. A common conservatives opinion is that a classical liberal arts education is critically important and valuable, but that modern Academia mired in revisionist theories and nihilism and leaving students adrift in a sea of electives taught by radicals has lost the thread and are now largely useless at best and more often than not are actively destructive.

A few books about the humanities, philosophy, art & education by conservatives and/or approvingly cited by conservatives.

• The Abolition of Man by C.S. Lewis
  
  
• The Lost Tools of Learning by Dorothy Sayers
  
  
• God and Man at Yale By William F. Buckley
  
  
• The Conservative Mind: From Burke to Santayana by Russel Kirke
  
  
• How Should we Then Live by Francis Schaeffer
  
  
• Modern Times By Paul Johnson.
  
  
• The Well Trained Mind by Susan Wise Bauer
  
  
• The Closing of the American Mind by Alan Bloom

From the "Required Reading List":

[The Closing of the American Mind: How Higher Education Has Failed Democracy and Impoverished the Souls of Today's Students]
(https://www.amazon.com/Closing-American-Mind-Education-Impoverished/dp/1451683200/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1495471445&sr=8-1&keywords=Alan+bloom+closing+of) by Allan Bloom

***
And for those who don't have the time to read (and who does, these days):

• “ ... Americans cannot believe that any really intelligent and good person does not at bottom line share the Will Rogers Weltanschauung, ‘I never met a man I didn’t like.’ ”
  
  
• “ Of course, we are told, the healthy inner-directed person will really care for others. To which I can only respond: If you can believe that, you can believe anything. "
  
  
• “ The most successful tyranny is not the one that uses force to assure uniformity but the one that removes the awareness of other possibilities, that makes it seem inconceivable that other ways are viable, that removes the sense that there is an outside. ”
  
  
• “ I have seen young people, and older people too, who are good democratic liberals, lovers of peace and gentleness, struck dumb with admiration for individuals threatening or using the most terrible violence for the slightest and tawdriest of reasons. They have a sneaking suspicion that they are face to face with men of real commitment, which they themselves lack. And commitment, not truth, is believed to be what counts. ”
  
  ***
  
  Other thoughts from Bloom:
  
  
• “ Intellectuals committed to the revolution are the last to resign themselves to the facts. ”
  
  
• “ Civil societies are constituted by what they respect, by what men bow their heads before in reverence. When they no longer have anything before which they can bow, their world is near its end, and all the suppressed and lawless monsters within man reemerge. ”

There's a great anthology of Rousseau's political writings that comes up in an Amazon search of "Rousseau". Kant's Critique of Pure Reason is a great book to understand why there might be a problem in establishing a society on pure reason and the progress of science (like we currently have). Locke's two treaties of government are his best works. Also, Descartes is great.

Beware, reading these books is not going to be done in a month or so. It takes years. As a result of this, I advise you to start off with the book The Closing of the American Mind by Allan Bloom. It's an absolutely devastating critique of modern America and its so-called "values". Basically, he chronicles the development of American thought from the Enlightenment to the modern day and shows that much of our language such as "value relativism"/"Multiculturalism", or "I just need to find myself" come from German philosophy which is deeply antithetical to Enlightenment ideals. If you ever had a sense that our Democracy is eroding from the inside out, and much of what we see if a result of the weakness of the people, this book will make a lot of sense to you. If you ever thought that our embrace of multiculturalism led to us "losing ourself" more so than "finding others", this book will make sense. If you enjoy that book, you can decide for yourself if "going to the sources" is worth it for you.

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.

He was carrying the Gore Vidal book "History of the National Security State" as he was carried out of the Embassy.

Are you unfamiliar with the arguments of anarcho-capitalists on this topic? Have you read The Machinery of Freedom? Or The Problem of Political Authority? I'm not saying I agree with them altogether, but this seems like a rather shallow criticism.

If you're actually curious how things could work, here's a good book to get started.

But again, realize that your position is that you will support immoral means and pretend they create moral ends.

There are a lot of very simplistic points made for and against the positions presented by the libertarian/anarchistic intellectual traditions, and internet comments especially can devolve very quickly. Some people who've taken the time to research the arguments related their own questions or opinions about anarchy have sophisticated responses against steel-manned positions, but the majority are radically oversimplified and woefully short of awareness just like this. It's disheartening to spend so much effort to find out where exactly you stand in a political sense, and find that there appear to be legions of people continuously washing up against you who, though they might claim rationality, are perfectly content to drop an opinion as a decisive conclusion into a soundbyte space with no real argument. And this applies to the person you're speaking to above, not just you. It's just a really poor exchange. I'll see what I can do to help in this case, and maybe something interesting will happen.

To be very up-front, I would also describe myself as an anarchist. I came to that conclusion first by exposure to powerful moral arguments that required no acceptance of any special moral theories, but simply pitted my own morality against my belief in the political authority of the State and exposed total conflict. However, half the anarchists I've met didn't come by this approach, but by pragmatism instead. I would say that approach occupies most of the anarchist literature out there, being things like legal theory, game theory, economics, solutions to public goods problems, market failures, basically a consequentialist's playground. The reason for this is probably that a lot of folks demand quite a complete and detailed explanation for most facets of a theorized anarchist society where today they can only imagine coercive (State) solutions to the same problems. Since both of the above comments appear to be approaching from a pragmatic perspective, that's the kind of resource I'll be providing.

The claim in question is one of the most common refrains first uttered in response to the idea of a stateless society. "Without government, warlords would take over." Luckily for anyone interested in that claim here, it is also addressed in most places where people bother to ask about it. I'll present some of the shorter resources, and one or two longer ones, and then at the end I'll even contribute a tidbit of my own thoughts on the matter, which take a little bit of a different angle.

The most direct address is an article by Dr. Robert P. Murphy (economist) which you can find in written form here, or as a 12-minute narrated audio upload which someone has posted here. It doesn't take long to get through, and I don't need to reproduce its arguments here. I'm interested to hear what you think of it.

Edit: I also realize that in the article above, Murphy mentions some concepts which are common to discussions of polycentric (stateless) legal systems, but not common outside it. Things like private defense and arbitration agencies. While these too are discussed in the link below, to help provide context for anyone who feels a little confused with the above, there are some great youtube videos that give a quick introduction to these as well. The Machinery of Freedom: Illustrated Summary and Law Without Government. Hopefully this doesn't muddy the discussion, but provides some useful context if something was missed in the above article.

Further resources that cover the "warlord" question, though with the greater context of a detailed surrounding system, would include the freely available 2nd edition or Amazon-purchasable 3rd edition of The Machinery of Freedom by economist David Friedman (Milton Friedman's son). I would consider his discussions of stability questions certainly related to that, though he presents things in terms of a Mafia-like setup, and the concerns given his particular premises are not exactly the same.

I think you'd also find Chase Rachels' chapters about Law & Order and Defense & Security from A Spontaneous Order relevant as well -- you might even skip the rather boring and rigorous argumentation ethics the book leads with to get to that spot.

And I think that's more than good for a starter. Now my own tidbit. Please read/listen to the first article I linked before moving on here.

Something I think all of these guys miss even in their own objections is the public's idea of the belief in political authority. Were we to assume that a given -- let's say "Western" -- society actually opted for a truly stateless existence (whether an existing one "transitioned" or a new one was created, like a seastead community), it stands to reason that the people comprising it would have given up any belief in the legitimacy of political authority. If they hadn't, there's no reason they would've gone anarchist in the first place instead of just replacing one government with another. And if they did actually go through all the trouble to rid themselves of a State, and they indeed did not tolerate claims of political authority on that scale, there's no reason to assume they will turn right around and tolerate it on the local scale either. "Warlords" here, like kings and barons, need people to actually believe they have a right to do what they do in order to maintain any kind of power base. It's unclear why a people who disbelieve in this right of rulership would listen to them in the first place, much less tolerate them when they would not tolerate a modern State. This is my same argument against another common question: "If you eliminated the state, wouldn't a new one simply rise in its place?" or "Wouldn't a corporation just turn into a state?", etc.

If you assume a simple disbelief in political authority, a necessary precursor, for a people who were not already degenerating into moral barbarism (in which case a state comprised of those people doesn't help anyway, as Somalia had before it ripped itself apart), then the re-emergence of States on any scale doesn't seem likely to me, including that of the local warlord.

Well then, go read The Problem of Political Authority by Michael Huemer and The Machinery of Freedom by David Freidman.

Books won't downvote you, I promise.

https://smile.amazon.com/Machinery-Freedom-Guide-Radical-Capitalism/dp/1507785607/

There are a myriad of solutions and literature on the matter.

Just because there exist government monopolies on the services you listed doesn't mean that it wouldn't be handled by the market.

People like order, don't they?

If you have doubts about why the state is so bad, and want to understand more what the state is Anatomy of the State by Murray Tothbard is a great read, got me into libertarianism in general

If you are looking for more current anarcho-capitalist theory and it’s logistics, a great read is The Machinery of Freedom by David Friedman.

Anatomy of the state is a great introduction of about ~50 or so pages while The Machinery of freedom goes into a lot more detail, ~350 pages and is the book I would choose.

Hope this helps!

An-caps don't believe the government should run the military either (or the justice system).

If you want to get familiar with their ideal proposed system, you probably want to read something like The Machinery of Freedom which lays out how a non-state could work, including justice systems and defense.

Less extreme libertarians frequently leave the government in charge of providing public goods (problems that markets can't usually solve because you can't exclude people from the service once it's provided) and wish to keep it out of everything that isn't a public good.

Sounds like you missed anarcho-capitalism 101.

Ill get you started:

https://smile.amazon.com/Machinery-Freedom-Guide-Radical-Capitalism/dp/1507785607

This, and also the fact that any good right-wing comedian immediately becomes the target of a campaign to dissuade his sponsors by threatening a boycott. This stuff is right out of SJWAL.

The Right will eventually overcome this problem by setting up substitutes for all left-wing controlled media, including Reddit itself. We've already got gab.ai to replace twatter and Infogalactic to replace Wikipedia. Next, I hope, will be a Youtube replacement.

Thomas Sowell and others debunk the claims that women and blacks earn less in the marketplace due to discrimination. When they are compared on equal footing, it is found they are not discriminated against, and in some cases even earn slightly more. For example, unmarried women without children tend to earn a bit more than their male counterparts. What is affecting the average woman? Having children, obviously. If you thought that women, on average, should be earning equal wages, you were clearly not using your brain effectively, as bearing children is such an obvious and enormous cost.

There is a cost to conducting irrational practices in the marketplace (racism, sexism in hiring and in customer discrimination are the examples we are concerned with in this discussion). For example, bus companies wanted to give equal treatment to Blacks during the era of segregation in the U.S., as Black Americans were their biggest customers. They were forced to conduct costly (in opportunity), racist practices in order to comply with government segregation laws. Most people simply are not willing to pay the cost if they are racist, but I also think that most people aren't racist.

If we look at Asian Americans and Irish Americans who's ancestors also experienced severe discrimination, as well as Irish in the UK who's ancestors experienced slavery, we find they don't have the same problems Black Americans face. Blacks immigrants do better on average than their American counterparts. It is clear it is not discrimination at the employer which is the problem. It is a culture of victimization that has been built around them by liberals attempting to "help" them through horrendous government policies--most notably education that amounts to nothing and subsidies of bad behavior--which has lead to alarming rates of single parenthood (usually mothers) which has destroyed the future of these young children. It really needs to stop.

Archives for links in comments:

• By Muskaos (amazon.com): http://archive.is/xe12w
  
• By mendicant_jester (texasmonthly.com): http://archive.is/IZTNd
  
• By DooDooDoodle (washingtonpost.com): http://archive.is/nGp3N
  
• By DooDooDoodle (washingtonpost.com): http://archive.is/nGp3N
  
• By ferrousoxides (status451.com): http://archive.is/FmeuY
  
• By Raezak_Am (foxnews.com): http://archive.is/9kaVk
  
• By spongish (secretsurvivorsofbamn.wordpress.com): http://archive.is/7Iegw
  
  
• By spongish (facebook.com): http://archive.is/sSbyK
  
• By ARealLibertarian (en.wikipedia.org): http://archive.is/hTiHr
  
• By jonzaaa (en.wikipedia.org): http://archive.is/CIiLB
  
• By Deuce_McGuilicuddy (anapsid.org): http://archive.is/XjKcs
  
  
• By Deuce_McGuilicuddy (en.m.wikipedia.org): http://archive.is/2OftF
  
  ----
  I am Mnemosyne 2.0, 418 i'm a teapot^^^^/r/botsrights ^^^^Contribute ^^^^Website

Let me start us off with 2 book gems and 2 important essays. Of course the whole point of this is to have a Red Pill Right discussion so the most important thing is /r/theredpill sidebar books and essays.

Books

1. The Wealth of Nations Adam Smith explains Capitalism.
   
   
2. Atlas Shrugged- no explanation should be needed. Ian Rand hits it out of the park.
   
   Essays
   
   
3. Dictatorships and Double Standards in which Reagan UN Secretary Jean Kirkpatrick identifies an "America First" foreign policy.
   
   
4. I Pencil: where Leonard Read explains just how complicated the market really is and how the Invisible Hand really does guide it. They can't fix the health care system. They can't even make a pencil.
   
   Also what about Milo's books?
   
   Forbidden Thoughts and SJW's Always lie

> Rogue State by William Blum

Available on Amazon for the curious

Another book mentioned in this episode: 'Please Stop Helping Us' by Jason L. Riley http://www.amazon.com/Please-Stop-Helping-Us-Liberals/dp/1594037256

Ok. There's various degrees too. You got the weebo nerd/blerd or whatevs who's still awkward and weird. Then you have the type that doesn't mind being "white washed" or not having to appeal to black stereotypes, doesn't mind having republican/conservative values (think Thomas Howell) or guys like Jason Riley or Tommy Sotomayor.

Both of those can be done voluntarily, without the coercion.

Btw, most of the tax-theft money goes to the funding of wars and social programs that hurt people.

And that is the erroneous argument that I am referring to. Have you ever listened to a black republican? Have you ever listened to a conservative explain their position? I'm not talking about who the liberal leaders, the so-called "main stream" media, and the typical black community want to point to. In all honesty, they are pointing you to the 1 to 2% fringe or twisting what people say. And don't get me started on when empirical facts are used and the person using it gets called racist.

Do yourself a favor. Look up Alfonzo Rachel. Look up the book "Please Stop Helping Us" and give it a read. With your argument, you honestly need your eyes opened to who you're labeling racist. If you actually listen to just the two men I just pointed you to have to say, it will start you on a journey that will tear down this facade that you have had built around you.

93% of blacks vote Democrat. 7% of a small minority of the total US population vote either Republican or 3rd party, mostly Republican. Blacks are well represented in the GOP all things considered.

Here are a few others.

Michael Steele, the first black leader of the RNC.

Jason Reilly, Wall Street Journal editorial board member and author of Please Stop Helping Us: How Liberals Make It Harder for Blacks to Succeed

Allen West was a one term Congressman from Florida and the first black Republican Congressman from FL since Reconstruction. This man is hugely popular with the supposedly racist "tea party" wing of the party. For the record, I am not a tea partier.

I recommend a book called "Rat F*cked," by David Daley, which details how Republicans took advantage of the 2010 Census through their "REDMAP" plan. Every 10 years, we redraw districts once we get new data from the census. While Democrats have a decided technological advantage on GOTV, Republicans applied that same type of data analytics to Gerrymandering, capturing many state houses which then decide federal level districting plans.

http://www.amazon.com/You-Are-Being-Lied-Disinformation/dp/0966410076/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1254450211&sr=8-1

http://www.amazon.com/Drug-War-Dan-Russell/dp/0965025349/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1254450271&sr=1-1

http://www.amazon.com/Rogue-State-3rd-Worlds-Superpower/dp/1567513743/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1254450315&sr=1-1

Rouge State: the most critical you could be of American foreign policies. It is a comprehensive list American lead Coupes, financing of revolutions and war crimes. It is rigorously sited throughout and states nothing but variable facts. Politically it would probably be agreeable to Libertarians, conservatives (just not Neo-con) and Progressives.

David Daley launched a book earlier this year called "Ratf**ked: The True Story Behind the Secret Plan to Steal America's Democracy"

The title sounds like a crazy conspiracy... because it is. It chronicles the literally secret plan flawlessly executed by republicans in anticipation of the 2012 elections and how we're now stuck with this for decades.

There was an excellent interview on NPR's Fresh Air with the author a few weeks ago. Moneyball applied to politics as they call it, complete with outside consultants, computer modeling, secrecy and everything.

Popular Vote went Clinton - Meaning in vote total she won by 3 million votes. but that doesnt matter.


GOP Quotes of the Effect of REDMAP on the election - Your Party speaking on boundary movement.



Extra Reading:
NPR

Ney Yorker

Book (RatF**ked)

I'm not blaming anything, the GOP used american systems well to win the race. But don't act like you know shit, and as much as Hillary makes people awful people trump is a dumbass candidate making you a dumbass. Learn to spell, learn how the race was won, and learn more you uneducated mong.

This book is entirely about Gerrymandering and is something every American should read.

I would encourage you to consider the work of Sam Wang at Princeton. Also, nonpartisan experts like Thomas Mann and Norm Ornstein wrote in 2012 about the issue of Republicans changing the rules to protect partisan Republican advantages in legislatures. This research is not conclusive, but there is ample evidence to support my contention that the benefits of incumbency and redrawing of district boundaries gave Republicans advantages in the 2012 Congressional election.

http://election.princeton.edu/2012/12/30/gerrymanders-part-1-busting-the-both-sides-do-it-myth/

http://election.princeton.edu/2013/02/03/slaying-the-gerrymander/

http://www.amazon.com/Even-Worse-Than-Looks-Constitutional/dp/0465031331

A book I just finished reading for my AP Gov & Pol class seems to be relevant here. It outlines some key congressional issues, especially the overuse of filibusters and failed old tactics we keep trying to reuse. It was a pretty good read, especially for something so critical. I'll put up a pdf of my summary i had to write for it if you guys want.
EDIT: Added a few words.

>And I think my next pick up will be something by Benatar.

I guess you'll enjoy this.

No I am not using it wrong. Behavior, conditions, or attitudes that foster stereotypes of social roles based on sex. Prejudice or discrimination based on sex.

If two men had made the statements they wanted to win for men all over the country to prove a point wouldn't that be a sexist statement to make? Two women who are friends who say they are racing to see the world and have wonderful adventures together and hey, maybe win a million dollars doing it, shouldn't so difficult to say. When you have to make it a point that you are racing for women to prove a point then you are sexist.

You are no different than the girls on Survivor that huddle together and say "we need to stick together as women and get rid of the men so a woman wins". You are no different than minorities grouping together and saying they need to get rid of white people so a minority wins.

Racing on AR should not be about proving points to the world. It should be about proving something to yourself and having amazing experiences.

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

https://lithub.com/mia-the-liberal-men-we-love/

Outside of regular feminist literature (feminists usually acknowledge that the patriarchy is bad for men in various ways) I think David Benatar has a new book that might have some relevant stuff, though I haven't read it myself. Edit: here it is - http://www.amazon.com/The-Second-Sexism-Discrimination-Against/dp/0470674512

Or you know science.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You are caught in a false reality bubble.

You might check out The Second Sexism, by David Benatar. He has expanded the arguments into a forthcoming book too.

I didn't know Pat had a scholar brother.

/s

Here's the full link: http://www.amazon.com/The-Second-Sexism-Discrimination-Against/dp/0470674512 - for those of us that hate the mobile version.