>Yeah, he wasn't always successful at abstaining.

He had an extraordinary and extreme complex about lust. He was a product of both Victorian-era Hindu and British prudishness and did not want to get married, but his parents forced him to when he was 13. When he discovered sex for the first time, with his wife, his ascetic inclinations got pushed to the wayside and he reveled in it as any teen would. Then his father got sick and was slowly dying in the hospital. Gandhi would visit him every day, but as he had just been married, wouldn't spend much time at the hospital because, as he himself wrote, he wanted to run home and have sex with his wife. His father ended up dying one night shortly after Gandhi left to go home and have sex. He developed a massive amount of guilt, feeling that he had failed in his duty as a son by letting his father die alone because of his lust. At the same time, his pregnant wife miscarried, which Gandhi saw as punishment for his immorality. After that he entrenched himself firmly in asceticism, and developed an Augustine- level hatred of lust and desired to conquer it in accordance with the teachings of the ascetic strain of Hinduism. His own wife reported that he would become physically disgusted by the act of sex. He eventually took a vow of celibacy.

Later on, around the time his wife died, he began testing himself in these extreme, ascetic ways by asking young women to sleep next to him to prove to himself that he had conquered lust completely and wouldn't even be mildly tempted by desire for them. It was absolutely inappropriate in several ways and obviously indefensible, but it's also important to note (contrary to the accusations of certain partisan groups) that he never had sex with them, according to their own testimony and that of others (his entire entourage, male and female, slept in the same room, partially because he wanted to be absolutely sure they were all celibate, too.) He never even touched them.

Furthermore, this wasn't some secret that was uncovered after investigative work. All the people closest to him knew about it, including other political leaders in the independence movement, most of whom disapproved and publicly criticized it. Eventually, it became public knowledge, and some of the publishers of his works resigned because they didn't want to print his writings advocating these sleeping arrangement experiments. Gandhi himself still wrote publicly about it and defended the practice, but eventually, in 1947, he bowed to pressure and stopped doing it.

EDIT: Several people have understandably asked for sources. Pretty much every major biography of Gandhi has at least some of this information in it, including his own autobiography. Try:

http://www.amazon.com/Gandhi-An-Autobiography-Story-Experiments/dp/0807059099

http://www.amazon.com/Great-Soul-Mahatma-Gandhi-Struggle/dp/0307389952

http://www.amazon.com/Colonialism-Tradition-Reform-Political-Discourse/dp/0761993827

and

Lal, Vinay (Jan–Apr 2000). "Nakedness, Nonviolence, and Brahmacharya: Gandhi's Experiments in Celibate Sexuality". Journal of the History of Sexuality 9 (1/2): 105–36. JSTOR 3704634.

EDIT: Thanks for the gold, whoever you are!

Can't believe nobody's mentioned his book, ['Carrying the Fire'] (https://www.amazon.co.uk/Carrying-Fire-Astronauts-Michael-Collins/dp/0374531943). Probably the best first hand account of the Apollo space programme there is.

Great contribution, thanks for that. If anyone would like to know how these societal weaknesses have been exploited before check out The Brothers: John Foster Dulles, Allen Dulles, and Their Secret World War by Stephen Kinzer.

Among other things it goes into the CIA overthrow of the democratic governments of Iran and Guatemala, and the failed operations in the communist governments of Cuba and Vietnam. Turns out it's easier to set up rogue agents in Democratic governments because they're tolerant to outside ideas. In Communist governments they shut down all dissent, and it's much harder to overthrow those systems.

Those who don't study their history are doomed to repeat it, and we're getting put through the ringer right now.

Deindustrialization and Suburbanization. Vast numbers of immigrants, both internal (African-Americans from the south) and external (Latin Americans, Eastern Europeans) had moved to cities across the country in search of the bountiful factory work provided both by the WW2 defense industry and the vast consumer boom of the 1950s. As Asia and Europe rebuilt from the war, technology advanced, and America suburbanized, factory jobs moved out of major cities. The factory jobs "went" three places: 1) Overseas 2) Replaced by increasing automation 3) The suburbs, where land and water were cheaper and which the new Interstates had put within reach of the newly forming class of suburban commuters. See this recent atlantic article outlining Detroit's depopulation, including the tidbit that even the "Big Three" automakers had only 27,000 jobs within the city limits in 2011, compared to 296,000 in 1950.

As the jobs evaporated, tensions rose. People had left their lives behind in pursuit of jobs which no longer existed, and now they had nothing to do to provide for themselves or their families. They also had nowhere to go. Even blue-collar, affordable suburbs were off-limits due to persistent racism both on the part of real estate developers and neighbors, who would sometimes violently convince African-Americans trying to move in that they weren't going to stand for it. This story did play out differently in every city in the country; a really good description of how it operated in Chicago can be found in Boss by Mike Royko.

People with nothing to do and nowhere to go tend to turn to crime. The race riots, crime wave, huge growth of gangs, crack epidemic--I would argue they all had the same root cause, which was the economic desolation of the inner city. Many leftist scholars act like it was some huge conspiracy, but I'd reject that completely. It was just people and companies doing what they thought was best for themselves, and leaving others out in the cold... which is what people, generally, do (though, I guess to be fair to leftists, their basic assertion is that people only "generally" do this under a capitalist system, which they regard as a huge conspiracy unto itself).

I think social and economic factors do a much better job explaining why working class neighborhoods became ghettos than acting as though arresting more prospectless people would have suddenly made them upstanding citizens. The police are hardly "handcuffed" today--vast numbers of inner city youths have their prospects destroyed by a trip through the justice system for nonviolent drug offenses--yet (while we haven't had major race riots in about a decade) inner city crime and violence remains at shockingly high levels.

I'm reading a book on Hitler and Himmler right now. They were fucking nuts way beyond what I ever thought they were. The weird thing is how kind they often were, and how compassionate. Their world-view was simply fucked. Himmler thought he was doing a great service by selecting the most "humane" modes for death possible, even down to designing the atmosphere of hope on their arrival (most thought they were being relocated to new towns). There are even accounts of Himmler saving people from firing squads or trying to in one case by nearly begging a blond kid to say he wasn't Jewish.

It's all so fucked up it borders on incomprehensible. They weren't actively trying to do evil things, just that their framework of reality was so twisted that what they were doing fit in positively.

Anti-semitism was rampant world-wide; they just took it to the extreme because they thought they were saving the world. American didn't take in any Jewish refugees because they didn't like Jews either. Ford was pretty representative: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/interview/henryford-antisemitism/

Edit: For those requesting which book I'm reading, it's this one: http://www.amazon.ca/Adolf-Hitler-Definitive-John-Toland/dp/0385420536/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1413555276&sr=1-2

Audible also has it.

Lincoln was in fact quite the racist himself. And a god-awful President.

“I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in anyway the social and political equality of the white and black races – that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race. I say upon this occasion I do not perceive that because the white man is to have the superior position the negro should be denied everything.”

http://www.amazon.com/The-Real-Lincoln-Abraham-Unnecessary/dp/0761536418

The blame for this falls primarily on Phyllis Schlafly and the conservative funding behind her and her allies.

It was one of the first successful attempts by the budding coalition between the religious right and fiscal conservatives to affect substantive change (or lack thereof) at the federal level.

For a really deep dive, check out Rick Perlstein's Before the Storm: Barry Goldwater and the Unmaking of the American Consensus

This "win" went on to influence a variety of other "social movements", including the infamous PMRC in the late 1980s, and the development/refinement of some rather sophisticated rhetorical/persuasive techniques ... particularly astroturfing.

Nazi Germany and the Holocaust.

Edit = I've listed some of the best books I've read on the subject below. Just ask if you want to know anything about them:

[The Coming of the Third Reich by Richard J. Evans] (http://www.amazon.com/Coming-Third-Reich-Richard-Evans/dp/0143034693/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1457904650&sr=8-3&keywords=third+reich+at+war)

[The Third Reich in Power by Richard J. Evans] (http://www.amazon.com/Third-Reich-Power-Richard-Evans/dp/0143037900/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1457904650&sr=8-2&keywords=third+reich+at+war)

[The Third Reich at War by Richard J. Evans] (http://www.amazon.com/Third-Reich-at-War/dp/0143116711/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1457904650&sr=8-1&keywords=third+reich+at+war)

[Maus by Art Speigelman] (http://www.amazon.com/Complete-Maus-25th-Anniversary/dp/0679406417/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1457904780&sr=8-2&keywords=maus)

[Hitler and the Power of Aesthetics by Frederich Spotts] (http://www.amazon.com/Hitler-Power-Aesthetics-Frederic-Spotts/dp/1585673455/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1457904821&sr=8-1&keywords=hitler+power+of+aesthetics)

[Art of the Third Reich by Peter Adam] (http://www.amazon.com/Art-Third-Reich-Peter-Adam/dp/0810919125/ref=pd_sim_14_2?ie=UTF8&dpID=21WGRYFWN5L&dpSrc=sims&preST=_AC_UL160_SR115%2C160_&refRID=1VRZ6QYR6PG5XXXMYTPN)

[Hitler's Empire: How the Nazis Ruled Europe by Mark Mazower] (http://www.amazon.com/Hitlers-Empire-Nazis-Ruled-Europe/dp/014311610X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1457904865&sr=8-1&keywords=hitler%27s+empire)

[State of Deception: The Power of Nazi Propaganda by Susan Bachrach and Steven Luckert] (http://www.amazon.com/State-Deception-Power-Nazi-Propaganda/dp/0896047148/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1457904916&sr=8-1&keywords=state+of+deception+nazi)

[Hitler: 1889-1936 Hubris by Ian Kershaw] (http://www.amazon.com/Hitler-1889-1936-Hubris-Ian-Kershaw/dp/0393320359/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1457904967&sr=8-2&keywords=hitler+kershaw)

[Hitler: 1936-1945 Nemesis by Ian Kershaw] (http://www.amazon.com/Hitler-1936-1945-Nemesis-Ian-Kershaw/dp/0393322521/ref=pd_bxgy_14_img_2?ie=UTF8&refRID=01WJ9WDS06KZ1AX79B3M)

[The Nazi Doctors: Medical Killing and the Psychology of Genocide by Robert Jay Lifton] (http://www.amazon.com/Nazi-Doctors-Medical-Psychology-Genocide/dp/0465049052/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1457905061&sr=1-1&keywords=the+nazi+doctors)

[The Destruction of the European Jews by Raul Hilberg] (http://www.amazon.com/Raul-Hilberg-Destruction-European-third/dp/B008UYLG6K/ref=sr_1_4?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1457905115&sr=1-4&keywords=destruction+of+the+european+jews)

[Heinrich Himmler by Peter Longerich] (http://www.amazon.com/Heinrich-Himmler-Peter-Longerich/dp/0199651744/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1457905176&sr=1-1&keywords=heinrich+himmler)

[Hitler's Hangman - The Life of Heydrich by Robert Gerwartch] (http://www.amazon.com/Hitlers-Hangman-The-Life-Heydrich/dp/0300187726/ref=pd_sim_14_1?ie=UTF8&dpID=51FT1ecdFQL&dpSrc=sims&preST=_AC_UL160_SR104%2C160_&refRID=084WSKT05G4GB1FGE1SY)

[Nazi Germany and the Jews: Volume 1: The Years of Persecution 1933-1939 by Saul Friedlander] (http://www.amazon.com/Nazi-Germany-Jews-Persecution-1933-1939/dp/0060928786/ref=sr_1_3?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1457905269&sr=1-3&keywords=nazi+germany+and+the+jews+saul)

[Nazi Germany and the Jews, 1939-1945: The Years of Extermination by Saul Friedlander] (http://www.amazon.com/Nazi-Germany-Jews-1939-1945-Extermination/dp/0060930489/ref=pd_bxgy_14_img_2?ie=UTF8&refRID=0DQYMK2GMYNVJK794F03)

[Ordinary Men: Reserve Police Battalion 101 and the Final Solution in Poland by Christopher R. Browning] (http://www.amazon.com/Ordinary-Men-Reserve-Battalion-Solution/dp/0060995068)

[KL: A History of the Nazi Concentration Camps by Nikolaus Wachsmann] (http://www.amazon.com/KL-History-Nazi-Concentration-Camps/dp/0374118256/ref=pd_sim_14_6?ie=UTF8&dpID=41yRIhssGkL&dpSrc=sims&preST=_AC_UL160_SR106%2C160_&refRID=0BSM1HJ13NDQ46VKENQK)

This demonstrates the power of pure truth and honesty. The only works I've ever read that demonstrate this kind of self-knowledge are Ghandi's autobiography and The Awakening of Intelligence.

Thanks for the video.

If you like that, you should read the book

there's a lot of good material out there, but it'll kind of be up to you to put it together.

if i can recommend a piece of fiction, that can help get you into that headspace, i'd probably go with The Spy Who Came in from the Cold.

the author was a former MI5 and MI6 employee. he was still with MI6 when he wrote The Spy Who Came in from the Cold. but once he found success with it, he left to pursue writing full time.

Timeline has some good videos on the subject as well.

if you get a chance to check it out, Ted Gup wrote a pretty awesome book many years ago called The Book of Honor. it tells the story of the CIA's Memorial Wall. while the book doesn't directly deal with a whole lot of KGB methods, it does give valuable insight into what was going on with Americans during that period.

there's a huge number of things out there that will discuss different KGB tactics, of which some were learned from the Germans. but most of it will be scattered through different books and documentaries.

once you get a feel for some of the stuff that was going on, it'll be easier to read about different operations and have a good idea of what was happening.

>That's because the Germans had little else to blame on the Red Army and they did their best to exaggerate or simply make up events that would 'strengthen' German resolve.

That statement is baseless and factually incorrect and should never have been made.

The cases of rape in Berlin when the Russians took the city are countless ... I mean literally countless - it's been estimated from the hundreds of thousands to the millions. Nearly every woman from age 8 to 80 was raped in just that city alone - this is historical FACT.

The only reason there has ever been conjecture about the numbers of rape victims is due to the "German woman's shame" following the occupation.

The book A Woman in Berlin which is written anonymously (although I believe they know who the author is now) is an excellent text depicting the horror of occupation under Russian rule. When it was released Berlin women were up in arms and tried to say the author was lying (partly because of the shame the women felt and partly because of Soviet pressure and propaganda). The author refused to allow it to be published again until after her death in 2006.

While German propaganda at the time was FILLED with lies and absolutely played up the brutal Russian brutality the rapes were very, VERY real and happened on a scale that is literally not able to be estimated. Even during the Cold War the Soviets admitted to some degree that the rapes occurred but stated it was nothing compared to what the Germans had done, which is partly true.

Honestly, I don't know if he'll speak up much. Presidents usually don't speak out. It's kind of respect for the shield of the office. Has George W Bush said anything critical of Obama? Cheney certainly has.

One of the more fascinating reads I've done recently is how the Presidents serve as unofficial advisers to the current one.

In his memoir, Maj. Dick Winters talked about men being blown into the air by German 88s during the assault on Noville. He thought back to this whenever he saw people being sent flying by explosions in action movies.

> "My name is Adolf, but my friends call me Dolfi."

I liked that reference.

I'm a history student in uni right now, and Hitler is a favorite subject of mine.

I'm not sure about his friends calling him Dolfi, but I do know for a fact that the children of the inner Nazi party members referred to him as "Uncle Dolf." He was extremely popular with children.

Once, one of the early party member's children was so excited to see Uncle Dolf, that he ran with full speed to the door, but hit a chair on the way. The child was in tears from his collision, and Hitler, to cheer up the child, removed his belt, and pretended to spank the chair for hurting him.

The child was so delighted, than on more than one occasion, he requested that Hitler repeat the mock-spanking.

Source: https://www.amazon.com/Adolf-Hitler-Definitive-John-Toland/dp/0385420536

Vince Bugliosi (who is nothing if not thorough) came to the same conclusion in his book Reclaiming History although if you look at the reviews on Amazon you'll see his book was pretty controversial.

Also no mention of studies and credible books of how FDR's policies prolonged Depression by 7 years or more.

Thomas Sowell

The similarities only seem to outweigh the differences to a westerner who is not used to brutal forms of government. Stalin's USSR and Hitler's Germany were both ruled by despotic, totalitarian leaders, but that does not mean they were the same. Their methods of control were different, and those differences reflected the societies in which they ruled.

Stalin took control of a vast multiethnic empire mostly populated by uneducated peasants. His methods borrowed heavily from the the Tsarist government that he replaced. He created a personality cult that was a secular facsimile of the religious devotion that Tsars of centuries past had inspired. His totalitarian state and security apparatus pervaded into the daily lives of every citizen. Everyone was a potential traitor. And significantly, the danger was greater the more important you were. Communist party and military officials were at greater risk of being purged than the average peasant, because competent people represented a threat. The communist revolution was all about overthrowing the old power structure. Anyone who held any power before the revolution, any factory owner, military leader, etc was highly suspect and could be be killed or sent to the gulag on the slightest suspicion. In short, Stalin sought to overthrow and replace the existing power structure, and anyone who was part of the old guard was not safe.

In contrast, Hitler's Germany was a fundamentally conservative revolution that preserved old power structures. Germany was highly educated and industrialized before the Nazis came to power, and Hitler intended to use this to his advantage. He worked to court industrialists and military leaders rather than overthrow them, except when he couldn't avoid doing so. When the war went south, so did his relationship with the generals, but they were merely fired rather than shot. He ruled primarily by love rather than fear, promising the average German economic advancement as long as they supported him. So long as he was a good little citizen who didn't publicly dissent, the average German did not fear the Nazis in the same way that the average Russian feared Stalin. In short, Hitler was a pretty good leader as long as you were a German Aryan who held the right political persuasions. Towards the end of the war the power relationship between the Nazis and the average German devolved into a more fear based system as the old incentives broke down.

So where are they similar? Both Hitler and Stalin were brutal leaders, who had no respect for liberal traditions or the rule of law, and who wanted to empower their nations by any means necessary. The difference is that they ruled very different countries with different cultures and histories, and their tactics were therefore very different.

Sources:

Stalin: The Court of the Red Tsar

The third Reich at war

A good start is to read Boss.

Mudd had helped facilitate a kidnapping plot of President Lincoln but was not aware of the murder plot. Mudd and Booth knew each other as a result of the kidnapping plot but when Booth arrived at his farmhouse, it was a surprise to Dr. Mudd. He wasn't happy about Booth arriving because it put him and his family in danger. But he treated his injury and let him stay for a day or so then helped him figure out the next place to go as Booth ran from the law. He promised Booth that he would not reveal anything to soldiers if they stopped by to question him. Everyone in town knew of his kinship with Booth so he knew he would be questioned eventually so he wasn't sure what to do. After giving them a headstart of a day or so, he alerted authorities with some misinformation (basically just saying he treated two strangers at his farm) that he felt would free him of implication perhaps but not harm the getaway of Booth.

To sum it up, he was someone who hated Lincoln and was part of a plot to kidnap him but he was not in support of the murder of Lincoln. However, he did help Booth after the assassination knowing what had happened and he tried to give Booth the best shot he could to get away.

A good book on this subject is Manhunt by James L. Swanson, which is where I got my information from.

(As a fun side note: I'm actually a decedent of Dr. Mudd so I've always found this story fascinating)

Well, what did the Nazis themselves think?

> "Hitler's concept of concentration camps as well as the practicality of genocide owed much, so he claimed, to his studies of English and United States history. He admired the camps for Boer prisoners in South Africa and for the Indians in the wild west; and often praised to his inner circle the efficiency of America's extermination - by starvation and uneven combat - of the red savages who could not be tamed by captivity."
>
> -- Toland, Adolph Hitler

Sounds logical to me. If one of my jobs was to remove pesky ethnic populations (a surprisingly common problem faced by those in power), I'd crack open a couple history books and see what worked for other people. (Actually, I'd hire a motivated lieutenant to do it, but whatever.)

There's of course huge modern-day forms of racial control in the US to consider. For example, it's no accident that the US jails its citizens at by far the world's highest rate.

Grayson is so ignorant of European history and knows so little of how Hitler rose to power that he doesn't understand how this exact kind of "beat the fascists wherever you encounter them" rhetoric, and the resultant breakdown of civil discourse and democratic compromise, was instrumental to Nazi success.

Read a fucking book, Nate. Specifically this book. Yes, I know it has a picture of Hitler on the cover, but try to power through your mental breakdown and read it anyway.

Voter Fraud Literally Less Likely Than Being Hit By Lightning

31 credible allegations of voter fraud out of 1 billion votes cast.

But you knew this already, didn't you. ;)

Anyway, I applaud your team's diligence in suppressing the vote. Halfway through Before the Storm: Barry Goldwater and the Unmaking of the American Consensus right now. Say this about the modern right-wing: they were, and are, indefatigable, ingenious guerrilla warriors.

HE GOT US OUT OF THE DEPRESSION!?!?!

Uh, no he didn't. He made things so much worse.

Here's a good read FDR's Folly: How Roosevelt and His New Deal Prolonged the Great Depression

I've seen nothing but open disdain and criticism of Saudi Arabia for many years, especially during GW Bush's presidency due to the very deep links between the House of Saud and the Bush family.

Incidentally there's some pretty interesting reading on that topic for anyone curious: Family of Secrets from 2009,
and House of Bush, House of Saud from 2004.


Conversely, things wound up pretty chilly on the Obama/House of Saud front.

If you ever read Manhunt the story of his assassination deserves its own movie. Apparently Booth was so melodramatic about the whole thing he purposely chose a shitty gun to shoot Abe with in hopes that it'd jam and he'd be reduced to a knife fight. Not to mention the whole jumping-on-the-stage thing, escaping on horseback, and the showdown in the barn. I'd watch the shit out of that movie.

I recommend Gandhi's Autobiography "My experiments with Truth". He was the first to accept that he has many shortcomings and he works hard to overcome them". This review does shed some light on some of the negative aspects of Gandhi, but it's more of a hit piece than objective journalism.

Relevant:
Only those matters of religion that can be comprehended as much by children as by older people, will be included in this story. If I can narrate them in a dispassionate and humble spirit, many other experimenters will find in them provision for their onward march. Far be it from me to claim any degree of perfection for these experiments. I claim for them nothing more than does a scientist who, though he conducts his experiments with the utmost accuracy, forethought and minuteness, never claims any finality about his conclusions, but keeps an open mind regarding them. I have gone through deep self-introspection, searched myself through and through, and examined and analysed every psychological situation. Yet I am far from claiming any finality or infallibility about my conclusions. One claim I do indeed make and it is this. For me they appear to be absolutely correct, and seem for the time being to be final. For if they were not, I should base no action on them. But at every step I have carried out the process of acceptance or rejection and acted accordingly. And so long as my acts satisfy my reason and my heart, I must firmly adhere to my original conclusions.

Excerpt from his excellent book, Gandhi An Autobiography: The Story of My Experiments With Truth

Full disclosure: The above link to the amazon book contains my referral code. If you want, you can visit the direct link here.

Webster’s is parachute infantry and winters is beyond band of brothers

Both are honestly good reads. Also I would HIGHLY recommend any book on Pyle. I’ve read Brave Men which is a collection up to his death in the pacific and it’s fantastic. He was the Hemingway of WWII writers.

Concerning the War Between the States, not the "civil war," many libertarians subscribe to what some might "revisionist" history. Thomas DiLorenzo's The Real Lincoln would shed some light on this topic for you, a used copy is a couple bucks.

Anyways, some main points libertarians would point out are:

• Lincoln instigated the war by sending ships to a fort in SC. SC said it would attack any federal ships entering its harbor, Lincoln purposely send ships full of relief and aid to piss off the North and create propaganda for the war.
  
  
• Slavery was ended in every country without violence, the US is the only country to claims to have fought a war over the issue. Over half a million lives were lost in this war.
  
  
• Countless lives could have been saved had the North let the South leave the union. Not all the southern states would have left, many southern states joined SC after the initial skirmish. Slavery would have ended in the 19th century without violence because of technological innovations that were more productive than slave labor. Later on, SC and other states could have always applied to rejoin the Union.
  
  Anyways, just a short explanation. More articles by DiLorenzo and others can be found here. Lorenzo has some great videos on youtube as well.

Speaking of Dawkins, The Ancestor's Tale is also really good.

On a totally different subject, Simon Sebag Montefiore wrote a two-volume biography of Joseph Stalin (Young Stalin, which follows him through the end of the 1918 revolution, and Joseph Stalin: The Court of the Red Tzar, which goes from 1918 to death and legacy). Ian Kershaw's magisterial biography of Adolph Hitler is also excellent. I recommend the abridged version, which is "only" 900 pages long (the unabridged version is closer to 1500 pages, IIRC).

Also, anything by Brian Greene. Theoretical physics for the lay-person.

>By the 1960's these tropes have died down but have not gone away.

This article explains why that's not entirely true.

The societal linkage isn't quite made in the 1960s but just as second wave feminism, syphillis antibiotics, and easier means of birth control made it easier for women to be sexual, sociology based on faulty science was being utilized to continue the trope of chaste women and men that needed to fuck errythang.

>It releases men from the obligation of being nothing more than horndogs.

I think you need to be careful with what you mean here. Second wave feminism enacted social changes that prevented shit like the earlier seasons where Playboy clubs and Burlesque shows were respectable places for businessmen to conduct business at. Moral majority became equally as important. Visiting businessmen from the Mid West no longer felt comfortable in these places or if they did, their wives wouldn't.

Businessmen stepping out on their wives never went away. Escorts, massage parlors with 'extras' services, and high class call girls still exist. Businessmen still go to them, and airport hotels are a common place to find prostitutes.

Remember also that divorce rates sky-rocket during this time. Helen Bishop is meant to be an oddity in 1960, but by 1968 3 (and now possibly 4) of the agencies central figures have gone through divorces. Men are continuing to be promiscuous, just now women like Trudy don't put up with it because they have their own sources of income.

We no longer confine prostitution to safe zones in part because of the legal crackdown of vice organizations lead to a decentralization of the practice. This was not the result of second wave feminism but rather the fear of the moral majority who saw all vice as responsible for the crime tearing apart America's cities.

Mad Men has done fans a disservice IMO, especially considering Henry Francis and Bert Cooper's politics not to talk about the shift in American politics. This book goes into great deal about this. Peggy's second wave feminism and liberalism is important, but it's equally the shifts of the Republican Party that have defined our country since the mid 1960s and have prevented the actualization of the goals of Second Wave Feminism (ERA, glass ceiling, etc.).

Two GREAT and fun books to read that tell about the Western Hobo and his (her) origins of riding the box cars and eating Mulligan stew in the jungle: You Can't Win, the beat writers provenance, and The Autobiography of a Super-Tramp (with the preface by Shaw, "Let every youth into whose hands this book falls ponder its lesson well, and, when next his parents and guardians attempt to drive him into some inhuman imprisonment and drudgery under the pretext that he should earn his own living, think of the hospitable countrysides of America, with their farm-houses over-flowing with milk and honey for the tramp, and their offers of adoption for every day laborer with a dash of poetry in him.". Suck on that Keats.), and yes, it is.

It's called the book of honor. My bad.

http://www.amazon.com/The-Book-Honor-Secret-Operatives/dp/0385495412

You're right.

Toland wrote in his book, Adolf Hitler: The Definitive Biography.

>“He admired the camps for Boer prisoners in South Africa and for the Indians in the wild west; and often praised to his inner circle the efficiency of America’s extermination—by starvation and uneven combat—of the red savages who could not be tamed by captivity.”

https://www.amazon.com/Adolf-Hitler-The-Definitive-Biography/dp/0385420536

>“America in the early 20th century was the leading racist jurisdiction in the world,” says Whitman, who is a professor at Yale Law School. “Nazi lawyers, as a result, were interested in, looked very closely at, [and] were ultimately influenced by American race law.”
>Because of this, Nazis were more interested in how the U.S. had designated Native Americans, Filipinos and other groups as non-citizens even though they lived in the U.S. or its territories. These models influenced the citizenship portion of the Nuremberg Laws, which stripped Jewish Germans of their citizenship and classified them as “nationals.”

http://www.history.com/news/how-the-nazis-were-inspired-by-jim-crow

>The record of that meeting is only one piece of evidence in an unexamined history that is sure to make Americans cringe. Throughout the early 1930s, the years of the making of the Nuremberg Laws, Nazi policymakers looked to US law for inspiration. Hitler himself, in Mein Kampf (1925), described the US as ‘the one state’ that had made progress toward the creation of a healthy ... society, and after the Nazis seized power in 1933 they continued to cite and ponder US models regularly.

http://www.businessinsider.com/why-the-nazis-studied-american-race-laws-for-inspiration-2017-2

You should read The Boss about how the Daley's ran the city. Excellent read

https://www.amazon.com/Boss-Richard-J-Daley-Chicago/dp/0452261678

​

What I've found the more I've read about Illinois machine history is that, going back to the beginning years of the machine, the thing they fear most is a republican AG who isn't afraid to start digging into the party patronage system. So if you want to crack the Machine's power over Illinois politics then an aggressive Republican AG is the best way to go.

Lazar Kaganovich was directly under Stalin, and he oversaw the murder of 14.5 million (that is a conservative estimate) Christians. He is the greatest mass murderer in history.

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

The farmers of the Ukraine and Russia were ordered by Stalin to turn over ALL their grain and food. The Soviet government promised the farmers that they would be provided with enough food to get them through the winter. They were lied to and many farmers and their families starved to death. The next year, the farmers hid some of their grain and food to keep from starving to death. Stalin had ordered that any farmer caught hiding grain or food would be put to death; not only his family, but the farmer's entire village. The end result was millions upon millions of innocent victims, including women and children, slaughtered. The tribe would strip these people down in the dead of winter, and while they were alive, the murderers would slice open their bellies and then wrap their intestines around fence posts and other poles.

The reason that the Nazis are "worse" is because that is what has been spoon-fed to all of us. We have been brainwashed. I'm not saying the Nazis weren't evil, but if you do some research, you will see that Stalin and his henchmen were by far the most evil men that ever lived.

A good read is: "Stalin: The Court of the Red Tsar" by Simon Sebag Montefiore

http://www.amazon.com/Stalin-The-Court-Red-Tsar/dp/1400076781

https://www.amazon.com/Devils-Chessboard-Dulles-Americas-Government/dp/0062276174

https://www.amazon.com/JFK-Unspeakable-Why-Died-Matters/dp/1439193886/ref=asap_bc?ie=UTF8

https://www.amazon.com/Family-Secrets-Americas-Invisible-Government/dp/1608190064

https://www.amazon.com/Confessions-Economic-Hit-John-Perkins/dp/0452287081

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


Those are the books that you should read.

Here are also some good resources:

Paul Craig Roberts worked in the Reagan administration: http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/

This is a good multi-part article excerpted from one of the books above: http://whowhatwhy.org/2013/09/16/part-1-mr-george-bush-of-the-central-intelligence-agency/

Michael Glennon’s abstract about his book: http://harvardnsj.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/Glennon-Final.pdf

A PDF of the “Confessions of an Economic Hitman” book if you don’t want to buy it: http://resistir.info/livros/john_perkins_confessions_of_an_economic_hit_man.pdf

This is when the reporter asked Bill Clinton about Mena: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iDMktUYvC7k

Article on the coup attempt in France: http://whowhatwhy.org/2015/10/20/jfk-assassination-plot-mirrored-in-1961-france-part-1/

All of whowhatwhy.org is very good. There is probably a lot of good information there most haven’t heard of. The main guy, Russ Baker, is a Pulitzer prize winning journalist.

Bet you didn’t know that Bob Woodward was a state intelligence asset/disinformationist? https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/710466456941686784

All part of the record…. Enjoy.

Lee Harvey Oswald. There is actually plenty of clear evidence that Oswald was the one responsible, and almost no credible evidence that anyone other than Oswald was responsible or involved. And while there might be a lack of public consensus as to JFK's death, there is an almost completely universal consensus on this point among actual academic historians. If you're interested in separating the pop-culture conspiracy bullshit from actual historical evidence, there are two books I can recommend that will leave you with pretty much zero doubt as to what the evidence suggests: Gerald Posner's Case Closed, and Vincent Bulgosi's Reclaiming History.

Anything by Noam Chomsky, Chris Hedges, Naomi Prins or Stephen Kinzer will point you in the right direction.

https://www.amazon.com/Chris-Hedges/e/B001IR1G16%3Fref=dbs_a_mng_rwt_scns_share

https://www.amazon.com/All-Presidents-Bankers-Alliances-American/dp/1568584792

https://www.amazon.com/Brothers-Foster-Dulles-Allen-Secret/dp/0805094970

There were indeed doubts about Reagan's electability in 1980. I don't feel that I can comment in detail about how widespread they were, but they pop up in news media from the time and in history books.

For example here is an NBC piece on the question of if Reagan can win: https://static.nbclearn.com/files/higheredsa/site/pdf/3252.pdf

Here is an AP piece quoting Former President Ford saying that Reagan couldn't win: https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1696&dat=19800303&id=xHQ1AAAAIBAJ&sjid=_kYEAAAAIBAJ&pg=6656,269794&hl=en

The concerns about Reagan's electability were centered in the question of if Reagan was too conservative for the country. To understand why that would be a concern, we need to take a step back and look at the world of 1980.

From 1948 to 1980 there had been six elected presidents (Ford was never elected and only served out Nixon's second term). Four of the six were Democrats (Truman, Kennedy, Johnson, Carter) and two were Republicans (Eisenhower and Nixon). All of them governed in what one might call the New Deal consensus.

That is to say they all supported efforts to build up the nation at home through federal government policies. Even Nixon, who often dreamed of undoing much of the progress of LBJ's Great Society, was basically content to operate within the New Deal consensus framework.

Ronald Reagan, who famously said things like ["The nine most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the government and I'm here to help,"] (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xhYJS80MgYA)
was a clean break from that tradition. Instead Reagan looked a lot like Barry Goldwater, whose 1964 nomination led to the worst defeat the Republican Party suffered in the post-World War 2 era. This was enough to concern some and hearten others that Reagan would similarly be defeated.

To be specific beyond just questions about the size and role of government, Reagan was saying things that had historically been associated with extremist groups. For example his support of 'states rights' was an echo of segregationists opposition to federal action on civil rights issues.

Sources:

http://www.amazon.com/White-Protestant-Nation-American-Conservative/dp/0802144209
http://www.amazon.com/Before-Storm-Goldwater-Unmaking-Consensus/dp/1568584121
http://www.amazon.com/Presidential-Campaigns-George-Washington-Bush/dp/0195167163
http://www.amazon.com/One-Man-Against-World-Tragedy/dp/1627790837

theres a dope book about it called Manhunt: The 12-Day Chase for Lincoln's Killer (http://www.amazon.com/Manhunt-12-Day-Chase-Lincolns-Killer/dp/0060518502) if you're interested its a great read.

It would be great to hear from him today, but he did write a fantastic autobiography that answers most of your questions already:

https://www.amazon.com/Carrying-Fire-Astronauts-Michael-Collins/dp/0374531943/

I agree, i have read the book cover to cover at least 5 times, it has so much value.

Davids book is here


I can also suggest these:

Cpl. Forrest Guth: 'E' Company, 506th PIR, 101st Airborne Division

Biggest Brother : The Life of Major Dick Winters, The Man Who Led the Band of Brothers

Currahee!: A Screaming Eagle at Normandy

Brothers In Battle, Best of Friends (By William "Wild Bill" Guarnere and Edward "Babe" Heffron)

Beyond Band of Brothers: The War Memoirs of Major Dick Winters


and anything else by Steven E Ambrose is fantastic , especially citizen soliders and wild blue.

I highly recommend anyone to read The Court of the Red Czar for the full banal horror of the Great Purges. Stalin honour roll with his closest friends & family

• His best friend (Sergei Kirov) was murdered. Not really known who ordered the killing but it all the signs point to Stalin.
  
  
• Beria personally poisoned a rival and minister of Stalin called Nestor Lakoba, he later personally beat his son to death and drove Lakobas wife mad by putting a snake in her cell.
  
  
• Shot three of his brother in laws (Stanislav Redens ,Pavel Alliluyeva, Alexander Svanidze plus his wife Maria)
  
  
• Had his father in law shot.
  
  
• Wife killed herself (Nadezhda Alliluyeva)
  
  
• Son tried to kill himself, Stalin mocked him for missing target
  
  
• Exiled his mistress to a work camp
  
  
• His sons wife was put into a camp (Julia Meltzer).
  
  
• shot his barber + body guard (Karl Pauker)
  
  
• Several geniuses in their fields (Tukhachevsky, Kamenev, Isaac Babel, Nikolai Bukharin)
  
  
• The great writer Gorky was suspected of being poisoned by Yagoda on Stalins orders.
  
  
• Trotsky assassinated with an ice pick.
  
  
• Two of his secret policemen shot (Yagoda+ Yezhov)
  
  He pinned the purge on the excesses of Yezhov. The Purge is known as the yezhovshchina in Russian. The Russian people believed it because what kind of psycho would murder half his family? They assumed the NKVD had him under their thumb.The truth was very different.
  
  
• Harassed several friends and associates into suicide
  (Sergo Ordzhonikidze, and the brother of Anastas Mikoyan killed himself)
  He ordered the death the wife one of his aide-de-camps the love of his life( Bronka Poskrebysheva). He was a loyal servant to Stalin for years afterwards and regularly held meetings with Beria, the man who personally killed her. Its kinda unimaginable today.
  
  He had the wife of a minister by Beria abducted straight up murdered. When he inquired after his wife's whereabouts he told him to remarry.
  
  Rokossovsky one of the greatest generals of WWII had all his teeth knocked out and finger nails pulled. A Polish man of incredible bravery. He was brought out for mock executions 2 times and they tried to coerce him into ratting out his friends refused on ever count. Refused and worked with his torturers to save the country from German invasion.
  
  These are just people in Stalins inner circle. You can imagine what normal people endured. Stalin was depraved but he was udoubtedly a great man like Alexander the Great, Genghis Khan or Napoleon.
  One Russian general was beaten so badly the his eye ball popped out of his head and he died under torture. The NKVD published it as a "heart attack" Vasily Blyukher was his name. Tukhachesky was beaten so badly there was blood spray on his confession documents.
  He shot numerous people of great valour after WWII like the leaders in Leningrad Zhdanov or [Kuznetsov] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexey_Kuznetsov) who was known for his great decency and kidness, and was pipped as a future leader. Khrushchev only survived because of his smallness and the favour of Stalins wife Nadya (who killed herself). Khrushchev called her his lotto ticket. Stalin also liked him because he was a rustic proletarian. Khrushchev hid his great intelligence and political guile by appearing to be a boorish peasant and getting drunk. He also survived by denouncing enemies during the Purge.
  
  Stalin did much to save Russia and industrialize it but he killed a lot of people of great talent and initiative. USSR would probably be around today if he hadn't put a Stalinist kosh on initiative and drive. Through its history their was a mindless appeal to bureaucracy that left it less able to compete with capitalist societies.

Think again. Michael Collins was not the only astronaut to be out of contact with Earth. There were six successful Apollo missions: 11, 12 and 14-17. Each Apollo mission had a Command Module pilot who was in the position of being isolated from human contact while on the far side of the Moon, not just Collins. Wikipedia lists the Apollo crews here including the Command Module pilots, four of whom, including Collins, are still alive.

This site has a quote from Collins on loneliness, and another on his concerns that he may have had to leave his fellow crewmen behind if their Lunar Module failed to lift off.

A good start would be Michael Collins autobiography Carrying the Fire

Check out the Dulles Brothers.

They essentially founded the CIA and State Department. They worked on behalf of a lobbying firm (law firm), Sullivan & Cromwell, whose clients were among the largest corporations of the world at the time, and also included Nazi Germany.

• Online article: The Dulles Brothers: How to wreak havoc in Guatemala and Iran
  
  
  
• Book (on amazon) The Brothers: John Foster Dulles, Allen Dulles, and Their Secret World War
  
  
• Book Review on WashintonPost.com Book review: ‘The Brothers,’ on John Foster Dulles and Allen Dulles, by Stephen Kinzer

Complete side note, if you're into this kind of stuff, you ought to read The President's Club. It goes into a lot of detail about the relationships each president had with the others. Really interesting read.

This comment is dead on. Anyone who is interested in this topic should check out this book or just read up on Barry Goldwater.

The GOP is a very insidious and power-hungry party by design. Really the only thing that has changed is that now they're incredibly inept and blatant, and also working with Russia. But they've been doing this shit for a long time. Even before Roger Ailes and Richard Nixon.

They realized that conservatives were losing the ability to win honestly and by appealing to what people wanted. So they switched to shady tactics and bringing people together based on common enemies, which has proven very effective for decades.

But what's the structural change that takes in the 1980s that changes the dynamics? The Krugman/liberal story is about post-segregation realignment of the political system, leading to the (abortive) Goldwater and (successful) Reagan transformations of the Republican party (See Perlstein)

I'm not necessarily sold on it, but I'm not aware of the counter-narrative.

Fighter Pilot

For American History I recommend The Oxford History of The United States, which includes Middlekauff's The Glorious Cause, Wood's Empire of Liberty and about ten others. I would also recommend select biographies of the founding fathers:

• The First American by H.W. Brands
  
• Thomas Jefferson: An Intimate History by Fawn M. Brodie
  
• John Adams by David McCullough
  
• 1776 by David McCullough
  
• His Excellency: George Washington by Joseph J. Ellis
  
• American Sphinx: The Character of Thomas Jefferson by Joseph J. Ellis
  
• Lafayette by Harlow G. Unger
  
• Lion of Liberty: Patrick Henry and the Call to a New Nation by Harlow G. Unger
  
• Founding Brothers: The Revolutionary Generation by Joseph J. Ellis
  
  For Science History refer to my WIP History of Science Reading List

Margarite Oswald was such an obvious bad mother and more than likely the direct cause of Lee Harvey Oswald's erratic behaviour. If you read the book Reclaiming History, you'll see how horrible she was. Also if you somehow still believe in the conspiracy afterwards, you're something else.

Since you've actually gone to the subreddit I'll take your word for what you have read, I was looking at articles written about the alt-right and basing my assessment on that.

However, really quickly on your assertions

>That's most definitely not nazism.

>That one actually isn't either.

regarding the Nazi economic system I'm just wondering where you might have learned such inaccuracies? Is there a particular source you are drawing you knowledge from?

Were you referencing the The 25-point Program of the NSDAP which states:

• We demand the nationalization of all (previous) associated industries (trusts).
  
• We demand a division of profits of all heavy industries.
  
• We demand an expansion on a large scale of old age welfare.
  
• We demand the creation of a healthy middle class and its conservation, immediate communalization of the great warehouses and their being leased at low cost to small firms, the utmost consideration of all small firms in contracts with the State, county or municipality.
  
• We demand a land reform suitable to our needs, provision of a law for the free expropriation of land for the purposes of public utility, abolition of taxes on land and prevention of all speculation in land.
  
• In order to carry out this program we demand: the creation of a strong central authority in the State, the unconditional authority by the political central parliament of the whole State and all its organizations.
  
  You found these statements to be in line with what you imagine to be a Capitalist system?
  
  Maybe you might want to read Hitler, 1889-1936: Hubris, by Ian Kershaw to learn a little more about the centralization of agricultural policy and nationalization of German industry during rearmament.
  
  I was able to access this using my University login if you have the ability you might check out this also-The Economic Doctrine of National Socialism by Emil Lederer
  
  Or War and Economy in the Third Reich by R. J. Overy
  to learn about:
  
  
• During the 12 years of the Third Reich, government ownership expanded greatly into formerly private sectors of strategic industries: aviation, synthetic oil and rubber, aluminum, chemicals, iron and steel, and army equipment.
  
• The capital assets of state-owned industry doubled during this same period, whereby the nationalization caused state-ownership of companies to increase to over 500 businesses.
  
• Further, government finances for state-owned enterprises quadrupled from 1933 to 1943.
  
  Or Richard J. Evans's The Third Reich in Power, 1933-1939 to learn:
  
  
• Where the Nazi administration wanted additional industrial capacity, they would first nationalize and then establish a new state-owned-and-operated company. In 1937 Hermann Göring targeted companies producing iron ore, “taking control of all privately owned steelworks and setting up a new company, known as the Hermann Göring Works.”
  
  Or Hitler’s Beneficiaries: Plunder, Racial War, and the Nazi Welfare State by Götz Aly:
  
  
• The welfare of the common people (Volk) was a primary consideration in determining Nazi policy. From the start of the regime’s power, the commoners’ needs were prioritized and their lot economically improved, first through an efficient campaign to eradicate unemployment and nationalization of major industries and then, throughout the war, by incurring an irresponsible level of state debt that was balanced by political and economic violence in occupied territories
  
  
• Hitler was “an enemy of free market economics” whose regime was committed to an economic “New Order” controlled by the “Party through a bureaucratic apparatus staffed by technical experts and dominated by political interests,” similar to the economic planning of the Soviet Union.
  
  Or Günter Reimann's The Vampire Economy: Doing Business Under Fascism:
  
  
• By the late 1930s, taxation, regulations and general hostility towards the business community were becoming so onerous that one German businessman wrote: "These Nazi radicals think of nothing except ‘distributing the wealth,'” while some businessmen were “studying Marxist theories, so that they will have a better understanding of the present economic system."
  
  
• In other cases, National Socialist officials were levying harsh fines of millions of marks for a “single bookkeeping error.” The anti-business motives behind the Nationalist Socialists has been attributed to the Nazi leadership’s aim “to soak the rich and ‘neutralize big spenders,’” since they harbored “hostility towards the wealthy.”
  
  The sources are from the class I took last year "Origins Of Nazism" taught by Anne Berg at the University of Michigan, I can include more if you would like to read some more.

Would it change your mind to know Lincoln was fond of the tune? Then if I told you he was part of the colonization movement that favored the deportation of all black people, would you change your mind again?

Perhaps the song has nothing at all to do with bigotry.

Suggested reading. It provides sooooo much more info on the relationships between past and current presidents. It's a pretty interesting read.
http://www.amazon.com/The-Presidents-Club-Exclusive-Fraternity/dp/1439127727

George W. Bush went to Yale. He never got a single job without the help of his father. Not one.

Source: https://www.amazon.com/Family-Secrets-Americas-Invisible-Government/dp/1608190064/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1522258008&sr=8-1&keywords=family+of+secrets

You know, until very recently, I knew nothing about how Germany suffered during and after the war. I just figured that when the allies advanced and won, that they all just treated the losers very humanely.

There's a really good book called "A Woman in Berlin" that details the atrocities committed after Berlin was sacked by the Russian army (it's written by a woman who survived it all). It doesn't minimize what the Nazis did, but it just goes to show you that history really just isn't always cut and dry or clearly divided between good guys and bad guys.

I think this is a nuanced take, but to complicate the narrative a little further, Hitler was known to have studied the genocide of the Native Americans in the USA in particular-- as inspiration:

>“Hitler’s concept of concentration camps as well as the practicality of genocide owed much, so he claimed, to his studies of English and United States history. He admired the camps for Boer prisoners in South Africa and for the Indians in the wild west; and often praised to his inner circle the efficiency of America’s extermination—by starvation and uneven combat—of the red savages who could not be tamed by captivity. John Toland, in his book Adolf Hitler (pg. 202)

If you are interested in Lincoln without the propaganda and revisionist, I would suggest you read:

The Real Lincoln by Thomas DiLorenzo

Lincoln Unmasked: What You're Not Supposed to Know About Dishonest Abe by Thomas DiLorenzo

Mr. Lincoln Goes to War by William Marvel - a Lincoln scholar coming clean about Lincoln

I link to wikipedia because it's on the web and thus easily available. There are hundreds of books documenting the atrocities committed by communists. I would suggest you read some of them, as I have.

PSA: If you recognize the picture, read this book. If you don't, read this book.

https://www.amazon.com/Fighter-Pilot-Memoirs-Legendary-Robin/dp/0312569513

Book of Honor

Scroll and read her review at the very top (newest)

Or click here for her Amazon page

There are news articles talking about the billboard of the photo being photoshopped but no one has explained this part of the image yet, with the clipping. She was reported "missing" even though she is wanted for questioning regarding the Epstein case and her civil suit regarding her involvement with luring women to his house to be molested. Supposedly she randomly shows up at a burger joint after Epstein's death, with a bunch of weird shit going on in the photo that looks shopped.

People talk about the billboard being photoshopped but the glaring clipping going on under her arm and the inconsistency of what SHOULD be shown there has yet to be pointed out in any of the articles using this pic. Just curious about thoughts on this.

The billboard company that owns that space already said that they do not have ads showing for Good Boys there, which has lead mainstream publications to suggest it was added after the fact.. but what about her arm? If you look at her in (this photo) you can see a more "candid" show of her which shows her looking less posed, older, and no sign of anything blue that would have been behind her.

So was this photo here edited? There also doesn't appear to be a book in the linked photo at all (which is said to be The Book of Honor: The Secret Lives and Deaths of CIA Operatives.

Was there perhaps someone there that was later edited out, you think?

> Maxwell, 57, the alleged madam to the multimillionaire pedophile, was scarfing down a burger, fries and shake al fresco at an In-N-Out Burger on Monday while reading “The Book of Honor: The Secret Lives and Deaths of CIA Operatives,” a nonfiction best seller by journalist Ted Gup.

The book: https://www.amazon.com/Book-Honor-Secret-Deaths-Operatives/dp/0385495412

The Weimar Germany versions of the Koch brothers (whose father btw built a refinery for Hitler) were very unhappy with democracy. They liked the old patronage system under the Kaiser. They believed they could control Hitler and the Nazis and were all too happy to support him (if not officially) in order to get rid of democracy. Great books if you have time are Ian Kershaw's two volume biography of Hitler (Hubris and Nemesis).

My favorites:

Malarkey: http://www.amazon.com/Easy-Company-Soldier-Legendary-Sergeant/dp/031256323X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1394469882&sr=8-1&keywords=donald+malarkey

Winters: http://www.amazon.com/Beyond-Band-Brothers-Memoirs-Winters/dp/0425213757/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1394469901&sr=8-1&keywords=richard+winters

Babe and Wild Bill: http://www.amazon.com/Brothers-Battle-Friends-William-Guarnere/dp/0425224368/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1394469927&sr=1-1&keywords=babe+heffron

And Compton: http://www.amazon.com/Call-Duty-Before-During-Brothers/dp/0425227871/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1394469942&sr=1-1&keywords=buck+compton


http://www.amazon.com/Band-Brothers-Regiment-Airborne-Normandy/dp/074322454X

Milton Friedman repeatedly pointed out how FDR's actions actually prolonged the Great Depression. Here is a good book on the topic if anyone is interested.

FDR's Folly: How Roosevelt and His New Deal Prolonged the Great Depression

Good post, by the way. It reminds me of something inspirational I read on Corey Robin's blog a few weeks ago. I shared it on DKos at the time, but probably most people here didn't see it, and since it's a propos I'll repost now:

>From Rick Perlstein, Before the Storm:

>>At their 1964 convention in San Francisco, the Republican Party emerged from a corrosive faction fight between its left and right wings to do something that was supposed to be impossible: they nominated a conservative. Barry Goldwater went down to devastating defeat in November at the hands of Lyndon Johnson, and there, for most observers, the matter stood: the American right had been rendered a political footnote—perhaps for good.

>>The wise men weighed in. Reston of the Times: “He has wrecked his party for a long time to come and is not even likely to control the wreckage.” Rovere of The New Yorker: “The election has finished the Goldwater school of political reaction.” “By every test we have,” declared James MacGregor Burns, one of the nation’s most esteemed scholars of the presidency, “this is as surely a liberal epoch as the late 19th Century was a conservative one.”

>>…

>Men like this did not detect the ground shifting beneath their feet.

It took this country a hundred years to get a weekend. These things take time.

Given:

• The structure of the rules of American democracy strongly biases us towards a two party system.
  
• We don't like the two parties that we have right now
  
  There are two long-term strategies for whom to place your vote:
  
  
• Create a new party to supplant one of the two major ones, and become the "new" 2nd party. (See Republicans replacing Whigs in the runup to the Civil War)
  
  
• Take over one of the parties (as conservatives did to the Republican party. See Goldwater, Reagan) The Tea Party is doing a similar thing today.
  
  Evaluating your two options
  
  Option A, starting a new political party, is really, really difficult. The two parties have erected barriers to entry: "major" parties get state subsidies, easier times getting their candidates on the ballot, etc. Furthermore, the very dynamic we are discussing makes it very hard for a 3rd party to break through. We have only 1 example of it working in American history, and that required the extraordinary environment of the impending Civil War.
  
  Option B, taking over a party, is also hard! It also isn't very glamorous: your enemies control an organization, and you want to dislodge them. That means joining up their organization, and playing by their rules. It looks a lot like selling out.
  
  (There's also Option C: Create a third party that gains some electoral strength, and then get absorbed by one of the big parties. (See the Populist Party. )
  
  Since we're confining our discussion for where to place your vote, however, we can sidestep Option C, and other tactics like non-electoral street action. Option C, from the perspective of a voter, looks a lot like option A. Non-electoral actions are a great compliment to voting, which is what we're discussing here.
  
  Of these two options, I fall on the side of taking over a party. It can have immediate results, it's easier, it has a better track record, and it doesn't carry the risk of the "Nader effect"..
  
  
  What does taking over a party look like? There are two tracks: internal party machinery and candidates. Both are important.
  
  Internal Party Machinery
  
  Parties have elections for internal party officer status. They start with positions like "7th Ward, 2nd Precinct Democratic Committeemember of the town of X". Those positions have little power and you can waltz into them. Show up to enough meetings, bring enough friends to vote for you, and you can keep climbing up the ranks. Since very few people vote in these internal elections, (and those that do are usually hardcore activists that likely share your views) it's relatively easy to seize power.
  
  Once you've risen in the party:
  
  Get high enough and you gain control of internal machinery of the state party. That means access to a high-tech "voter file", with updated information of which people tend to vote, where they live, when they've voted, and tons of items of statistical significance that, together with models, give you results like "these 10,000 people would be 9% more likely to vote for candidate X if they heard message Y long enough."
  
  That voter file is crucial. At that level (usually state party chair or similar), you get access to the state party treasury, internal polls, etc. You have the benefit of years of experience with election law, which means you have a much easier time fielding candidates you like. You have access to reporters which give you a respectful hearing. You and your allies will likely be delegates to the party's national conventions, which means you have a hand in crafting the party platform and picking candidates in primaries. Often, your support will tip the balance in primary races. You're in a good place.
  
  Track Two: Running Candidates:
  
  Controlling state parties is great. However, you also need elected officials in seats of power doing what you want. That means putting forward candidates for office under the party name, and having them win the primary election.
  
  I'm pretty sure most of you already know this, but for those that don't: primary elections are "pre-elections" where the party decides who their official nominee for the spot is. Remember Obama-Hillary(-Edwards-Biden-Richardson etc)? That was a primary election. Luckily for you, non-presidential primary elections are much simpler, with no delegate nonsense. You simply have to win a plurality of votes for your candidate in the primary election, which is usually held months before the "real" election.
  
  Primary elections are in some ways very different from 'normal' elections. ~85-90 of voters in a 'normal' election will usually consistently vote for the nominee of the party they back, no sweat. In a party primary, since everyone's "on the same side", so to speak, votes are much more fluid.
  
  The people who vote in primary elections are the most committed voters, which means: the old and the activist. The activists will be your base - they will hold similar views to you, and you need to reach out to them and get their support. Since you're trying to take over a party from the plutocrats, your opponent will often have much more money than you - you'll need to counter that with people power, which is hard.
  
  Assuming that your candidate wins the primary, they are now the official nominee of the party for that race. That doesn't always mean they'll get party support - they'll be opposed by the entrenched interests in the party you're trying to supplant. Still, if they win, they get to go to congress (or the city council, etc), and winning is much easier a second time, even easier if you make it a third time. (Then it levels off, all things being equal).
  
  That's how you get elected officials you like - primaries.
  
  Challenges:
  
  If it were as easy as sending good people to office, then we wouldn't be in this mess. The structure of power and money constantly incentivizes elected officials to betray their principles.
  
  To keep your hard-won champions in office honest, you need to keep them engaged with your movement. They need to participate in your actions, sure, but you also need to change their incentives. Don't forget to volunteer for your champions and send them money, so they can rely on you. If they can rely on you, they don't need to rely on the power of money to get re-elected.
  
  The Holistic Strategy
  
  Both tracks are good, but doing both at the same time is better. Even better still is taking over a party machinery, running primary challenges to take over elected office, and having a vibrant independent power base outside the party that can serve as a sort of "staging area" and keep your elected champions accountable.
  
  
  And that's how you use your vote: strategically, in party elections and primaries, to boost your champions and take over one of the two parties.

Manhunt: the 12-Day Chase for Lincoln's Killer is all about the assassination and subsequent manhunt to catch John Wilkes Booth. It reads like a freakin' novel and had me on the edge of my seat the entire time, even though I already knew what happened. When it comes to non-fiction books that read like epic page turners, this is always the first one that pops into my mind.

The proven true conspiracy to kill Lincoln, the best book I ever read on that subject was Manhunt: The 12-Day Chase for Lincoln's Killer by James L. Swanson

Here is a great memoir written by an anonymous woman who survived this ordeal.

It's an extremely tough read, as it deals with rape and many violent situations, but helps contextualize the Russian occupation of Berlin.

Read this and this

I'm not an officer, but I have a good idea of what you guys go through, and as a SNCO I get to see and try to positively mentor a lot of new 2Lts. You're going to see lots of literature regarding how to lead and how to "Air Force", but the best things you can internalize to be a good leader are 1) Take care of your people. Airmen aren't your buddies, and you don't need to coddle, but have understanding and common sense and know that things that happen in their lives are sometimes more important than things that happen at work 2) Use common sense. When you have to make a judgement on a situation, you should use the AFIs and go by them to the maximum extent possible. However, remember that AFIs are not people, and can't make judgements so you ultimately have to determine the right thing to do, which is often not black and white.

Good luck in COT!

I enjoyed The American Revolution by Bruce Lancaster as well as Founding Brothers: The Revolutionary Generation by Joseph J. Ellis.

There is also this bizarre feedback on amazon by a G Maxwell that may well have been a witty attempt at satire from some randomer, either way it was put there to be seen and coupled with Ghislaine's last photo.
443 people found it helpful

http://www.amazon.com/Reclaiming-History-Assassination-President-Kennedy/dp/0393045250

A much more thorough and legitimate book than most of the info out there in my opinion.

Archives for the links in comments:

• By Singulaire (amazon.com): http://archive.is/qbqch
  
  ----
  I am Mnemosyne 2.1, Needs more turboencabulator. ^^^^/r/botsrights ^^^^Contribute ^^^^message ^^^^me ^^^^suggestions ^^^^at ^^^^any ^^^^time ^^^^Opt ^^^^out ^^^^of ^^^^tracking ^^^^by ^^^^messaging ^^^^me ^^^^"Opt ^^^^Out" ^^^^at ^^^^any ^^^^time

You should read some of their books. They are really good. Especially Richard Winters' Beyond Band of Brothers.

https://www.amazon.com/Brothers-Foster-Dulles-Allen-Secret/dp/0805094970

I don't have it in front of me, but I want to say it was called something along the lines of "My experiments with truth." It was essentially a series of articles Ghandi wrote about his life for a newspaper that were combined into a single volume.

EDIT: I was close. Gandhi: An Autobiography - The Story of My Experiments With Truth

I imagine many on this board are also introverts so I would recommend "Quiet: The Power of Introverts in a World That Can't Stop Talking" by Susan Cain. It's a popular science book about introversion, that helped me understand and better accept that part of my personality. There is a lot of misunderstanding about what extro-introversion actually is, and this can really help you and people around you understand.

"Gandhi: An Autobiography - The Story of My Experiments With Truth" by (you guessed it) Mahatma Gandhi. I read this many years ago, and it is a honest book based around Gandhi's philosophy of truth. His struggles both inwards and outwards are quite inspiring.
Incidentally, a couple of years ago there was a lesser scandal about him being a sex addict (how dare you be a non-violent activist synbol with a sex drive!), but he discusses that part of his life quite openly in the book. No fuss. He got it under control by meditating and trying different diets, if I remember correctly.

Here's a great book about it.

http://www.amazon.com/FDRs-Folly-Roosevelt-Prolonged-Depression/dp/140005477X

If you read Court of the Red Tsar by Simon Sebag Montefiore, he describes Stalin not expecting a German invasion of the Soviet Union at all. When his staff came to tell him the Nazis had broken the non-aggression pact he thought they were coming to arrest him. Nobody in Russia was spoiling for a war with the Germans. Had the Nazis not invaded Soviet territory, the Soviets would most likely have allowed France and Britain to fall. They were really forced into the alliance by necessity and self-preservation.

Currently reading https://www.amazon.com/Presidents-Club-Inside-Exclusive-Fraternity/dp/1439127727 which so far has been a really interesting look at the interactions between post war presidents, including a detailed passage on this meeting.

> The President doesn't have to save the country he just has to keep the lights on and not do anything dumb.

If you enjoy reading, you should read The Presidents Club.

Along these lines, George Nash's Conservative Intellectual Movement in America Since 1945 is an outstanding survey of the Austrian school. It's been awhile since I've read it, but I remember it being only mildly right-leaning and did not smell like propaganda.

Rick Perlstein, although I assume he's liberal, tells the Goldwater story in a sympathetic manner in Before the Storm. The two 'sequels' on Nixon & Reagan are good as well.

If you want crazy you should read his book Family of Secrets

In it, among other things, he suggests that GHWB was recruited by the CIA right out of Yale. Allan Dulles, the first director of the CIA, was a friend of George's father, Prescott, and may have seen potential in the young Poppy Bush. He was a patriot and a war hero, after all, and had the breeding and connections to be a great agent.

The author believes that GHWB throughout his career as an oilman, and later politician, was Agency all the way. It might explain why, in 1977, apparently out the blue, he was tapped to head up the CIA in the wake of the Church Committee's excoriation of the organization.

Great read, but, you know, full on crazy.

Cheers. Good foryou. Have you read ''You Can't Win'' by Jack Black? It's one of the best books ever written. A teen runaway in the late 19th century who ends up in some very bad spots. Autobiography.
https://www.amazon.com/You-Cant-Win-Jack-Black/dp/1902593022
Truly a masterpiece.

http://www.amazon.com/Manhunt-12-Day-Chase-Lincolns-Killer/dp/0060518502/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1292358801&sr=8-1

Best book on Booth and his conspirators. Fascinating read... I would like to see this turned into a movie.

Man Hunt. About chasing John Wilkes Booth. Great read. https://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/0060518502/ref=mp_s_a_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1510801549&sr=8-1&pi=AC_SX236_SY340_FMwebp_QL65&keywords=manhunt+the+12+day+chase+for+lincoln%27s+killer&dpPl=1&dpID=519rAdyrYEL&ref=plSrch

My brother loved Manhunt, The 12-Day Chase for Lincoln's Killer by James Swanson, and it seems to fit your bill pretty closely. I might even have to pick it up to read next year.

Unbroken. It's phenomenal. Basically a plane crashes and the survivors are forced to try to survive on a raft for an indeterminate amount of time. Great story of resiliency.

Flags of our Fathers. The book before the miniseries. Also phenomenal.

If you like really really detailed historical accounts, you can't do much better than The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich although I would probably recommend the audio version. It's available through audible. I got about half way through it before I had to stop, but man, it was detailed. DETAILED. If you ever wanted to know the minutiae of Hitler's daily life in part, this is it.

A memoir from a female perspective, perhaps? Well, A Woman in Berlin is your book. It's harrowing. There are things talked about here that most history books gloss over.

A Woman in Berlin: Eight Weeks in the Conquered City: A Diary (https://www.amazon.com/dp/0312426119/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_i_Qf-SDbG6RYDYB) is the memoir of someone who survived the imprisonment while Berlin was occupied.

Yes, a bunch of real knights in shining armor, those Russians.
http://www.amazon.com/Woman-Berlin-Eight-Weeks-Conquered/dp/0312426119/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1374552695&sr=8-1&keywords=a+woman+in+berlin

That does! Thank you:) I think it is too! I know most people realy only focus on the Nazi part of it all, but there’s so much to German history! (Like the Barbaric Tribes).


World Wars are super interesting! Have tou ever read All Quiet on the Western Front by Erich Maria Remarque? There’s “sequel” to that book called The Road Back. It looks at what happens to a (German) soldier after World War I ended. That’s supposed to be an accurate representation of soldier’s sentiments at the time. Storm of Steel by Ernst Junger is a (German) soldier’s experience during WWI. Holocaust by Bullets, Ordinary Men, Sleepwalkers, Europe’s Last Summer, and A Woman In Berlin are some pretty incredible books about these wars. Don’t know of you’ve heard of them or have read them, but thought I’d made the suggestion! Movie wise I’d say Generation War if you haven’t see it yet:) The Darkest Hour movie was great if you haven’t seen that! I’m planning to watch Babylon Berlin soon. Don’t know if you were looking for suggestions but I thought I’d make some!

Along with the others mentioned, I liked this one about Robin Olds a lot.

For Olds, I'd start here:
http://www.amazon.com/Fighter-Pilot-Memoirs-Legendary-Robin/dp/0312569513/ref=la_B002WH6WE2_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1397614257&sr=1-1

Another bit of trivia, Olds was an ace WWII fighter pilot who had 12 kills before Vietnam.

Funny, I read it and that's what inspired the post. Here's the link:

http://www.amazon.com/Fighter-Pilot-Memoirs-Legendary-Robin/dp/0312569513

And yes, awesome read. I thought the World War II chapters were just amazing.

Eh, I am not sure about niche subreddits for the history and random facts but there is information and news at /r/spaceflight as well as /r/space.

If you really want to learn about space stuff, here are some other forms of media.

Podcasts:
---
Liftoff from RelayFM - Two guys, non-experts, talking about space, including spaceflight, astronomy and all kinds of other things. They occasionally have guests on about all kinds of stuff and they just released an episode today that was the second of a series (not the main focus but a good bit of the episodes) talking about the history of NASA pre-shuttle so they talk about the history of US astronauts starting at Mercury.

Space Rocket History - Okay, where that one is a fun, quick overview of space, spaceflight etc. This is the opposite. If you want information, this is the podcast.
How in-depth does it go? 220+ episodes and Basically you can look up any major event from the beginning of the space/rocket age up until Apollo 11 (because that is where he currently is) and you will find something. Sputnik 1 and 2. Explorer 1. Vostok 1 with Yuri Gagarin, Vostok 5/6 with Valentina Tereshkova(first woman in space) the list goes on and on. Currently he is on Apollo 11- Lunar Landing part 2. This is the 20th part of JUST APOLLO 11. He has multiple episodes about Niel, Buzz and Michael Collins, 3 parts about Apollo 11 training, 1 just about the time traveling from the earth to the Moon, one about being in lunar orbit. Nobody is left out. There is even a 3 part episode series about Sergei Korolev, the Soviet rocket scientist. I am going on and on but I am just trying to show you how in-depth this stuff goes.
It's a bit dry as there is not a pair of hosts, it is only one guy speaking. He is a bit older but he is incredibly knowledgeable. If you are okay with audiobooks, you will be cool with this. I use it as background sound and enjoyment when I am just relaxing.

There are other space podcasts (Planetary Radio, Countdown) but those are two really good ones.

Series

From the Earth to the Moon. This is the best series I can recommend about space flight. It is a series all about the Apollo program, from the beginning to the end. It is phenomenal and if you are curious to know about those missions and what went on behind the scenes, it is an absolute must watch. (You have to search a bit to find them because while they were made by HBO, they are not on HBO Go so....

Spaceflight - Is a 4-part documentary by PBS about the 4 programs by the US, Mercury, Gemini, Apollo and the Space Shuttle. They are good and all available on YouTube

Books

Failure is not an Option is an autobiography written by Gene Kranz, Flight Director for the Apollo 11 and 13 mission as well as Director of NASA missions.

Carrying the Fire is another autobiography written by Michael Collins, the command module pilot for Apollo 11 as well as a Gemini Astronaut and USAF test pilot.

The Right Stuff about the Mercury 7 (astronauts) I believe it is also a movie but I have never watched it.


Last Man on the Moon is a memior/autobiography by Eugene Cernan, the last human being to have walked on the Moon. All about his life in the Navy as well as a NASA astronaut.

----

I hope you enjoy whatever type of media you prefer. :)

I really enjoyed Founding Brothers, by Joseph Ellis.

It's great, and a bit depressing at the same time. I couldn't help but contrast the founding fathers with the current men and women running our country. Fun fact: they sometimes called J. Madison "The Knife" for his willingness to cut deals.

You will have to suffer my historical bias here.

• Washington
  
• Lincoln
  
• Theodore Roosevelt
  
• Adams
  
• Jefferson
  
• McNamara
  
• Kissinger
  
• Albright
  
• Nixon
  
• 1776
  
• Founding Brothers
  
  The Roosevelt biography is very good. The last two are general history of the creation of the US.

Hitler did not want war with England or France, but he wanted to annex Poland and the Ukraine (and expel the Jews from German-occupied territory). Nothing the Poles did would have made any difference. Pat Buchanan should know this. Adolf Hitler by John Toland explains all this without demonizing Hitler.

An Amazon reviewer says:


This is a fascinating book about the untold story of the history of the CIA and its fallen heroes. Each star on the wall in the CIA lobby represents an agent who has given his/her life in service to the country, yet because of the CIA's security most of the information about them has been concealed from the public. Even their families have limited information and many have spent years trying to get the facts. Now we learn their full stories. Each of the agent stories in the book gives a glimpse into a different time period in American history, from post-WWII America, to the Cold War, Cuban missile crisis, and others. It paints a vivid picture of the evolving nature of the CIA, and US policies, as the focus of the organization shifts from Cold War to terrorism threats. I hope they make this into a TV series, many will be riveted by this secret history.

https://www.amazon.com/Book-Honor-Secret-Deaths-Operatives/dp/0385495412#customerReviews

Here's the book that converted me from conspiracy theorist to trusting Warren Commission's report. Bugliosi systematically breaks down the theories one-by-one. Great read, although long as shit.

To anyone who's read Vincent Bugliosi's book on the JFK assassination, Oliver Stone's mug will subtract rather than add to the credibility of an assertion.

Oh please. The Nazi ideology and socialism are two mutually exclusive ideologies. Hitler used the phrase "National Socialist" to co-opt the worker movement, not because there was ever any connection between nazism and communism or socialism.

This has to be one of the absolutely most asinine myths to flourish in the US, along with the notion that contrails, in reality, are chemtrails, or that Obama was not an American citizen.

The word "Socialist" was added by the party's executive committee, over Hitler's objections, in order to help appeal to left-wing workers (p. 68)

In Mein Kampf ("My Struggle"; 1924–1925), Hitler outlined the anti-Semitism and anti-Communism at the heart of his political philosophy, as well as his disdain for representative democracy and his belief in Germany's right to territorial expansion (p. 243-249)

Hitler himself stated his desire to "make war upon the Marxist principle that all men are equal. (p. 343)

There is no basis for thinking nazism and socialism or communism are related ideologies.

I've read the one by Winters, Malarkey, and Compton.

Malarkey's book

Winters's book

I think he already did when he covered Winters' book? It has been a while so I don't remember the specifics of the review. Winters goes more into the "ill-at-ease" and "doing dumb things" aspects of Sobel in the book.

BTW, thank you for sharing the documentary. I have not seen it and look forward it watching it!

http://www.amazon.com/Real-Lincoln-Abraham-Agenda-Unnecessary/dp/0761536418

I would read that if you're truly interested. DiLorenzo does his best in my opinion to paint an accurate portrait of Lincoln's political career.

Glad I could spur some interest. Douglas's book is actually out of copyright protection and available online here. There's also an online version of Lee's Recollections and Letters


Basically, Lee is the ultimate victim of revisionist history and guilt by association.

Lee is publicly known more than Davis, and therefore becomes the defacto leader and face of the Confederacy, according to both the lessor educated, or people who try to simplify the war as solely about slavery. Since most people automatically have a simplified negative connotation of the Confederacy and what it stood for, they assume Lee must be responsible, or at least was fighting specifically for, all of the negative things commonly associated with the Confederacy. This is perpetuated by people defending Lee, followed by others (like the asshole above) contending that to defend Lee is to defend slavery- end of story. Repeat.

Two problems with this. (Really three, but I'm not getting into "The civil war wasn't fought over slavery," as a whole.) The first is that it presumes to know Lee's reason for choosing to fight for Virginia. And two, when people do judge Lee's wrongdoings, they don't judge them against the standard of the time, or even against Lincoln's/Grant's/Sherman's wrongdoings.

Lee was adamantly against the war and succession, and only resigned the Union Army when he was asked if he would lead Union troops against Southerners. No matter what people think the civil war was fought over, Lee honestly saw it as the Union planning aggression against the State he loved, and as the unlawful "teaming up" of some states against others. Remember that this was when people identified much more with their State than with the US as a whole. And is when armies were still largely formed on the state level, and only then organized for national control. Lee didn't want to fight for the South, as much as he refused to fight against it.

Lee saw Slavery as immoral, and as a dying institution. But he was for a gentle and gradual release of slaves, preparing them for free life as educated, disciplined, and Christian. Lee was in charge of releasing his father-in-law's ~70 slaves, and released them before the conditions for release were met. He was for slaves staying in the US, as a just reward for the injustices they endured.


This was at a time when most US politicians in the North were arguing whether to send free slaves back to Africa or to Central America. Lincoln was actively trying to get the British to start new colonies specifically for this purpose. Article or Source. (This also contributes to show how much information Lincoln's followers destroyed after his death to protect his image and/or re-cast the war as solely about slavery. The correspondence had to be found in British Archives, as no record of it remained in the US. Also, few people realize that Jefferson Davis agreed to abolish slavery immediately in 1865, in return for either independence or for help from the British or French. But I digress.) Also see Back to Africa, which shows the colonization idea was popular both pre and post war. There are often implications the South was largely responsible, but it was a popular idea in the North as well, going back to at least the early 1800's. Really anywhere there was a large free black population in the US.

Back to Lee.

There is a reason Southerners choose him as a modern day role model, as opposed to others who may have fought for the same reasons. He is exemplary of "Southern Ideals" and the True Southern Gentleman. One of his most telling, yet least quoted, writings was his "Definition of a Gentleman," below. The collection of his letters can be a good place to read his opinions directly, without the need to read a whole book at once.

When you take away the presumption that Lee was fighting for slavery, add Lincoln's and Northerner's true view of blacks at the time, and then judge Lee by his own actions and words, you end up with a view that is quite contrary to what most people see.

Robert E. Lee’s Definition of a Gentleman:

The forbearing use of power does not only form a touchstone, but the manner in which an individual enjoys
certain advantages over others is a test of a true gentleman.

The power which the strong have over the weak, the employer over the employed,
the educated over the unlettered, the experienced over the confiding, even the clever over the silly–
the forbearing or inoffensive use of all this power or authority, or a total abstinence from it
when the case admits it, will show the gentleman in a plain light.

The gentleman does not needlessly and unnecessarily remind an offender of a wrong
he may have committed against him. He cannot only forgive, he can forget;
and he strives for that nobleness of self and mildness of character which impart sufficient
strength to let the past be but the past.

A true man of honor feels humbled when he cannot help humbling others.

Was it this book by any chance? It makes for enjoyable bathroom reading.

Here's a big list.

https://www.haaretz.com/us-news/.premium-researcher-dupont-helped-nazi-germany-out-of-ideology-1.7186636

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/ibm-holocaust_b_1301691

https://www.amazon.com/IBM-Holocaust-Strategic-Alliance-Corporation/dp/0914153277

https://www.amazon.com/War-Against-Weak-Eugenics-Americas/dp/0914153293/ref=pd_lpo_sbs_14_t_0?_encoding=UTF8&psc=1&refRID=PD3S20TYT0CRAFMCV31W

https://historynewsnetwork.org/article/1796

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/sep/25/usa.secondworldwar

https://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/10/books/review/the-brothers-by-stephen-kinzer.html

https://www.amazon.com/Brothers-Foster-Dulles-Allen-Secret/dp/0805094970

https://www.democracynow.org/2016/1/20/the_kochs_the_nazis_book_reveals

https://www.amazon.com/Dark-Money-History-Billionaires-Radical/dp/0307947904/ref=asc_df_0307947904/?tag=hyprod-20&linkCode=df0&hvadid=312669563714&hvpos=1o1&hvnetw=g&hvrand=5810486821632951259&hvpone=&hvptwo=&hvqmt=&hvdev=c&hvdvcmdl=&hvlocint=&hvlocphy=9021356&hvtargid=pla-432540147973&psc=1

https://www.thenation.com/article/hitlers-willing-executioners/

https://www.thenation.com/article/kodaks-nazi-connections/

https://www.academia.edu/21745112/The_Myth_of_the_Good_War_America_in_the_Second_World_War

https://www.amazon.com/Myth-Good-War-USA-World/dp/1550287710

https://libcom.org/files/How%20the%20Allied%20multinationals%20supplied%20Nazi%20Germany%20throughout%20World%20War%20II.pdf

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MaWz42tmxug

https://www.amazon.com/Trading-Enemy-Charles-Higham/dp/044019055X

Not a memoir but an autobiography:

Gandhi An Autobiography: The Story of My Experiments With Truth

Read some history books. Peaceful protests can be VERY effective. I suggest a book called, "Founding Sisters," [Find out more!]or to be more 'on base' with this case, you could research some of Martin Luther King Jr.'s peaceful protests [Find out more!].

Or you know.... anything Ghandi did.... [Find out more!]

Yeah, here you go:

https://www.amazon.com/dp/1596980966/ref=cm_sw_r_tw_dp_x_rJ.bzbGB98S2C

https://www.amazon.com/dp/140005477X/ref=cm_sw_r_tw_dp_x_0J.bzbKGKXDZE






https://www.amazon.com/dp/1416592377/ref=cm_sw_r_tw_dp_x_II.bzbTVVKZTN

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0006D7CFM/ref=cm_sw_r_tw_dp_x_tL.bzbW8JQ94A

I think I probably came to this a bit too late.

I'm currently reading several books; something I actually try to avoid but it just kinda happened this time.

The Court of the Red Czar by Simon Sebag Montefiore is an absolutely fascinating, gripping and wonderfully written history of Stalin, his family and his close associates. I very much like this book, even though it's quite a volume (~900 pages). Interesting things that have popped up so far is the effect Nadya's suicide had on Stalin, his intelligence, despite lacking much formal education, his down-right cold bloodedness (this wasn't really a surprise to be honest) and the inherent violence and nastiness in the Bolshevik system; I always assumed the Terror was born of Stalin's paranoia (it was), but it had its roots in Lenin's Dictatorship of the Proletariat, insofar as this desensitized the leadership to the suffering of the people. Fascinating stuff! Though probably not to everyone's taste. :)

Kraken by China Mieville. I'm only a few chapters into this and so far it is by far and away my least favourite of his books. I don't like the "chatty Londoner" dialogue (smacks of trying to sound too clever), the characters are all horrible and the syntax of the prose is very disjointed. I'll continue and see how it develops.

The Strain by Guillermo Del Toro and Chuck Hogan. I started this (vampire & zombie books are my guilty "mental popcorn" books) and meh... It's pretty lame. The clashing perspectives, the sudden change in voice (third person to first person with flashes of second person thrown in... I mean WTF? Did they not have an editor?) and the general cheesiness put me off. I will pick it up again and try to get past the second chapter.

Ragtime by E L Doctorow was a disappointment. I very much liked his The March, but this just didn't do it for me.

Ya prochel vot etu biografiu:

http://www.amazon.com/Stalin-The-Court-Red-Tsar/dp/1400076781

Yesche to shto mne raskazivali v sem'ye, razniye biograficheskiye fil'mi (Ruskiye i Amerikanskiye), Vikipedia...

They totally do! It's actually very interesting. If you want to learn more read this. It's awesome.

I recommend this book, read it earlier this year and gives some really interesting insight into the relationships between presidents. A great read!
http://www.amazon.com/The-Presidents-Club-Exclusive-Fraternity/dp/1439127727

It is easy to understand a proclivity to believe every President (since JFK) as being controlled by Deep State Puppet masters.

The control the Puppet Masters are able to exert though, on each President since 1963 has varied individually and in degrees relative to time.

Not including JFK or Trump, the President's only marginally controlled by the Puppet Masters were,

• Reagan. For Reagan, the Deep State was able to eventually obtain greater control through subterfuge and threats (attempted assassination.) Reagan was definitely his own man, but George HW Bush's was purposefully able to associate Iran/Contra with the Reagan Administration, with the idea of eventually forcing Reagan to step aside before his second term ended, allowing GHWB to run as an incumbent in 1988, with all the powers of the Presidency.
  
• Carter. Carter was his own man like Reagan. Unlike Reagan, he lacked a loyal base of supporters that could push back against Deep State operatives. Any chances of being elected to a second term were severely damaged when George HW Bush and his CIA minions were able to delay the release of the Iranian Hostages. Interestingly, Stefan Halper show's up as an instigator in the "October Surprise" that delayed the release of hostages until after the 1980 election. Peter Strzok Sr. of course was working in Iran during the Revolution for a subsidiary of Bell Helicopter. (Bell Helicopter is a deep state Red Flag going back to the JFK assassination. Stefan Halper's father in law, Ray S. Cline - CIA Deputy Director, has a few mentions as a possible "manager" of the JFK hit team.)
  
  Under Greater Deep State Control
  
  
• Nixon and Johnson were under greater control by the Deep State than either Reagan or Carter. Both were involved in the JFK Assassination (Nixon only marginally as the Point Man for setting up the Cuban composed Operation 40 hit team to take out Castro, but which was used to take out JFK instead.) Nixon's attempts to push back against the Deep State were thwarted. Russ Baker's "Family of Secrets" makes a pretty good argument that "Poppy Bush" was part of the effort to force Nixon's Resignation via the Watergate Burglary Cover Up. Some of The Dallas '63 attendees of course show up as part of the Burglary Crew (notably E. Howard Hunt and a few Cubans.)
  
  Significantly Under Deep State Control
  
  
• President Ford was appointed by the Deep State so it is not like he had any inclination to Push Back against his handlers. His cover-up of the Warren Commission Investigation assured permanent control by the Deep State. He of course appointed "Poppy Bush" to be Director of the CIA.
  
  Deep State Presidents Controlled via Compromise
  
  
• Clinton - Ollie North (Out of the VP Office of Poppy Bush) ran Contra Cocaine into the Airport in Mena, Arkansas. The choice to use Arkansas was undoubtedly because Bill Clinton as Governor had already been compromised via Honey Pot stings and/or because of his own Cocaine use. You can rest assured, in some CIA vault, there is a photo or video of Bill Clinton with a teen aged girl, or with a line of coke, or with a teen aged girl and a line of coke.
  
• Obama - Obama never mentioned in his autobiography the time he spent in Pakistan. Likely because he worked for the CIA. If the CIA does not have his real birth certificate, then they likely have photo's or videos of him in the company of men.
  
  Deep State President Controlled via Family Connections
  
  
• George W. Bush - I would not call W. an actual Deep State President. His father Poppy mostly pulled the strings through Cheney, Rumsfeld, and others.
  
  ​
  
  Deep State President
  
  
• George Herbert Walker Bush - His Family's Rockefeller Connections and later Post WWII OSS/CIA affiliations allowed GHWB to accumulate a lot of power. He has managed to exert Deep State influence since JFK was killed on every US President. His status as the scion of the Deep State accounts for his otherwise un-electable persona. Poppy certainly lacked the charisma of JFK, the communication skills of Reagan or the outsider status of Carter. Nevertheless, he managed to reach the Presidency and other high positions in Government early in his career without a Resume.
  
  ​
  
  ​
  
  ​
  
  ​
  
  ​
  
  ​

http://www.amazon.com/Another-Nineteen-Investigating-Legitimate-Suspects/dp/1489507833

http://www.amazon.com/Family-Secrets-Americas-Invisible-Government/dp/1608190064/

The Money Masters

It is Not a Rumor.

• The Politics of Heroin: CIA Complicity in the Global Drug Trade
  
• Chasing the Scream
  
• Dark Alliance: Movie Tie-In Edition: The CIA, the Contras, and the Cocaine Explosion
  
• The Big White Lie: The CIA and the Cocaine/Crack Epidemic
  
• Cocaine Politics: Drugs, Armies, and the CIA in Central America, Updated Edition
  
• Drug War Capitalism
  
  See Also:
  
  
• Propaganda by Edward Bernays
  
• Family of Secrets: The Bush Dynasty, America's Invisible Government, and the Hidden History of the Last Fifty Years
  
• The Devil's Chessboard: Allen Dulles, the CIA, and the Rise of America's Secret Government
  
• Weird Scenes Inside the Canyon: Laurel Canyon, Covert Ops & the Dark Heart of the Hippie Dream -- CIA created the counterculture drug movement.
  
• The Open Conspiracy: What Are We to Do with Our Lives? --HG Wells

Thanks for the suggestion. I scored the kindle edition+audible on Amazon for $5.99.

• Blood and Volts: Edison, Tesla, & the Electric Chair At the dawn of the twentieth century, General Electric (using Thomas Edison's direct current) and Westinghouse (employing Nikola Tesla's groundbreaking alternating current) were locked in combat to determine which would dominate the technological fate of the nation.
  
  
• Gone to Croatan: Origins of North American Dropout Culture This excellent anthology explores Colonial Subject Peoples abandoning civilization and creating tribal units with American Indians, creating vital, nonimperial creole cultures.
  
  
• You Can't Win is a journey into the hobo underworld—freight hopping around the still Wild West, becoming a highwayman and member of the yegg (criminal) brotherhood, getting hooked on opium, doing stints in jail, or escaping, often with the assistance of crooked cops or judges.

Jack Black - You can't win

http://www.amazon.ca/You-Cant-Win-Jack-Black/dp/1902593022/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1425839355&sr=8-2&keywords=jack+black+you+can%27t+win

Not exactly a bio, but Manhunt by James Swanson is an exciting read about the assassination of Lincoln and the hunt for Booth. And it gives details about Booth's life as it goes.
http://www.amazon.com/Manhunt-12-Day-Chase-Lincolns-Killer/dp/0060518502

I'm gonna go in a different direction than most comments and suggest some non-fiction.

People always think of non-fiction as really boring but if you get a GOOD non-fiction, it'll send chills down your spine when you realize it all actually happened.

Two of my favourites are Devil in the White City and Manhunt

DitWC is about a murderer during the Chicago World Fair in the late 1800s.

Manhunt is about the search for John Wilkes Booth after he shot Lincoln.

Both these authors take true facts and then add their own interpretations/creativity in a small way so that it reads like a fiction novel.

I'd like to provide some information since it seems that the OP is the one who is engaging in revisionism here.

Here is the Wikipedia page about rape during the occupation of Germany

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

There is also a book written by a victim/eyewitness of these atrocities:

http://www.amazon.com/Woman-Berlin-Eight-Weeks-Conquered/dp/0312426119

Also, Red Army had a pattern of this behaviour, you can read more about Soviet atrocities here:

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

I'm disgusted by the fact that OP is trying to pretend that these things didn't happen and brush it off to some "Nazi propaganda" (???).

Soviet Union was great at propaganda, and modern-day Russia is as well, judging by the fact how unaware Russian people seem to be about atrocities comitted by the Red Army, or Soviet Regime in general.

Please ignore the OP who is trying to whitewash history, and please pay attention to what the actual consensus among the historians is.

P.S. I don't understand the argument that pointing out well-documented atrocities comitted by the Soviets somehow downplays (victim-blames Soviet women???) the also well-documented atrocities comitted by the Nazis.

A Woman in Berlin.
Excellent book about life in Germany following the fall of Nazism- specifically the experiences of female civilians.

https://www.amazon.com/Woman-Berlin-Eight-Weeks-Conquered/dp/0312426119

Starship Troopers is good stuff.

I've been on a WW2 history kick. Three different books I've been reading a few chapters of each night:

The Making of the Atomic Bomb by Richard Rhodes.

With the Old Breed: At Peleliu and Okinawa by E. B. Sledge.

Fighter Pilot: The Memoirs of Legendary Ace Robin Olds by Christina Olds.

Currently reading listening to Fighter Pilot: The Memoirs of Legendary Ace Robin Olds and it is awesome. Highly recommended.

These assignments were usually made at the end of primary based on the cadet's personality. Aggressive, loner types normally got shunted to fighters. Cool, team players ended up in bombers. I've read both Robert Morgan (Pilot of the Memphis Belle) and Robin Olds (Air Force Ace in WWII, Korea, & Vietnam) autobiographies and they both echoed this. So far as specific airframes, who got a B-17 and who got a B-24 as best as I can tell it's just whatever they happened to need more of that particular day.

I highly recommend this book of you enjoy Apollo/space history

https://www.amazon.com/Carrying-Fire-Astronauts-Michael-Collins/dp/0374531943

One of the best books I've read in the last decade

One of a kind. Hell of a book if you haven't.

Carrying the Fire

**Forward by Charles Lindbergh - I fell in love with "Spirit of St. Louis" and watched it 10 times before I found out Lindbergh was a slimeball.

Very cool. Astronaut Mike Collins mentions this a bit in his book Carrying The Fire

This is my favorite:

https://www.amazon.com/Founding-Brothers-Revolutionary-Joseph-Ellis/dp/0375705244

Another, very predictable one!

https://www.amazon.com/1776-David-McCullough/dp/0743226712/ref=pd_lpo_sbs_14_img_0?_encoding=UTF8&psc=1&refRID=Z1QBK7D5EDQXNGWDEABX

This one was surprisingly good, but I read it a long time ago:

https://www.amazon.com/Redcoats-Rebels-American-Revolution-Through/dp/0393322939/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1524103441&sr=1-1&keywords=redcoats+%26+rebels+the+american+revolution+through+british+eyes

Basically a kids book but I LOVED it!

https://www.amazon.com/Ordinary-Courage-Revolutionary-Adventures-Joseph/dp/1444351354/ref=sr_1_3?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1524103555&sr=1-3&keywords=plumb+martin

This too! (Actually embarrassing, but again, a GREAT read! Probably totally supports your point as this list grows!)

https://www.amazon.com/Yankee-Doodle-Boy-Adventures-Revolution/dp/082341180X/ref=sr_1_4?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1524103555&sr=1-4&keywords=plumb+martin

https://www.amazon.com/Liberty-Revolutionary-Began-Landmark-Books/dp/0375822003/ref=sr_1_3?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1524103676&sr=1-3&keywords=liberty%21

Here's one I started and never finished but was looking very interesting:

https://www.amazon.com/Radicalism-American-Revolution-Gordon-Wood/dp/0679736883/ref=sr_1_17?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1524103778&sr=1-17&keywords=history+of+the+american+revolution

Yes there are numerous sources and I think you would be intrigued by just how much both of their public perceptions have changed over time. Hamilton was originally castigated, almost demonized, by many upon his death due to the harsh political lines that existed between him and his opponents (Jefferson, Burr, and really any anti-Federalist), and his extraordinary/imperfect personal life. Jefferson on the other hand was pretty ubiquitously lauded for a long time and it wasn't until historians began viewing his life later on that his legacy began to be questioned, when it has been revealed just how much Jefferson was a man of great contradiction.

Both were undoubtedly great men with perhaps even greater character flaws.

Really any book written during the Revolutionary period would expand on this in great detail, but specifically biographies of the two men or any of the Founding Fathers. You cannot research the men who typically are associated as the Founding Fathers or Framers without talking about the political discord that developed between the two sides.

Some of my favorites are below:

https://www.amazon.com/Jefferson-Hamilton-Rivalry-Forged-Nation/dp/1608195430/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1480308951&sr=8-1&keywords=jefferson+hamilton

https://www.amazon.com/Alexander-Hamilton-Ron-Chernow/dp/0143034758/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1480309330&sr=8-2&keywords=jefferson+hamilton

https://www.amazon.com/Founding-Brothers-Revolutionary-Joseph-Ellis/dp/0375705244/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1480309352&sr=8-1&keywords=founding+brothers

But this is by no means limiting and I didn't even link any Jefferson-centric biographies.

I'm late to this discussion but I wanted to say I read Founding Brothers and yes, politics have always been this ridiculous. You just hear about it in everyday life a lot more because of modern media.

I'm a big fan of https://www.amazon.com/Adolf-Hitler-Definitive-John-Toland/dp/0385420536

its less dry than other biographies on him and does a decent job of humanising him so you learn about the man as well as the historical events.

I would also highly recommend Adolf Hitler by John Toland It's massive but great.

The quote comes from the book "Adolf Hitler: The Definitive Biography" by John Toland.

http://www.amazon.com/Adolf-Hitler-The-Definitive-Biography/dp/0385420536

It sounds interesting. I just do not know if I want to read an entire book about Hitler.

https://nypost.com/2019/08/15/jeffrey-epsteins-gal-pal-ghislaine-maxwell-spotted-at-in-n-out-burger-in-first-photos-since-his-death/

The book she was allegedly reading - "The Book of Honor : The Secret Lives and Deaths of CIA Operatives" https://www.amazon.com/Book-Honor-Secret-Deaths-Operatives/dp/0385495412

When she was apparently seen at the L.A. In-and-Out Burger joint, she clearly wanted to be seen, especially reading that book in particular.

Aside from trying to keep investigators off balance and off her trail (that much we can presume) ... What was she trying to communicate? Whom was she trying to communicate to?

The Book of Honor: The Secret Lives and Deaths of CIA Operatives, a nonfiction book by Ted Gup

Read the second review. When I originally say it i thought the date of the review was july 2019 buts its july 2018. I think its still worth reading though.

https://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/reviews/0385495412/ref=cm_cr_dp_mb_top?ie=UTF8

When I can find the time to read something of epic length it's going to be Bugliosi's Reclaiming History

I've never trusted the Warren report, but I'm willing to suspend my disbelief and let VB take a shot at convincing me. If he fails, well, I don't think that a more convincing author is going to ever come along who will succeed.

Vincent Bugliosi spent 20 years writing a 1600 page (with another 1000 on the included CDs) book reviewing every fucking thing having to do with the assasination. The conclusion? Oswald acted alone.

rodmunch99: ^^original ^^reddit ^^link

At last some sanity on this subject and the whole JFK thing. Why can't people just accept that Oswald was the lone Killer and there was no mob/goverment conspiracy. Hasn't anyone in this subreddit read Vincent Bugliosi's book ?

At last some sanity on this subject and the whole JFK thing. Why can't people just accept that Oswald was the lone Killer and there was no mob/goverment conspiracy. Hasn't anyone in this subreddit read Vincent Bugliosi's book ?

Ian Kershaw is a historian who wrote a two part biography that was very good. The first part is "Hubris" about 1888-1936 and the second part Nemesis about the years 1936-1945.

The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich is also good but it was written by a journalist who lived in Germany at the time - so there definitely is some bias in what he wrote. That's not to say that it's not worth reading or that it isn't informative though.

yes. It was a two part book actually. Hitler: 1889-1936 Hubris

Hitler: 1936-1945 Nemesis

Not the quickest read, its super in depth. But I promise you'll know more about Hitler and Germany around that time than 99% of people.

Oh, I'm not trying to whitewash the church's involvement with the Nazi state. Both Catholic and Protestant churches overwhelmingly supported most things that Hitler did, from clergy to laypeople to theological scholars. For the most part the church was an ally of Hitler's, and he certainly did his best to court it. But that is very different from saying that Hitler was a devout Christian, or fundamentalist.

What you have to understand about Mein Kampf is that it was just as much a propaganda tool as it was a manifesto of what Hitler believed. He dictated it while he was in prison and his position in the NSDAP was far from secure. Much of what he said in Mein Kampf was meant to boost his image with certain groups of people, and shouldn't be taken at face value as his beliefs. Really, you shouldn't be taking what he says in the book at face value anyway because it contradicts itself so much. In any case, don't take the lip service he pays to Christianity in MK as representative of how he actually felt about it.

I'm really not sure how you can say Hitler was a fundamentalist Christian when he made every effort to Nazify church doctrine to the point where it is nearly unrecognizable. The Reich church literally threw out the Old Testament and completely changed the Gospels so that Jesus wasn't even Jewish. Hitler's religion was Germany and himself; he was only a Christian in the most trivial sense.

If you're not in the habit of taking the opinions of random redditors seriously (which is fine), I HIGHLY recommend Complicity in the Holocaust : Churches and Universities in Nazi Germany by Robert P. Ericksen. Hitler: 1889-1936 Hubris by Ian Kershaw is also an outstanding biography that covers Hitler's formative years and ideological development in great detail. I don't have my copies with me right now so unfortunately I can't cite them, but if you read those books I think you will have a much different picture of Hitler's motivations.

Try Hitler: 1889-1936 Hubris by Ian Kershaw.

If you are interested, a few members of Easy company also wrote books:

David Webster

Dick Winters

Lynn Compton

William Guarnere and Edward Heffron

Don Malarkey Author, Bob Welch

Beyond Band of Brothers: The War Memoirs of Major Dick Winters

https://www.amazon.com/Beyond-Band-Brothers-Memoirs-Winters/dp/0425213757/ref=pd_lpo_sbs_14_img_0?_encoding=UTF8&psc=1&refRID=VQ6AT6PWGYJYY3ZNKRW7

[ Memoirs of Dick Winters] (http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/0425213757/ref=pd_aw_sims_1?pi=SL500_SY115)

EDIT. Malarkey's book

Wild Bill & Babes

[ Shifty ] ( http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/B00BCUHKLO/ref=pd_aw_sims_4?pi=SL500_SY115)

This is a complicated question with many factors in play. Let me take a stab at it. The policies of Daley's father. I would suggest reading this. https://www.amazon.com/Boss-Richard-J-Daley-Chicago/dp/0452261678

Decades ago, Blacks and other minorities attempted to move into those areas facing great resistance. Whites fled, businesses fled with them. Riots happened after King's death. Flood of cheap drugs in the 80's. The building of giant public housing complexes. Horner/Stateway/Rockwell Gardens. The power of gangs in those areas. Things are slowly changing. Back in the late 80's you wouldn't dream of going near Chicago Stadium, now the United Center. Now it's different. Humbolt Park out West used to known as a really bad area..now it's improving in increments

I'd also suggest reading this. https://www.amazon.com/There-Are-No-Children-Here/dp/0385265565

Yes, I have a point, please try to bear with me. The implication of your comment is that the law was passed when sufficient money was donated, but in fact the law was passed when a majority of voters were persuaded to vote for it.

One of the basic tenets of liberalism and one of the core principles on which democracies operate is that human beings possess sentience, and are capable of analysing information they receive and coming to reasoned conclusions based on that analysis. People can pay to advertise to voters, but they can't pay to pass a law. They can only hope to persuade voters. While there are ways to circumvent this process (like the voter intimidation that was practiced after emancipation in the South, or the large-scale vote rigging that you can read about in Mike Royko's classic Boss), simply buying ad space still relies on persuasive argument.

If you're really interesting in what I'm talking about in regards to party association not mattering in Illinois. You can focus on Chicago/Cook County. Since a bulk of anything newsworthy is from this area.

In University, we studied these two books One, Two

I can't remember which one, but an author works along side politicians in Chicago during the 60's/70's. He talks about how political positions are cut out depending on your political association as well as ethnicity (Irish were favored, while blacks/Hispanics got the shitty positions). For example Chicago is typically Democrat, while the County itself is predominantly Republican. But both groups "share" roles within the city and the County. He mentions during a campaign for alderman, he went go to a Republican alderman office, only to find it pretty much abandoned. He later found out there is/was and unwritten rule that Democrats get certain positions, and Republicans get others, so they typically didn't compete.

>ultimately that's where the power is.

Exactly. There is a book by Robert Dahl called Who Governs?. It's a case study on a small town in Connecticut (IIRC) and he at first believed the wealthy had all the power. But what he found was that when the people actually got together and voted, their will trumped the will of the wealthy. The problem, as seen in Chicago, is that voter turnout is low, sometimes single digits.



> the book on corruption would be written here

Funny you say that. Don't Make No Waves...Don't Back No Losers and the book Boss talk a lot of the Machine politics that ran/run Chicago. (The argument is that Rahm runs a modified "Machine Politics" platform perfected by Daley). But these books hint at patronage and corruption that was so prevalent in keeping Daley and his cronies elected. It talks about how they worked with Republicans in keeping Democrats in office during that time period. There are stories of Republican opponents setting up offices, but when the author went to check them out they either didn't exist or no one was ever working there. They're interesting books you should check out.

The notion, according to the authors of both books was that Daley didn't care what type of corruption you did, as long as you didn't make any noise. "Hear no evil" type of deal. It also touches on how politicians prefer low voter turnout (hence don't make no waves) because it almost always benefits the incumbent.

Black Hawk Down. Very accessible and well written book (although popular, so he may have already reddit). It also has some Air Force PJs in the book.


Boss by Mike Royko is about long time Chicago mayor Richard Daley. Great history of the most successful political machine in the history of one of our most corrupt cities.

I may be unfairly focusing on the objectives sought by Lincoln and the Federal government, and ignoring that there were many citizens of the north that wanted to see slavery abolished on moral grounds. Further, I think my understanding is necessary to account for the time, place, and method for emancipation that took place.

I appreciate your respect for my opinion and will do some hunting to support my position. I appreciate having someone to bounce these ideas off of to get a better understanding of the complex politics involved.

To note, Googling "taxation civil war" brought up some interesting results that discuss the issues side by side with slavery, but not necessarily in relation to each other. Also, I am under the impression that "The Real Lincoln" goes into some depth about Lincoln's political ambitions and personal character, in particular that the nick name "Honest Abe" given to him by his first administration was meant ironically.

Anyway, i'll get back to you.

I haven't read it yet, but my next book is: The Real Lincoln.

The founder of the CIA and his brother, Secretary of State were Calvinists. Explains a hell of a lot. . .

http://www.npr.org/2013/10/16/234752747/meet-the-brothers-who-shaped-u-s-policy-inside-and-out

http://www.amazon.com/The-Brothers-Foster-Dulles-Secret/dp/0805094970

It's one thing to believe everyone is going to hell. It's quite another to have the power to make sure that many innocents are forced into a living hell through your own actions.

I just finished and really enjoyed The Brothers (http://www.amazon.com/The-Brothers-Foster-Dulles-Secret/dp/0805094970) by Steven Kinzer. It details the formation of the CIA after WWII, Eisenhower's penchant and support for covert ops, and gives amazing details on a number of specific coups during the cold war.

I won't tell you that this book has all the answers or any of that, but if you want to read a book that will shed a lot of light on the topic of how American foreign policy developed in the 20th century, this book is about two of the most influential humans in our history.

I really enjoyed Gandhi's autobiography. He's very frank and objective about his life's work and much funnier than one would assume.

You didn't even read the comments, since that first paragraph not only does it put words in my mouth that I never said. It tells me you just refused a proven idea. Read the books.

You need to read if you want an argument. stop being lazy. If you want to understand my point of view you have to enter to the discussion with knowledge of why I believe what I believe. It's not only the God presented in Christianity, it's more than that; that's why I sent you to read Leo Tolstoy and Gandhi too.

If I notice you miss information that unproves your dialog, I gave you the ways to find that missing information. I won't babysit you; no wonder you just repeat everything. I answered and explained everything you asked for; you didn't like the responce, I told you where you can find more information, you say "nope, i dont' want to".

You show no interest in learning or even thinking on others opinions. You simply refuse them without validation, you just stayed in your own mentality and think that anything that challenges your ideals is not worth the effort. That's being closed minded and ignorant. So I guess you're right, the conversation lost it's value when you decided to ignore the points being discussed.

I answered all of your questions. That you don't accept them is not my problem.

I'll leave the books here for people that find this thing and aren't afraid to challenge their knowledge.

The kingdom of God is within you

Gandhi an Authobiography

The fifth mountain

When God doesn't make sense

Do some reading and get back to us.

http://www.amazon.com/FDRs-Folly-Roosevelt-Prolonged-Depression/dp/140005477X

“Admirers of FDR credit his New Deal with restoring the American economy after the disastrous contraction of 1929—33. Truth to tell–as Powell demonstrates without a shadow of a doubt–the New Deal hampered recovery from the contraction, prolonged and added to unemployment, and set the stage for ever more intrusive and costly government. Powell’s analysis is thoroughly documented, relying on an impressive variety of popular and academic literature both contemporary and historical.”

–Milton Friedman, Nobel Laureate, Hoover Institution

“There is a critical and often forgotten difference between disaster and tragedy. Disasters happen to us all, no matter what we do. Tragedies are brought upon ourselves by hubris. The Depression of the 1930s would have been a brief disaster if it hadn’t been for the national tragedy of the New Deal. Jim Powell has proven this.”

–P.J. O’Rourke, author of Parliament of Whores and Eat the Rich

“The material laid out in this book desperately needs to be available to a much wider audience than the ranks of professional economists and economic historians, if policy confusion similar to the New Deal is to be avoided in the future.”

–James M. Buchanan, Nobel Laureate, George Mason University

“I found Jim Powell’s book fascinating. I think he has written an important story, one that definitely needs telling.”

–Thomas Fleming, author of The New Dealers’ War

“Jim Powell is one tough-minded historian, willing to let the chips fall where they may. That’s a rare quality these days, hence more valuable than ever. He lets the history do the talking.”

–David Landes, Professor of History Emeritus, Harvard University

“Jim Powell draws together voluminous economic research on the effects of all of Roosevelt’s major policies. Along the way, Powell gives fascinating thumbnail sketches of the major players. The result is a devastating indictment, compellingly told. Those who think that government intervention helped get the U.S. economy out of the depression should read this book.”

–David R. Henderson, editor of The Fortune Encyclopedia of Economics and author of The Joy of Freedom

To be clear, you didn't actually read any of the primary or secondary sources, you just found out who wrote them and how they lean politically and then based your assessment of their work on that?

Way to double-down on the argument from authority.

FDR's FOLLY by Jim Powell is where I got most of my information. You should give it a go. And yes, he "leans right" in case you're thinking of using that as a rebuttal.

They're certainly very telling, but I've also found that Young Stalin does a good job of showing how messed up his earlier life was. The Court of the Red Tsar by the same author goes into later life. Both great reads if you haven't gotten to them already.

Good lord, man.

There are histories of Russia from 1890-1980 all over the place and they broadly agree.

I'd recommend A People's Tragedy for a well-told history with solid historical foundations. One with more heft is Pipes' The Russian Revolution. Also, Court of the Red Tsar is a must-read on Stalin.

Or you could understand the deeper context. But yea, Vietnam was a stellar moment in hour history and we handled it perfectly.

Read a book called "The Presidents Club" it is only about interpersonal relationships between current and or former presidents, and it is an amazing book.

But in that book, you basically read in LBJ and HK words that this deal was proposed by LBJ in the summer and fall prior to the election and Nixon basically worked with Kissinger to "get a better deal', which never really materialized, even after LBII.

TL:DR
This deal was on the table prior to LBII. But you are right, America was 'awesome' in Vietnam.

You should read The Presidents Club by Nancy Gibbs.

It's really an incredible book and I've learned a ton about the personalities of Presidents most don't know much about, like LBJ, Hoover, Truman, Nixon.

I know growing up all I ever knew of Nixon was "I am not a crook"...that book had tons of great insight all the way up to Obama.

To anyone interested in the club, I highly recommend this book.

>Keep hammering partisan divides though, because that's gonna solve everything,

he said, without a hint of irony or self-awareness.

Again, you fundamentally fail to grasp my point: it isn't about "association," it's about rhetoric and electoral strategy.

But hey, don't let the lack of any substantial research get in the way of your very-serious opinions. I mean, not when there are paparazzi photos that can tell you what to believe.

Family of Secrets

Crazy-ass movie. Funny to see a mid-20s Keith Carradine. If you're interested in turn of the century hobos, You Can't Win by Jack Black (not the actor) is a great companion piece to this movie. The railroad employees, including the conductors who oversaw the trains, really hated the drifters that hopped trains.

You Can't Win is the autobiography of Jack Black, who was a travelling hobo in the late 1800s and early 1900s. It's an easy read, and so so good.
https://www.amazon.com/You-Cant-Win-Jack-Black/dp/1902593022/ref=la_B001HPO7ME_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1493117133&sr=1-1

If you like those, check out You Can't Win By Jack Black (not that one)

Different Jack Black -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Black_%28author%29

http://www.amazon.com/You-Cant-Win-Jack-Black/dp/1902593022/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1369678886&sr=1-1&keywords=jack+black+hobo

EDIT: didn't know there was a wiki entry on him!

For a book to read about this issue, consider: A Woman in Berlin, an anonymous diary of a woman who lived through the fall of Berlin.

Apology accepted and upvoted. I hope you can read the constitution next time and understand the compromises on which it was based and the legacy of compromises it spawned.

I recommend checking out Founding Brothers to learn more about our constitution: http://www.amazon.com/Founding-Brothers-Revolutionary-Joseph-Ellis/dp/0375705244/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1311971544&sr=8-1 There's even a chapter about The Great Compromise!

> No he wasn't.
> He was gassed. Once.
> He also didn't have an abusive childhood.

Whoever I was replying to with that said he was shot.

Probably THE definitive book on Hitler: https://www.amazon.ca/Adolf-Hitler-Definitive-John-Toland/dp/0385420536/ref=sr_1_sc_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1483118512&sr=8-2-spell&keywords=tolland+hitler

It's on audible as well.

> spouts Nazi ideology

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ywmd8kR-AmI

>"hitler books"

https://www.amazon.com/Hitler-1889-1936-Hubris-Ian-Kershaw/dp/0393320359

https://www.amazon.com/Hitler-1936-1945-Nemesis-Ian-Kershaw/dp/0393322521

Because no one has ever studied Hitler...[facepalm] These are not propaganda pieces, but detailed biography and breakdown of the politics and strategies of the man and the era.

I mean, despite his vileness, he was successful. If you want to know when it's happening, you kinda have to know how it happened the first time. In all actuality, if you read even a little(I'll include links at the end), you can see exactly the same traits in the regressive left who uses patronizing racism to manipulate the populace.

You know who else...:

...had a thing against Judeo Christians as a whole?

...had a thing for Islam despite an obvious contradiction in agenda?

...whipped up crowds with vitriol and false accusations, using scapegoats to blame societal problems on?

...was a socialist and advocated violence instead of reason?

...carries out their violence without a tinge of conscience?

...wanted to split people up by immutable traits of groups instead of personal responsibility?

...sought to eradicate or limit certain rights like the right to firearms, free speech, and freedom of the press?

...had a dislike of individual rights such as materialism?

...makes claims of merely defending society from some nebulous embodiment injustice yet can't really come up with good examples that stand-up under scrutiny?

...supported their platform based on inequality of races?

...uses their own version of previously established language, their campaign centering on rhetoric and crass exaggerations rather than sound reason?

...had a convenient habit of dismissing their own flawed arguments out of hand?

...infiltrated the universities and encouraged teaching there to mirror their agenda?

...had youth outreach programs?

Hint: Reggressive Left and the ultimate villain himself

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_of_Adolf_Hitler

See how handy historical knowledge can be?

>Iron Cross

In short, not every "iron cross" is an homage to hitler. When soldiers brought the medals home, they were very often immediately repurposed. The general shape never got quite the stigma that the swastika did. The iron cross became to mean something entirely different as it became more popular in pop culture. It's spread far and wide among wide arrays of culture, bikers, surfers, metal bands, etc and has since survived on it's aesthetics. As is common, people often say the nazi's were despicable, but they did have style.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_Cross#In_post-war_pop_culture

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biker_Cross

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surfer's_cross

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kustom_Kulture - Not at all what you'd think.

Other various pictures of Milo being ostentatious, ridiculous, or provocative, stupid, etc:

http://www.peacock-panache.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/out-milo_yiannopolis-clown.png

http://media.breitbart.com/media/2016/09/9.jpg

http://media.breitbart.com/media/2016/06/Milo-Irvine-2-Jennifer-Lawrence.jpg

http://www.out.com/sites/out.com/files/2016/09/21/160907_milo_yiannopolis_f_0575_prt.jpg

https://lgbtqnation-assets.s3.amazonaws.com/assets/2016/12/Screen-Shot-2016-12-18-at-11.03.57-AM-500x394.png

You really think someone who dresses and talks like the above couldn't wear an Iron cross without being a nazi?

Over all, Instead of believing something you sourced on Tumblr of all places, you may want to, you know, crack a history book or two yourself, get some perspective, or in other words a thing called context.

THIS is why the left is very much the prejudice bigots they're pretending to fight against.

Chicago is one of the most segregated cities in America and it always has been. Read the book Boss by Mike Royko for a good glimpse into how Chicago has been historically low-key racist/segregated.

Unfortunately I know the history of Keynesianism all too well. I have read much more than wikipedia. I would recommend that you check out some of the articles at mises.org and "FDR's Folly".

You really want Keynesianism to be a sound theory because Obama is heading along those lines, but you need to assemble the facts first. Blindly cheering for something you haven't researched is not going to get you very far.

It wasn’t the war that did it either. If you look at GPP it wasn’t very good till 1946. Even during the war people lived quite poorly until the free market was once again let loose.

Check this out: FDR's Folly: How Roosevelt and His New Deal Prolonged the Great Depression

https://www.amazon.com/dp/140005477X/ref=cm_sw_r_sms_awdb_t1_x28pDb642CV15

His domestic policies greatly worsened the Great Depression; in fact the depression would never have become "Great" but for his policies.

If you really are interested in getting more in-depth knowledge I highly recommend the book FDR's Folly.

He was a fantastic wartime president but absolutely ruined the economy for the better part of two decades.

Saw it. McNamara is still a loyal servant of a corporatist enterprise whose only logical outcome was his spawn, Rumsfeld.

McNamara's vanity was to be remembered as a good soldier. Rumsfeld's was to go down without a single regret. But both would never out the chest of corpses that they were hiding. Rumsfeld doesn't even pretend to. McNamara on the other hand, carefully presents the public relations hot points that liberals will take as a measure of good will. Read JFK and the Unspeakable by Douglass http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1439193886/ref=pd_lpo_sbs_dp_ss_1?pf_rd_p=1944687502&pf_rd_s=lpo-top-stripe-1&pf_rd_t=201&pf_rd_i=1608190064&pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_r=0PQRARQ4WQ7GKPCWAG33. Or Russ Baker's Family of Secrets http://www.amazon.com/Family-Secrets-Americas-Invisible-Government/dp/1608190064

>Astronauts said at the press conference they did not see stars, yet years later one of them remembers seeing stars and wrote about it in a book.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SG7HjyuDP9w

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xyjppxh2-C0

Ignore the bullshit the narrator is feeding you in the first clip. As I've demonstrated in another comment in this discussion, it's wrong.

Listen to the actual question, and the actual answers given and who gives them.

The question being asked is whether the astronauts were able to see stars from the lunar module, while they were taking some scientific photographs of the sun's corona, before they'd landed on the moon. The phrase "despite the glare" would indicate that there would be a good reason not to be able to see stars during this exercise, as... well, there's a glare.

The fact that Collins answered the question should tell you they're not talking about stars being visible from the surface of the moon, as Collins didn't land on the surface.

Another astronaut talking about seeing stars from the moon's surface has no bearing on whether Armstrong and Collins could see stars while filming the sun's corona from the lunar module.

(Note also that the first video you linked cut out Collins's response and the narrator lied about the nature of the question.)

>And take a look at their behaviour. Thats how people look like when they have achieved something to be very, very proud of?

I'm not sure that how one may or may not feel about their behavior is relevant evidence of anything other than how one feels about something.

>And this scene https://youtu.be/wdMvQTNLaUE?t=2m7s

Yeah, it looks weird, but remember, 1/6 gravity, and a deceptive center of mass due to the heavy backpack.

The rest of your post is pseudoscience and I'm not sure it belongs in this sort of discussion.

EDIT - if anyone was actually paying any attention to this, they'd have noted that my response here is not entirely correct, as Armstrong clearly states that he couldn't see stars from the surface of the moon during the daylight or without optical assistance. Jesus Christ, I literally said to pay attention to what was actually being said.

This was a softball, easy for anyone to catch and call me out on (and one I had a response for, as the book he's referring to is written by Collins, who never walked on the moon and was describing an experience during a spacewalk, so there is no contradiction as the poster suggests). I can only conclude from this that either nobody here is actually paying attention and/or taking this seriously at all and it has been a complete waste of my time, and I'm rather disappointed.

History books have completely lied about the Civil War.

The southern states sent a deligation to DC to talk to Lincoln about NOT going to war, and Lincoln refused to see them.

It's surprising that people haven't waken up and realized that America had a president that allowed the killing of 600,000+ of their own people. 600,000 people in those days would be the equivalent of Obama pursuing war upon the Americans and killing 6+ million. Abraham Lincoln did not save the union, he was the anti-christ for his generation that has forever trashed what our forefathers worked so hard to accomplish. Thomas Jefferson, Andrew Jackson, George Washington would have shot and killed Lincoln long before Booth did, if they had the chance.

Go to Amazon and buy/read this book..
http://www.amazon.com/Real-Lincoln-Abraham-Agenda-Unnecessary/dp/0761536418