There is a book that has had a lot of success in the bourgeois circles recently, to explain the Trump success: The Hillbilly Elegy https://www.amazon.fr/Hillbilly-Elegy-Memoir-Family-Culture/dp/0062300547

It's about the way polite bourgeois love to hate the dirty proles while doing a lot of virtue signalling to say that they love the Diversity.

You can find many interview on Youtube about it.

Also, take a look at a previous post of mine on the ideological denial of the inconvenient science.

I compare climate denial among the right and intelligence denial among the left.

https://www.reddit.com/r/energy/comments/68zuum/trump_puts_critic_of_renewable_energy_in_charge/dh4ddpw/?context=3

-----

EDIT: I made another answer with more details if you are interested https://www.reddit.com/r/TrueReddit/comments/6du6wb/leaked_documents_reveal_counterterrorism_tactics/di5r7m5/

No if we are looking at the long term, these kinds of values come into play when property ownership is relevant. When wealth comes from how much you own people want to make sure that their genetics are the ones that benefit. Since it is easy to determine the birth mother controlling women's sexual agency in terms of religion and morality in order to ensure the correct lineage. Pre-agrarian (and even some more communial agrarian) societies didn't have these concerns, so sexuality was not policed in the same way. Children were seen as adding to the whole family, which was basically the community at large.

Men could have all the sex for pleasure they wanted because it was less relevant to the economic situations. Courtisans and harems existed for men at the very top of the food chain and were completely acceptable by everyone in the court system.

I hate to say this but there has been a ton of research on this, including basic histories of certain cultures that says the exact opposite of what you are saying. How we view sex, marriage and family has changed drastically depending on the time and culture you exist in.

Marriage: A History is a very readable overview of how the institution has changed over time: http://www.amazon.com/Marriage-History-How-Love-Conquered-ebook/dp/B002I1XRZY/ref=dp_kinw_strp_1

And I have heard very good things about Sex at Dawn, which talk about a lot of the arguments you are making: http://www.amazon.com/Sex-Dawn-Stray-Modern-Relationships/dp/0061707813

Reminds me a bit of when I read Cheap.

You're right, the man will never be rich with his current model, but then look at what the article says most of them wish [need] to become in order to achieve success - they want to open a fancy shop and then start slapping their brand on cheaper items. That is the true business model, you just need the illusion of respectability so that you can whore it out to the highest bidder of poorly made goods.

Biggest change you can make is stop supporting animal agriculture. This outweighs all transportation greenhouse gas effects including freight shipment by sea.


Beef is really the problem with the combined deforestation of grazing lands and land for planting feed crops. Plus the methane emissions, run off, and fresh water consumption for feed plants.


That pound of beef you buy for 1.99 in the US has huge externalized costs.


Fun fact, there are currently 99 billion domesticated animals, and the mass of humans and our domesticated animals makes up 99% of animal life biome on the planet.


Limit animal protein and eat close to the source and both you and the planet will benefit immensely.


Sources:

The Omnivore's Dilemma: A Natural History of Four Meals by Michael Pollan

https://www.amazon.com/Omnivores-Dilemma-Natural-History-Meals/dp/0143038583


Cowspiracy: The Sustainability Secret

http://m.imdb.com/title/tt3302820/


The China Study: Startling Implications for Diet Weight Loss and Long-Term Health

https://www.amazon.com/China-Study-Comprehensive-Nutrition-Implications/dp/1932100660

Submission Statement

Non-monogamy is having a moment. When your needs for food, shelter, and transport are met, what comes next? What makes life most meaningful and pleasurable? For many people, maybe most of us, the answer is sex. But we're mostly bound by neo-Puritan mores around sexuality. "The Sex Machine" interests because it offers another way, and, even 30 years after Thy Neighbor's Wife, the proposition that conventional monogamy is not the way for everyone feels subversive.

We know from looking around us and from Mating in Captivity: Unlocking Erotic Intelligence that "normal" relationships aren't working for a sizable portion of the population. This article points to another way.

This story just takes my breath away. I've read about Genie and worked with/read about children/adults (respectively) who, due to being born deaf in countries where attitudes about special ed are vastly different, had no concept of language whatsoever. I hope that this girl is able to develop a successful means of communication, whether that be PECS, some form of signing, speech, or some combination thereof. Life is so much more difficult for those without a means to effectively communicate.

No, that's a very broad overview of the latest findings in the Political Sciences on how Dictatorships work. The Dictator's Handbook is a pretty informative book on the structure and ,holding of power. Power is rooted in voting blocs for Democracies and money for everything else. Any structure used to maintain or use power results in governance.

This governance structure is something deeply wired into humanity. This was the conclusion to another book I read called Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind. The premise of the book is that there has to be a reason why Homo Sapiens came to be the dominate Homo species on this planet. And it was the best guess of the author that it was Homo Sapiens ability to collectively believe in fictional structures that allowed them to unite in groups bigger than tribes. These fictional structures are what we today would know as laws, governments, states, nations, corporations, etc.

It was a long way around, but in short you can't separate government and power. One concept always induces another. Its a fundamental part of human nature.

>I wonder how many similar text fragments and manuscripts were "lost" or intentionally destroyed by the Catholic church as they no longer collaborated [sic--you mean "corroborated"] the official message.

There's no reason to wonder; it was all very well documented.

We've recovered much of the work that was purged, because someone had the balls and foresight to put a bunch of the texts in a jar and bury them in modern-day Saudi Arabia. Some guy found it in his field in 1945, took it back to his house, and went back to work. When he came back home, he asked his mother where the papers he'd brought in were; she'd used some to light the fire! But we actually got the rest, and the jar is now known as the Nag Hammadi Library.

All of this material has been translated to English, and you can buy it here. If you're interested in the history of Christianity, it's a great read. Things that are taken as incontrovertible fact by Christians today were once the source of bitter debate, and many early Christians had a very different set of ideas. It's just that the Catholic hierarchical model was much better at consolidating power and resources, so they were able to crush the opposition.

It's fascinating stuff. Check it out.

Pretty much a rehash of Marriage, a History, published 6 years ago.

The better book about the ominous parallels between America and Nazi Germany.

I first read about the cooked meat/increased brain size theory in this book (not that this author claimed the idea, just for additional context for those that might want to read it): http://www.amazon.com/Sex-Time-Power-Sexuality-Evolution/dp/0142004677/

I suggest reading the book

http://www.amazon.com/Last-American-Man-Elizabeth-Gilbert/dp/0142002836

Cartoon History of the Modern World

What always amazes me when people reply to something like this is that you seem so sure of yourself. Are you absolutely sure of the motivations of the founding fathers? How do you really know why they did one thing or another? History is not facts, it's 'furious debate'. Who first said that a republic was needed because democracy was too dangerous? Hmm. The founding fathers?

A couple of books that give some evidence to my original post:

http://www.amazon.com/Bad-Samaritans-Secret-History-Capitalism/dp/1596913991

http://www.amazon.com/Peoples-History-United-States-P-S/dp/0061965588/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1321296433&sr=1-1

Some people love howard zinn, others hate him. it's really hard to know for sure what version of history is correct. But with all of the greedy and almost evil people in the world throughout history, do you really expect me to believe that these FOunding fathers were all white knights and only had the public's best interests in mind? Zinn quotes a few journals of people living in the colonies before the revolutionary war and they would say things like 'from one master to another, this revolution means nothing to me'. The rich merchants of the colonies wanted to get rid of british taxes and tariffs so they couldmake more money, how did the average person benefit from the revolutionary war? Why did they offer soldiers land upon the completion of the war? Wouldn't these soldiers fight for freedom from british tyranny just to be free? Why did they need more incentive?

The free trade book clearly states that MANY countries (I think he even said that all recent democracies did the same) set up voting restrictions so that the poor would not have too much political power.

As for the deep south... do you know that Kennedy originally did not want to sign the civil rights act? It's too involved to get into it here, but the mistake people make is thinking that the government passed the civil rights act and that they led the way. The reality is that the people demanded change and the government only passed the law after the public basically dragged the government along, kicking and screaming all the way. The government didn't fix anything, they reluctantly made the change official after the public demanded it.

The politicians are not pushing the US forward, they are holding it back. Id take my chances with the rabble.

You know, I actually think I CAN do better than that. My god. They tried to blow the doors off with quality that no one would ever appreciate, but tried to match their competitors for price!

"Oh we hired an authentic frenchman to make our pastries, but then we priced them so low each one we sold cost us money!"

Shit. That's not how you're a success at anything, and though I fully admit I don't know a lot about coffee shops, I do know that unless you serve real food, you have to make a good margin on coffee, and a great margin on pastries (this is why everyone does them in house).

The belief that running any kind of a food place (which I do know a few things about) is easy, is a belief that drives hundreds of people to bankruptcy every year. Most restaurants fail. The vast majority fail.

Unless you have something amazing to bring to the table, (and NOT a vision of how you can bring people their coffee on a silver platter, because that's 100% cost, and little else) think hard before you cave to that siren song. And read Kitchen Confidential...Between his ego and his exaggerations, there is a hell of a lot of practical experience.

From an askhistorians thread: "The SS security service reported in March 1942 that soldiers returning from Poland or on leave were talking openly about the slaughter of the Jews and other undesirables in camps. The Chancellery complained in a session on October 9th, 1942 that discussions about the "very harsh measures" against the Jews were were being spread by soldiers on leave."
That quote is sourced as coming from The Third Reich at War.


Knowledge about the holocaust slowly spread through German society, and therefor many (not all) Germans knew.

Places like CNN and MSNBC were constantly losing money up until 2016. Now it's perpetual election cycle for them and they are profitable for the first time in decades. Combine that with a lot of extreme partisans who have become addicted to stories reinforcing their own morality and casting the other side as extreme evil and you have a self-reinforcing iron triangle. It's no longer about politics so much as tribal warfare. And it's more important to enrage the other side who are evil than it is to achieve some specific policy objective.

Her book that she mentions, The Poisoner's Handbook is really worth reading.

Equal parts true crime, twentieth-century history, and science thriller, The Poisoner's Handbook is "a vicious, page-turning story that reads more like Raymond Chandler than Madame Curie" The New York Observer
A fascinating Jazz Age tale of chemistry and detection, poison and murder, The Poisoner's Handbook is a page-turning account of a forgotten era. In early twentieth-century New York, poisons offered an easy path to the perfect crime. Science had no place in the Tammany Hall-controlled coroner's office, and corruption ran rampant. However, with the appointment of chief medical examiner Charles Norris in 1918, the poison game changed forever. Together with toxicologist Alexander Gettler, the duo set the justice system on fire with their trailblazing scientific detective work, triumphing over seemingly unbeatable odds to become the pioneers of forensic chemistry and the gatekeepers of justice.

Some generations are guilty of accelerating this decline more so than others. And in our modern age we've accelerated this trend with all the forms of visual media we're able to distract ourselves with. Half of American adults aren't able to read beyond an 8th grade level.

Amusing Ourselves to Death: Public Discourse in the Age of Show Business | Neil Postman