(Part 2) Top products from r/TumblrInAction

In these politically correct times any explicit recognition of white achievement in certain areas of endeavor, of which jazz is one, is in danger of being taken as a backhanded attempt to denigrate black achievement. This is not the intent. Everyone deserves their due.

History clearly tells us that a distinct, significant, and creative white presence had existed in jazz from its early days and that black contemporaries were unhesitating in expressing mutual respect for Beiderbecke, Rollini, Teagarden, Mole, Trumbauer, Brown, Tough, Freeman, Russell, and numerous other white musicians. The true history of jazz is a depiction of cooperation, mutual admiration, cross-fertilization and the coming together all despite the segregation of the larger American society

Recommended reading

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

War Before Civilization: The Myth of the Peaceful Savage is a good book on how "peaceful" non-Europeans actually were.

I googled that for you!

And there seems to exist such a Book.

Doesn't make the story automatically true though. Might still even be an interesting read...

Best I could find was this text book on the issue. Everything else I pulled was SJW blogs. X.x

Le Epic Tri-Wolf Shirt

The reviews always make me happy. George Takei has the #2 review.

To be fair, a lot of native civilizations had radically different conceptions of marriage specifically, and the gender roles that go with each.

For instance in one specific native american tribe, people married according to which jobs they worked, regardless of anatomical sex.
So a male who did the work normally done by a male, marrying another male who did the work that was normally done by a female would not be viewed as strange at all.

There are plenty more examples, and [this book] (http://www.amazon.com/Marriage-History-How-Love-Conquered/dp/014303667X) does a good job of presenting them.

That being said, anthropologically, gender has usually mimicked sex, which is obviously binary with few exceptions

There kind of is a book...

Real Knockouts: The Physical Feminism of Women's Self-Defense.

Except, it's not a self defense book so much as a book about self-defense. You're not going to learn how to defend yourself by reading it, but the author might convince you that the feminist movement could focus on self defense as a strategy for physical equality.

Head of State, knitta. Treat yoself!

We now return you to the Jay-Z song still in progress.

One review. I wish I could give this guy gold.
https://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/review/140946542X/R1BEDQMH29IJ2Q/ref=cm_cr_dp_mb_rvw_1?ie=UTF8&cursor=1

Oh, yeah, I read that book for my humanities class in college last year.

As Nature Made Him: The Boy Who Was Raised as a Girl.

I still think transgenderism is real though, but what do I know, I'm not a behavioral psychologist or a sexologist.

That would be death of the family if i am not mistaken.

My thought is if you see an awkward person with a dark color tye dye shirt that has an animal staring at the moon, it seems to be acceptable to pretend that you are that animal

WolfCheck

CatCheck

UnicornCheck

DragonCheck

Pokemon[?]

Here's an archive of this in case it gets deleted.

Alternative

Boop Beep. I am not a robot.

As Nature Made Him by John Colapinto, if we are thinking of the same book. The child in this one wasn't intersex; there was a botched circumcision involved.

Non-mobile: http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00HMMBX96/ref=mp_s_a_1_2?qid=1427754973&sr=8-2&pi=AC_SY200_QL40&keywords=head+of+state&dpPl=1&dpID=519oEtIpO6L&ref=plSrch

^That's ^why ^I'm ^here, ^I ^don't ^judge ^you. ^PM ^/u/xl0 ^if ^I'm ^causing ^any ^trouble. ^WUT?

This is the poster OP needs.

https://www.amazon.com/Vegetarian-Myth-Food-Justice-Sustainability/dp/1604860804

https://authoritynutrition.com/7-nutrients-you-cant-get-from-plants/

the book

the Wikipedia break-down

http://www.amazon.com/Mein-Kampf-Adolf-Hitler/dp/0395925037/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1395870102

https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1401249272/ref=pd_sbs_14_img_1?ie=UTF8&psc=1&refRID=FQ2X8GGXDP4KNKMETTW1

Oooooh, just found out there is now a Deathstroke comic mask combo.

Just in case it ever happens again.

http://www.amazon.ca/How-To-Lie-With-Statistics/dp/0393310728

http://www.horace.org/blog/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/How-to-Lie-With-Statistics-1954-Huff.pdf

[Oh look, its in a book so it has to be true] ( http://www.amazon.com/Mein-Kampf-Adolf-Hitler/dp/0395925037)

Basically, I think this is about Deep Green REsistance. Edit: fixed the link, sorry 'bout that.

They are a hardline environmentalist group that believes in complete de-industrialization and the return to a hunter-gatherer lifestyle. They also believe that violence is an acceptable means to achieve this end. Lierre Keith, one of the group's founders, is a radical feminist who does not believe in transgenderism (which is where the "TERF" part comes from).

As for the "white veganism" part, it is not really accurate. DGR are actually critical of veganism (remember the hunter-gatherer part I told you about?). Keith authored a book called The Vegetarian Myth which, to her credit, I think actually had some interesting ideas.

I mean, most people commit at least one felony a day, so if you aggressively police certain members of a community, you can have higher incarceration rates despite similar levels of crime compared to less aggressively policed people.

The Redneck Manifesto, Jim Goad puts a good finger on why exactly people in the US confuse class with race and even predicted the rise of SJWs to some extent years ago. Other material such as Lies my Teacher Told me and A people's history of the United States help put a better perspective from a historical standpoint.

TL;DR the books: The Wealthy (read: Not rich, but wealthy) decided that after the Civil War and after the conclusion of the French Revolution, they would pit the poor against each other and fight for the scraps instead of turning their eyes upward and see who is dropping the scraps. Seems to be working well.

The average American supposedly commits Three felonies a day, so sure, they are.

(I'm not too sympathetic to the case in question, but I am extremely afraid of "If you don't have something to hide, the police should be able to look at everything." That way lies a police state, including police using blackmail to run the politicians.)

> That said, I largely remain in support of the people involved. That does not mean I support everything our military does but I will be good to the troops. I've seen what happens when people ignore them and their issues after war.

People seem to have a hard time to distinguish between the organization / structure as a whole and the individuals in them. I have sympathy for what many of them have and go through, I am still rejecting the military as an organization though, especially the way it is often use, as a short cut to a political solution.

As have said for a long time, and it almost always gets downvoted: Global politics are paid for in the blood of the young and stupid and I guess I should amendt it by adding "Patriots".

> Just in case... many of us don't wear clothes covered in flags. Our flag seems to be a biggie with people from other counties. More of a big deal than it is here. You'll usually find more people doing it on specific holidays like the 4th and at specific events. It's not 24-7 flag time.

I've lived in the states, I sort of know the reality on the ground. But there is definitely almost a fetishization of the flag in certain parts of the American population. Also, politicians seem to love the flag. Think of the little flag pin they all wear to show how "patriotic" they are.

> Change with weather. It's what Americans do.

Oh not disagreeing. My main point about the police though is that this is something that has been going on for a long time, as you said, that's been around at least since the '60s with the establishing of the first SWAT teams in LA. Funny how that all started around the time of the civil rights movement in the US started.

> It is a way to recycle equipment the military uses without junking it and letting it rot.

Here's a question for you: Do you think a police force that is part of the community should be equipped with tools that is used to suppress armed resistance? Because this is essentially what the police in North America seems to have become. There are the cops, and then there are the civis.

> Trailers and all terrain vehicles that can be used in search and rescue operations or to reach people during natural disasters such as floods or tornadoes.

You know how that works in other countries, and worked for along time in the US? Civil Defence. In Germany for example it's the "Technisches Hilfswerk" "Technical Support Department". They would be in charge of large scale search and rescue operation or disaster management. They have local troops that are drawn as volunteers from the community. Police and Military can be mobilized to assist, but if so, purely as man power under THWs direction.

The US had a civil defence department as well but in 2003 was rolled into the DHS, which means essentially it stopped existing.

But again, that sort of supports my point. It is all structured around military ideas, often invisible and, one could argue, with good intensions, at least at the outset.

> The police in my town are trained at a community college (it's a impoverished rural area) and they are not trained to be like the military.

Actually this is probably worse, because often these smaller department look at larger ones to "figure out how to do things" and this means they are sort of doing a "trial and error" kind of thing. There was an interesting documentary called "Peace Officer" I watched recently which looks actually at the smaller communities. It's only a handful of cases, but you have to wonder how often these things happen.

> They seem to be obsessed with American poloce having these deep web of connectivity that allows the police state to flourish. It's a bit out there considering our set ups.

Actually the people I have mostly listened to are your own politicians and the language they use, the terms. America loves to be at war with someone or something. The War on Drugs, the war on poverty, the fight against X, Y or Z etc.

I get why many people in the US do not see this and I am actually somewhat surprised I haven't gotten downvoted more because I just basically told most of America that in my opinion their country is a lie, which again, most other western countries these days are too to varying degrees.

Here's the problem. When people think "Dictatorship" they think of roaming kill squats and an iron fist. When they think "bad nationalism" they think Nazi Marches with torches and book burnings. These are powerful images no doubt, but people aren't stupid, the ones in power, they understand that people understand these images as for what they are, how could they not? They have established that narrative for 50+ years. But that's why you don't do it that way. You're more subtle. The boiling frog principle.

I think the next 20 years will be interesting for the West. Either we will indeed have "won the world" or we will all be in for a rough awakening. Personally I think the latter.

BTW, a book someone recommended to me last week and I am almost through and which explains a lot about the current SJWism as well as a whole host of other things I had wondered about with regards to the US is "Lies my teacher told me".

As someone who didn't attend the US school system I had always wondered about certain blind spots I had noticed with Americans when it came to their own history. Obviously we didn't deep dive into the US history to the same degree as we did to my countries, but there are a lot of things in the book that I was aware off that apparently is almost completely missing from the American education.

You misinterpreted my remark. I did not ignore your source, but I admittedly did not read it in its entirety, not did I read each citation in the document. I will edit this past to include a list of useful books when I return home.

Edit: The reason why commercial banks create the illusion of an inflated monetary supply is that certain low-risk investments (demand deposits, treasury bills, and commercial paper to name a few) are grouped as cash on financial statements. Thus, if you were to add up all of the "cash" recorded in every company and individual's "balance sheet," you would find that the total exceeds that of the total monetary supply. The reason for this is that all of these assets share the same characteristics. They are highly liquid, and fungible. Distinguishing these assets from cash is immaterial in every way; it would provide no additional useful information to stakeholders, and would be costly to report. For more information on these accounting principles, consult Financial Accounting.

Commercial banks (which I will later distinguish from Investment banks) have a very well defined business model. Through a combination of equity and semi-permanent liability funding, they make loans with varying degrees of risk (E.G. car loans and mortgages). Deposits in these types of institutions can be revoked at any time, thus the name demand deposit, the deposit will be refunded on demand. These are the types of banks you are talking about. This type of financing is substantially similar to financing options available to corporations, especially commercial paper. For more information on Corporate Finance, consult Ross. For more information on treasury management, consult Bragg.

I get where you are coming from. A lot of people want to blame banks for the recent recession. I think there is an argument to be made that investment banks inadequately estimated and reported risks in certain investments. But it is important to distinguish commercial banks from investment banks. Commercial banks take deposits from customers, and provide low risk loans to generate revenue. Depositors have very little control over the investments involved, and commercial banks are required to maintain accounts at the federal reserve, and maintain a reserve of cash to refund deposits. Depositor's accounts are insured by the FDIC (in the States). These accounts are reported as cash. Investment banks take deposits from customers, and invest in a variety of financial instruments. Often, depositors maintain control over the investments made in their accounts. Investors bear the liability for any losses on their accounts, and earn any income generated by the financial instruments. Investors are not guaranteed by the FDIC. These accounts are reported as investments, not cash.

Neither of these types of accounts pull money out of the air, or generate something for nothing. Again, I think there is an argument to be made that investment bankers have, in the past, poorly reported risk exposure. There is also an argument to be made that moral hazard became involved through government institutions such as Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. There is not, however, room to argue that banks are some sort of magical institutions which have any special powers that you or I do not. If you want to argue that banks are bad, blame investment banks for inadequate risk disclosure. Blaming commercial banks for the recent recession is a bit like blaming Netflix for the collapse of Enron.