(Part 2) Reddit mentions: The best politics & government books

Agreed. Once upon a time, science and philosophy were much more closely related than they are today. We are polarizing individual aspects of the arts, which has done more to create robotic thinkers than open minded learners. Homeschooling is a great first step to breaking his daughter out of the conveyer belt thinking process, and introducing her to every aspect of the world of education, even religion, and allowing her to pursue those subjects that interest her most. This will feed her curiosity and allow her to become her own person in the long run. Pushing her toward Atheist thinking is as dangerous as pushing her toward religious thinking, if the goal is to allow her to choose her own path and ideas, and truly become an individual thinker. If her religious upbringing by her mom is more restrictive, and you create an open environment that is truly open to all possibilities, she will be a great leader.

But it starts with you, the parent. If all you are doing is teaching her things in direct opposition to the mom, then this is petty and not in your daughter's best interest, nor will it draw her toward your way of thinking, it will repel it. If your goal is to have her think like you do, then, again, you are not really raising a "free thinker" are you? So start with your own education, your own style and teaching philosophy. Here are some great books to give different and honest perspectives. Do what works for you.

• How Children Learn - Holt
  
• How Children Faill - Holt
  
• The Unschooling Unmanual
  
• Dumbing us Down - Gatto
  
• Thomas Jefferson Education (This one is a method of instruction, and though he encourages use of the Bible as classic literature, he aslo emphasizes that, if the Bible isn't your cup of tea, there's plenty out there that will be)
  
  Enjoy the journey!
  
  *Edited for formatting.

Ah, found it, it took me a long time to actually hunt for your source, in the future if you wouldn't mind linking them, that would be great, it makes the actual process of rebutting a bit easier. Also, if you'd like to actually update your religion percentages, I can hook you up there too. The CIA World Factbook isn't exactly a hidden arcane text that we can't Google in six seconds. But lets jump into the meat of your argument, because it's an interesting one given that it provides no sources and just wants me to take what it says at face value.

Starting from the bottom, working to the top, as you'd expect the correlation to run strongest at the bottom:

Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, and Yemen are all in relatively bad spots, but of course your source only lists a "variety of reasons". Failing rather impressively to touch upon the fact that some of these places weren't so bad before being thrust into the heart of a decades long series of proxy wars (Russian Invasion, American Invasion, etc.). I'll give you saudi Arabia though, it has an honest to God functioning government, and that Government is a hell hole for human rights. Note that people aren't exactly slaughtering each other in the streets with impunity as your source seems to suggest is happening, but there are deep issues. Even if there have been interesting signs of change.

The 80% bracket suggests state run ethnic cleansing and genocide, which seems a bit disingenuous. The Armenian Genocide is the only event I can think of that would qualify for the listed countries, and it wasn't religiously motivated, but rather as a consolidation of political and geographic power. Palestine isn't even a country and is in the process of being actively repressed by Israel, not the other way around. Why the hell is Gaza listed separately of Palestine anyway? But I digress. Indonesia has had some interesting run ins with Sharia law that the world continues to monitor but ethnic cleansing is a bit overstated, and their new president is making strides in the name of freedom of religion and freedom of expression.

Look, this is a fine and dandy exercise, but the basic plotline is - this source overstates at every level as a form of fear mongering, and rather than hold a rational conversation about the problems these areas are facing, what the root cause is and how we can approach the situation successfully, you've decided the root cause is clearly Islam. I hope that we never hit a point in this country where that becomes the primary view, the potential for loss is too great.

Edit - I'd like to add in Amazon's tagline for the book that the original quotes come from, Slavery, Terrorism, and Islam: The Historic Roots and Contemporary Threat by Peter Hammond - which was originally published in 2005, so I'm now not entirely sure where it managed to get its hands on 2007 numbers....

>A fascinating, well illustrated and thoroughly documented response to the relentless anti-Christian propaganda that has been generated by Muslim and marxist groups and by Hollywood film makers. As Karl Marx declared: "The first battlefield is the re-writing of history!" "Slavery, Terrorsim and Islam" is an eye opening, positive and practical handbook to empower you to respond effectively to the challenge of Islam today.

Yeah, that source sounds like an unbiased fact finding mission.

There is no such thing as 'free trade' or 'protectionism'. All trade agreements have a mix of both. For instance copyright is not free trade nor is intellectual property. Preventing dominant monopolies is a good idea but not 'free trade'.

A good balance needs to be struck along with institutions that are able to change with time and world events.

Tariffs do protect US businesses however and have received bad press due to the neoliberal/neocon subversion of the Republican party who have brainwashed people into acting against their own interests.

A good read on free trade/protectionism by Pat Buchanan, Vox Day recently plublished a debate in article format on exactly this topic so you might be able to find some good references in there and use it as a stepping stone for further research.

This is a good article favouring Trump's policies and mentioning other prominent sympathetic people. Richard McCormack one of the authors mentioned in that article wrote a good book exploring the decline of American manufacturing and the effect of free trade

> Very few states have been founded through exclusively peaceful means.

This is true. None of them should be exempted from criticism and they should be challenged when they deny the violence of their foundation. Here are some examples of anti-racist content critical of Israel from r/conspiracy:

This is a picture of 20,000 Orthodox Jews (ignored by the MSM) protesting Israel in NYC, these
are some photos of the Israeli apartheid alongside the Nazi holocaust, this is an example of Israeli false flag terrorism, and this is a report that two Israeli companies helped the NSA bug the U.S.

There are Israeli shills. The government of Israel has gone public about this. But it's not just Israel, the U.S. military is doing this too.

And if we take a look at current affairs, we see Israel, the U.S. and Saudi Arabia are [manipulating events](http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2013/08/16/318941/the-axis-of-evil/
) in Egypt to their mutual benefit while Israeli soldiers are making pancakes of Rachel Corrie, an American peace activist murdered by the IDF.

> The partition plan was the UN's proposal for how to get the British out. Neither the British or the UN made even a token attempt to enforce it. And the conflict had been in a state of open war for years before the partition plan. Hell, the british were still nominally in charge until 1948, but the war was already well under way then. And the british certainly didn't bother helping the jews out, as the wikipedia article you linked states.

I'm not claiming the british are the good guys here. The partition plan did more than get the british out, it also gave most of palestine to israel and resulted in the exodus of hundreds of thousands of people and many deaths.

> So...academic freedom is unlimited? It's wrong for universities to discipline faculty no matter their opinion? What if a professor is an avowed Nazi? Calls for mass murder? Teaches creationism in Bio 101? I see no reason that professors should be allowed to do anything in the name of academic freedom. I agree that professors should be allowed to speak their opinions outside lecturing, but freedom to do anything remotely academic seems ridiculous to me.

No, this is a strawperson and a slippery slope and not what I'm saying. The book I linked you to discussed the loyalty-oath and free-speech controversies at the University of California, the tortured relationship between universities and the government as seen in language acquisition programs, and the policing of thought in the academy in relation to the Middle East. To take just one example, the former President of Harvard, Larry Summers, claimed that criticism of Israel is anti-semitic "in effect, if not intent." Chomsky's unwillingness to study whether 9/11 was an inside job is another example. And here's a very recent example: Alice Walker being barred from speaking at the University of Michigan due to her views on Israel.

> Did you read the article? He didn't face issues because he threatened the establishment, he faced legal problems because he was sued for libel by the brigade he accused of massacring people. He was then unable to show a significant amount of evidence for his claims. His only evidence was recordings from people who were children in the village, which he appears to have filtered and possibly fabricated--no documents, no Israeli corroboration, etc. His consequence was...having his MA temporarily retracted. Even though his revised thesis had the same problems, he still got a weird quasi-MA out of it.

Yes, I read the article. This is a misleading and inaccurate narrative. Before the trial began, Katz attempted to have the case dismissed, arguing that the content of an academic thesis should be the subject of scholarly debate, and should not be placed under the purview of a legal proceeding. Haifa University did not support this effort. In fact, they offered no legal or practical assistance whatever, and instead quickly moved to erase Katz's name from the list of graduating students to be awarded honors. Senior professors at Haifa University involved in providing scholarly scaffolding for the Zionist narrative lobbied the university to withhold support for Katz.

Katz himself could not afford an attorney, and, besides help from his cousin, his legal team was organized pro bono by a Palestinian NGO in Israel. At the same time, he encountered various forms of pressure in the kibbutz where he lived, from friends, family, and neighbors. Under these conditions, the middle-aged Katz suffered a stroke in the weeks before the trial.

In defense of his thesis, Katz had to choose between two arguments: either he had told the truth and his research conveyed the fact of the massacre, or he had at least acted in "good faith" and even if his research was found to be lacking he had never had any intention to libel. Katz was represented by five lawyers—only one of these lawyers (who also happened to be Katz’s cousin) pressured him to adopt the "good faith" defense, with the aim of "minimizing the political nature of the case." The others had hoped to use the trial as a public venue for discussion of Israel’s role in the violence of the Nakba, an unprecedented prospect. Although Katz had, in conversation with his legal team, initially agreed to defend that he had spoken the truth, he decided at the last minute to adopt the "good faith" defense.

During the cross-examination, the prosecutors scrutinized only six of Katz's references out of two-hundred and thirty in total. One member of Katz's legal team exhibited 'exultation' at the conclusion of the prosecution's case, and eagerly anticipated their opportunity to present the defense. After two days of cross-examination by the plaintiff’s lawyer, Katz agreed to a settlement, issued a public apology renouncing his thesis, and the veterans dropped the suit. A lawyer from Haifa University appeared to hint to Katz that settling the case and admitting wrongdoing would enable him to resume his studies. Given the pressure to which he was subjected from within the community of the kibbutz and the overwhelming conditions of uncertainty surrounding his future livelihood, it is not surprising that Katz leapt at the opportunity.

Sources:

Ilan Pappe, Israeli historian and socialist activist, professor with the College of Social Sciences and International Studies at the University of Exeter in the United Kingdom, director of the university's European Centre for Palestine Studies, and co-director of the Exeter Centre for Ethno-Political Studies: http://www.palestine-studies.org/journals.aspx?id=4227&jid=1&href=fulltext

Samera Esmeir, Professor of Rhetoric at UC Berkeley: http://www.deepdyve.com/lp/duke-university-press/1948-law-history-memory-KtvBPC56Ku

What's wrong with Muslims? As human beings, nothing. All my Muslim friends go out of their way to be friendly and hospitable. I have no issue with their friendliness. We have legendary superficial conversations.

It's when we discuss non-trivial things like freedom of speech (Western pluralistic society's freedom to publicly criticize Mohammad and Islam), the place of women in society (women's equality, whether a wife is obligated to obey her husband, and whether a husband has the right to strike his wife or to demand sex of her whenever he wants), and their opinion of homosexuals and what should be done with them, that their teeth come out.

Want to know what they really think? Ask them what the Koran says about these things and, assuming they don't flat out lie to you, watch them squirm. They believe that the Koran is the perfect, unchangeable, literal word of Allah, and the Koran is NOT ambivalent about any of these things. Did you catch that? it cannot be changed. There is no such thing as reforming Islam because that is explicitly forbidden, in the Koran.

Muslims have sharia law, which is a summarized collection of the commands from Allah on how they need to live, and more importantly, how they need to make the world become. Muslims believe they have to ultimately establish sharia over the entire world, whether the world wants it or not. Of course they don't do that immediately; they wait until they have enough numbers in any given area to ensure they won't get much resistance.

This is an amazing short summary of different surveys regarding what Muslims really think on some important issues

The following is taken from this site, which is itself adapted from Dr. Peter Hammond's book: Slavery, Terrorism and Islam: The Historical Roots and Contemporary Threat:

Islam is not a religion nor is it a cult. It is a complete system.

Islam has religious, legal, political, economic and military components. The religious component is a beard for all the other components.

Islamization occurs when there are sufficient Muslims in a country to agitate for their so-called 'religious rights.'

When politically correct and culturally diverse societies agree to 'the reasonable' Muslim demands for their 'religious rights,' they also get the other components under the table. Here's how it works (percentages source CIA: The World Fact Book (2007)).

As long as the Muslim population remains around 1% of any given country they will be regarded as a peace-loving minority and not as a threat to anyone. In fact, they may be featured in articles and films, stereotyped for their colorful uniqueness:

United States -- Muslim 1.0%
Australia -- Muslim 1.5%
Canada -- Muslim 1.9%
China -- Muslim 1%-2%
Italy -- Muslim 1.5%
Norway -- Muslim 1.8%

At 2% and 3% they begin to proselytize from other ethnic minorities and disaffected groups with major recruiting from the jails and among street gangs:

Denmark -- Muslim 2%
Germany -- Muslim 3.7%
United Kingdom -- Muslim 2.7%
Spain -- Muslim 4%
Thailand -- Muslim 4.6%

From 5% on they exercise an inordinate influence in proportion to their percentage of the population.

They will push for the introduction of halal (clean by Islamic standards) food, thereby securing food preparation jobs for Muslims. They will increase pressure on supermarket chains to feature it on their shelves -- along with threats for failure to comply. ( United States ).

France -- Muslim 8%
Philippines -- Muslim 5%
Sweden -- Muslim 5%
Switzerland -- Muslim 4.3%
The Netherlands -- Muslim 5.5%
Trinidad &Tobago -- Muslim 5.8%

At this point, they will work to get the ruling government to allow them to rule themselves under Sharia, the Islamic Law. The ultimate goal of Islam is not to convert the world but to establish Sharia law over the entire world.

When Muslims reach 10% of the population, they will increase lawlessness as a means of complaint about their conditions ( Paris --car-burnings). Any non-Muslim action that offends Islam will result in uprisings and threats ( Amsterdam - Mohammed cartoons).

Guyana -- Muslim 10%
India -- Muslim 13.4%
Israel -- Muslim 16%
Kenya -- Muslim 10%
Russia -- Muslim 10-15%

After reaching 20% expect hair-trigger rioting, jihad militia formations, sporadic killings and church and synagogue burning:

Ethiopia -- Muslim 32.8%

At 40% you will find widespread massacres, chronic terror attacks and ongoing militia warfare:

Bosnia -- Muslim 40%
Chad -- Muslim 53.1%
Lebanon -- Muslim 59.7%

From 60% you may expect unfettered persecution of non-believers and other religions, sporadic ethnic cleansing (genocide), use of Sharia Law as a weapon and Jizya, the tax placed on infidels:

Albania -- Muslim 70%
Malaysia -- Muslim 60.4%
Qatar -- Muslim 77.5%
Sudan -- Muslim 70%

After 80% expect State run ethnic cleansing and genocide:

Bangladesh -- Muslim 83%
Egypt -- Muslim 90%
Gaza -- Muslim 98.7%
Indonesia -- Muslim 86.1%
Iran -- Muslim 98%
Iraq -- Muslim 97%
Jordan -- Muslim 92%
Morocco -- Muslim 98.7%
Pakistan -- Muslim 97%
Palestine -- Muslim 99%
Syria -- Muslim 90%
Tajikistan -- Muslim 90%
Turkey -- Muslim 99.8%
United Arab Emirates -- Muslim 96%

100% will usher in the peace of 'Dar-es-Salaam' -- the Islamic House of Peace -- there's supposed to be peace because everybody is a Muslim:

Afghanistan -- Muslim 100%
Saudi Arabia -- Muslim 100%
Somalia -- Muslim 100%
Yemen -- Muslim 99.9%

Of course, that's not the case. To satisfy their blood lust, Muslims then start killing each other for a variety of reasons.

'Before I was nine I had learned the basic canon of Arab life. It was me against my brother; me and my brother against our father; my family against my cousins and the clan; the clan against the tribe; and the tribe against the world and all of us against the infidel. – Leon Uris, 'The Haj'

It is good to remember that in many, many countries, such as France, the Muslim populations are centered around ghettos based on their ethnicity. Muslims do not integrate into the community at large. Therefore, they exercise more power than their national average would indicate.

Edit:

The best thing you can do is to educate yourself on the matter. The second best thing you can do is to tell others.

The myth of the tiny radical Muslim minority

/r/IslamUnveiled

Sebastian Gorka on Jihad and what can be done about it.

Political Islam has subjugated civilizations for 1400 years

Islam Q&A part 1

Farrah Prudence's youtube channel

Other useful links:

http://www.clarionproject.org/

http://www.raymondibrahim.com/

https://www.cspii.org/en/articles/

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/

http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Main_Page

https://www.jihadwatch.org/

/r/exmuslim

Your wife is brainwashed. Not in the informal sense when we don't agree with someone's opinion but in the actual sense of what the word. People in China are programmed to behave this way. They are literally brainwashed [1].

• Fact: The Chinese themselves say they brainwash. We use the word "brain washing" because the Chinese created this word and concept based on the original idea by Stalin which they expanded upon. 1 2 3
  
• Fact: Chinese themselves say they were brainwashed and didn't even know it 1 2 3
  
• Fact: The term brainwashing and thought control are accepted term in academic and psychology circles when referring to China's education system 1 2 3 4
  
• Fact: China has a long history of thought control with its roots predating the communist party 1 2 3 4
  
• Fact: Textbooks (and books or even TV shows) that that promote “Western values” are banned in China. 1 2 3 4 5 6
  
• Fact: The Chinese government calls this unity of thought and is intended to be planted in the minds of all citizens. 1 2 3 4
  
• Fact: The Chinese Communist Party has pushed ideological education on students, requiring tedious lessons on Marx and Mao and canned lectures on the virtues of patriotism and loyalty. 1 2 3
  
• Fact: Children as young as six are taught to struggle for the cause of Communism 1 2 3
  
• Fact: All schools have a Communist Youth League (CYL) organizations for students with mandatory activities. 1
  
• Fact: This in turn reduces Chinese students capacity for critical thinking. 1 2 3 4 5
  
  Brainwashing (which actually is a direct translation from the Chinese word 洗脑) is very effective. I am always surprised at how much Chinese think they have free thought, yet when quizzed on the key points, universally their viewpoints (for example that Taiwan and Tibet belong to China, or that falun gong is a evil dangerous cult) line up almost exactly with the official viewpoints of the communist party. Which indeed is not surprising considering they are educated this way in a vacuum. Online you have the 50 cent party (who guides public opinion through online comments), internet censors (who have to learn the truth so they know what to censor), and flooding (deluging the citizen with a torrent of information – some accurate, some phoney, some biased – with the aim of making people overwhelmed). And in the offline world the analogy that their souls have been engineered has been used. You can't grow up in this environment without it having a profound effect on you.
  
  I have no doubt that many Chinese believe they are mostly free. And that is what makes what the party has done so impressive. It's almost as at some point the communist party ceases to exist as a stand alone entity and it just becomes one with the general population.
  
  Part 1 completed.
  
  Part 2 about media control and further indoctrination below:

I just wanted to hear that you guys would all really like The Beauty Myth, a classic feminist text. I love it. It's all about the effort women put in to conform with patriarchal beauty standards, and how they're punished if they don't conform.

I get really tried of the whole "beauty is empowering" and "wellness is empowering" schtick -- how convenient that something so expensive, that fuels such a big industry, is now "empowering!"

https://www.amazon.com/Beauty-Myth-Naomi-Wolf/dp/0679308709/

The regional fed banks and the Board of Governors have very different roles, and his KC experience does not make me confident in his competence to be on the Board of Governors.

Regional Federal Reserve Banks are largely responsible for the administrative aspects of the Federal Reserve's role. This includes things like payment systems management, cash management, and at the New York Fed only, open market operations.

The closest role that the regional federal reserves have to the BoG is their research role, and there are a lot of economic researchers at the regional banks, including some who manage great resources like the St. Louis Fed's FRED system.

Being on the board of a regional Federal Reserve bank is a lot like being on the board of a normal medium to large company. As a pizza company executive, Cain would have been reasonably well qualified for that.

It's also important to note that the chairman of the board of a regional federal reserve bank does not actually administer the bank. There is a President of the bank who is the fulltime employee who actually oversees employees. The board is, like a corporate board, a part-time supervisory entity.

The Board of Governors in contrast is a policymaking and regulatory body. They set interest rates based on expectations about future economic activity. and have broad regulatory powers over American banks and money.

They also have the ultimate power through the Open Market Committee of creating and destroying US Dollars, which is how the Fed can control interest rates.

Being on the Board of Governors is not like being on a corporate board. It is a job which should be held by a skilled macroeconomist who deeply understands monetary policy.

Herman Cain is not a macroeconomist.

In a book of his which seems to be out of print and unavailable for purchase he advocates for a gold standard.

A gold standard is widely considered to be an extremely dumb monetary policy. Notably, former Fed Chair (and very much macroeconomist Ben Bernanke) is one of the world's leading experts on the failures of the gold standard. His 1991 paper on the subject is one of the most important monetary policy works in considering the Great Depression, and finds that abolishing the gold standard is closely correlated with ending the depression in different countries.

Cain does not have the qualifications to be a bank regulator or a macroeconomist. The one policy view we know he has expounded in respect to monetary policy is insane. He is deeply, deeply unqualified for this job.

It's been fun. Spent too much time this week trying to fix my oven, but otherwise . . .

Book's set and out, print and Kindle, managed to get all the Amazon-related problems fixed, and am running a small ad campaign on Facebook and a giveaway on Amazon. Also offered some free copies to people in the field if they're so inclined.

As you asked me to let you know, here's the link to the book, the sweepstakes, and the website respectively.

https://www.amazon.com/dp/1542791030/
https://giveaway.amazon.com/p/76b49f6ced7452cb
http://betweentheborders.com/

I'm beginning to think books stop being work about six minutes after the author's heart stops. ;)

Some great history books:

1. A Short History of Nearly Everything
   
   
2. Stalingrad
   
   
3. The Interrogators
   
   
4. On Roads
   
   The first and last are not military history but are quite a good and different reads for someone interested in history and facts.

The most complete explanation of his ideas is probably Das Kapital, but it has a well-deserved reputation for being particularly difficult to get into. A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy also has some good insights into his thoughts while the later Critique of the Gotha Progra has more detail concerning what a communist society might actually look like. If you're looking for a secondary source, Karl Marx's Theory of History is excellent.

They didn't "come to America," but yes of course the conflict between the United States and the Islamic world started before the events you outlined. I'll outline the relevant points as summarily as I can. For brevity, I will include history only related to the United States and not broader Western civilization. The case of the United States is salient and representative.

History of Islam: Muhammad to 1776

Muhammad first began teaching among Pagan Arabs who were more or less friendly until he began to teach that there is only one God and all other religions' followers shall burn in hell. When they began to threaten him and his people, he fled to Mecca and Medina, subsequently taking over the western half of Saudi Arabia along with the eastern tip (Oman). Almost all secular scholars of the Qur'an agree that it is as much a political guidebook (how to run a society) as a religious text (how to be a good person). Upon his death in 632, his followers interpreted the book as they did, and a system of Caliphates began to rule the Islamic world. By 661, all of what we call the Middle East and northeastern Africa was under the Caliphate. By the 8th century, the Caliphate had extended to include land from Spain to Pakistan. This was unsustainable militarily (given few people liked being ruled under Islamic law), so it was pulled back. The Turkish peoples were to become the new military force of the Caliphate, and took Constantinople just before Columbus "found" the "New World." When the United States declared independence, Abdul Hamid I was sultan, with even Baghdad under his rule (that article makes him sound friendlier than he actually was -- he was compelled to sign treaties after military defeats).

Barbary Slaves and Pirating

Before the United States had first elected Washington as President, the Congress found itself at odds with the Caliphate controlled lands. At this time, the Muslim world was taking Europeans and Americans as slaves, estimates are that as many as 1.25 million slaves were taken from the Western world (source: Robert Davis). John Adams, America's London ambassador, was sent to the Tripoli ambassador to discuss the matter, and was met with a demand of money for various levels of peace. Terms were set for the release of slaves, short term peace, and even a price for long term peace. The United States argued that it was a new nation. If their military had previously quarreled with Europe, that was of no concern to the United States. Could not peace with a new nation be had?

When Jefferson took the Presidency in 1801, he was immediately met with a demand of $4,000,000 (adjusted for inflation but not %GDP or federal budget) to be paid to the Muslim lands. Jefferson demanded repeatedly to know by what right these demands were made. By what right did they capture Americans as slaves, seize her ships, take her property, and demand payment in exchange?

> The Ambassador answered us that it was founded on the Laws of their Prophet, that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as Prisoners.

Thomas Jefferson to Congress and the State Department

Barbary Wars to Usama bin Laden

President Jefferson found himself in the fortunate position of having a capable Navy that he, ironically enough, had fought against funding before being elected. With it, he began the first conflict between the United States and the Caliphate. The second line of the Marine Anthem (To the shores of Tripoli) celebrates the result even today. Congress authorized Jefferson to use the full might of the United States Navy to suppress the military aggression, with permission to seize and destroy property as the Navy was able. The language was quite strong and general.

The modern Islamic revival that began in the 1970s has seen a large surge in the total Muslim population, which we must admit is in some sense responsible for the recent surge of the lower jihad as well (this being the military jihad as opposed to the higher jihad meaning an inner struggle). Al Qaeda's number one demand was restoration of the Caliphate. The crime for which America has been subject to the violence from the radical Islamists was committed after approval by the Saudi royal family to use American troops to free Kuwait from Iraq rather than using their own, limited resources and relying heavily on the local mujahidin. In other words, Usama bin Laden was angry with America because he thought that local insurgents could fight Saddam the same way they had in Afghanistan against the Soviets rather than relying on smart bombs to do the same. (He forgot, or perhaps never knew, that Afghanistan was liberated only through American assistance. People who assert the unsophisticated non-distinction between Al Qaeda and the Taliban forget this. America gave aid to the Taliban, not The Base.)

Also central to crimes committed by the United States in Bin Laden's mind was our admission that we had begun to support the right of East Timor to self determination of government. Here is one of his first speeches after the 2001 attacks.. Ctrl+f "east timor" to see that his complaint is that the Caliphate's maximum extent is no longer in effect, with the world recognizing that the military devastation committed by Indonesia was invalid.

Specific Points: Iran in WWII, The Taliban, Gulf War vs. bin Laden, and Diplomacy

So, yes, the Barbary wars happened before the Iranian coup. Keep in mind also that 1953 is also after 1945 when Nazi Germany surrendered. At that time, Iran was already under the full control of Britain and Russia (mostly the British), essentially a colony like India was. This invasion was necessary because Reza Shah was attempting to play neutral while supplying the Nazi war machine with crude oil necessary for its logistical world domination. "Iran" in Persian means "The Land of the Aryans," which Persia abruptly changed its name to in 1935, just as it was becoming friendly toward the Germans. After the war was over, Britain had a number of privately owned fields, purchased legally from the owners of the land. When Iran elected Mosaddegh to nationalize the oilfields, they did so illegally. Their country or not, the heart of libertarianism is the right to free exchange and free markets. Unless you agree that the United States can simply seize the property of any foreign corporation who operates in any way through the United States, you cannot support the right of anyone, anywhere to loot by law. The course of action taken by the West was perhaps morally wrong. But it was in response to a moral wrong, not the initiation of one. I find that very few internet historians know the history of Iran before 1953. This has always seemed odd to me -- where are you all getting your similarly edited information?

The military bases in Islamic lands were widely supported at the time by both governments and peoples. They still celebrate it as a national day of pride. Again, bin Laden considers this the great evil of America because he wanted the local mujahidin to fight Saddam rather than bringing in any Western aid. You may freely be against the Gulf War, but you cannot rationalize that the intervention was innately immoral since the United States determined that losing control of the Kuwait and Saudi oilfields would have been damaging to her interests. In other words, the United States did not initiate force but responded to the initiation of force upon a friend.

The United States used the Taliban to fight the Soviet Empire. I fail to see this as a moral evil.

The United States necessarily has diplomatic relations with all countries who are willing, including bad guys. Egyptians and Tunisians far and away have more warm feelings for the United States than ill-feelings. Only with sources such as Russia Today can you attempt to support the notion that we stood between these leaders and their people. The West was crucial to their overthrow, including freezing of their foreign assets.

Recommended Reading

Islamic Radicalism and Global Jihad History of radical Islam and current resurgence. Takes a look at the old scholars and new.

The Looming Tower Everything leading up to 9/11

Christian Slaves, Muslim Masters Details the Barbary coast slave trade

The Trial of Henry Kissinger Outlines US war crimes

Qur'an My English translation.

Instructions for American Servicemen in Iran During World War II Self explanatory.

The Forever War Solidly good book.

The Rape of Kuwait Iraq war crimes in Kuwait


Edits

• Corrected a couple subject-verb agreements.
  
  
• Added section headers.
  
  
• Added recommended reading list.
  
  
• Reworked a paragraph in the last section.

Here are all the local Amazon links I could find:


amazon.co.uk

amazon.ca

amazon.com.au

amazon.in

amazon.com.mx

amazon.de

amazon.it

amazon.es

amazon.com.br

amazon.nl

amazon.co.jp

amazon.fr

Beep bloop. I'm a bot to convert Amazon ebook links to local Amazon sites.
I currently look here: amazon.com, amazon.co.uk, amazon.ca, amazon.com.au, amazon.in, amazon.com.mx, amazon.de, amazon.it, amazon.es, amazon.com.br, amazon.nl, amazon.co.jp, amazon.fr, if you would like your local version of Amazon adding please contact my creator.

I applied to a medium sized department. Over 1,000 people applied for the job, 600+ were allowed to test, 200+ were interviewed, and only 45 were selected for the academy. Out of the 45 recruits, only 7 people had degrees. College education is highly viewed upon, but if you can't pass the tests then you don't get selected. It doesn't matter what kind of degree you have. They're just looking for someone who is willing to better themselves. The more CJ classes you have, the easier it will be to understand the material you'll be faced with. I'm including a book that helped me kick some major tail on the entry exams and helped me understand the basics of what recruiters were looking for. Other than that...start running, doing pushups, and smoking yourself at least three days a week. Crossfit was a major part of my academy.

http://www.amazon.com/Barrons-Police-Officer-Exam-Examination/dp/0764140914/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1345491382&sr=8-1&keywords=police+test+study+guide+2012

It is fine I enjoy etymologies, though when I was looking up the actual language/source for those 'latin' words it turned out there were more than a few references to the same copypasta. Sort of a lesson in being careful with information even when it agrees with your ideology.

Ditto for this V bullshit (quoting wikipedia):
>In Latin, a stemless variant shape of the upsilon was borrowed in early times as V—either directly from the Western Greek alphabet or from the Etruscan alphabet as an intermediary—to represent the same /u/ sound, as well as the consonantal /w/. Thus, 'num' — originally spelled 'NVM' — was pronounced /num/ and 'via' was pronounced [ˈwia]. From the 1st century AD on, depending on Vulgar Latin dialect, consonantal /w/ developed into /β/ (kept in Spanish), then later to /v/.

Both B and V are very present.

I suggest two tactics. One, help combat the false memory and satanic panic disinformation campaigns wherever you see them. They are still proliferated. Ross Cheit's "The Witch Hunt Narrative" is a great resource.

Two, unfortunately even here in this sub, the less credible survivor accounts are often posted. Spread these instead, they are well researched, and one is by an award winning author. This helps with problems of legitimacy.

https://www.amazon.com/Day-Breaks-Over-Dharamsala-Memoir-ebook/dp/B00JVVBXSW

https://www.amazon.com/Betrayed-Chilling-Experiments-Performed-CVhildren/dp/097101020X

https://www.amazon.com/Surviving-Evil-Control-Experiments-Vermont/dp/0981537634

If you want "real world" applications, check out The Voluntary City. Similarly, The Economics of Liberty.

Ron Paul's books are also great introductory pieces; concise & easy to read.

I also recommend the following two shorter, theoretical manuscripts:

Etienne LaBoettie's Politics of Obedience: Discourse on Voluntary Servitude (Free!)

Lysander Spooner's No Treason: The Constitution of No Authority (Free!)

The recommended section is just a treasure trove of amazing garbage:

Ben Shapiro

Mike Thernovich

Vox Day

This dumbass

The_Alinsky_fearer has logged on

Trump as a soviet worker

Sharia law is coming to your chipolte

The adventures of Hitler

Scott Adams: Failing is actually success

This is a good thing to do. I tried to get it all down in a reference guide as a book... please consider using it as a source (also with references to sources, etc...) Thank you. https://www.amazon.com/Fade-Out-Obama-Clinton-Oligarchy-Propaganda/dp/1544288778

Sillä nyt ei ole niin mitään väliä. Muslimien kasvavan väestönosuuden vaikutukset ei oo mitenkään epäselviä tai tuntemattomia. Edelliseltä tuhannelta vuodelta kun on olemassa heti enemmälti tietoa. Tässä vaikka aiheeseen perehtyneen tutkijan kirja. Ja synopsi.

The author of the above text, Dr. Peter Hammond, wrote this book which contains his documentation.

Yup.
https://www.amazon.com/Slavery-Terrorism-Islam-Historical-Contemporary/dp/0958454981

You and /u/DiscoLollipop

IIRC it's from this book: https://www.amazon.com/Slavery-Terrorism-Islam-Historical-Contemporary/dp/0958454981

>When Muslims approach 10% of the population, they tend to increase lawlessness as a means of complaint about their conditions. In Paris, we are already seeing car-burnings. Any non -muslim action offends Islam, and results in uprisings and threats, such as in Am- sterdam, with opposition to Mohammed cartoons and films about Islam. Such tensions are seen daily, particularly in Muslim sections,