Best products from r/brexit

The first theories on this appeared in the states after Bush II got elected:

What's the Matter with Kansas?: How Conservatives Won the Heart of America

https://www.amazon.com/dp/080507774X/

But it’s basically identity politics. The world has gotten to complex for many to understand so they’ve retreated back to a single strategy

If they are like me they will care about what I care about and handle things the way I would handle them if I was in charge

So BJs and trumps primary strategy is looking and sounding like the people whose votes they want. Trump even watches Fox News (Murdoch) as research to better know what that is.

Oh but they do. They buy the stuff that's going cheap, from desperate people willing to sell. They then hold on to it, and sell it back when it's worth more, use it as a write-off, or a thousand other things rich people not in the messed-up economy can afford to do. You can read about it in Jacob Rees Mogg's father's book entitled "Blood in the Streets: Investment Profits in a World Gone Mad". Yes, JRM's father literally wrote the book on how to make money from events such as Brexit.

And you didn't comment on the rest of EthiczGradient's post, so can we assume you agree with it?

Oh boy - here we go - another apologist.

Challenge accepted - lets see what the historians say.

> The Nazis were left-wingers, you ignorant prat.

Strasserism was left-wing. The SA were originally raised from the workers class. Both were purged from the Nazi parties by the time it rose from obscurity to power.

According the Holocaust Encyclopedia

>In the months after Hitler took power, SA and Gestapo agents went from door to door looking for Hitler’s enemies. They arrested Socialists, Communists, trade union leaders, and others who had spoken out against the Nazi party; some were murdered. By the summer of 1933, the Nazi party was the only legal political party in Germany. Nearly all organized opposition to the regime had been eliminated. Democracy was dead in Germany.

German Socialists and communists were purged in the Nazi concentration camps. Fascists were not - that fact alone should demonstrate to you that the Nazis weren't left-wingers

.

> As an ultra-nationalist, socially conservative, anti-egalitarian and fascist ideology, Nazism naturally falls on the extreme far-right end of the political spectrum;

Hitler: A Biography - Ian Kershaw

>[Hitler] was wholly ignorant of any formal understanding of the principles of economics. For him, as he stated to the industrialists, economics was of secondary importance, entirely subordinated to politics. His crude social-Darwinism dictated his approach to the economy, as it did his entire political “world-view.” Since struggle among nations would be decisive for future survival, Germany’s economy had to be subordinated to the preparation, then carrying out, of this struggle. This meant that liberal ideas of economic competition had to be replaced by the subjection of the economy to the dictates of the national interest. Similarly, any “socialist” ideas in the Nazi programme had to follow the same dictates. Hitler was never a socialist. But although he upheld private property, individual entrepreneurship, and economic competition, and disapproved of trade unions and workers’ interference in the freedom of owners and managers to run their concerns, the state, not the market, would determine the shape of economic development. Capitalism was, therefore, left in place. But in operation it was turned into an adjunct of the state.

One of the cofounders, Otter Strasser, was socialist-minded - but he was booted out before the Nazis came to power. His Brother was later liquidated after Hitler became the Fuhrer.

>Unfortunately for him, he had taken seriously not only the word “socialist” but the word “workers” in the party’s official name of National Socialist German Workers’ Party. He had supported certain strikes of the socialist trade unions and demanded that the party come out for nationalization of industry. This of course was heresy to Hitler, who accused Otto Strasser of professing the cardinal sins of “democracy and liberalism.” On May 21 and 22, 1930, the Fuehrer had a showdown with his rebellious subordinate and demanded complete submission. When Otto refused, he was booted out of the party.

The Coming of the Third Reich - Richard J. Evans

>In the climate of postwar counter-revolution, national brooding on the “stab-in-the-back,” and obsession with war profiteers and merchants of the rapidly mushrooming hyperinflation, Hitler concentrated especially on rabble-rousing attacks on “Jewish” merchants who were supposedly pushing up the price of goods: they should all, he said, to shouts of approval from his audiences, be strung up. Perhaps to emphasize this anti-capitalist focus, and to align itself with similar groups in Austria and Czechoslovakia, the party changed its name in February 1920 to the National Socialist German Workers’ Party…. Despite the change of name, however, it would be wrong to see Nazism as a form of, or an outgrowth from, socialism. True, as some have pointed out, its rhetoric was frequently egalitarian, it stressed the need to put common needs above the needs of the individual, and it often declared itself opposed to big business and international finance capital. Famously, too, anti-Semitism was once declared to be “the socialism of fools.” But from the very beginning, Hitler declared himself implacably opposed to Social Democracy and, initially to a much smaller extent, Communism: after all, the “November traitors” who had signed the Armistice and later the Treaty of Versailles were not Communists at all, but the Social Democrats.

and

>The “National Socialists” wanted to unite the two political camps of left and right into which, they argued, the Jews had manipulated the German nation. The basis for this was to be the idea of race. This was light years removed from the class-based ideology of socialism. Nazism was in some ways an extreme counter-ideology to socialism, borrowing much of its rhetoric in the process, from its self-image as a movement rather than a party, to its much-vaunted contempt for bourgeois convention and conservative timidity.


Now - lets check with an actual historical expert in National Socialism - Joachim Fest

>This ideology took a leftist label chiefly for tactical reasons. It demanded, within the party and within the state, a powerful system of rule that would exercise unchallenged leadership over the “great mass of the anonymous.” And whatever premises the party may have started with, by 1930 Hitler’s party was “socialist” only to take advantage of the emotional value of the word, and a “workers’ party” in order to lure the most energetic social force. As with Hitler’s protestations of belief in tradition, in conservative values, or in Christianity, the socialist slogans were merely movable ideological props to serve as camouflage and confuse the enemy.


>In terms of labor, worker strikes were outlawed. Trade unions were replaced by the party-controlled German Labor Front, primarily tasked with increasing productivity, not protecting workers. In lieu of the socialist ideal of an egalitarian, worker-run state, the National Socialists erected a party-run police state whose governing structure was anti-democratic, rigidly hierarchical, and militaristic in nature. As to the redistribution of wealth, the socialist ideal “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need” was rejected in favor of a credo more on the order of “Take everything that belongs to non-Aryans and keep it for the master race.”

>Above all, the Nazis were German white nationalists. What they stood for was the ascendancy of the “Aryan” race and the German nation, by any means necessary. Despite co-opting the name, some of the rhetoric, and even some of the precepts of socialism, Hitler and party did so with utter cynicism, and with vastly different goals. The claim that the Nazis actually were leftists or socialists in any generally accepted sense of those terms flies in the face of historical reality.

A bit of Friday fun.

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Sleepers-Complete-DVD-Nigel-Havers/dp/B01C30L422

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sleepers_(TV_series)

There's a book listing all the place that GB invaded. https://www.amazon.co.uk/All-Countries-Weve-Ever-Invaded/dp/0752479695/ref=sr_1_2?keywords=we+have+invaded&qid=1567781762&s=gateway&sr=8-2 Conversely the list of places that invaded GB in the past is everyone with good enough ships.

There's a similar book for the USA it's 110 pages longer.

Jacob Rees Mogg's father wrote a book on how to do exactly this - invest then cripple the economy and reap the profits for yourself.

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Blood-Streets-Investment-Profits-World/dp/067162735X

We don’t either...

But that’s because there isn’t any logic. It’s a bunch of extremists on one side followed by a bunch of ver gullible people. In the case of the latter rather than admit they were wrong they double down and move the goal posts, currently the excuse is ‘it would be good to go without for a bit’ (makes people grateful). In the case of the former they are disaster capitalism who want carnage (look at this book called ‘blood on the streets’ by Rees Moggs dad) they know they can protect their money (by moving there main source of income to Ireland In the case of Rees Mogg or by becoming a french resident like Lawson) but want our assets.

His brother's work "In the time of of Winston Churchill", Haffner's the "meaning" and Klemperer's LTI are worth a read, as welll. Führer means leader.

And never forget Bracher: The Origins, Structure, and Effects of National Socialism

https://www.amazon.de/Meaning-Hitler-Sebastian-Haffner/dp/0297792555

https://www.amazon.de/Language-Third-Reich-Imperii-Continuum/dp/0826491308

https://www.amazon.com/German-Dictatorship-Structure-National-Socialism/dp/1125634790

Brexit story is on sale on amazon https://www.amazon.co.uk/NeverEnding-Story-DVD-Noah-Hathaway/dp/B0017U09JE

If we leave without a deal, then everything will be up for grabs. We will have no chips to bargain with. To stop the UK haemorrhaging jobs and money, we'll be desperate to accept anything that is offered. The NHS will simply not survive.

You might call this project fear, but I don't see how no-deal could turn out much different. Leave campaigners predicted long queues of countries competing for trade deals with the UK the day after the referendum, but nothing of the sort ever happened. The reality will be much worse. This is from Ian Dunt's 2016 book:

>Ahead of talks, the UK prime minister and the US president hold a joint press conference. Theresa May says it shows countries are still keen to trade with the UK, while her American counterpart confirms the US commitment to the special relationship. Then the doors of the negotiating room close and the two leaders are replaced by grim-faced trade experts.
>
>Britain had a chronic shortage of negotiators during the EU talks and the situation has not improved. The ones facing the American team are those who are not required to fight the fires at the WTO. Many are civil servants who have had to read up on trade in the years since Brexit. They face highly specialised trade experts who have been doing this their entire careers.
>
>The public rhetoric disappears. It is replaced by hard-headed demands. US trade officials inform their British counterparts of the reality of the situation. The UK is in a position of unique and historic vulnerability. Investor confidence has dissolved. Its economy is facing its most significant shock since the Second World War. It has no time. It has no negotiating capacity. But Washington wants to help. It is prepared to rush a trade deal through Congress. It could take less than two years. But for this to be achievable, the UK needs to accept all of its demands. The Americans slide a piece of paper across the desk. The British team read the demands: they are horrendous. Consumer protections are reduced across the board, along with environmental regulations and safeguards for the NHS.
>
>UK civil servants have little option but to capitulate. The only way to protect what remains of the British economy is to sell off British sovereignty. The control wrestled from Brussels is now sold off to the highest bidder, behind closed doors, in a conference room in Washington.

I'd start by reading [Kicking Away the Ladder] (https://www.amazon.co.uk/Kicking-Away-Ladder-Development-Institutions/dp/1843310279), by the Cambridge economist Ha Joon Chang.

Then you might look at [The Globalisation Paradox] (https://www.amazon.co.uk/Globalization-Paradox-Dani-Rodrik/dp/019965252X) by the Harvard economist Dani Rodrik - in fact, I would start with that one, as Rodrik's a much easier read than Chang.

Or you might check out the new book by these two Nobel-winning economists. Unlike the others, I've not read it yet, but it [notes] (http://news.mit.edu/2019/good-economics-hard-times-1112) that:

> “On trade it is the opposite,” Duflo says. “The evidence shows that people’s instinctive view of trade, that it does hurt them, has a lot that is true about it, and economists’ instinctive view on trade, that it should be good for everyone, is not correct.”

Or you could just let u/SideburnsOfDoom gaslight you into thinking that Dunt's argument has nothing to do with trade economics. Your call, I suppose. Remainers generally don't like learning anything, I've noticed.

Not what you had in mind, but: https://www.amazon.co.uk/Victorians-Twelve-Titans-Forged-Britain/dp/0753548526

I read this one a few years ago - it tells you how the EU works, if you know enough about how the UK government functions then you can draw parallels and come to a judgement about how different the EU is: https://www.amazon.co.uk/EU-Nutshell-Everything-wanted-European/dp/0857192310/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1511037242&sr=1-1&keywords=eu+in+a+nutshell

Now a book about about Boris is showing in the sponsored products section https://www.amazon.co.uk/basic-laws-human-stupidity/dp/8815233814

>These are programmed responses

Have you read this book?

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Prometheus-Rising-Robert-Anton-Wilson/dp/1561840564

Read Blood In The Streets by Walter Softy Senior, it explains the whole plan there.

I think that this book should be read publicly. In every city in Europe.

The Road to Unfreedom: Russia, Europe, America (Timothy Snyder)

https://www.amazon.com/Road-Unfreedom-Russia-Europe-America-ebook/dp/B074YM8W91/ref=sr_1_2?__mk_de_DE=%C3%85M%C3%85%C5%BD%C3%95%C3%91&crid=3LAJ9YPXC6FHN&keywords=timothy+snyder&qid=1567754959&s=gateway&sprefix=timothy+sn%2Caps%2C237&sr=8-2