You've made some fair points here. I think it's best not to assume things about people and then run with it, but that's just my opinion. Not much for me to argue against here.

I can't provide you any great wisdom. Making change is incredibly difficult and will require you to give it all. There will be no rewards and you'll likely die before you see the fruits of your labor. If you're even remotely successful, special interests will fight you. You might even find yourself in danger. If you're going to give yourself to make changes you believe in, you have to commit.

If you don't have the stomach for that then you aren't a leader and that's okay. If you still want to make some sort of impact, you're going to have to do some research and find people/causes that you believe in. Reach out to them and ask what you can do to be a part of their efforts. They'll ask you what you're good at - it's best to use your personal skills to help. If you can't do that, then money or assets is always helpful.

Change won't come unless our communities are strong. We've done a great job neutering ourselves in this sense. Comparitively, almost nobody participates in local politics. Almost nobody knows their neighbors. In the places I've lived, having a block party would be awkward - this is a problem. I think Huey P. Newton had a lot of great ideas in organizing communities. I recommend reading the Huey P. Newton Reader.

Just like every movement before it, it only takes one community to have relative success to build momentum. From there, reach out to other communities and organizations to build alliances. Come up with solid models for independent communities and then sell that idea to the rest of the world. I say sell because it will take salesmanship - the ideas should be given for free though :P

Community building is exactly what we should be working on now. This isn't easy, and in many cases will end in utter failure. I have to go, but if anyone happens to read this, post your questions here.

[Continued from Part 1]

Chapter 3: Immigration & trans people

>At the end of the day muslims will pick a side and they will undoubtedly pick muslim. Their ideology is not compatible with the west.

So, not surprisingly, I disagree with everything you said about Muslims. It's too big of a subject for me to fact-check all your statements, but respectfully, you are misinformed on this issue. I'd encourage you to check out this book which has some really surprising research and statistics, such as the fact that men who become radicalized to terror are overwhelmingly from secular households. Statistically speaking, the more religious the family you were raised in is, the less likely you are to become a terrorist.

>Thier parents made a choice coming here illegally.

It is perfectly legal to seek asylum in the US. The reason the WH gets off on calling it "illegal" is because when the refugees do try to follow the rules, they get turned away, or are unable to enter for some other reason. With no options left, they cross a river or something when the government has clearly said, "please only use this road over here," and then blocked that road. The result? "Hey! You're crossing illegally!" So, just to be clear, this isn't a "law" that's being broken here, we're just talking about people not crossing in exactly the way the government asks.

Now, as for this

>My point is that I'm sure many of these kids didnt have am issue we being split up form their parents.

The American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychological Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Medical Association, and the Society for Research in Child Development, and others, disagree with you. Here's a report by several experts talking about the effect this could have on children.

>We will only be allowing women/trans people to die beucase they wont be suited for the work. Furthermore we will be putting the life of our men in danger too.

So, what you kind of just said here is that women shouldn't be in the military either. If what you're saying is, yes they can be, but they should have different jobs from men, then I think you're underestimating the military's interest, for both women and trans men, in making sure each solider is fit for their work. When women go to basic, they have to be able to do the same things as the men. Why would it be any different for men who used to be women? And as for having "identity issues," every soldier also has to be found psychologically competent, regardless of who they are, so you're fretting about checks and balances that already exist.

​

Chapter 4: Political Correctness

>You and I will differ of the definition of that term most likely.

Yup.

>I dont want someone who panders to other becuase they dont want to look bad

Ok, but why? Serious question. I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt that you're a decent person. Why not support politicians who speak their minds, defend themselves when questioned, but who are not being total dicks to people in the first place? (By the way, want another lie? Trump later denied what you saw happen in that clip.) You know what other politicians are really blunt, and take a lot of criticism, and refuse to back down and apologize? Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. Being honest and brave with unpopular opinions is possible without being an asshole.

Here is my position on political correctness: it's a term made up to politicize something that used to be a bipartisan value: it was called, regular politeness. Common decency. Good manners.

And you know what, man? Mocking the disabled isn't brave. Insulting Mexicans and Muslims isn't brave. Calling reporters things like "racist" and "stupid" and "rude" isn't brave. It's cowardly. He's a bully, man. Not a hero.

>You have said your choices about economics and decency. I disagree. What is a society that cant sustain its self? The USSR is an example. Nazi germany is an example.

Ok...what?? It sounds like you're saying the USSR and Nazi Germany failed because they focused too much on decency instead of economics? But that can't be what you're saying.

>In capitalism there will always be a disparity of wealth. There are laws will narrow that gap.

Well, so far all the GOP has done is widen that gap.

And yes, capitalism entails wealth disparity, but I don't believe there's another country in the world that has as much of a disparity as the US does. There's no mainstream or even niche voice in US politics advocating for full-on Communism where there's no disparity at all, but it doesn't have to be one extreme or the other. The US can be a better place to live for everyone by making some changes that would put it in line with other developed, wealthy countries.

>Your quote about hitler. My rebuttle is. Dont throw the baby out with the bath water.

I'm familiar with the expression, but I don't understand how it applies here. I was talking about things not having the proper moral weight. But I think we can move past that now, because I was basically trying to say to you, if we agree on the same set of truths, then what you're saying to me is preposterous. But obviously, we are working from a polarized set of beliefs, so the Hitler example I made doesn't really apply.

>You made an allusion to space. Are you familiar with Werner von Braun? If not look him up. Should be not tall about doing to the moon anymore? Should we not be proud of it.

Of course we should be proud of it. And I am grateful for progress, which is why I fight to keep it! Look, just because America has done good things, and just because a former Nazi contributed to the space program, doesn't muddy the waters on morality that's already well-understood. Yes, people are complicated. You can be both a nazi and a brilliant scientist. Trump probably has good qualities about him too. Nazis wanted everyone to have cars!

Ok, but so what? One thing doesn't cancel out the other. They just exist side by side as a testament to how complex human beings are.

>There is good and bad everywhere and sometimes it occupies the same place, it's our job to separate it properly.

Which is what I've been patiently trying to do throughout this response. I hope you get something out of it. I know I threw a lot of links at you, but I'd like to especially highlight the NYT piece on Trump's tax fraud, which is a pretty huge deal: it's settled the question of whether Trump's a criminal, but it doesn't sound like you're aware of it. And if you don't want to read the whole thing, especially after reading my ~3500 word reply to you, just google the keywords and you'll find dozens of summaries of that piece from other news orgs.

​

VI. Logrolling and Vote Trading

The public choice concept of ‘ logrolling ’ denotes the exchange of favors among the political factions in order to get one’s favored project through by supporting the projects of the other group. This conduct leads to the steady expansion of state activity. Through the ‘quid pro quo’ of the political process, the lawmakers support pieces of legislation of other factions in exchange for obtaining the political support for their own project. This behavior leads to the phenomenon of ‘legislative inflation’, the avalanche of useless, contradictory and detrimental law production.

VII. Common Good

The so-called ‘ common good’ is not a well-defined concept. Similar terms, such as that of the ‘public good’, which is defined by non-excludability and non-rivalry, misses the point because it is not the good that is ‘common’ or ‘public’ but its provision when this is deemed more efficient by collective than individual efforts. However, this is the case with all goods and the market itself is a system of providing private goods through cooperative efforts. The market economy is a collective provider of goods as it combines competition with cooperation. Any of the so-called ‘public goods’, which the government supplies, the private sector can also deliver, and cheaper and better as well. In contrast to the state, the cooperation in a market economy includes competition and thus not only economic efficiency but also the incentive to innovate.

VIII. Regulatory Capture

The term ‘ regulatory capture ’ denotes a government failure where the regulatory agency does not pursue the original intent of promoting the ‘public interest’ but falls victim to the special interest of those groups, which the agency was set up to regulate. The capture of the regulatory body by private interests means that the agency turns into an instrument to advance the special interests of the group that was targeted for regulation. For that purpose, the special interest group will ask for extra regulation to obtain the state apparatus as an instrument to promote its special interests.

IX. Short-Sightedness

The political time horizon is the next election. In the endeavor that the benefits of political action come quickly to their specific clienteles, the politician will favor short-term projects over the long-term even if the former bring only temporary benefits and cost more in the long run than an alternative project where the costs come earlier and the benefits later. Because the provision of public goods by the state severs the link between the bearer of the cost and the immediate beneficiary, the time preference for the demand for the goods that come apparently free of charge by the state is necessarily higher than in the market system.

X. Rational Ignorance

It is rational for the individual voter in a mass democracy to remain ignorant about the political issues because the value of the individual's vote is so small that it makes not much difference for the outcome. The rational voter will vote for those candidates who promise most benefits. Given the small weight of an individual vote in a mass democracy, the rational voter will not spend much time and effort to investigate whether these promises are realistic or in a collision with his other desires. Thus, the political campaigns do not have information and enlightenment as the objective but disinformation and confusion. What counts, in the end, is to get votes. Not the solidity of the program is important but the enthusiasm a candidate can create with his supporters and how much he can degrade, denounce, and humiliate his opponent. As a consequence, election campaigns incite hatred, polarization, and the lust for revenge.

Here's info from his book:

​

The American Century began in 1941 and ended on January 20, 2017. While the United States remains a military giant and is still an economic powerhouse, it no longer dominates the world economy or geopolitics as it once did. The current turn toward nationalism and “America first” unilateralism in foreign policy will not make America great. Instead, it represents the abdication of our responsibilities in the face of severe environmental threats, political upheaval, mass migration, and other global challenges.

In this incisive and forceful book, Jeffrey D. Sachs provides the blueprint for a new foreign policy that embraces global cooperation, international law, and aspirations for worldwide prosperity―not nationalism and gauzy dreams of past glory. He argues that America’s approach to the world must shift from military might and wars of choice to a commitment to shared objectives of sustainable development. Our pursuit of primacy has embroiled us in unwise and unwinnable wars, and it is time to shift from making war to making peace and time to embrace the opportunities that international cooperation offers. A New Foreign Policy explores both the danger of the “America first” mindset and the possibilities for a new way forward, proposing timely and achievable plans to foster global economic growth, reconfigure the United Nations for the twenty-first century, and build a multipolar world that is prosperous, peaceful, fair, and resilient.

​

And book link at Amazon:

​

https://www.amazon.com/New-Foreign-Policy-American-Exceptionalism/dp/023118848X/ref=sr_1_2?crid=2XRWKZEP4WAGB&keywords=a+new+foreign+policy+beyond+american+exceptionalism&qid=1568904795&s=gateway&sprefix=a+new+for%2Caps%2C192&sr=8-2

​

Also about Jeffrey Sachs:

​

About Jeffrey D. Sachs

Jeffrey D. Sachs is a world-renowned economics professor, bestselling author, innovative educator, and global leader in sustainable development. He is widely recognized for bold and effective strategies to address complex challenges including debt crises, hyperinflations, the transition from central planning to market economies, the control of AIDS, malaria, and other diseases, the escape from extreme poverty, and the battle against human-induced climate change. He is Director of the UN Sustainable Development Solutions Network, a commissioner of the UN Broadband Commission for Development, and an SDG Advocate for UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres. From 2001-18, Sachs served as Special Advisor to the UN Secretary General, for Kofi Annan (2001-7), Ban Ki-moon (2008-16), and Antonio Guterres (2017-18).


Professor Sachs was the co-recipient of the 2015 Blue Planet Prize, the leading global prize for environmental leadership. He was twice named among Time magazine's 100 most influential world leaders and has received 28 honorary degrees. The New York Times called Sachs "probably the most important economist in the world," and Time magazine called Sachs "the world's best-known economist." A survey by The Economist ranked Sachs as among the three most influential living economists.


Professor Sachs serves as the Director of the Center for Sustainable Development at Columbia University. He is University Professor at Columbia University, the university's highest academic rank. Sachs was Director of the Earth Institute from 2002 to 2016.


Sachs has authored and edited numerous books, including three New York Times bestsellers, The End of Poverty (2005), Common Wealth: Economics for a Crowded Planet (2008), and The Price of Civilization (2011). Other books include To Move the World: JFK's Quest for Peace (2013), The Age of Sustainable Development (2015), Building the New American Economy: Smart, Fair & Sustainable (2017), and most recently A New Foreign Policy: Beyond American Exceptionalism (2018).


Prior to joining Columbia, Sachs spent over twenty years as a professor at Harvard University, most recently as the Galen L. Stone Professor of International Trade. A native of Detroit, Michigan, Sachs received his B.A., M.A., and Ph.D. degrees at Harvard.

> What's your revenue, asshole? Let me help you: zero. You're a social parasite. Instead of posting excruciatingly long and bullshity posts (not only this one, all of your posts are depressingly horse-manurey), maybe you could actually DO something useful.

I'm going to be heading to university this September, with the hope of working in academia - I don't have a job yet because, instead, I'm planning it out. Following university, I've be heading to the continent through European Voluntary Service, and possibly EURES as a means of finding a job. I have business start-up ideas, myself, written down, but I'm not that much of an idiot to try to create one either straight away, and especially not in this climate.

And, for the record, I contribute more to the economy than you do by a long shot, as I'm one of the people who contributed £22.7 billion to the UK economy in 2007/8, and have been similarly up to this year, where I am still volunteering.

Do I take any of that money home? No, but I certainly give to the economy, and take absolutely nothing from it, as I'm still living with my employed parents. If I were to rely on the welfare system, my contributions to it would make me fully entitled to do so, as would everyone else's - everyone is entitled to welfare; that's why it exists.

> And, just so that you'll feel shitty, my company is 15 years old, not a fucking startup like you arrogantly and dismissively suggested, employing young people from 15 fucking countries from around the world, making 200% above the EU average for the industry (which is a top-earning industry, btw), free in-house daycare, no overtime whatsoever, 30 days paid vacation, every Friday is optional non-working, etc, and my salary is below the team's average.

I don't feel shitty, actually, but I you seem to have some big issues - if your company was so successful, assuming you aren't one of the many individuals who deserve to be mocked on /r/QuitYourBullshit, then surely you wouldn't be so violently aggressive towards your potential consumers. What do you have to gain by claiming that they're all lazy, other than to promote right-wing biases that have already been thoroughly debunked?

Tell me, as I await for the experts to point holes in your fabricated story, what industry are you in? Dare I ask, what is your company, and where is it based? Do tell me your long-winded story about how "hard work" let to your success.

> You think social equality not possible? A lie? That all is lost? Fuck you! It is certainly impossible with people like you. Now, please do me a favor, and commit suicide. Now. Please. I can't stand human waste such as yourself.

That makes little sense to the topic, but okay. My opinion is, obviously, that social equality cannot work in a free market, capitalist system - a belief that is further reinforced by research such as that found in The Spirit Level, which draws upon other well-documented conclusions.

Enlighten me, where is your argument and sources? As all I see is a whiner getting an e-peen from preaching to the masses that they just "aren't trying hard enough". A person who eithr likes to pretend he has a business, or who created a business pre-depression and profited most from the collapse, and now likes to look down upon those less fortunate than themselves.

Whether nouveau riche and forgot his roots, or old money, all I see is a bitter, despicable man obsessed with schadenfreude - loving to laugh at those poorer than him, who couldn't succeed at the rat race, and having no sympathy because, quite frankly, "they deserved it".

> Instead of posting excruciatingly long and bullshity posts

You're clearly not a very literate man, are you? If you were, this wouldn't be a problem. I bet it burns you up inside to know I am better at this than you. Trust me, it only takes me about 5-10 minutes to write this - it's not a waste to see your reaction to this post.

___

On that note, to do a little snooping myself, I would never have expected someone who owns such an allegedly-multicultural 50-person company to be such a raging antisemite, but I guess that's just what business leaders are like these days. Your profile is a goldmine - it certainly isn't the only cultural gaffe you make, but most are deleted from their original source.

Juan Cole is a good place to start.

An old one, but VERY useful is Sir John Bagot Glubb's A Short History of the Arab Peoples. He lived among the bedouin of the Arabian Peninsula and became fluent in Arabic. Plus he is a good writer. https://www.amazon.com/Short-History-Arab-Peoples/dp/0880292261/ref=sr_1_4?crid=14EK2682K6QSK&keywords=john+glubb&qid=1558423559&s=books&sprefix=john+glubb%2Caps%2C309&sr=1-4

​

I would also recommend Karen Armstrong - anything by her. But The Battle for God: A History of Fundamentalism is fascinating. https://www.amazon.com/Battle-God-History-Fundamentalism-Ballantine-ebook/dp/B005DB6NCA/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=battle+for+god&qid=1558423715&s=books&sr=1-1

​

Best of luck! Hope this helps.

1. "The Trajectory of Justice in America: 2019" by Daniel P. Sheehan, Spring Quarter 2019 at University of California, Santa Cruz (UCSC) in Santa Cruz, California, USA
   
   Syllabus: https://danielpsheehan.com/tja2019/
   
   Videos: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLVza7sesLJh5EM3OE4417e3yiTyndRR6a
   
   (a) "'The Trajectory of Justice in America: 2019' by Daniel P. Sheehan, Class/Lecture #11, 7 May 2019, 'Investigating the Investigation': Listen to Mr. Sheehan explain 'this dance' and 'the law schools' and 'this club' in the United States of America -- start at 52:20 (52 minutes and 20 seconds).": https://www.reddit.com/r/worldpolitics/comments/boouxv/the_trajectory_of_justice_in_america_2019_by/eniray0
   
   Video link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FEj2n_n7Gxc&list=PLVza7sesLJh5EM3OE4417e3yiTyndRR6a&index=12&t=0s
   
   (b) Oil, United States of America (USA), Kuwait, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, And Operation Desert Storm, "Class #2" and "Class #7" in "The Trajectory of Justice in America: 2019" by Daniel P. Sheehan: #5 at https://www.reddit.com/r/worldpolitics/comments/9tjr5w/american_exceptionalism_when_others_do_it/ek5vwy0
   
   (c) "The Trajectory of Justice in America: 2019" by Daniel P. Sheehan, Class/Lecture #14, 21 May 2019, "Oil=Money=Power": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2IdJz5y4oAk&list=PLVza7sesLJh5EM3OE4417e3yiTyndRR6a&index=15&t=0s
   
   
2. Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR), Elmendorf Air Force Base (Alaska, USA) and the 1989 Abbotsford International Airshow in Abbotsford, British Columbia, Canada
   
   (a) High-resolution photos and the story of the United States Air Force (USAF) F-15 Eagle fighter jets, USSR Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-29 "Fulcrum" fighter jets, and the huge USSR Antonov An-225 Mriya "Cossak" transport jet in Alaska, USA -- during the Cold War -- in August 1989: http://chamorrobible.org/gpw/gpw-200701.htm
   
   - "Canadian MiG Flights" by Major Harold A. Skaarup: https://web.archive.org/web/20130605011300/www.capa-acca.com/news/canadian_mig_flight.htm
   
   - "Major Bob Wade's MiG-29 Fulcrum flights" in "Canadian MiG Flights" by Major Harold A. Skaarup, published in 2008: http://books.google.com/books?id=CPXN5nm31o0C&pg=PA5
   
   Source: http://chamorrobible.org/gpw/gpw-200701.htm
   
   Via: http://chamorrobible.org/gpw/gpw.htm via http://chamorrobible.org
   
   (b) "2 MIG's Will Be Escorted Over U.S. Territory" by AP, published 30 July 1989: https://www.nytimes.com/1989/07/30/us/2-mig-s-will-be-escorted-over-us-territory.html
   
   (c) A Royal Canadian Air Force CF-188 Hornet escorts a USSR Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-29 fighter jet (tail number 315) on 6 August 1989 over the Canadian Rockies to the 1989 Abbotsford International Airshow in Abbotsford, British Columbia, Canada: http://web.archive.org/web/20131218234107/www.446aw.afrc.af.mil/shared/media/photodb/photos/080522-F-3961R-996.jpg
   
   Description via: http://books.google.com/books?id=CPXN5nm31o0C&pg=PA5 ("Major Bob Wade's MiG-29 Fulcrum flights" in "Canadian MiG Flights" by Major Harold A. Skaarup via http://chamorrobible.org/gpw/gpw-200701.htm
   
   Photo via: http://web.archive.org/web/20140302125722/www.446aw.afrc.af.mil/photos/media_view.asp?id=271299
   
   (d) "Behind the throttle in a MiG-29: At the Abbotsford Air Show, during the dying days of the Cold War, Canadian CF-18 pilot Major Bob Wade became the first Western pilot to fly a Soviet MiG-29 Fulcrum fighter aircraft. Here's how he did it" by Legion Magazine, published 2 August 2016: https://legionmagazine.com/en/2016/08/behind-the-throttle-in-a-mig-29/
   
   (e) "The Deadly Bermuda Triangle" by Vincent H. Gaddis: http://web.archive.org/web/20080427182922/www.physics.smu.edu/pseudo/BermudaTriangle/vincentgaddis.txt
   
   Source: #20 at https://www.reddit.com/r/worldpolitics/comments/45xqym/supernatural_abductions_in_japanese_folklore_by/d00v6c7 or http://old.reddit.com/r/worldpolitics/comments/45xqym/supernatural_abductions_in_japanese_folklore_by/d00v6c7
   
   - See also: #3a (Daniel P. Sheehan, 5 April 2016, Class #3, nuclear weapons) at https://www.reddit.com/r/worldpolitics/comments/5bpc5x/an_update_for_my_readers_by_peter_levenda/d9q9006
   
   
3. (a) "'The Trajectory of Justice: Rulers of the Realm' by Daniel P. Sheehan, 5 April 2016, Class #3, University of California, USA: 'The Bolshevik Revolution of 1917'-- 31:40 to 47:20 is the story of James 'Jim' Garrison, Mikhail Gorbachev, nuclear weapons, and the very mysterious light inside the Kremlin": https://www.reddit.com/r/worldpolitics/comments/57di5z/the_trajectory_of_justice_rulers_of_the_realm_by/d8r1947
   
   (b) "The Trajectory of Justice" by Daniel P. Sheehan, 2 April 2015, Class #2, University of California, Santa Cruz, USA: 'Challenges to be Faced this Century' -- From 05:14 to 35:00 listen to his 'detailed story on the Iran Contra Scandal' highlighting 'the covert nature of our [USA] political system'": https://www.reddit.com/r/worldpolitics/comments/56oby3/the_trajectory_of_justice_by_daniel_p_sheehan_2/d8loemx
   
   (c) "The Role of the Public Intellectual" by Daniel P. Sheehan, 9 January 2015, Class #11, Santa Cruz Free University, USA: 'Formative Stories and Key Concepts' -- From 10:17 to 29:13 listen to the story of State of New York, USA, Six Indian Nations, land, Mohawk braves, Daniel P. Sheehan, and 'a sweat'": https://www.reddit.com/r/worldpolitics/comments/57lw8h/the_role_of_the_public_intellectual_by_daniel_p/d8t0j0l
   
   Source for #3a, #3b, and #3c: #2c, #1b, #2f at https://www.reddit.com/r/worldpolitics/comments/57di5z/the_trajectory_of_justice_rulers_of_the_realm_by/d8r1947
   
   (d) Gary Null, host of The Progressive Commentary Hour, interviews Daniel P. Sheehan, 16 August 2016, "The case of the US government genocide of indigenous Americans": http://prn.fm/progressive-commentary-hour-08-16-16/
   
   (e) "Future of TV could be pills that make people hallucinate television shows, Netflix boss says" by Andrew Griffin, published 26 October 2016: http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/netflix-pills-drugs-reed-hastings-tv-future-movies-shows-matrix-a7381416.html
   
   
4. (a) The National Press Club, 18 October 2016, Bradley C. Birkenfeld "talked about his book, Lucifer's Banker: The Untold Story of How I Destroyed Swiss Bank Secrecy, about exposing efforts by Swiss bank UBS to shelter billions of dollars for American clients. Mr. Birkenfeld was a banker for UBS and informed the Justice Department and IRS about the bank's practices in 2007.": https://www.c-span.org/video/?417080-1/bradley-birkenfeld-discusses-lucifers-banker
   
   "'Lucifer's Banker' Book Launch Party" by The National Press Club -- the event was held on 18 October 2016 at The National Press Club in Washington, District of Columbia, United States of America: https://www.press.org/events/lucifers-banker-book-launch-party-invite-only
   
   (b) Read
   
   'Supplemental For "Number 7"' -- 911, 9/11, September 11, 2001 -- (#2) at https://www.reddit.com/r/worldpolitics/comments/7k8p42/the_pentagons_secret_search_for_ufos_funded_at/dv5vibm
   
   Via: https://www.reddit.com/r/worldpolitics/comments/7k8p42/the_pentagons_secret_search_for_ufos_funded_at/dtzhc5x))
   
   Source: "A Closer Look At The Unidentified Flying Object (UFO) Phenomenon" at https://www.reddit.com/r/worldpolitics/comments/7k8p42/the_pentagons_secret_search_for_ufos_funded_at/drcdbmo
   
   or
   
   http://old.reddit.com/r/worldpolitics/comments/7k8p42/the_pentagons_secret_search_for_ufos_funded_at/drcdbmo
   
   (c) Rick Wiles, host of Trunews, interviews Russian economist Dr. Tatyana Koryagina on American Freedom News in November 2001, weeks after September 11, 2001 (9/11). The interview begins at 07:35 (7 minutes and 35 seconds) and ends at 55:09 (55 minutes and 9 seconds). This interview was rebroadcast on 20 November 2008 by Rick Wiles on Trunews (trunews.com): https://www.reddit.com/r/worldpolitics/comments/4sle68/rick_wiles_interviews_russian_economist_dr/d5a7v66
   
   Audio file: https://web.archive.org/web/20111016052117/www.trunews.com/Audio/11_20_08_thursday_trunews2.mp3
   
   Via + Much more: #2 at https://www.reddit.com/r/worldpolitics/comments/7k8p42/the_pentagons_secret_search_for_ufos_funded_at/duwoo9d
   
   (d) In "CONCLUSIONS" (page 208) read from page 226 (start at "In the end, it is irrelevant whether") to page 228 in the book titled "October Surprise: America's Hostages in Iran and the Election of Ronald Reagan" by Gary Sick, published in 1991: https://www.amazon.com/October-Surprise-Americas-Hostages-Election/dp/0812919890 or http://web.archive.org/web/20160630192700/hongpong.com/archives/2008/07/23/iran-contra-cliffs-notes-hostage-crises-psyops-and-gop-perception-management-see
   
   The phrase "les crimes puissants qui font trembler les lois" is from the poem titled "A la France" by French poet André Chénier (born in 1762, died in 1794):
   
   - "A LA FRANCE." (page 241, "HYMNES." "I.") in the book "POÉSIES DE ANDRÉ CHÉNIER, PRÉCÉDÉES D'UNE NOTICE PAR M. H. DE LATOUCHE" published in 1840 ("PARIS." "CHARPENTIER, LIBRAIRE-ÉDITEUR" "RUE DE SEINE."): http://archive.org/details/posiesdeandrchn01latogoog
   
   PDF: http://archive.org/download/posiesdeandrchn01latogoog/posiesdeandrchn01latogoog.pdf and http://ia802607.us.archive.org/8/items/posiesdeandrchn01latogoog/posiesdeandrchn01latogoog.pdf
   
   - "A la France": https://poesie.webnet.fr/lesgrandsclassiques/Poemes/andré_chénier/a_la_france
   
   Source: https://poesie.webnet.fr/lesgrandsclassiques/Poemes/andré_chénier
   
   English translation via Google Translate: https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=fr&tl=en&u=https://poesie.webnet.fr/lesgrandsclassiques/Poemes/andré_chénier/a_la_france
   
   
5. Read https://www.reddit.com/r/worldpolitics/comments/asnmu1/washingtons_paralysis_requires_a_constitutional/egvet2g
   
   SectionID: elznjk1

Not sure what you are saying - but the evidence overwhelmingly suggests differences between groups. You can see this in groups of biracial babies quite clearly, they regress to the mean of the parents. For example, a half Asian (avg IQ 110) and half Caucasian (100) baby will on average have an IQ of 105. Strong evidence for both the genetic determination of IQ, as well as racial differences in IQ. It also shows that these differences will decline as humans continue to intermingle, which is good news (IMO).

This book by preeminent human intelligence scientist Ian Deary has a great summary of the research

That's the stupidest thing I ever heard. Brzenski, who was hired to form the Trilateral Commission, wrote a book about the future of complete public surveillance , in filming and computer use. in the future [Now].
Quote: "The technetronic era involves the gradual appearance of a more controlled society. Such a society would be dominated by an elite, unrestrained by traditional values. Soon it will be possible to assert almost continuous surveillance over every citizen and maintain up-to-date complete files containing even the most personal information about the citizen. These files will be subject to instantaneous retrieval by the authorities."
Here
Another eye opener you obviously haven't read is ''Power and Principle: Memoirs of the National Security Adviser, 1977-1981'' by Zbigniew Brzezinski (Mar 1983)
Every single politician speaks as if they care about the public. Only a fucking moron would fall for pretty speeches, without reading books.
David Rockefeller and Alan Greenspen and Henry Kissinger were never ever interested in the freedom of anyone but their wealthy connected friends and family. They say ''some level of freedom'', huh?
Well, I don't need some asshole telling me what freedoms I am allowed to have and which I am not allowed to have.
Kissinger is known world wide as a fucking war criminal and has warrants out for his arrest.
No one in Vietnam or Cambodia, or any other Kissinger planned massacre would say that he cared about their freedom.
Let's look at their present staff of the upper crust bankers and thieves and charlatens.
European Group:
Chairman: Jean-Claude Trichet
Former President of the European Central Bank (ECB); Honorary Governor of the Banque de France; Chairman of the Group of Thirty; and Chairman of the BRUEGEL Institute, Paris
Deputy Chairman: Vladimir Dlouhy
International Advisor, Goldman Sachs; former Czechoslovak Minister of Economy; former Czech Minister of Industry & Trade, Prague
Deputy Chairman: Michael Fuchs
Member of the German Bundestag, Berlin; Deputy Chairman of the CDU/CSU Parliamentary Group; former President, National Federation of German Wholesale & Foreign Trade
North American Group
Chairman: Joseph S. Nye, Jr.
University Distinguished Service Professor and former Dean, John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University, Cambridge; former Chair, National Intelligence Council and former U.S. Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs
Deputy Chairman: Jim Prentice
Senior Executive Vice President and Vice Chairman, Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce (CIBC), Calgary
Deputy Chairman: Jaime Serra
Chairman, SAI Law and Economics; Founder, Aklara, the Arbitration Center of Mexico, and the NAFTA Fund of Mexico, Mexico City
North American Director: Michael J. O'Neil
Former North American Chairmen:
Thomas S. Foley (2001-2008)
Paul A. Volcker (1991-2001) Honorary North American Chairman
David Rockefeller (1977-91) Founder and Honorary North American Chairman
Gerard C. Smith (1973-77)
None of these men have any record of upholding freedom, except for large banking, Defense contracting, and corporate interests.
Remember East Timor?
David Rockefeller and Kissinger and other elites told Nixon what to do, and told Carter what to do.
Foment the advance of the financial elite. And that's it.

> the President of China has demonstrated a much better understanding of global economics a

Well, I disagree-- that's the conventional globalist neoliberal narrative of the 1990s-2000s, and what China needs to continue it's previous high rate of growth, but is now being challenged by many. Trade terms have been highly beneficial to China and the global elites that control the capital and large companies in that trade.

On the other hand, less beneficial to others. Many in Western countries are realizing that current global trade terms (and effects) are not the most desirable strategy for many. In noting this, Trump is ahead of the curve, that same curve that is guiding Brexit and many other recent challenges such as to TPP.

Speaking of "curve", there was a book I read like 6-7 years ago, by a free trader nevertheless critical of current policies, that presaged a lot of these current political and economic trends (Brexit, Trump, China slowdown), and in retrospect it was quite a predictable shift, might be interesting for those questioning the globalist narrative: The World is Curved https://www.amazon.com/World-Curved-Hidden-Dangers-Economy/dp/1591842182

A very long time ago Andre Gunder Frank and Sue Brandford and Bernardo Kucinski showed that barely 8% of the total of IMF and World Bank loans "given" to a country actually ever reach said country. The majority is never given out at all, but stays in the West to service odious "debts" that these countries supposedly owe. The rest of the money is then given to corrupt elites who share it among themselves.

These "debts" have usually been built up by Western countries giving loans to dictators they put in power, overthrowing democratically-elected politicians who tried to stand up to these banks. These dictators usually keep that loan money in Swiss bank accounts and spend it lavishly in the West. When they are overthrown themselves, the people they were oppressing are saddled with huge bills at exhorbitant interest rates.

Finally, former "economic hit man' John Perkins details that these infrastructure projects like damns and the like usually only benefit a small percentage at the top of society, were uneconomical to begin with, and were used as a trap to get poor countries indebted to rich ones so they lost their sovereignty.

Wikileaks is done. Their denial about russian involvement and coordination with them to to release the information they wanted to release at the time they wanted to release it was ground zero for the effort to get Orange Julius Caesar elected. Not a fucking peep from them as to the FSB's involvement, nor the hundreds of russian intelligence people deployed online to sway public opinion. They're still doing it, and somehow we're still sceptical!

Gee, what funny timing for Wikileaks to ramp up whatabout-isms re: a US intelligence service! If it talks like a bear and walks like a bear......

We KNOW what happened, even just the free sample from Malcolm Nance's new book makes it clear: https://www.amazon.com/Plot-Hack-America-Cyberspies-WikiLeaks/dp/1510723323

I see, so you're promoting the myth that Jews have superior rights to land by virtue of being Jewish.

You think being Jewish gives you some sort of genetic right to other people's lands? So some guy in Brooklyn or Ukraine has superior rights than a Palestinian by virtue of claiming descendance from the ancient Jews of 2000 years ago? Or that "Jews" are in fact some sort of exclusive category of people rather than just another religion followed by people who intermixed with lots of other people?

FYI the idea of a "Jewish nation" is relatively modern

>The Wandering Who Gilad Atzmon
https://www.amazon.com/Wandering-Who-Gilad-Atzmon/dp/1846948754

Even if the Bible were taken literally, the ancient Jews were the dominant force in the Levant for about 800 years, and there's no reason to take the Bible literally

>Abraham, the Jewish patriarch, probably never existed. Nor did Moses. The entire Exodus story as recounted in the Bible probably never occurred. The same is true of the tumbling of the walls of Jericho. And David, far from being the fearless king who built Jerusalem into a mighty capital, was more likely a provincial leader whose reputation was later magnified to provide a rallying point for a fledgling nation.
https://www.nytimes.com/2002/03/09/books/new-torah-for-modern-minds.html

Evans is one of the most eminent living historians on the subject of Nazi Germany, having dedicated his entire career to researching it.

He and many others, the majority of actual historians, agree that the circumstances and methods in which the Nazis rose to power had little to do with actual democracy. Just because a bunch of people voted doesn't mean it was actually democratic, or adhering to the democratic structure of Germany at the time.


You are the one who is challenging that.

"The slide away from from parliamentary democracy into an authoritarian state ruling without the full and equal participation of the parties or the legislatures"

"Political power had seeped away from the legitimate organs of the constitution onto the streets at one end, and into the small cabal of politicians surrounding President Hindenburg at the other, leaving the vaccuum in the vast area between, where normal democratic politics take place. "

What part of that is 'democratic'? Without the full and equal participation of the parties or the legislatures. How can we call that 'democratic'?


The circumstances regarding the Nazi rise to power are complex, but people like to go "hurr, democratically elected" because that's an easy answer, when the reality is complex and doesn't yield an easy answer. You're the one here putting your fingers in your ears and going "LA LA LA DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED LA LA LA CAN'T HEAR YOU".


Read a book, man. Start with this one

Here are some links for the product in the above comment for different countries:

Amazon Smile Link: http://smile.amazon.com/From-Folks-Who-Brought-Weekend/dp/1565847768


|Country|Link|Charity Links|
|:-----------|:------------|:------------|
|USA|smile.amazon.com|EFF|
|UK|www.amazon.co.uk|Macmillan|
|Spain|www.amazon.es||
|France|www.amazon.fr||
|Germany|www.amazon.de||
|Japan|www.amazon.co.jp||
|Canada|www.amazon.ca||
|Italy|www.amazon.it||
|India|www.amazon.in||
|China|www.amazon.cn||




To help add charity links, please have a look at this thread.

This bot is currently in testing so let me know what you think by voting (or commenting). The thread for feature requests can be found here.

When havent it been more important.
Politics influences the shape of ones family https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic_transition#Summary_of_the_theory
Politics decide the likelyhood of people getting aid or not.
It decides if society progresses or regresses. https://marianamazzucato.com/entrepreneurial-state/
It decides what media you can consume. https://niemanreports.org/articles/the-transformation-of-network-news/
The culture you live in. https://www.amazon.com/Typecasting-Arts-Sciences-Human-Inequality/dp/1583227350/ref=sr_1_2?keywords=typecasting&qid=1557842982&s=books&sr=1-2
What you eat. https://www.amazon.com/Poison-Squad-Chemists-Single-Minded-Twentieth/dp/1594205140
It influences the future ability of planet earth to hold life.
and it influences the level of human effort to colonize other planets.


Politics is everything. Even abstaining from participating/enlightened centrism whatever is a kind of subjugation to the status quo. To not educate oneself.
Their relatives picked con media before they picked op.

and did you support or vote for any party or candidate in the last us elections.


The better counter argument should rather be "you cement Gop/Trumps base by letting con media gut your families brains further unchallenged" which is more inline with the concerns of the poster and the side effects could have a closer family (ofcourse thats if you only care about closer families and are completely apolitical otherwise). Or death. Families are weird like that.

Some time ago I had reason to look into secrecy in the US and came up with a book that wouldn't waste my time.


Secrecy: The American Experience – Nov 10 1999

• by Daniel Patrick Moynihan (Author)
  
  
  Needless to say, book reviews can be valuable shortcuts to the essence of an author's work.
  
  Big mess in the US - bureaucracy exercising way too much power.
  
  I don't have a lot of hope for change in the US. I was floored Obama actually got a bit of health care program change through.

I don't understand what you mean by "he didn't.'

But either way, Reagan wasn't just criminal, he was a literal traitor -- at least if you believe the "October Surprise" conspiracy theory (which I do).

The "October Surprise" conspiracy theory is that Reagan worked with the Iranian revolutionary gov't to keep the American hostages held hostage.

We have lots of indicators that this actually happened. Consider:

• Jimmy Carter himself gave an interview with Playboy magazine that he had heard rumors that Reagan/Bush was working with the Iranians to keep the hostages held hostage. But Carter said he felt powerless to do anything about it for fear of being labeled an election whiner and not having enough proof.
  
  
• George H. W. Bush (Reagan's VP and the former CIA director!) lied about him being in Paris where he supposedly met with Iranians. Both French and Soviet intelligence confirmed Bush was there.
  
  
• One of Carter's NSC guys was so upset about the October Surprise that he wrote a book on the topic.
  
  
• The Iranian president of that time, long after he retired from politics, gave a candid interview where he was asked about the issue. He said he was offered deals by both Carter and Reagan, and he took the deal that was best for Iran -- Reagan's deal which required him to hold the hostages until Reagan was sworn in. (The hostages themselves told stories about sitting on the plane on the runway and the plane only taking off after Reagan was sworn in.)
  
  Later, during Reagan's presidency, he would do repeated similar deals with the Iranians -- the basis for the Iran-Contra scandal and other deals for hostages in Lebanon.
  
  To me, that adds up to Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush working with a hostile foreign power to rig a US election -- i.e. being literal traitors.
  
  While people talk about Reagan's "landslide" victory, if Carter had freed the hostages in October the election would have been very, very different.
  
  Edit: Fixed typos on initials of rich people who think it's cool to give their kids 2 middle names.
  
  > "I told the American people I did not trade arms for hostages. My heart and my best intentions still tell me that's true -- but the facts and the evidence tell me it is not." -- President Ronald Reagan, 4 March 1987.

For Iran-Contra or general or what?

Off the top of my head in the general category, Howard Zinn's "A People's History of the US" is a classic overview of 2 centuries of American history. For this Iran-Contra-like skulduggery in international affairs, one largely overlooked work is by the former US State Dept. historian William Blum "Killing Hope: U.S. Military and CIA Interventions Since World War II".

To me, Iran-Contra is only one of the Reagan administration's crimes, and not really the most vicious or interesting of their crimes. I'd say the most interesting is the skulduggery surrounding the election that put Reagan into the White House, the so-called "October Surprise election" (two separate links).

The October Surprise election scheme had the Reagan/Bush election team working with Iran, then a revolutionary, hostile foreign power holding 50+ American diplomats hostage.

Reagan/Bush worked with Iran to undermine the foreign policy of the sitting American president (Carter) to keep the hostages prisoner until after the election. (Freeing the long-held (444 days) hostages before the election, the so-called "October Surprise", would have sent Carter's popularity through the roof.) In my mind, that is literally being a traitor to your country.*

This is one of those many episodes in American history where there is not 100%, rock solid, incontrovertible proof. But there is a huge amount of overwhelming evidence for the charge. For example:

• Former president Carter has publicly said he heard rumors about Reagan/Bush working with the Iranians but felt powerless to do anything about it during the election campaign and decided to allow history to be the judge.
  
• Both French and then-Soviet (now that we have access to the USSR's archives) intelligence reported the former CIA director/then VP candidate George H.W. Bush (Bush Sr.) and members of the Reagan/Bush election team meeting with the Iranians in Paris.
  
• Carter's national security guru Gary Sick takes a strong position that Reagan/Bush traitorously worked with the Iranians to keep the Americans held prisoner and wrote a book on the affair.
  
• And the then-president of Iran, now long retired and out of politics, has given interviews about the time and said that president Carter was offering deals to free the hostages, and that also Reagan/Bush were offering deals to keep the hostages prisoner until after the election. He bluntly said he took the deal that was best for Iran -- Reagan/Bush's deal to keep the hostages prisoner and to not release them until Reagan was sworn in as president. And the hostages themselves said that they sat for a long period of time in an aircraft on a runway in Iran, but that the Iranians would not let the plane leave until a certain time -- minutes after Reagan took the oath of office as president.
  
  We see all sorts of episodes of treachery and skulduggery like this in the histories of other nations.
  
  But here in the US we whitewash our history and present a highly moralistic, principled view of politics in the US.
  
  Take the election of 2000, for example. That election was blatantly rigged in numerous ways. But how many Americans are actively conscious of the fact that Gore not only had more votes across the country than did Bush, that Bush's brother was the governor of the key state that decided the election, and/or that the BBC broke news clearly showing that the Bush campaign's Florida head blatantly purged tens of thousands of Democratic voters and prevented them from voting?
  
  Yes, history and politics can be fun and very interesting if one looks at things based on facts, realism and with objectivity.
  
  Edit/Footnote: * There is a proven precedent for such skulduggery to win American presidential elections that happened only about a decade before Reagan.
  
  We know for a fact that during the US war on Vietnam, then-presidential-candidate Richard Nixon worked with Taiwan to pressure South Vietnam to resist ceasefire proposals the US president (Lyndon B. Johnson) was working to negotiate with North Vietnam. The idea was that the failure to get a ceasefire would impact the US election. (LBJ would later drop out and not run for reelection.)
  
  That interference by a presidential candidate, Nixon, directly lead to American soldiers being needlessly killed on the battlefields of Vietnam. Yet when we talk about Nixon's numerous crimes, we never talk about him being a literal traitor -- it seems that the only thing people talk about is Watergate. Using "Watergate" to sum up all of Nixon's many crimes is a form of whitewashing.

All those global efforts of the US installing dictators under the guise of "spreading Democracy" are pretty well documented in Noam Chomsky's Hegemony or Survival : America's Quest for Global Dominance

The very same book Hugo Chavez was waving at everyone in the UN during a speech.

Education matters. Culture matters. If your education teaches you nothing about the stuff to which you refer (if this book isn't central to US history/world history classes), and your culture has a secular "genesis 1:1" that submits that the only thing that's real is the individual, then you get what we've gotten. People can never ever really see the alternatives to those expressed "truths," can never even see that workers, isolated, are easily harmed/destroyed, and that only together (with honest, transparent leadership) can workers move beyond random survival and thrive...

>If you think Hitler/Stalin would have handled that the same way, you're ignorant of history.

Considering I have said nothing of the sort, I’m not sure why you’d think that’s a position anyone is taking. Seems like you’re just creating a strawman argument because the argument I made, that the right-wing loves to censor topics, is one you can’t argue against.

>People who think that Trump is a fascist don't have a gnats worth of knowledge what fascism is. Please open up a damn history book and read a thing.

Fascism isn’t only achieved through a Nazi state though, and rhetoric can certainly be fascistic without requiring a nation to reach the depths of becoming a full blown authoritarian hellscape.

Have you read Eco’s dissection of Italian fascism? Have you read about the Weimar Republic and the rise of Fascism in Germany?Perhaps you should, because you might understand the context of fascism in a non-fascistic state, and recognize the many valid comparisons it has to modern far-right ideology. Don’t take my word for it, I can point to any number of Holocaust survivors organizations which have stated the same thing about Trumps policies and rhetoric, and I’m sure they’d love to hear you tell them that they “don’t know a gnats worth of knowledge” about fascism.

Read up on the "Project For a New American Century" (http://www.newamericancentury.org/) and the neo-con plan for the Middle East. Also, read "Confessions of an Economic Hitman" (http://www.amazon.com/Confessions-Economic-Hit-John-Perkins/dp/0452287081) specifically the section dealing with the Shah of Iran and how he was placed in power. I'm sure that Noam Chomsky could answer this better than most of us. http://chomsky.info/

That will get you started on the right direction as least.

The Holocaust (C) is the "new" Jewish religion.

To find out more, read this.

The US overthrew a democratic Iranian government in 1953. We then installed a brutal, thug of a dictator and our CIA trained his secret police who killed and tortured countless thousands of Iranians. Finally, the Iranian people rose up in 1979 and overthrew that corrupt dictator and established a republic.

In 1979 some Iranian students overran the hated US Embassy and seized dozens of US "diplomats," and then-candidate Ronald Reagan and his former-CIA-director VP George Bush cut a traitorous deal with the Iranians to keep the diplomats held hostage to prevent President Jimmy Carter from accomplishing an "October Surprise" and freeing the hostages just before the US election.

We encouraged our old ally Saddam Hussein of Iraq to wage a war of aggression on Iran. We supplied Saddam Hussein with cash to feed his armies, some weapons, satellite intelligence, and technology and materials to build advanced chemical weapons.

From the Iranian perspective, the Iranian people have many good reasons to call the US "the Great Satan" and to cheer for our government's death.

> "The greatest crime since World War II has been U.S. foreign policy." -- Ramsey Clark, former U.S. Attorney General.