The best
Political Reference books:
Reddit reviews
From 3.5 billion Reddit comments
The best of Political Reference books by number of unique Reddit comments:
Top Reddit reviews mentioning Political Reference books:
Same way they made the word “Liberal” a pejorative term.
This book by George Lakoff outlines just how Republicans have hijacked the political discourse in this country and explains how to undo the bunk framing and take it back to reality. Quick and fascinating read. Check it out.
This is stupid and pointless. There's no good reason to ban 3D printer blueprints for firearms. It's just political posturing that does no one any good and protects no one from harm.
It's literally just a precisely measured digital 3D rendering of the components of a firearm. In other words, it's nothing but a digital drawing.
People don't understand that the blueprints are about as useful as a blueprint for a boat, a car, or a house. You need the materials and skill to build them even with a blueprint.
You don't just stick a thumb drive with a blueprint on it into a 3D printer and it automatically makes you a gun.
It's just the dimensions and measurements. You have to know exactly how to construct it, what types of materials to use, how they need to be heated, the right type of plastics to use, etc...
It's no different than banning a blueprint drawing of a sword. It doesn't do you a lot of good unless you have a forge, an anvil, the metals to make it, and the metalworking skill to forge it yourself.
This is a non-issue being trumped up as something important for nothing more than political nonsense.
3D printer gun blueprints sound dangerous mostly because people don't know what is involved with 3D printing something like that, but are about as dangerous as the blueprints for a tank would be in the hands of the average citizen.
Also this is something you can easily obtain and can legally own from pretty much any online book outlet. It is far, far more dangerous than any 3D printer blueprints and has been widely available since 1970.
The biggest reason is that the two families have business links.
Great book to get started with that doesn't fall into the conspiracy tropes.
https://www.amazon.com/House-Bush-Saud-Relationship-Dynasties/dp/0743253396
This is one of those rare topics on which left-leaning people actually can make headway talking to their friends and family on the right, and you're right in thinking it's all down to [issue framing](https://www.amazon.com/Dont-Think-Elephant-Debate-Progressives/dp/1931498717).
Immigration, the welfare spending, whatever the issue - people on the right always feel like they're painted into the bad guy corner. They've been told that 'borrow and spend' is somehow more responsible than 'tax and spend', and that programs that help people do so at the cost of the freedom of others, so screw it.
Abortion is this one issue where they feel they finally get to be the compassionate one, speaking out for the voiceless pre-borns. It must be wearisome, always being the parent who yells, while the Left just gets to pal around with terrorists in Hollywood, so even if it wasn't babies they were saving, they'd hang onto this issue beyond anything like reason.
But if you read their screeds online, in their heart of hearts, they really seem to believe they're in the majority, and that anybody who's pro-Abortion (a convenient reframe job for 'pro-Choice') must just really dig killing babies. Talk to them. Ask them if they think you want to kill babies just to make sex easier to come by. Ask if they think you're a monster. The most ardent pro-Lifers, as with many social causes, are the ones who have heard the least debate. They've either blocked out the middle because they're genuinely ignorant of it, or because it's been easy. A disembodied opinion is much easier to disregard than one held by a close friend or family member with whom they identify in other ways.
Their goddamned license plate literally says 'CHOOSE life' on it! Come on people, you're pro-Choice too. You just really like YOUR choice.
> I think Amazon has as much right not to distribute a book with 3-D printed gun schematics as it does to not distribute a book with instructions for how to make a bomb in your garage.
> I'm watching the events around the Alex Jones deplatforming with some concern for where it's going. I understand that people further to the right than me have every right to be more worried than I am.
Ok, thanks. That's really all I'd have the right to ask for.
I am against all bans on information. Yes, I am pro-free speech. And you can buy books on Amazon right now that have bomb making tutorials.
I think it's more like a neoconservative sub in the sense that neoconservatism, when it's really effective, is to present right-wing or far-right positions as the true "left" position. A lot of the people there would've been big Christopher Hitchens fans during the Iraq War and so on, and they do still think very highly of him. I've also seen the "Euston Manifesto" get shared around there which is an old neocon document from the mid-2000s. Basically the argument was that the parts of the left that opposed the war had betrayed its principles and fallen into "moral relativism" and all these right-wing tropes. Today this kind of tendency also rewords the main right-wing positions of the time (cracking immigrants over the head with clubs, transphobia, etc.) as left-wing positions.
If anyone here is British they might be familiar with Nick Cohen. It's like "I'm on the left guys really but why is the left apologizing for MILITANT ISLAM???" Stupidpol is Nick Cohen-esque:
https://www.amazon.com/Whats-Left-How-Lost-its/dp/0007229704
Google points him towards "Coup d'Etat: A Practical Handbook" but he gives up after the first page because it involves long words and doesn't have any pictures.
I have no problem blaming only the Sunni fundamentalists that are responsible for Islamist violence and I simply don't understand why that is so hard for my fellow Americans to see and actualize in policy — this mass ignorance of World Religions is what allowed the United States to get duped into invading Iraq in retaliation to the actions of the Saudi-connected Sunni terrorists that committed the World Trade Center attacks in 2001.
Soon, Americans will be led into a war against Iranian and Lebanese Shi'a people and against Lebanese Catholics, and they will justify it by pointing to the actions of Sunni people and by blaming all of Islam. Middle Eastern Christians themselves can testify that Shi'a and Christians living under Sunni fundamentalist governments will often experience similar levels of persecution.
I can not and will not pass judgment on Shi'a, Alawites, etc. for the actions of the Islamic equivalent of the KKK.
Obviously you don't like the idea that someone can make a firearm at home with a 3D printer. Ignoring the fact you can make homemade guns that are better and waaaaaaay cheaper from hardware store material, what should be done about this 3D printed gun crisis?
Should 3D files for printing a gun be banned? Should engineering drawings or CAD models of a firearm be banned? Should 3D printers be banned? Should 3D printers be licensed? Should drawings and CAD files to make your own 3D printer be banned?
Whay about books like the Anarchist Cookbook, available on Amazon? Should the book be banned too?
Well, I guess I'm just pointing out the hypocrisy of the government then...
​
Amazon still sells the anarchist cookbook as well.
​
You have it backwards. The 1st Amendment protects a fundamental human right of self-expression. If you wish to supress that fundamental human right, you much overcome a VERY large hurdle of extraordinary justification.
Libel is a narrow exception to free expression that, under the extraordinary circumstance that the information is false and is intentionally published with the intent to cause harm, only then can the speech be made unlawful.
So we have here a desire for prior restraint on the publication of true and accurate and already publicly available information on how to conduct perfectly legal activity. How can that possibly be justified?
Despite providing instructions for legal and illegal activity, you can right now go purchase a copy of The Anarchist's Cookbook on Amazon.
Capitalism, the Unknown Ideal by Ayn Rand
While I don't agree with everything, she poses great arguments.
I first learned about Mike Ruppert from the very first episode of this great conspiracy-related show, Guns and Butter, that aired a month after 9/11/01. Ruppert was discussing insider trading and prior knowledge of the event by the CIA. https://m.soundcloud.com/guns-and-butter-1/we-remember-mike-ruppert-john-judge-300
He also wrote a great book, Crossing The Rubicon. It deals a lot with 9/11, the deep state Bush/Saudi/Israeli actors and their histories/connections. https://www.amazon.com/Crossing-Rubicon-Decline-American-Empire/dp/0865715408
There's a handy guide for any aspiring plotter:
https://www.amazon.com/Coup-d%C3%89tat-Practical-Handbook-Revised/dp/0674737261
I think the common one is the Anarchists Cookbook which owning it will land you in prison despite still being able to purchase it on Amazon.
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Anarchist-Cookbook-William-Powell/dp/0974458902
There's a book called House of Saud House of Bush that goes into the Bush family ties with Saudi Arabia. No wonder he gets along better with Islam than most conservatives because of the oil money ties.
I don't know if you're willing to spend money on this, but there's a book titled "The Politics Book" that is published by DK. Its a great place to start understanding the more complex parts of different political ideologies. It doesn't discuss ideologies in the format of, say, socialism then liberalism than marxism. Instead it explores certain political ideas as espoused by various historical figures. So, there are sections on Martin Luther King, Jr., Confucius, Thomas Aquinas, Simon Bolivar, Friedrich Nietzsche, Eduard Bernstein, Rosa Luxembourg, etc. Each figure and their ideas have anywhere between one to six/eight pages dedicated to them.
The Politics Book: Big Ideas Simply Explained: DK: 9781465402141: Amazon.com: Books
Oh great, not saying he's gonna try conduct a coup, but I wouldn't be surprised if he's buying this book: Coup d'État: A Practical Handbook
>If we don't have the option if that in the future what's left?
I'm not sure if this was intentional, but this was a really exceptional pun. It reminded me of this Nick Cohen book What's Left https://www.amazon.co.uk/Whats-Left-Lost-Liberals-Their/dp/0007229704
I read an interesting book about the differences in mindset: It is called Don't think of an Elephant.
https://www.amazon.com/Dont-Think-Elephant-Debate-Progressives/dp/1931498717
He also describes the fundamental differences between how some people look at the work as inherently good and others as inherently dangerous. Americans who look at the world as inherently dangerous look to a strong father-figure type to punish bad people for wrongdoing. The threat of daddy cracking down on you is what keeps the world in order. These people also tend towards the work hard and be a good person and you will be successful.
Others look to a more motherly figure. People are basically good and if you nurture people instead of punishing them, then people will be successful.
You know I didn't write the law, don't you? I don't even enforce the law. I don't even agree with the law. I'm just pointing out that the law exists.
> If i quote an entire book and give citation, i can sell my work.
No, you'll still get into legal trouble with the publisher and nobody will publish your work if you just quote an entire other book.
> Try buying Anarchist cookbook then genius
Here's the amazon link. It's the second link when you look up the anarchist cookbook. It's barely been out of print since 1971. You muppet.
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Anarchist-Cookbook-William-Powell/dp/0974458902
I'll trade you a book for a book. I have a book aptly titled, <em>The Politics Book</em>, that condenses tons of different political ideologies into really colorful and infographics and easily explained chunks. Maybe you'll find it useful!
Read "Don't think about an elephant" (https://www.amazon.com/Dont-Think-Elephant-Debate-Progressives/dp/1931498717) for an excellent rundown of how the GOP has used language to shape the thinking (when people bother to think) over the last 30+ years.
Seriously, though — I don't agree with the UK's position on weapons, but okay, I'm aware of it. And I think that the ban on female ejaculation is weird, but again, okay, banning variant X of porn isn't new. But we're talking about making illegal possession of books here. Like, a book that people elsewhere can go to the store and buy.
This is pretty much the "strict father" version of conservatism that George Lakoff lays out in "Don't Think of an Elephant." It's contrasted by a "nurturing parents" metaphor for the left.
I think it's a useful metaphor for some conservative ideologues - particularly what I call the 'big government' conservatives who see a moral role for government. Here you'll find many on the religious right as well as the neo-cons who supported Bush's freedom-by-force foreign policy.
But there is a significant faction of the conservative movement that is more interested in restraining the size and power of government to protect individual liberty. These are what might be called classical liberals or conservative libertarians. For these conservatives, it's not as much about "everyone getting what they deserve," since that result seems to beg for a strong authority figure to enforce it.
Instead and here's the CMV payload it's about preventing the creation of an authority that would enforce equal consequences. The philosophical justification is that an authority strong enough to enforce justice is also strong enough to enforce injustice. Therefore, this branch of conservatism opposes efforts to protect people from the consequences of their actions which may seem like they are hoping people get what they deserve... but that's only a byproduct of their actual intent.
No sacrifice of freedom is needed to have a society based on voluntary relationships for mutual benefit. But rational selfishness has to be understood as a virtue.
Individualism in the context of politics is the right to live for your own sake. Take a look: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xe_ETS4JLS4
An individualist is a person who thinks independently and does not sacrifice for others. But only accepts relationships based on win-win.
Capitalism is the unknown ideal. It's most often misunderstood. https://www.amazon.com/Capitalism-Ideal-Ayn-Rand/dp/0451147952
Don't believe everything you hear.
Anarchist Cookbook on Amazon.
What kind of issues are important to you? Google scholar is good for academic research.
>Debate conservatives
>Facts
Facts aren't going to be that imporatant. What you really need is to learn how conservatives frame issues and how you as a progressive you can too. Otherwise you're going to battle with a bunch of bullets and no rifle.
Thr right wing poltical machine invests tons of money in researching frames that help their cause and it trickles through conservative media to your buddies. Probably one of the most obscene is "Right to Work". Thats hard to ise facts to counter that people have a rifht to work. If you frame it as this a ban on organizing workers to stand up to the power of big buisness though its a lot easier.
Here's a good book on it.
https://www.amazon.com/Dont-Think-Elephant-Debate-Progressives/dp/1931498717
> Have you read any Ayn Rand? Yes. If so, what is your opinion of capitalism? That has literally nothing to do with the previous question.
Ayn Rand wrote a book called Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal.
> I also don't believe that laissez-faire capitalism leads to the most happiness for the most people.
Then how can you include "libertarian" in the label that describes your political philosophy when one of the primary tenets of libertarianism is capitalism? Me being a libertarian and you being a "left libertarian," how are our political philosophies even remotely comparable?
> No. Communism is not "total government".
I will concede it's possible that anarcho-communists have changed the meaning of the word; I'm talking the modern understanding of the word. e.g. Soviet Union/North Korean communism. As an example, the word liberal is commonly used to describe a statist/authoritarian position, thus we need "descriptors" to define the previous meaning such as "classical liberal" (libertarian) and "neo-liberal" (neo just means "new").