Such an enumeration of inconsistent arguments, of course, confirms exactly what it attempts to deny—that I returned a broken kettle to you.That same inconsistency, Žižek argues, characterized the justification of the attack on Iraq: A link between Saddam’s regime and al-Qaeda was transformed into the threat posed by the regime to the region, which was then further transformed into the threat posed to everyone (but the US and Britain especially) by weapons of mass destruction. When no significant weapons were found, we were treated to the same bizarre logic: OK, the two labs we found don’t really prove anything, but even if there are no WMD in Iraq, there are other good reasons to topple a tyrant like Saddam ...Iraq: The Borrowed Kettle – which can be considered as a sequel to Žižek’s acclaimed post-9/11 Welcome to the Desert of the Real – analyzes the background that such inconsistent argumentation conceals and, simultaneously, cannot help but highlight: what were the actual ideological and political stakes of the attack on Iraq? In classic Žižekian style, it spares nothing and nobody, neither pathetically impotent pacifism nor hypocritical sympathy with the suffering of the Iraqi people.

    Here, a reprinting of the seminal underground essay by Bob Black.

    In this short and powerful book, renowned peace activist Michael Nagler challenges this assertion, demonstrating that nonviolence succeeds through aggressively strategic and sustained action. It demands greater courage and discipline than violence.Distilling the core theories of nonviolence and drawing deeply from the lives of leaders such as Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr., this action-oriented handbook offers both guidance for nonviolent resistance and advice for building constructive movements capable of restructuring the very bedrock of society. Nagler also includes stories of successful nonviolent resistance that have been ignored by the mass media. The book features a list of resources that offer pathways to immediate action and engagement with the peace movement worldwide.

    What is needed is the courage to face the way things are, and the wisdom and imagination to work out how to make things better.'Australia's unprecedented run of economic growth has failed to deliver a more stable or harmonious society. Individualism is rampant. Income inequality is growing. Public education is under-resourced. The gender revolution is stalling. We no longer trust our major institutions or our political leaders. We are more socially fragmented, more anxious, more depressed, more overweight, more medicated, deeper in debt and increasingly addicted - whether to our digital devices, drugs, pornography or 'stuff'.Yet esteemed social researcher Hugh Mackay remains optimistic. Twenty-five years ago, he revolutionised Australian social analysis with the publication of Reinventing Australia. Now he takes another unflinching look at us and offers some compelling proposals for a more compassionate and socially cohesive Australia. You might not agree with everything he suggests, but you'll find it hard to get some of his ideas out of your head.Argued with intelligence and passion, this book is essential reading for everyone who loves Australia enough to want to make it a better place for us all.

    "Empowerment," writes  best-selling Jungian analyst James Hillman,  "comes from understanding the widest spectrum of  possibilities for embracing power." If food  means only meat and potatoes, your body suffers from  your ignorance. When your idea of food expands, so  does your strength. So it is with power.  "James Hillman," says Robert Bly, "is the  most lively and original psychologist we have had  in America since William James." In  Kinds Of Power, Hillman addresses  himself for the first time to a subject of great  interest to business people. He gives much needed  substance to the subject by showing us a broad  experience of power, rooted in the body, the rnind, and the  emotions, rather than the customary narrow  interpretation that simply equates power with strength.  Hillman's "anatomy" of power explores  two dozen expressions of power every artful leader  must understand and use, including: the language of  power, control, influence, resistance, leadership,  prestige, authority, exhibitionism, charisma,  ambition, reputation, fearsomeness, tyranny, purism,  subtle power, growth, and efficiency.From the Hardcover edition.

    Will the American people choose four more years of President Trump to lead us back to strong economic growth, a foreign and trade policy of putting American interests first, dismantling the deep state, and dramatically reforming the bureaucracies? Or will they reject Trumpism and elect the radical Democratic policies of big government, globalism, and socialist policies that Joe Biden represents? Not since the election of 1964 has the choice in an election been so stark.Trump and the American Future by Newt Gingrich will lay out the stakes of the 2020 election and provide a clarion call for all Americans on why it is vital to return President Trump to the White House for a second term. Featuring insights gleaned from the lifetime of experience and access only Newt Gingrich can bring, Trump and the American Future will be crucial reading for every citizen who wants to continue to make America great again.

    The Education of a Christian Prince is one of the most important advice-to-princes texts published in the Renaissance and was dedicated to Charles V. It is a strongly pacifist work in which Erasmus sought to ensure that the prince governed justly and benevolently. This edition also includes an original introduction, a chronology of the life and work of Erasmus, and a comprehensive guide to further reading.

    These practices and conditions are standard in some parts of the world. Do demands for multiculturalism — and certain minority group rights in particular — make them more likely to continue and to spread to liberal democracies? Are there fundamental conflicts between our commitment to gender equity and our increasing desire to respect the customs of minority cultures or religions? In this book, the eminent feminist Susan Moller Okin and fifteen of the world's leading thinkers about feminism and multiculturalism explore these unsettling questions in a provocative, passionate, and illuminating debate.Okin opens by arguing that some group rights can, in fact, endanger women. She points, for example, to the French government's giving thousands of male immigrants special permission to bring multiple wives into the country, despite French laws against polygamy and the wives' own bitter opposition to the practice. Okin argues that if we agree that women should not be disadvantaged because of their sex, we should not accept group rights that permit oppressive practices on the grounds that they are fundamental to minority cultures whose existence may otherwise be threatened.In reply, some respondents reject Okin's position outright, contending that her views are rooted in a moral universalism that is blind to cultural difference. Others quarrel with Okin's focus on gender, or argue that we should be careful about which group rights we permit, but not reject the category of group rights altogether. Okin concludes with a rebuttal, clarifying, adjusting, and extending her original position. These incisive and accessible essays — expanded from their original publication in Boston Review and including four new contributions — are indispensable reading for anyone interested in one of the most contentious social and political issues today.The diverse contributors, in addition to Okin, are Azizah al-Hibri, Abdullahi An-Na'im, Homi Bhabha, Sander Gilman, Janet Halley, Bonnie Honig, Will Kymlicka, Martha Nussbaum, Bhikhu Parekh, Katha Pollitt, Robert Post, Joseph Raz, Saskia Sassen, Cass Sunstein, and Yael Tamir.

    This text contains portions of great works in their original form to whet the appetite and to encourage discussion within the classroom. By providing historical context and current scholarship, Alan Ebenstein builds upon the framework of influences that have shaped current political thoughts and theories.

    Whether one is dealing with the state, the Mafia, parents, pimps, police, or husbands, writes Brown, the heavy price of institutionalized protection is always a measure of dependence and agreement to abide by the protector's rules. True democracy, she insists, requires sharing power, not regulation by it; freedom, not protection.Refusing any facile identification with one political position or another, Brown applies her argument to a panoply of topics, from the basis of litigiousness in political life to the appearance on the academic Left of themes of revenge and a thwarted will to power. These and other provocations in contemporary political thought and political life provide an occasion for rethinking the value of several of the last two centuries' most compelling theoretical critiques of modern political life, including the positions of Nietzsche, Marx, Weber, and Foucault.

    According to U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, a judge like this can maneuver through earlier cases to achieve the desired aim--distinguishing one prior case on his left, straight-arming another one on his right, high-stepping away from another precedent about to tackle him from the rear, until (bravo!) he reaches the goal--good law. But is this common-law mindset, which is appropriate in its place, suitable also in statutory and constitutional interpretation? In a witty and trenchant essay, Justice Scalia answers this question with a resounding negative.In exploring the neglected art of statutory interpretation, Scalia urges that judges resist the temptation to use legislative intention and legislative history. In his view, it is incompatible with democratic government to allow the meaning of a statute to be determined by what the judges think the lawgivers meant rather than by what the legislature actually promulgated. Eschewing the judicial lawmaking that is the essence of common law, judges should interpret statutes and regulations by focusing on the text itself. Scalia then extends this principle to constitutional law. He proposes that we abandon the notion of an everchanging Constitution and pay attention to the Constitution's original meaning. Although not subscribing to the strict constructionism that would prevent applying the Constitution to modern circumstances, Scalia emphatically rejects the idea that judges can properly smuggle in new rights or deny old rights by using the Due Process Clause, for instance. In fact, such judicial discretion might lead to the destruction of the Bill of Rights if a majority of the judges ever wished to reach that most undesirable of goals.This essay is followed by four commentaries by Professors Gordon Wood, Laurence Tribe, Mary Ann Glendon, and Ronald Dworkin, who engage Justice Scalia's ideas about judicial interpretation from varying standpoints. In the spirit of debate, Justice Scalia responds to these critics.

    It prepares students to understand and relate the various political ideologies to the general political values of the left, the mainstream, and the right as they appear in contemporary political events and issues and to see clearly how political theory applies to their own lives.

    It presents the complexity and depth which underlies all of de Benoist's work and which is often neglected by those who seek to dismiss him by oversimplifying or distorting his arguments. De Benoist shows how democracy is, contrary to what some critics have claimed, something which has been a part of our civilisation from the beginning. The problem, he says, is not the notion of democracy in itself, but rather the current understanding of the term which, instead of empowering the individual, reduces him to little more than a cog in a machine over which he has no control, and in which the direction is set by politicians with little genuine accountability. De Benoist proposes that effective democracy would mean a return to an understanding of citizenship as being tied to one's belonging to a specific political community based on shared values and common historical ties, while doing away with the liberal notion of the delegation of sovereignty to elected representatives. The type of government which is called for is thus a return to the form of government widely understood in Antiquity, but which now seems to us to be a revolutionary notion. This is the first in a series of volumes by Alain de Benoist which will be translated and published by Arktos.

    While it is often assumed that an interest in objects amounts to a form of materialism, Harman rejects this view and develops instead an "immaterialist" method. By examining the work of leading contemporary thinkers such as Bruno Latour and Levi Bryant, he develops a forceful critique of 'actor-network theory'. In an extended discussion of Leibniz's famous example of the Dutch East India Company, Harman argues that this company qualifies for objecthood neither through 'what it is' or 'what it does', but through its irreducibility to either of these forms. The phases of its life, argues Harman, are not demarcated primarily by dramatic incidents but by moments of symbiosis, a term he draws from the biologist Lynn Margulis.This book provides a key counterpoint to the now ubiquitous social theories of constant change, holistic networks, performative identities, and the construction of things by human practice. It will appeal to anyone interested in cutting-edge debates in philosophy and social and cultural theory.

    It did not have to end this way, but when the most devious and ruthless members of a society are tasked with running the system, the outcome can hardly be in dispute. All empires fall, but it is the reason they eventually come apart that is surprisingly similar. The fate of America will not be any different. Like a 47-story steel and concrete building that is covertly slated for demolition, the American Empire was built on a rotten foundation and has been targeted for destruction. The core of the building has been pre-weakened over the decades through government policies, had its support columns identified and rigged with financial detonators, watched society be transformed into a culture incapable of recognizing their impending doom to sound the alarm, and as the plunger is pushed down and the destruction begins, many people will have no idea of what is coming their way until it is too late. Once the debris is cleared away there is hope that a new civilization can be built, but will they make the same mistakes, or can they learn from the past and chart a different course?