"Politically Incorrect Guide" Series

>this also triggers the socialists

>Nordic states
>Socialist
This fucking me me man

More like "the retarded christfag's guide to"

>obama
>socialist

Why are Americans so politically retarded?

>capitalism defeats racism
Seems like it profits from it in some ways.

You can directly refute the "promotes social freedom" part by quoting the rules on slavery in Leviticus.

Oh cool a book on the broad, sociological topic of soci--
>exists throughout the economy
Wait. What?! Our people control the means of production and organize themselves in a way to benefit the communal lives of the working class? I DID NOT KNOW THAT WE HAD SOCIALIST POLICIES.

What. The. Fuck.

St.Simonism is an example of socialism that isn't atheist like Marxism btw Creationists.

Acts 4:20

Some of these statements are correct somehow, but they are not what they seem to be. The books look very stupid. You can already expect what they would say in each topic and now how irrelevant and wrong they are. I read some 'political incorrect guide' before, not exactly from this author, and I would not waste my time reading more. If you want to see this kind of content for free, just navigate on Facebook a bit.

This is coming from a creationist as well.

>and know how irrelevant
Fixed.

HAHAHA That the south had the MORAL HIGH GROUND, and this is the kicker, "And the support of the Vatican's own newspaper." They present that statement as if its fact and use The Vatican's
(((newspaper))) to back it up! My sides are in orbit right now. Apparently Politically Incorrect means not only to offend, but to entertain!

Capitalism defeats racism. South had the moral high ground. Pick one.

>The world revolves around America: the post

what does that mean? where does my post imply the world, "revolves around america." or make it seem as such?

You don't live in the US, do you.

Their ones on American history and the constitution are decent. Can't speak for the others.

>is almost always ultra-nationalist and militarist
I wish. But socialist ideologies are very distinctly internationalist as they think that nations are memes that prevent the whole world's proleteriat (who is united by being in the same position) from rising up. This is somewhat less true for leninism and its copies (the whole socialism-in-one-state schtick), but even the Soviet Union remained internationalist nominally (in its ideology).
>is terrible for the environment
I'd say that heavy industry, emphasis on which was/is necessary for the Soviet Union/China due to the state of their development is terrible for the environment. I'd then point the finger to the US.
>benefits just one group of people: the central planners themselves
Leninism (with its clones) is just one strain of socialist thought (central planning). And this assertion is arguable even in its case.
>is not even successful in "model" socialist countries like Sweden
Sweden is not a socialist country, what the hell are you smoking?
>exists throughout the US economy
I wish.

Is this ironic or sincere?

>implying slavery is unethical

So in the USA "Politically Incorrect" mean "we will be as retarded as we can, ignore every evidences that doesn't corroborate our opinion and call everybody who disagree with us a liberal"

IT'S OVER ABE, I HAVE THE HIGH GROUND

>capitalism improves the environment.

hey, it worked wonders for the Alt right.
they shitposted their way to endsieg.

hey, this one is at least right about a few points

Apparently. The Christian guide contains absolutely nothing politically incorrect.

If the South had won, we might be able to enjoy sunny days in Cuba! HAhaha. Now this is podracing!

Apparently some redneck thinks politically incorrect means contrarian when it doesn't

>Pandering to a specific audience of fundies

These books exist to correct liberal biases, you fucking faggot.

They exist to be corrective to popular distortions, most of which are encouraged by the left and the mainstream media, so yes, they are "politically incorrect". Just because they prove a group you don't like to be right doesn't change that.

>corrective
so blatant misrepresentation of facts is corrective against the liberal agenda now?

How are they misinterpreting facts? It just seems like the conclusions make you uncomfortable.

>biblical laws paved the way for democracy and limited government.

Because people rejected them.

>The books look very stupid. You can already expect what they would say in each topic and now how irrelevant and wrong they are.

>Literally judging a book by it's cover and not addressing it's arguments.

By coming up with blatant falsehoods like how science disproves evolution?

acton.org/pub/religion-liberty/volume-7-number-1/biblical-foundations-limited-government

Darwinism =/= Evolution

Darwinism isn't a political movement you mong.

When did I say it was?

The theory of evolution does have it's basis in darwin's work.

>Biblical laws paved the way for democracy
They probably never heard of athenian democracy.

Evolution existed as a theory long before Darwin, and modern evolutionary theory is not wholly dependant on his work.

Nice assumption you have there. Modern notions of "democracy", at least in America, have strong Biblical influences.

wallbuilders.com/LIBissuesArticles.asp?id=8755

People who complain about le political correctness should be gassed

>at least in America
Yes maybe in Ameria, but democracy have existed before America was even discovered, well Athenian democracy existed even before the bible was written. So saying "Biblical laws paved the way for democracy" is outright wrong

it largely is dependent on his work. The shitty book targeted it at modern evolutionary science by saying that it was ideologically driven and that Actual True Science(tm) supports intelligent design.

But being conservative is the norm now.

"I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church & State."

I guess from Jesus to Jefferson, their was a big fucking discrepancy between Christianity and democratic and limited government. Glad you cleared that up, despite hundreds of years of confusion on the matter.

/Chris/storian confirmed.

>less than half of all people who voted are conservative
>conservative is the norm
???

Those books appear to be attempts to justify prior beliefs by cherry picking sources. 0/10

More like 'factually incorrect'.

They're likely referring to American democracy, so you're just splitting hairs.

You're talking about a book you haven't read. Evolutionary theory is more than just Darwin, and ID and evolution are not mutually exclusive.

>I havn't read them.

Lot of triggered fedora fags itt.

Based on those covers, they are not worth reading.

To be fair, a tremendous number of Clinton voters weren't registered democrats or even traditionally liberal.

They were just normal neutral idiots convinced by the media that Donald Trump was a big bully and that Hillary Clinton was a sweet-but-senile old lady that was being hounded by said bully.

There are a great many more people that label themselves "Republican" or identify with staunch conservatism.
American Liberals are just very good at winning over the politically illiterate "independent" vote by using lots of emotional language.

Bump

If it's not published by a university press known for good peer-reviewed historical journals and research programs, it's just normie nonsense. It doesn't matter if it's normie nonsense that appeals to your politics or contrarian attitude either, it is what it is.

The one about US presidents. It's good for sources and reallyt made me look at Wilson and Harding in a totally different light though of course the title and the fact that the author sometimes uses "liberals" as a boogeyman. And it's way too soft on Reagan. Otherwise great I want more books like this.

>if it isn't approved by liberal institutions because of its liberal values, it's worthless garbage
The tolerant left, everyone.

It's like the difference between proprietary and open source code, or between Patreon tethered artists feeding a needy niche market and a professional presenting work to other professionals and potential employers. The former fears audit for the sake of profit and brand loyalty, the latter relies on its own merits to weather criticism.

You're too old for the daycare hug box.

You're confusing tolerance with approval, dumbass. You people see tyranny in even a sarcastic remark and are just as bad as sjws. Back to /pol/ little /pol/storian.

hoover.org

>"you need yo learn to take it up the ass like everyone else, flunkey!"

>think tank

prageru.com

>MUH LIBRUHS ARE CONTROLLIN THE UNIVERSITIES
Grow up.

After you, "sir"

>Prager """"University"""""

>Someone disagrees with me? Better call them triggered.

Another thread wasted. Shit. Still I like the series but I'd rather cite from sources they used than the book itself because of the format but the content is fine.

hillsdale.edu/
gcc.edu/Pages/Grove-City-College.aspx
biola.edu/
udallas.edu/

We can do this all night, kid.

>Nice assumption you have there. Modern notions of "democracy", at least in America, have strong Biblical influences
...besides that the bible never even mentions democracy and Israel was ruled by kings and before that various chieftains?

But liberals can't not be triggered.

>If it's not approved by leftypol and the nbpp its wrong
SJW logic

Anyone read the one about literature?

No, but here's the cover for anyone interested.

>prager

The funny thing is you're still conflating tolerance with need for approval. Everytime somebody criticizes a conservative they complain about a lack of tolerance. The irony is that this too is a seedbed of totalitarianism, the notion that the intolerant must be tolerated without question.

Why don't you look at the other ones, or is your head too far up your wife's son's ass to see anything?

>intolerant
That's a funny way of saying "correct"
>you on bottom left

Watch, out we gotta a /pol/storian over here. What thread will he invade and shitpost his obnoxious memes in next?

>Recent archaeological discoveries confirm the historical accuracy of many Bible stories

The other points are debatably true, but this point is pretty off.

Shitty maymay t b h, I've had professors who were conservative as fuck and even my lefty profs were never le triggered feminists.