Sup Forums

Sup Forums

Please recommend me some classic literature. Coming to you rather than /lit/ because I have little faith in their taste and trust Sup Forums to keep me on a strict diet of red-pilled shit only.

Other urls found in this thread:

gen.lib.rus.ec
gen.lib.rus.ec/book/index.php?md5=A1C3EBC82C877AE08807FE10CAB72D1A
m.youtube.com/watch?v=KvttIukZEtM
xenophon-mil.org/milhist/renaissance/machdisc.htm
resist.com/Onlinebooks/For-Legionaries.pdf
amazon.com/Beautiful-Question-Finding-Natures-Design/dp/0143109367
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

king arthur,dante's inferno, brave new world, the count of monte cristo...

thanks

bump

Faust, 1984, ...

Political literature?
Fiction?

Machiavelli, however that is spelled.

Sup Forumsack's journey part 1

...

Both m8

Start with the Greeks

Sup Forumsack's journey part 2

Literally most things by jack london. Fun little adventure books. I liked the one where the liberal san franciscan gets captured and forced to work on a ship and realizes life is fuckin hard.

Crime and Punishment - Dostoyevksi, Blindness - Saramago, Bel-Ami - Guy de Maupaussant, Illiad - Homer, Odyssey - Homer

> start with the greeks

> resume with the romans

Purgatario and Paradiso should follow Inferno if you want the whole effect, Inferno is my personal favorite of the three but the others really bring the message together.

since you are British, have this guide

Faust is a great one

Read paradise lost , you'll be grateful that you did

>Libertarian Right
>No Democracy in America by Alexis De Tocqueville
How the fuck do I never see anyone recommending this book?
gen.lib.rus.ec
>get ebooks free, don't fall for the libre-jew
gen.lib.rus.ec/book/index.php?md5=A1C3EBC82C877AE08807FE10CAB72D1A
>Democracy In America

> Democracy in America by Alexis De Tocqueville
You are right.
It is here, though, in the political theory guide

Nigga you want to live your whole life in a echo chamber

Neat, I have the same copy from Penguin.
Better than a gas chamber

I've been reading through Nietzsche's work lately, I'm not a huge fan of his writing style in some of his work but overall his ideas of creating a strong culture as a society and promoting that culture instead of religion honestly feels like the next step for humanity.

user, those guides are not an echo chamber, you have there Marx, Machiavelli, Rawls, Arendt, etc.
We didn't even recommend the Mein Kampf (yet)!
Have some Christian literature if you like that, I guess British user is looking for something else.

Nietzsche is always justifying himself. He wants a world where he is the master. He is the typical individualist that is incapable of thinking himself in a global structure. This guy is what pol is supposed to hate.

I read him a lot because we live after the " God's death ". It's an obligatory step.

Pretty much all philosophy is redpilled, the average view of a person hundreds of years ago would be considered extreme right wing nutcasery now. I liked Plato, JS Mill, Machiavelli, Nietzsche, Bertrand russel, HLA Hart, Dworkin, Locke

Nietzsche has an obnoxious writing style, but that goes for almost all philosophers, they were mostly pompous cunts

Fucking Rawls and his veil of ignorance horseshit. I hate that utopian ideal shit, it completely ignores reality

Thank you all.

This place is a modern, cerebral hanging gardens of Babylon

If you want some real redpilled read Scalia's books. The man was constantly slandered by the left but was probably the greatest jurisprudential genius of our times

m.youtube.com/watch?v=KvttIukZEtM

The Eternal Husband by Dostoevsky if you want to understand the " mimetic desire ". It's a concept developed by René Girard ( pic ).

Is there a chill philospher?

I disagree, while his most of his ideals are individualistic I don't think he intends for said individual to live in isolation or to abandon society. He discusses more of overcoming your own weaknesses not being such a bitch. He wanted a strong society of people who strive to constantly be better, to become the ubermensch. I've only read about 3 of his books so maybe my interpretation is wrong.

Yeah almost everyone has that tone of "this is 100% right and everyone who thinks differently is wrong", which is understandable to a degree. If you devout your life to something, it doesn't matter how fucking wrong you are, most tend to believe they are infallible.

Epictetus. Very short - less than 100 pages easy to read.

The Camp of the Saints

Epictetus, Marcus Aurelius.

Thank you

The Long Ships, by that Swedish guy. Quite comfy.

> chill philosopher

I guess you could read some zen and buddhist philosophy, if you put that in practice you may really find some harmony with the world and the nature-Buddha.

>doesn't even have the most important political book of plato

Reminder that the republic isn't a political treatise and if you want Plato's political views you should read Laws

Sounds cool too, image saved ty

saved

Most of these suck or are pure garbage. They don't make you smarter but dumber. Also there is nothing wrong with reading modern things.

are there actually English translations of For My Legionaires, or would I have to learn Romanian to read it? Captain Codreanu seems like a pretty cool guy

>For My Legionaires
Why do you want to read books written by dumb Nazis? Remember Nazi stands for national socialism and the nazis failed miserably at everything they attempted (quite predictably).

Arktos is an identitarian editor, it has some good read

hmmmmmm

>some of the most important and influential texts of all time just suck

You must be underage, so stop posting

hmmmm what? Are you implying I am a Hillary shill just because I say not everything old is good and not everything modern is bad?
Have this quote from Machiavelly Discourses on Livy:
xenophon-mil.org/milhist/renaissance/machdisc.htm
>"Men praise the past too much because they don't know the real details. They magnify the good points. Most writers glorify and obey conquerors and play down the bad parts. Men's hatreds generally spring from fear or envy. Human affairs being in a state of perpetual movement things are always either ascending or declining. So sometimes the present is worse than the past and sometimes not. But the world in general remains in very much the same condition. The good balances the evil. What happens is that good and evil shift from place to place. At present Italy is the locus of much evil indeed.
Another factor is that men's judgements change as they grow older. What seemed valid when young seems evil when older. This causes men to think the past was a better time.
Another factor is that human desires are insatiable. This makes people decry the present, praise the past, and desire the future.
M points all this out and wants the reader to be aware that he is quite conscious of his own tendency to praise the past despite knowing these pitfalls. He writes that it is only because the current evil is so manifest and overwhelming that he nevertheless feels required to praise the past."

Anthem by Ayn Rand. It's like Atlas Shrugged in 80 pages rather than 1000.

I didn't read it yet, but there is this pdf version in English, available for free on a Nazi website.

resist.com/Onlinebooks/For-Legionaries.pdf

yeah, I googled it and there seems to be a pretty good one, with copies on Amazon and everything. I'm surprised that something like that could get translated and sold

The problem with modern books is they lack hindsight - something which can be attributed to past works in the sense that you can compare the present with the past. The books aren meant to present a foundation, upon which the majority of political theory was built on.

Do you actually have any personal insight to add, or do you intend to copy/paste suppositions written by other people?

Books can't make you more dumber dummy

> not everything old is good and not everything modern is bad

Nobody said that everything modern is bad.
But you have to know the origins of Western thought if you want to be able to understand contemporary political theory.

Evidently it has some relevance if the White Aryan Resistance bothers to promote it. I will add it to my reading list.

I also recommend to read Gentile and Mussolini's book "the doctrine of fascism" which I read and found very interesting:
faculty.smu.edu/bkcarter/THE%20DOCTRINE%20OF%20FASCISM.doc

There are many more modern books that are way better
Here is an example:
amazon.com/Beautiful-Question-Finding-Natures-Design/dp/0143109367

Here is why they suck.
Plato - the Republic - dated, filled with speculation, hard to read.
The New Testament - pure garbage, just unintelligible nonsense.
Machiavelli The prince - hard to find anything that applies to todays world. I tried to read it but gave up multiple times. Just long, boring mostly useless.
Adam Smith The wealth of nations - great book at the time but aside from a few good quotes it's useless. Totally dated. There are many modern economic books that build on that knowledge. So it makes no sense to read it really unless you're a phd economist and read it out of curiosity. If you want to learn about economics there is plenty to read that was written in the past 50 years. An engineer today doesn't read about how the romans built things because the techniques are dated. Plenty of modern engineering books that already internalized the knowledge that the romans discovered.
Aristotle - totally speculated wrongly about how things are. Set the science world way back. If you want to read old things that are still true you might as well read Newton's Principia.

Khalil Gibran is pretty good. Not classical, but good.