What books are required to read before having serious discussions about politics?

What books are required to read before having serious discussions about politics?

Other urls found in this thread:

splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/individual/kevin-macdonald
twitter.com/AnonBabble

>be Macchiavelli
>fail at being Macchiavellian

Still, great book.

Das Kapital, whole thing.

How did he fail?

just read pol for an hour and your as qualified as most people are

by Henry Ford

On Democracy in America - Alexis de Tocqueville

>Political satire.

This is how.

>Reading
Don't fall for the Guten(((berg)))

...

...

>What books
Alphabet.

My Diary desu

>9gag.com
FUCK OFF CUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUNT

baby tier: Economics in One Lesson

>shitty government job
>too poor to feed his family properly
>get tortured
>die broke

I mean, it's pretty sad.

Carl von Clausewitz - On war
Nicolo machiavelli
Thomas Hobbes - Leviathan
Jean Jaques Rousseau - The Social Contract
Karl Marx & Friedrich Engels - The Communist Manifesto
Kenneth Waltz - Man, the state and war

Just some basics off the top of my head

As much as I hate him, Marx

The whole thing not the communist manifesto you need to read Kapital

So much of our world is because of that book and 99% of leftist commies haven’t even read it anyway.

Without reading Marx you can’t really understand a major driving force in the West

James Burnham's the Machiavellians, defenders of freedom.

Why do you list the two bad social contract theorists? Read Locke.

The Genealogy of Morals

Because they are influential even if you don't agree with them. Also Locke.

kys, tabula rusa cuck

1984, just so you can spout witty references.

These

>be Machiavelli
>troll your job interview by writing a book filled with deliberately bad advice's
>20th century hipsters think you're a genius

>muh relativism

Unironically the most underrated book/collection of essays ever written on politics

Locke sucks, read Sir Robert Filmer.

Patriarcha, or The Natural Power of Kings should purge you of liberalism.

half way through 84 actually

...

One of my favorite books. I have it always on my desk.

10/10

So perfect of a list. We have to spread this far.

It needs serious reactionary literature like Filmer and Carlyle.

Yes, it is definitely the urgent duty of an idiosyncratic, unpredictable fringe force in modern political culture like the Sup Forums Sup Forums board to spread around this list of books which is probably to be found nowhere else except here and on the syllabuses of every undergraduate course in Political Theory in every university in the Western world.

Okay, I will.

Here's a book about a horrifying abomination Lovecraft couldn't have imagined in his wildest dreams

Idiots don't realize the work was satire and make it their profile pick and background image thinking they are some sort of intellectuals. They usually spout a lot of bullshit political theory about Ayn Rand at the same time.

Read Discourses on Titus Livius if you really want to understand what made Machiavelli such a genius.

Taxation is theft my dude

The tome two is better.
The first one is too technical. Though at some point he speaks about the three races.
I recommend Tocqueville and Nietzsche.
When you read Nietzsche you have to stop at every weird sentence and think. He didn't write to entertain the lazies.

That list makes so much sense, I highly doubt Sup Forums made it. Are you sure it's not /lit/ stuff?

Because Hobbes outlined the problem with the social contract (which all other thinkers set out to solve) and Rousseau laid the foundations of popular sovereignity, being indirectly responsible for every modern form of Western governance (critics love to blame him for communism and national-socialism alike, and they're right... technically).

>The Prince was satire
Lmao you're a fucking retard spouting what some kikes academic said

Just realized how badass that shirt he has is
... even better if full length

Machiavelli is fedoracore.

Right up there with The Art of War and Meditations.

Nothing wrong with Meditations. It doesn't teach anything that wasn't already popular knowledge at the time, but there's nothing wrong with stoicism as a philosophy.

...

you should read machiavelli, though never qoute him. it will be clear to you why, when you have read it.

Yup.
There are those who have read it and those who have not

If you want to know something read some physics, biology, math (economy mb) and you will understand everything without referring to a ready-made opinion. For example you will know why communism is bullshit without going through philosophical jungles.

Ok why? Answer with stem

exactly.
litlle-finger did nothing wrong btw

>you will understand everything without referring to a ready-made opinion
Because philosophy is words explained by words. Understanding proven mechanism of nature is better than
>as Machiavelli once said...
>look at me i'm smart i know these spooky philosophers names

Boring as fuck desu.

Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand

the only book that matters

>ctrl f culture of critique
Wtf Sup Forums you disappoint me.

>Culture of Critique by Kevin MacDonald
It is the book the Jews really do not want you to read. Everyone I know who has read this book was extremely triggered by it.

If you have some kikes writing articles about him and his books, trying in vain to slander him with lies, then he must be based, and his books must be good.

splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/individual/kevin-macdonald

>Kevin MacDonald is the neo-Nazi movement's favorite academic. A psychology professor at California State University, Long Beach, MacDonald published a trilogy that supposedly "proves" that Jews are genetically driven to destroy Western societies.