Expand your mind

Expand your mind.

Other urls found in this thread:

goodreads.com/list/show/89892._pol_recommended_reading
imgur.com/r/PussyPass/1HIaq
mises.org/system/tdf/11_1_1_0.pdf?file=1&type=document
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

love the peloponnesion war. Some hilarious banter-tier war stories in there

For the same reasons Marx is recommended the Quran should be as well. Know thy enemy.

>no Mein Kampf
>no Protocols of the Elders of Zion
>no We
>no Holy Bible
>no Ayn Rand
>no The Bell Curve
>no Murray Rotband
>no Hans Hermann-Hoppe

Delet this

>no Evola
Cuck collection.

Is there part 2?

>(((Rand)))
>(((Rothbard)))

kys

This.
All you need is Mein Kampf, The Prince, Protocols, and The Bible(Read through the lense that knows they are refering to Nordic people as the real Judeans).

>The Prince
>Not The Discourses on Livy
baby level.

>plato
>no xenophon
>no plutarch
>not tacitus
>no montaigne
>no spinoza
come on

>Read through the lense that knows they are refering to Nordic people as the real Judeans
Oh God the thought just occurred to me.
How many newshits on Sup Forums don't already know this/hyperborea?

Some other good stuff in there but if you don't have a grasp of the Jewish question it may lead to you becoming confused and (((accepting))) everyone.

...

>There are absolutely NO exceptions to the rule
Rothbard is a titan of intellect, only a retard would fail to see that

...

So I double checked and OP has Spinoza and Discourses on Livy.

I still have to recommend Hellenica by Xenophon. Plutarch's Lives. Montaigne's writing on Monarchy and Tacitus' short writings.

>baby selling ethics
>titan of intellect

In the same sense that Karl Marx is a titan of intellect, yes indeed.

This book is a fucking masterpiece. It's pretty pessimistic though, it asserts essentially that there is nothing we can do to stop the decline of civilization, because it is a natural process.

As a work of philosophical history it is unparalleled imo.

...

>no Mein Kampf
garbage image

>what is adoption

"Murder of Germans and Japanese was the overriding aim of World War II"

>History of the Pelop War
>Not immediately followed by Hellenica
Everyone does this. THEY'RE SEQUELS
READ XENOPHON

...

Alot.
Christian teachings mirror ancient Egyptian, Persian, Hindu, Greek, Roman, and even pagan beliefs. I always wondered why? Because certain symbology resonates with Aryan people. They try to say the people that are there now created these things but they will say that about France in a few years too. But it is obvious once white people leave anywhere it goes to shit all the evidence is there. The jews act like they gave us something that belonged to us the whole time.

...

Capitalism is anti-nationalism, that's why.

Ah yes, I almost forgot. Here it is, personally I am going down the reactionary right path.

No "culture of critique" to be seen anywhere. Are you even trying

>still without Mein Kampf

What is this? Collection for good goym cucks?

Mein Kampf is SHUT IT DOWN:The Book

This list is absolute trash. I wouldn't be surprised if your "Intro To Political Philosophy" teacher gave you a list of readings and then you went home and made this stupid chart.

No Emerson or Thoreau, armchair cucks.

Why you reinvent the wheel?

goodreads.com/list/show/89892._pol_recommended_reading

imgur.com/r/PussyPass/1HIaq

400+ books which will make of you Adolf Hitler

>400+ books to become Hitler

>Not posting any books written by Ol' Adolf

It is seriously underrated how much of a political genius that man was.

>Wrote 1400 page book on economics
>Wrote 1600 page history of American colonies
>Wrote literally tens of thousands of pages on ethical theory, revisionist history, political theory, current event commentary
>But I saw one line taken out of context which endorses an adoption system in a free market so I can dismiss everything
Like I said, fucking retard

Not true. The state is not the nation and Rothbard makes this distinction.
>The "nation," of course, is not the same thing as the state, a difference that earlier libertarians and classical liberals such as Ludwig von Mises and Albert Jay Nock understood full well. Contemporary libertarians often assume, mistakenly, that individuals are bound to each other only by the nexus of market exchange. They forget that everyone is necessarily born into a family, a language, and a culture. Every person is born into one or several overlapping communities, usually including an ethnic group, with specific values, cultures, religious beliefs, and traditions.
mises.org/system/tdf/11_1_1_0.pdf?file=1&type=document

This shit right here nigga.

Have a cocaine OP.

Needs more game theory, senpai.

>Not true. The state is not the nation
Not the claim I made. I said that 'capitalism is anti-nationalism', not that the state IS the nation, or that anti-statism is anti-nationalism. Anti-statism is one of the reasons why capitalism is anti-nationalism, but not what I was referencing, nor is it 'just' anti-statism..
>They forget that everyone is necessarily born into a family, a language, and a culture. Every person is born into one or several overlapping communities, usually including an ethnic group, with specific values, cultures, religious beliefs, and traditions.
Which are meaningless if there is a price on them, which there, effectively, is in a capitalist market. Who cares about religion when the free market exists, it floods the society with decadence in the name of freedom. The same goes with culture or tradition: none of that will exist in a free market because it will always be subverted and amended to the melting pot of society that is capitalism, which is to say international trade.
The reason it is anti-nationalist is because the state borders are abolished. There is no state and any imposition of 'arbitrary state borders' that limits free trade is de facto coercion because it limits freedom and is demolished. Not to mention, the nation cannot exist without the state: the state is the vanguard protecting and maintaining the cultures and ethnic identities of the people. Capitalism abolishes borders and would not care for a moment if the populous was mexican so long as they work for less and spend like dullards. It is internationalist by design, it cannot be nationalist because that relates directly to policies like autarky or protectionism, which are not capitalistic.

Adolf Hitler.
The man. The myth, The legend.

Das Kapital is a 2400 page book on economics.

So, like I said, another Marx.

>no dostoevsky
You should all be ashamed

(((ayn rand )))

I knew it was on the list but I was wondering why it wasn't on your pic related.

It is probably the most important book on modern politics so it doesnt deserve to be in the background.

>no Aquinas
>no Bodin
>no Gracian
>no Maistre
>no Bardèche
>no G. Anders
>no Debord

>Calvin ????

that too

Plus you can add the things on that list in order to get a better understanding on what modern politics is about.

>Dostoevsky
Dostoevsky is little bit overrated,I recommeded read Gogol or Saltykov-Shchedrin.

You're confusing Austrian-school economics with the vulgarity of Keynesianism/Neoliberalism. Austrians are deontologists, not utilitarians. Rothbard doesn't give a good God damn for GDP or material consumerism.
>Who cares about religion when the free market exists
I do. And I'd venture to guess that you would too. If you truly have faith, you believe in eternal life, there's no material gain that would cause you to deviate from that. Only through active indoctrination from the state (through public schools, tightly regulated media) has this been eroded.

>International trade
pic related

>the state is the vanguard protecting and maintaining the cultures and ethnic identities of the people
LOLOLOLOL How's that working out for you? Tell me, how effective of a vanguard has the US Federal government been? Or the EU? Or your own pathetic prepubescent excuse for a prime minister? Even if there are exceptions and before you go all "muh Hitler" it at least proves that the state CAN and WILL do far more harm than good by its existence.

>Capitalism abolishes borders
Not true! It establishes PRIVATE borders, in which all members of a community may freely associate with whomever they please and physically remove those they dislike. It's a beautiful system.

>no Literally Whos

plebs need not apply

Didn't even see that somebody posted Vico.
It's pleasant to see that.

Also to all Sup Forumslacks i know alot of people say start with the Greeks but if you are diving in literature, I find it easier to work backwards. Reading should start at the last major war and move backwards from that.

>WW2
>WW1
>Napoleonic Period
>Age of Conquest(Skip the American Revolution stuff it meant well but they spin it in a Jewy way.)
>Middle Ages
>Holy Roman Period
>Roman Period

Past that it gets a bit blurry. The Greeks make some good points but it comes off too speculatie and in my opinion is a waste of time. Here's a quick summary:They were doing fine, then brown people from Persia got done niggering it up over there so they came to the white Paradise and fucked it up.

Only "Atlas Shrugged", all the rest - shit tier.

One of the most important, timeless classics.

Also, don't forget about Yuri Bezmenov:

World Thought Police
Black is Beautiful, Communism is Not
No "Novosti" is Good News

All what he described - the truth
Love Letter to America

>Rothbard doesn't give a good God damn for GDP or material consumerism.
Not what the assertion is. I never even once mentioned Rothbard, I specifically mentioned capitalism as a system creating a consumerist 'melting pot' of non-whites who just buy. Gooks making trash halfway around the world and a mongrelized population purchasing it until the Rapture is the logical conclusion of capitalism: absolute international trade with no borders or any limitations.
>Only through active indoctrination from the state (through public schools, tightly regulated media) has this been eroded.
The clause of pornography as a business/enterprise's mode of expression that is protected by the first amendment was fought for by Jews and resisted against by the religious figures in the US, like certain Catholics. Again, I'm not arguing that the state cannot be circumstantially subversive, I am arguing that the introduction of absolute freedom will always result in decadent expression that decays traditional values.
>pic related
On your own private property, sure. Are you under the false assumption that individuals are isolated agents and that demographic changes that do not occur on your property have no adverse effects? Sure, you can not trade with other people you don't want to and stay as far away from others, just as they can migrate freely and settle within some distance (I'd say within the state, but that doesn't exist anymore).
>Tell me, how effective of a vanguard has the US Federal government been?
Fine until the turn of the last century, it was a majority white nation.
>Or the EU?
Anything after Nazism will be explicitly multicultural, so no. State authority is a tool, not an end in and of itself.
>Or your own pathetic prepubescent excuse for a prime minister?
See the EU. If you are American (statistically true), you elected the same, but mulatto. You are in no position to criticize.

You've read neither Marx nor Rothbard so you should just shut the fuck up and get reading before you go around calling people idiots :^)

mon nègre !

>Even if there are exceptions and before you go all "muh Hitler" it at least proves that the state CAN and WILL do far more harm than good by its existence.
Stawman, I absolutely agree that post-fascistic regimes are explicitly multicultural and politically correct, with the exception of (ironically) their victims. The 'exception' was the majority of history, where unique people banded under a collective to fend off against invaders. The indigenous natives in the New World being an example of their state and collective authority failing in the face of superior might.
>Not true! It establishes PRIVATE borders,
Another misrepresentation. Your quotation is not something I said in the context of ALL BORDERS, here is the full quotation.
"There is no state and any imposition of 'arbitrary state borders' that limits free trade is de facto coercion because it limits freedom and is demolished. Not to mention, the nation cannot exist without the state: the state is the vanguard protecting and maintaining the cultures and ethnic identities of the people. Capitalism abolishes borders and would not care for a moment if the populous was mexican so long as they work for less and spend like dullards. It is internationalist by design, it cannot be nationalist because that relates directly to policies like autarky or protectionism, which are not capitalistic."
It is obvious that STATE borders are the borders that are abolished. Private borders are irrelevant to the assertion, only state borders. State borders are fundamentally necessary to differentiate, maintain, and enforce civilizations and their authority. That's what I mean when I say capitalism, or internationalist trade, is necessarily anti-nationalist. It can never be nationalist when it puts the profit of the free market over the welfare and well-being of the ethnic citizenry, preserving their culture, protecting their religion from subversion under freedom, etc.

I don't understand why Spengler would be in the Fascist section and not in the reactionary section with Evola

>overrated
"...the only psychologist from whom I have anything to learn." - Nietzsche (1887)

>No evola
>No guenon
>No Spengler

Garbage list

None of them are introductory, and OP was posting the intro recommendations. Even the things on the intro list are pretty advanced for the average reader, and will take a lot of time. Attempting Spengler without a serious background in philosophy and a working understanding of art/history is pointless insanity.

Meditations should be in Tier 1 IMO.

End The Fed should be in baby's first books.

Road to Serfdom is also missing from this list.

I was thinking the same thing.

>Gibbon Gestalt

tier 3 is retarded level, mostly "problematics society like beurdieu. Fucked over actual class struggle by changing the working class to niggers.

yeah, because that's not like asking for a rebellion or anything. SJW tier is about to be flushed

btw who the fuck reads kant.

All three of those are in the second part I posted please refer to.

If you envision capitalism as a system of simple voluntary exchange rather than this profit-seeking one-minded system of central goals and motivations the situation becomes much clearer.
Look around you, at the decadence and cultural Marxism, and ask yourself if this could possibly occur under natural, decentralized conditions. If you investigate the roots of societies' ails, you'll invariably come to a centralized public institution.
Whether it be Civil Rights bureaus restricting free association, media licensing, importation and placement of foreigners, or the oppressive practice of taxation, the state is the head of countless snakes in society today.
And while this *could* happen in a free society, it wouldn't necessarily happen to you. If other communities wish to commit suicide, that's a pity. However I'd venture to guess that most of the native population would elect not to do so, and contrary to a statist system nobody could ever force *you* to do so.

>It can never be nationalist when it puts the profit of the free market over the welfare and well-being of the ethnic citizenry
I think this is the most critical misconception. Austrian/Rothbardian libertarianism doesn't define profit in dollars and cents, but rather in an improvement in circumstance (or worsening, in the case of loss)
This is key, it tells us there's more to it than money. An individual in a West German rural community doesn't give a fuck about the GDP impact of open borders, and would never make a decision on that basis. Moreover, it's clear that his decision-making WOULD factor in the racial tension and unsavory nature of the migrants which the state is presently importing. In the Rothbardian system, freedom to choose is extended to its logical conclusions, and money, per se, has very little to do with many economic exchanges. Subjective utility manifests in countless different factors and calculations; this is a distinction non-Austrian free marketeers fail to make.

>you'll invariably come to a centralized public institution.
The FCC

most of (op) tier 3 is litteral sjw propaganda though. Hegel, Nietzsche, Adorno and Horkheimer
ffs, its eu studies 101. lame shit

>Nietzsche
>SJW propaganda

>If you envision capitalism as a system of simple voluntary exchange rather than this profit-seeking one-minded system of central goals and motivations
It is precisely the voluntary exchange and the evolution of the free market to favour and thrive in conditions wherein the cost of production is as minimal as possible in order to advertise the product to drones who will buy it (think iPhones being made by gooks and sold to retard hipsters who drool over the politically correct advertisement methods). The latter half of your sentence is a direct result of the first because that is how the free market operates. If you make this for less, you can do it, regardless of any adverse effects. The free market is best exemplified by manufacturing jobs fleeing the US and going to the Chinese because they are 'better drones'.
>Look around you, at the decadence and cultural Marxism
A direct result of both state assistance in tolerating subversive agents and sociological retardation and the freedom to disperse propaganda aimed at removing gentile self-identification as some psychological end-result of parental abuse. Quick tangent: actually read the Authoritarian Personality by Adorno, that is one of the results he reaches regarding 'fascism' and parental abuse.
>could possibly occur under natural, decentralized conditions
There will be nothing to preserve under absolute decentralization, or anarchy. Anarchy cannot exist in the modern world, in any capacity, ever. States are the logical progression of human association. If some European nation became an anarchy, it would be absorbed by neighbouring tribes who would compete and destroy them. Again, individuals are not isolated agents.
>you'll invariably come to a centralized public institution.
And the same exceptions that we thrive for removed the possibility for the subversive agents to exist. The answer is not more freedom to the fifth column to 'progress', it is less.

>Whether it be Civil Rights bureaus restricting free association, media licensing, importation and placement of foreigners, or the oppressive practice of taxation, the state is the head of countless snakes in society today.
I already addressed this above: State authority is a tool, not an end in and of itself.
>And while this *could* happen in a free society,
Of course it will, libertarianism or its next progression, absolute freedom, is the breeding ground for societal decay so long as it doesn't offend you. Gays and niggers and every other socially undesirable element will flood the state (that doesn't exist anymore) and it will be accepted with open arms because there is nothing you can do if they don't aggravate you/your property. It is the fantastical belief that individuals are the fundamental bedrock of society, which they are, AND that from this you can extrapolate the absence of any collective identity or nation-hood. There is no nation if the state does not remove the undesirables. The 'centralized authority' of Pinochet removing Marxists is this exact argument I am making: even the free market crowd necessarily must resort to authoritarian removal in order to deal with the festering tumours absolute freedom creates.

>Austrian/Rothbardian libertarianism doesn't define profit in dollars and cents, but rather in an improvement in circumstance (or worsening, in the case of loss)
If China makes Nike shoes for 1/10th the cost in the US and spics come over across the Southern border and work for 1/10th the cost, that's the free market: business evolving to what it desires. It is a combination of both: massive profits and 'improvement in circumstance' (for the anti-racists and multiculturalists). Ethno-centrist tendencies can never manifest in a capitalist society because it runs contrary to the goals of the free market. Protectionism to defend white working class members or autarky, or even partial autarky, to remove the nation from the international trade, can literally never be capitalist. THat's what I mean: it can literally never be nationalistic. You cannot preserve any national identity, cultural identity, or ethnic identity if you are a singular unit. The group will always defeat the individual. That's my gripe with atheists: hate Christianity for its overreach all you want, Islam will come and replace it if you drive out the churches from Europe.

Fuck Rousseau. Read Filmer.

>An individual in a West German rural community doesn't give a fuck about the GDP impact of open borders, and would never make a decision on that basis.
They would care about open borders when their nation's demographic face is forever changed because immigrants work for less.
>Moreover, it's clear that his decision-making WOULD factor in the racial tension and unsavory nature of the migrants which the state is presently importing.
Irrelevant because the free market will work around petty things like racial identity or cultural identity: if it is what the free market has evolved to have a tendency to 'drift' towards, that is what it will seek out.
>freedom to choose is extended to its logical conclusions, and money, per se, has very little to do with many economic exchanges.
How does money, in itself, have nothing to do with economic exchanges? I obviously don't mean the material of the bill, but the worth of the exchange and its probability that it will occur. If I want your pencil more than I want my dollar, we will trade. If a gook gives it to me for 1/10th your offer, I will fuck you over even if you are my brother. That's the free market, it will always choose what costs less.
This still doesn't address the issue with the removal of the state and the ramifications that has on the stability and cohesion of the nation as a whole. State borders are invaluable to defend the nationhood, but they are anti-capitalist. Emphasis on STATE BORDERS, not private borders because you are strawmanning me on that. State borders are different from private borders. I am specifically referring to state borders. If everything is voluntary and exchanges and decisions occur on this basis, then things like the military will be voluntary, too. Marauding mercenaries are a thing of the past and will always manifest themselves into proper militaries around a common goal, or state, in our modern world. If not, the 'commonality' of their opponents will defeat them.

Dude you're reading one line at a time and completely losing the forest for the trees. We're in agreement about most things, but you're failing to understand my conception of the free market.
I know businesses are outsourcing, I know there's a demographic crisis, I know that no man is an island. I'm simply saying social organization is radically altered for the worse under a statist system.
Read my posts as a whole body rather than picking it apart piece by piece and for Christs' sake exercise some brevity. I'm not trying to read a Charles Dickens novel.
There's no possible way I could respond to all this shit without eating up my whole day, so let's keep it concise.

This. I was so disappointed when I found out that Thucydides died before he finished his work. Luckily some other ancient author was butthurt about it as well.

where the fuck is Spinoza's theological-political treatise?

>Dude you're reading one line at a time and completely losing the forest for the trees.
You made a lot of responses to my responses, so I was responding. Correct me if I'm wrong: your 'general gist', or the forest, is that capitalism CAN be nationalist. Is that a fair summary of your point, or is there something you want to add or revise?
>I'm simply saying social organization is radically altered for the worse under a statist system.
And we are in complete agreement on that point. That's why I am an accelerationist today: import as many non-whites and let them destroy the failed experiment the nations in Europe and other places in the West have run so that it will fall faster. But from the ashes, I don't want to revivify the same conditions that led to the demise (one of them being the ability for the fifth column to subvert the nation with state assistance under the guise of freedom), I want to see a state that operates, first and foremost, in the interests of its ethnic citizenship (to preserve their culture, religion, etc.). There is no attempt debating the point that modern states have completely abandoned blood and soil nationalism, that doesn't mean they have forgotten how to believe in it.
>There's no possible way I could respond to all this shit without eating up my whole day
Not with that attitude. How many WPM do you type, I'm 100 so that probably explains the speed. Also, I've debated this point before so I have my arguments floating around in my head somewhere. But we can be succinct so long as you do not jump from point to point. Focus on the main issue: is capitalism nationalistic, or can it be ethno-nationalistic?

It's tier three, literally right there.

I need to read Road to Serfdom one of these days.
I always prefered more moderate Austrians like Hayek or Mises. A friend once gave me Economic Policy: Thoughts for Today and Tomorrow by Mises. It's a short book just a collection of his lectures in Argentina but gives you a quick rundown about evolutionary economics, which I'd call one of the prime reasons why capitalism is better than socialism.

I don't know the example of socialism you're referring to, but I anticipate a preemptive response: that wasn't my idealistic interpretation of the socialism I would operate if I was with the workers on the commune (read: the commissar).

true, the titles are super grainy

>Expand your mind.
Mostly like your list, but Spinoza was a kike and he was also completely full of shit.

Leave it to a Dutch Jewboy like Spinoza to call out Jewish exceptionalism.

Yeah, it gave off a really humanitarian theme to me. Not a fan of the equality of mankind. I just think that comes from my anti-democratic beliefs.

Spinoza was kicked out of his Jewish community for his views, he was certainly not representing them in his work

From generation to generation economic stability was generally rising. Victorians had it better then Georgian peasants for example. Engels (Marx was already dead) noticed that workers were getting richer not poorer and therefore less likely to start a revolution. This shook his worldview a bit because he thought communism would be the natural course of evolution from capitalism. Instead the answer turned out to be evolution of capitalism itself as people were gaining economic freedoms.

>reading Spinoza without having read Descartes before
>implying you've read all these books,especially the wealth of nations and the capital

Should add Charles Maurras to the reactionnary path though I'm not sure his entire works are translated in english

The main bedrock Communism relies on is some Nostradamus-tier clairvoyant idiocy; that is, that the current structure of society will fall apart in the future. It's operating on gut feelings that are, in essence, speculation without empirical evidence. Capitalism and the whole global marketplace will become irrelevant... okay, why should we believe you? And why is your alternative better? Can you give me examples of your alternative working? Has it been implemented? If so, what was the result?

I have yet to ask those questions and receive coherent responses beyond ad hominem bullshit or more speculation being passed off as fact (or just denying history and misrepresenting terms).

Tier 1:
>New Testament
>Orwell meme (read 20 first pages of 1984 and you get the rest of the book).

Tier 2:
>Calvin

Tier 3:
>Kant
>Kirkegaard

...

What's wrong with Kirkegaard?

>Rothbard
>Ayn Rand

Where are his ethics then?

No value

>Read all these books so you can focus on being a nerd with no skills but readily prepared to argue with other larping anarchists and nazis on the internet.

Take it up with the guy who made the list, I never said I agreed or disagreed with it. I think some of the works don't really fit. Especially Adorno being on the same list with Mill. Doesn't make sense to me, but I think it's meant to be diverse. Plus, I think reading the treatise means you would follow up with ethics, or ought to at least.

Value towards what? How did you find it lacking in that category?

I'm sure the author didn't read half the books