/lit/ - Literature

>>19651696
Idk any introductions and I would be suspicious of any book pretending to be one.
The Concept of the Political - Schmidt
Imperium - Yockey
Prince - Machiavelli
Leviathan - Hobbes
Any books on Napoleon and the Counter Enlightenment

I'd skip the Greeks in this case, but if you're interested Plato had his Republic and Aristotle had On Politics, then there's Thucydides History of the Peloponnesian War for the real meat and potatoes on Greek politics.

>>19651908
That being said any general books on Western History worth their salt will touch on the Politics of the time, Theory through Information. Spengler's Decline of the West for example and Myer's Medieval and Modern History are good sources.

If you want to go to clown world and gain some insight on the Enlightenment and the rise of the Absolute State you can read Rousseau, but do so at your own peril.

>>19651908
This all seems like it has a strong reactionary slant. I dont really mind that, but i feel like it wont give a good general grasp on the field.

>>19651995
In time you'll find Politics isn't something you can have an opinion on, Democracy was a mistake, Politics is Existential, Evolve or Die. There is no arguing over politics, there is only a fist to kill your enemies with and the foresight to determine who they are.

Like I said you can always go to clown world and read the likes of Rousseau, Marx, hell even things like the Federalist Papers. If your question is specific to a country, that is the actual machinery of government then read the Law. If it's theory then you must seek to question the very basis of Politics, what /is politics? The political? What do we mean? What is the purpose of government? Of Propaganda? What is the State? Only by asking yourself these very basic questions can you learn to think politically. I've given you the tools to formulate an answer, I'm sorry you didn't like them, but as I said in the very beginning: I would be very suspicious of any book pretending to be an introduction to Politics, what I didn't say was that it is because it is undoubtedly polemical, that is, Propaganda.

Speaking of which I'd add Benarys' Propaganda to your list.

>>19651908
>books on Napoleon
Hegel and Kojeve

>>19652062
>the foresight to determine who they are.
Given your reactionary bent, your side lost the fight and are now seething to death.

>>19652117
The only side I'm on is the State's, if my side is dying then we're all on our way out. I'm not even sure what fight your referring to, I've only seen polemical bickering the past few decades.

>>19652137
>hurr durr use your fists
You'll be the first to be eliminated by algorithmic population control

>>19652207
Ok Skynet, get ready for the emps.

>>19652087
Why Hegel?

there's almost no value in reading the traditional ideological stuff. The whole field is a waste of time with no association with what actually goes on in politics

>>19652824
Literally writing in response to Napoleon conquering Europe

>>19652832
I can agree that theory isn't going to make you a good statesman, but it will provide the intellectual framework required to practice it effectively, there's always a certain instinct required for practical matters, politics is no different. Take Augustus Sol Invictus' book, Set the World on Fire, as an example of the sheer tomfoolery of modern party politics.

>>19651696
A decent introductory textbook

>>19653348
how is it?

>>19651995
The point of the Enlightenment is to setup a system to trap people in so that you can do actual politics without them seeing it. A "Reactionary" is just someone who is just open about doing Politics and doesn't hide it. There are, by definition, no Enlightenment political thinkers, as you can't hold to the basic principles of the Enlightenment AND perform politics. Yes, this means that Locke, Hobbes, Rousseau, etc aren't serious thinkers. They, by their own admission, aren't concerned with politics, they're concerned with the game of crafting ideologically pure myths to justify the Enlightenment. Yes, this means that you basically have to look to the Greeks, Medievals, 19th century Reactionaries, China, India, and the Islamic world to get political theory, because you won't find any from Enlightenment thinkers.

You can disagree, I can't stop you from being wrong. But, just keep in mind that the people in power don't read Locke, Rousseau, and Hobbes. They read do, however, read Schmidt. They read a LOT of Schmidt. When Kissinger wrote for the plebs, he cited Hobbes and Locke. When Kissinger wrote for the elites, he cited Schmidt and Spengler.

>>19653631
>A "Reactionary" is just someone who is just open about doing Politics and doesn't hide it.
is that why none of you have achieved state capture? kek

>>19653458
I already told you, it's decent.

>>19654035
i want to know more before i buy your book or get it from the library

>>19654039
Who now buys books? It's on libgen just download it for free.

The introduction to political philosophy by Cropsey and Strauss is actually good despite Strauss being a zionist-multiculturalist

>>19654051
arent zionism and multiculturalism hostile to one another?

>>19654068
Only from the goyim's perspective

>>19651908
>>19651941
>>19652062
>>19652959
>>19653631
I'm enjoying this perspective, whoever you are.

>>19654068
Zionism prescribes multiculturalism for the world but precludes it for Israel itself. (And tread carefully in your reply: my antisemitism-dar is very finely calibrated).

>>19651696
Origins of Political Order (and vol 2, Political Order and Political Decay) by Francis Fukuyama
>inb4 le funny End of History meme man

>>19654096
The last (you) is someone else, but he and I appear to be on the same page, I even agree with the preclusion of Hobbes, even though I recommended Leviathan.

>>19654110
Not political theory.

>>19652062
>In time you'll find Politics isn't something you can have an opinion on, Democracy was a mistake, Politics is Existential, Evolve or Die. There is no arguing over politics, there is only a fist to kill your enemies with and the foresight to determine who they are.

>>19654229
I guess it came off a bit edgier than I intended, don't get your panties in a wad