What is a nonfiction book I can read that will redpill me on how the world works?

File: 378 KB, 640x960, photo.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Fri Aug 23 04:42:02 2013 No.4053148 [Reply] [Original]

What is a nonfiction book I can read that will redpill me on how the world works?

>>	Anonymous Fri Aug 23 04:45:02 2013 No.4053152 >those girls Is this actually supposed to be some kind of hard choice? Haha holy shit the white dress on the left, hands down.

>>	Anonymous Fri Aug 23 04:45:02 2013 No.4053153 >>4053148 Go to university and get a degree in Chemistry

>>	Anonymous Fri Aug 23 04:48:02 2013 No.4053155 >>4053153 That's not what I meant. Not literally how chemicals react and how physics works - I'm talking about people, government, and economics. Is there a book that gives a general big picture of how the world works?

>>	Anonymous Fri Aug 23 04:49:03 2013 No.4053156 >>4053152 >not picking claire

>>	Anonymous Fri Aug 23 04:50:03 2013 No.4053157 >>4053155 From the sound of it you could learn a lot from a children's encyclopedia.

>>	Anonymous Fri Aug 23 04:50:03 2013 No.4053159 >>4053148 >redpill /pol/ please go

>>	Anonymous Fri Aug 23 04:51:02 2013 No.4053162 >>4053148 I don't know OP I'm just a lazy casual who only reads fiction.

>>	Anonymous Fri Aug 23 04:52:02 2013 No.4053163 >>4053157 Cool bro. You got me. You're fuckin smart as shit

>>	Anonymous Fri Aug 23 04:52:02 2013 No.4053164 >>4053148 I guess OP read about nationalism, neoliberalism, and post colonialism, not that I have lol. polite sage.

>>	Anonymous Fri Aug 23 04:54:02 2013 No.4053166 >>4053148 Fuck off back to /pol/. You might want to read wallerstein on world systems

>>	Anonymous Fri Aug 23 04:54:02 2013 No.4053167 I thought this board was suppose to be smart and knowledgeable. All you plebs do is read fiction and pretend like you learned a goddamn thing

Anonymous Fri Aug 23 04:55:02 2013 No.4053168

Go to your bookstore.

Find a thick ass history book. In it you will see not only how the world works from the outside, but get a sense of the amount of tedium it takes to keep the world running.

If you're all into the 'redpill' shit pick up David Icke's The Biggest Secret. He has possibly one of the most radical and comprehensive views on the whacky shit there is out there. Reading him is sort of like a fast way of reaching the end of the 'redpill' road quickly

>>	Anonymous Fri Aug 23 05:01:02 2013 No.4053178 >>4053166 This OP, read Wallerstein, read about dependency theory and neoliberalism and liberal democracy and neocolonialism and you'll get a solid framework for understanding the world

>>	Anonymous Fri Aug 23 05:07:03 2013 No.4053183 >>4053148 >>4053148 IT'S HAPPENING - RON PAUL

>>	Anonymous Fri Aug 23 05:13:03 2013 No.4053193 >>4053167 Smart people know how to learn from fiction, believe it or not.

>>	Anonymous Fri Aug 23 05:16:04 2013 No.4053194 >>4053153 >chemistry explains how the world works No. Chemistry supervenes on physical laws and even then you'd need to understand nonlinear dynamics in order to parse any kind of causality.

>>	Anonymous Fri Aug 23 05:17:03 2013 No.4053196 >>4053148 Karl Marx. Start with The Communist Manifesto because it's easy.

>>	Anonymous Fri Aug 23 05:18:03 2013 No.4053198 >>4053166 >read wallerstein on world systems it's four fucking volumes mate anything more consolidated

>>	Anonymous Fri Aug 23 05:20:03 2013 No.4053202 >>4053198 >anything more consolidated >on 'how the world works'

Anonymous Fri Aug 23 06:38:58 2013 No.4053268

>>4053194
>physical laws
If you think you can study Chemistry without studying the physical laws of this world, like thermodynamics, reaction kinetics, statistical mechanics, or quantum mechanics, then I'm not sure what kind of chemistry you've learned.

>nonlinear dynamics
Why yes, that's in the field of nonlinear chemical dynamics.

>parse any kind of causality
Chemistry is the best practice of empiricism out of all the sciences, in terms of physical experiments. Statistical mechanics, which was a field developed by physical chemists, offers the best cause-and-effect explanation in all the sciences.

To examine the other sciences then. Biology is a practice of taxonomy, once all the biochemistry is removed. Physics tends focus on the abstract, beyond any tangible, controlled experiments from the planck scale to the galactic scale. Modern day physicists argue from the basis of theories, and sit and wait until their ideas are confirmed by experiments decades later. In contrast, Chemistry offers a form of more practical causality by the way of empiricism, that has been the base of knowledge since the 18th century.

Chemistry is the bridge between the physical laws and the workings life, and that at the very least is a worthwhile undertaking to understand how the world works. In addition to that, chemistry gives rigor to experiment design and statistical analysis, which is mandatory for any discussions of causality -- enough to realize that most social research is unscientific at best.

>>	Anonymous Fri Aug 23 06:58:04 2013 No.4053310 i can see you're being sincere about your retarded state and i respect that so: graeber; debt

>>	Anonymous Fri Aug 23 07:03:03 2013 No.4053319 >>4053148 I would surely pick the withe dressed lady.

>>	Anonymous Fri Aug 23 07:15:04 2013 No.4053336 Ayn Rand - Atlas Shrugged Ayn Rand - Atlas Shrugged Ayn Rand - Atlas Shrugged Ayn Rand - Atlas Shrugged

>>	Anonymous Fri Aug 23 07:20:05 2013 No.4053344 >redpill >how the world works choose one child. why are you even here?

>>	Anonymous Fri Aug 23 07:26:04 2013 No.4053350 >>4053344 he just used a retarded word for it, but he is obviously searching for something and refreshingly owns his naivete. why be a dick?

>>	Anonymous Fri Aug 23 07:52:03 2013 No.4053382 something by some dipshit revisionist

Anonymous Fri Aug 23 08:20:03 2013 No.4053421

Just one book summarizing government, economics, politics, human nature, etc... No one book could do that even close to adequately. Hell, No one book to do even one of those subjects adequately. I'd reccommend buying some cheap college textbooks from the internet on each subject to get started. Hell, you can download alot of that sort of thing for free if you know where to look. Not saying this is the only way to do it and just because its in a textbook doesn't make it gospel, but its a good a start as any.

>>	Anonymous Fri Aug 23 08:55:03 2013 No.4053470 >>4053198 The entire world. Only four volumes. Jesus cunt wept Welty cunt blud

>>	Anonymous Fri Aug 23 09:01:03 2013 No.4053481 >>4053163 see >>4053163

>>	Anonymous Fri Aug 23 09:19:04 2013 No.4053519 No, but I can recommend you several that will: Chris Harman: A People's History of the World David Harvey: A Brief History of Neoliberalism Naomi Klein: No Logo &The Shock Doctrine Eric Hobsbawm: The History of Capitalism series (four books)

>>	Anonymous Fri Aug 23 09:22:03 2013 No.4053521 >>4053152 Quite literally the philistine's choice

>>	Anonymous Fri Aug 23 09:24:03 2013 No.4053526 >>4053519 Personally I'd axe Klein and Harman from the list, they're fairly fucking milquetoast.

>>	Anonymous Fri Aug 23 09:26:03 2013 No.4053531 A People's History of the U.S., aka the only accurate history book ever written, but you probably haven't heard of it because the government doesn't want it to be read.

>>	Anonymous Fri Aug 23 10:36:03 2013 No.4053631 >>4053152 >not picking the one in the red ishygddt

>>	Anonymous Fri Aug 23 10:37:04 2013 No.4053635 >>4053526 yeah no logo was so fucking boring. last time i trust radiohead for book recommendations.

>>	Anonymous Fri Aug 23 10:38:04 2013 No.4053636 >>4053148 >implying anyone really knows how the world works srs guises

>>	Anonymous Fri Aug 23 10:39:03 2013 No.4053637 >>4053519 HAHAHAAH manchild beta lib detected

>>	Anonymous Fri Aug 23 10:40:03 2013 No.4053640 >>4053531 ;)

>>	Anonymous Fri Aug 23 10:41:03 2013 No.4053641 File: 30 KB, 355x266, 1357086318370.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>4053531 0/10

>>	Anonymous Fri Aug 23 12:12:03 2013 No.4053773 There's an actual book called How the World Works

Anonymous Fri Aug 23 12:31:03 2013 No.4053803

>>4053268
I like you. It always amazes me how Thermodynamics can explain the basic vicious cycles of life and how chaos will always win, how disorder will always try to take over and how we spend copious amounts of energy trying to rebuild from the decay. I love that it's so rigidly practical yet poetically metaphorical. If you're studying chemistry, and thermodynamics and not appreciate this then in my opinion you're studying it wrong.

>>	Anonymous Fri Aug 23 12:33:04 2013 No.4053807 > redpill Feminine Mystique, cishet scum

>>	Anonymous Fri Aug 23 12:36:03 2013 No.4053815 >>4053155 Sounds like you want a GUT. Getting your worldview wholesale from a single book is for conspiritards, christfags, and other intellectual children.

>>	Anonymous Fri Aug 23 12:39:03 2013 No.4053821 File: 96 KB, 400x400, 13296900.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] Read Fight Club.

>>	Anonymous Fri Aug 23 12:45:04 2013 No.4053830 Weber, Durkheim and Marx of course. To begin with. And Bourdieu.

Anonymous Fri Aug 23 12:48:03 2013 No.4053838

this is a true "red-pill"

This is pamphlet it demonstrates the truth really quick and easy
http://marxists.org/archive/draper/1940/10/rat.htm

also
"You won't get to be a millionaire" by Hal draper.
http://marxists.org/archive/draper/1940/08/millionaire.htm

>>	Anonymous Fri Aug 23 12:50:03 2013 No.4053845 >>4053838 >marxists.org lel you've LOST. get over it.

Anonymous Fri Aug 23 12:50:03 2013 No.4053846

>>4053821
>Image

This is assuming that it's a closed system, i.e., that the universe we coin as the "universe" is a closed system defined by the observable boundaries. This observed boundary is seemingly "expanding", in this sense, this universe is " our everything" but it may not be THE everything, and in this sense, "our everything" is expanding into "THE everything".

>>	Anonymous Fri Aug 23 12:53:04 2013 No.4053852 File: 113 KB, 547x640, y514BJozlJetnIR1j1ls79sbqgahHX55_mUgzhnSWWQ.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>4053845 was there a contest? it's not a cult, you know. just another dead author. also > implying

>>	Anonymous Fri Aug 23 12:53:04 2013 No.4053855 >>4053846 >image Something i dreamt up on a whim to troll a thread. Never before have I thought to such shallow depths. Still, I'm glad you have been inspired, despite your gibberish.

>>	Anonymous Fri Aug 23 17:43:03 2013 No.4054444 bump

>>	Anonymous Fri Aug 23 17:44:03 2013 No.4054450 File: 8 KB, 176x266, askok1.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>4053148 I hope you're ready to get your mind fucked

>>	Anonymous Fri Aug 23 17:52:04 2013 No.4054457 >>4053193 Yes, fiction is so constructive.

>>	Anonymous Fri Aug 23 17:53:04 2013 No.4054461 >>4053268 what're some good chemistry topics/textbooks at a decent level (physics major)

>>	Anonymous Fri Aug 23 18:04:03 2013 No.4054490 The one is red isn't bad looking I just feel like her head is too big for her body. It is off putting. Sage since this is a no content shit post by me.

>>	Anonymous Fri Aug 23 19:03:03 2013 No.4054604 >>4054444 quads 4 truth

>>	Anonymous Fri Aug 23 19:05:03 2013 No.4054610 >>4054490 The bigger the head, the bigger the brain. Try to find one small-headed genius. You can't.

>>	AnalCrust !m9jxTLhLcw Fri Aug 23 19:08:03 2013 No.4054622 http://www.amazon.com/Empire-Michael-Hardt/dp/0674006712

>>	Anonymous Fri Aug 23 19:12:03 2013 No.4054630 Esther Vilar and Norah Vincent

Working Class Marxist Academic Fri Aug 23 19:57:03 2013 No.4054738

>>4053830
>And Bourdieu.

I see what you did there. Bourdieu is an answer to a question that only appears for Weberrians or Marxists who have slumped off the path towards Bethlehem and gotten drunk at Weber's road side stand of intersectional determinations.

Anonymous Fri Aug 23 22:21:03 2013 No.4055074

Since merest seemed to shit on OP instead of helping a broad seeking knowledge out, I will.

Since this is mainly a fiction board, my suggestions will be fiction.

To understand some of the underlying machinery that drives war, I'd look at Blood Meridian. Yes, the surface is all spitting cowboys, scalping Indians and the occasional bloodbath, but take careful inspection of The Judge. He is said to be the embodiment of war. Look not only at the things he says, but at what the things he says are. Try to have a bird's eye view while keeping your ear to the ground.

The second is either Gravity's Rainbow or The Crying of Lot 49,depending on your reading ability. Pynchon's writing is highly political (which is why he was and is such a private person, he was convinced his was revolutionary writing and wantedto avoid the government's atteattention). I'm not going to spell out what exactly you're supposed to take from either of these books, but keep in mind my previous suggestion. Look for patterns and things that may be metaphors for other things.

>>	Anonymous Fri Aug 23 22:22:03 2013 No.4055078 >>4055074 since most*

>>	Anonymous Fri Aug 23 22:23:03 2013 No.4055080 >>4055074 And bro, not broad. Goddamn this cellphone autocorrect

>>	Anonymous Fri Aug 23 22:27:03 2013 No.4055086 Immanuel Kant's critique, well teach you we will never be able to truly know the world Hume's treatise will crush your ideas about causality and personal identity Nietzche will change your view of morality forever have fun

>>	Anonymous Fri Aug 23 22:33:04 2013 No.4055095 >>4053152 Your taste, how common

>>	Anonymous Fri Aug 23 22:37:03 2013 No.4055101 >>4055095 your taste is no better than his

>>	Anonymous Fri Aug 23 22:40:03 2013 No.4055103 >>4055086 >Hume >Anything but a well disguised sophist Read Anscombe if you want a red pill.

>>	Anonymous Fri Aug 23 22:45:04 2013 No.4055109 File: 44 KB, 814x500, 1362701255788.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>4055103

>>	Anonymous Fri Aug 23 22:45:04 2013 No.4055110 >>4055103 I will look him up, but can you give me the general gist real quick?

>>	Anonymous Fri Aug 23 22:55:03 2013 No.4055127 De rerum natura. It's six books but it also teaches you dactylic hexameter in case you're into class warfare.

Anonymous Fri Aug 23 23:18:04 2013 No.4055164

I don't think there's one book that will do it all but I have been doing something similar to you recently and here are a few that I've liked:

"Planet Ponzi" by Mitch Feierstein, it's a very very easy read regarding the financial system/debt/banks, but it's a nice starting place.

"A theory of money and credit" by Ludwig Von Mises is something to read after that, it's more complicated but worth it.

--

"A short history of nearly everything" by Bill Bryson is an entertaining glimpse into all manner of things sciencey, this one was a brilliant read which piqued my interest in all manner of sciences, especially as i didkn/t hknow much about it before

-

"Two concepts of Liberty" Isaiahi berlin a useful primer on freedom, will definitely enlighten u as to how differnet people view the term and thus promote certain polciies: e.g. affirmative action is a good example here

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 24 00:02:04 2013 No.4055250 >>4054622 >terrible reviews

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 24 02:02:03 2013 No.4055381 File: 124 KB, 600x446, 1359066739093.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>4053148 declineofwestexplained DOT blogspot DOT com >mfw reading this DOOMED

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 24 11:31:03 2013 No.4056019 >>4053148 This blog: http://thelastpsychiatrist.com/

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 24 11:34:03 2013 No.4056029 >>4053148 HAHAHA just read (or watch some youtube video on) the allegory of the cave. Its okay to say youre new.

>>	Marxist-Leninist-Maoist !quM58wnvXA Sat Aug 24 11:37:04 2013 No.4056035 >>4053155 SOUNDS LIKE YOU NEED TO STUDY SOME DIALECTICAL MATERIALISM.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 24 12:07:03 2013 No.4056085 >>4056019 >tfw no new posts

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 24 13:47:03 2013 No.4056292 >>4056019 is this a narcissism blog? what is this?

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 24 17:53:03 2013 No.4056793 >>4053155 Capitalism and Freedom by Milton Freidman. It is worth a read if you're an American, or interested in American policies.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 24 18:05:03 2013 No.4056819 Human geography, economics, politics, philosophy, literature all these subjects

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 24 18:17:04 2013 No.4056845 >>4056819 you forgot theology

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 24 20:47:13 2013 No.4057118 File: 27 KB, 200x296, World_War_Z_book_cover.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] World War Z ...you're welcome

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 24 20:56:03 2013 No.4057135 File: 20 KB, 236x346, red pill.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 24 21:12:03 2013 No.4057167 >>4053152 >picking the girl with half-coconut shell plastic tits Get a load of this faggot.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 24 21:14:04 2013 No.4057174 >>4053159 >>4053166 >I don't like this thread. He must be from /pol/! /pol/ go away! /pol/ please go! Just stop already.

Anonymous Sat Aug 24 21:48:04 2013 No.4057234

>>4057174
>redpill
I told someone posting "uncalled for catchphrases" ala rule 3 to fuck off back to the board where that catchphrase is called for, and then recommended him a major work that explains how the world worked.

You posted shit that belongs on /q/.

p.s.:Mike Dash _Tulipomania_

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 24 21:51:04 2013 No.4057240 Understanding Power - Chomsky

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 24 21:52:04 2013 No.4057244 Start with Homer and the pre-Socratics.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 24 21:53:04 2013 No.4057245 Start with the Upanishads and the Bhagavad Gita.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 24 21:58:04 2013 No.4057249 Start with Tao Lin and the alt-lit "scene."

Anonymous Sat Aug 24 22:00:04 2013 No.4057253

>>4054738
Bourdieu for sure! It's probably going to be the biggest redpill for someone who has mostly read just fiction.

Suddenly all of those fiction books, all of the movies you have watched, records you have listened to... even the clothes you wear, will become to gnaw at your conscious.

You will realize just what a took you have been and no matter what direction you turn in, no matter how radical the politics or how much you try to outrun and subvert power structures you will find yourself in a prison of your own making.

The one day you will wake up and say fuck it, burn your Bourdieu books and go back to the life you once had.

Never again will you plead for a Red Pill... Only compliance, security, safety.

This is my only warning, stay far away from Bourdieu.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 24 22:05:04 2013 No.4057258 Complete Works of Plato are all you need. The order in which you read the dialogues is of the greatest importance. Start with Alcibiades Major. Good luck.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 24 22:15:04 2013 No.4057276 >>4053148 get a college level textbook on human biology,psychology and world history

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 24 22:21:04 2013 No.4057291 >>4057258 >>4057276 Way too philosophical, abstract, and irrelevant to the current times OP, what you need is Fight Club by Chuck Palahniuk, Brave New World by Huxley, and The Satanic Witch by Lavey (trust me on this, it'll change your life)

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 24 22:59:04 2013 No.4057350 >>4057174 Thank you.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 24 23:01:04 2013 No.4057354 >>4057234 fuck off

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 24 23:20:04 2013 No.4057389 something about anthopology and cultural systems

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 24 23:27:05 2013 No.4057407 >>4057258 >not Apology

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 24 23:33:04 2013 No.4057415 >>4057291 how is human biology, psychology, world history >philosophical, abstract, and irrelevant to the current times

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 24 23:35:05 2013 No.4057422 >>4057407 >not knowing Apology comes after the Phaedrus and before the Phaedo stay uninitiated

>>	Anonymous Sun Aug 25 00:34:04 2013 No.4057534 File: 52 KB, 599x599, 1333925567804.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>4053268 >Statistical mechanics >Not developed by physicists >Offers the best cause-and-effect explanation in all of the sciences >best cause-and-effect >best

>>	Anonymous Sun Aug 25 00:36:04 2013 No.4057538 >>4053803 Depends on the temperature regime. The world is constantly trying to minimize energy and maximize entropy, and often these two goals cannot be met simultaneously

>>	Anonymous Sun Aug 25 00:38:04 2013 No.4057539 >>4053148 Kapital

>>	Anonymous Sun Aug 25 01:03:04 2013 No.4057568 read denial of death

>>	Anonymous Sun Aug 25 01:35:05 2013 No.4057618 The Republic

>>	Anonymous Sun Aug 25 02:00:04 2013 No.4057648 Phenomenology of Spirit and Encyclopedia of the Philosophical Sciences by Hegel Capital by Marx System of Synthetic Philosophy by Herbert Spencer The Phenomenon of Man by Pierre Teilhard de Chardin And as much History as you can

>>	Anonymous Sun Aug 25 02:07:04 2013 No.4057656 it's too bad 4chan doesn't have a medical board, my ass feels weird and i wonder if it's cuz i got a new chair, ate some bad food or the jock itch in my ass crack as gone into my rectum...

Anonymous Sun Aug 25 02:10:04 2013 No.4057665

>>4053148
The palmer textbook "History of the Modern World". Probably expensive as fuck but provides the most insight on to how the world came to be what it is today (with a strong european bias, so i suggest studying other history, read historical fiction and non-fiction, really just anything historical and as much as you can). History provides the most insight as to how the world works. Youre welcome.

Anonymous Sun Aug 25 02:11:04 2013 No.4057666

>>4053148
I think you're expecting a bit much from one book. It might be better to find a few things specifically (political science, history of philosophy, modern socio-cultural history, contemporary economic theory, whatever) and ask about each seperately. You'll get much better responses.

But seriously, some people spend there whole lives trying to figure out how the world works and the people who succeed do so by discounting things they don't care to learn rather than learning everything. You either change the definition of the words 'world' and 'work' until you know everything about it or you just don't.

>>	Anonymous Sun Aug 25 02:11:04 2013 No.4057667 >>4057648 Yes

Anonymous Sun Aug 25 02:37:04 2013 No.4057720

The most redpill book applicable to real life I have read was Evolutionary Psychology: The New Science of the Mind by David Buss. It summarizes the field of evolutionary psychology, a field that attempts to explain how many of our thoughts, feelings, and social behaviors can all be explained through problems our ancestors have faced. In the citation-based book, he elucidates the traits (some of which are very subtle) that all humans share, and shows how they affect society today. This book shows how powerful your body and subconscious mind are at making decisions and is also a useful resource for understanding other.

It is a long book. The book explains many things including:
>Why men and women are different, and why gender equality will never happen so long as gender exists
>Whey we age and die (senescence)
>Why people enjoy and relax looking at nature
>Why all people have an innate fear of snakes and spiders
>What causes fear and fainting
>How humans fight disease (fun fact: asprin makes your fever last longer)
>Why suicide is an evolutionary adaption
>Why women orgasm
>The prevalence of infidelity, and how we have subconscious adaptions to respond to it
>Why incest is uncommon (and why the electra complex/Oedipus complex are wrong)
>Why we protect our own kin
>Why we make friends
He also spends 3 chapters (100 pages) discussing sex, explaining what women seek, what men seek, and why they seek it.

There is so much "redpill" stuff in here that I'm amazed the information is public. If I took over the world, I would ban this book and keep all this knowledge to myself, because you can so easily understand and control others with it.

took a while to type this up. I hope some anon finds this useful. You can find the book off bookfi.

PS - after you read this book, read Social Psychology by elliot aronson . It is a more pragmatic version of this book but only explains the "what" and not the "how" or "why"

Anonymous Sun Aug 25 02:42:04 2013 No.4057725 [DELETED]

>>4057720
calling bullshit on this, can see already two bogus ones and probably more if i cared but
>Why men and women are different, and why gender equality will never happen so long as gender exists
gender is a social construct, it has nothing to do with men and women
>Why incest is uncommon (and why the electra complex/Oedipus complex are wrong)
but you want to fuck your mom so you know this is wrong

sounds like some comforting centrist liberal stuff to make you feel good being a suit

>>	Anonymous Sun Aug 25 02:45:04 2013 No.4057728 >>4057720 le edgykid le undeerageban

>>	Anonymous Sun Aug 25 03:03:04 2013 No.4057759 >>4057720 These all sound like things any logical person would think of. Despite your fascination with how "redpill" it is, I may pick it up and read it some time for the experience.

>>	Anonymous Sun Aug 25 03:03:04 2013 No.4057760 >>4057720 >Evolutionary Psychology Stopped reading right there. 'Evolutionary Psychology' is absolute rubbish, ancient-aliens-tier quack science.

Anonymous Sun Aug 25 03:04:04 2013 No.4057763
File: 833 KB, 500x281, tumblr_mdpeg5IbAn1qlv6exo1_500.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>4053152

>It's Melanie Inglesias

>>4053156
>>4053521
>>4053631
>>4053631
>>4055095
>>4057167

>not wanting to bang Melanie Inglesias
>calling or implying people wanting to do so are faggots.

/lit/ it's well known you have shit taste in things but this is fucking heresay. If you wouldn't bang Melanie Inglesia you're a straight up faggot and failure of a human being for not desiring to jeez into someone's whos genes obvious need to be reproduced for the betterment of our species. Being female doesn't let you off the work either.

To answer OP's question, there are plenty.

>The World is Flat by Thomas Friedman

His politics aside the book is really interesting because it explains how our Internet Age came to be and this quiet unseen revolution that happened.

>Capitalism: A Treatise On Economics by George Reisman.

It's fucking huge. I haven't finished reading it and it's lost in storage somewhere at the moment but just the first few chapters are incredibly eye opening about economics, politics, central banking etc.

>The Discoverers by Daniel Boorstin

Haven't finished it yet either because it too is lost in storage but it's a little gem I discovered while staying in the hospital for a couple weeks. It was in their library. I stole it. It was good enough to have to steal. It basically gives an amazing historical account of how things were discovered and how discovered them.

>The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins

Controversial and maybe not the best book ever but Dawkins does a good job of explaining how absurd the whole concept of God is. He hits a homerun but doesn't knock it out of the park in my opinion

>Medium Raw by Anthony Bourdain

Bourdain's a phenomenal writer. The book explains a lot of what's really going on in the food and food service industry.

>The Ascent of Money by Nial Ferguson

A good historical account of where this idea of money and banking came from and how it affects us.

>>	Anonymous Sun Aug 25 03:07:05 2013 No.4057769 >>4057760 lolwat.. It actually makes a lot of sense and isnt shit tier pseudo-science. Now im just thinking youre a troll...

Anonymous Sun Aug 25 03:09:04 2013 No.4057773

>>4057769
"It actually makes a lot of sense" isn't an empirical argument which is what you want when arguing for the validity of a science.

Most people accuse it of extrapolating too much from population studies and making shadowy, non-empirical connections from actual data that the data doesn't necessarily give evidence of. If you're going to start "redpilling" yourself using that stuff, it's important to become literate in reading studies.

>>	Anonymous Sun Aug 25 03:09:04 2013 No.4057774 >>4053519 Naomi Klien is a fucking hack.

Anonymous Sun Aug 25 03:10:04 2013 No.4057775

>>4057763
>The God Delusion
>Anything but the worst atheism has to offer
/lit/ gets worse everyday. I read it when I was still to be convinced either way and it was absolutely horrendous. The page on Aquinas was either the largest display of ignorance I've ever seen or just plain old atheist intellectual dishonesty.

>>	Anonymous Sun Aug 25 03:13:04 2013 No.4057779 >>4055086 >Immanuel Kant Worst philosopher ever. >Nietzche Muh nigga.

>>	Anonymous Sun Aug 25 03:15:05 2013 No.4057784 >>4057779 >Immanuel Kant >Worst philosopher ever Typical teenage Nietzche fan.

Anonymous Sun Aug 25 03:15:05 2013 No.4057786

>>4055164
>>4057763

I should of thrown some books by Ludwig von Mises and the Austrian economists in my list by George Reisman's book basically sums up a lot of what you need to know. Reisman was a student of Mises, personally. He is his Obi-Wan to Mises' Quigon Gin.

>>	Anonymous Sun Aug 25 03:20:04 2013 No.4057794 >>4057760 Let me guess... you're a creationist?

>>	Anonymous Sun Aug 25 03:21:04 2013 No.4057795 File: 1.09 MB, 320x240, tumblr_mhgfv7Gily1rhwq8do1_400.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>4057720 The book is expensive as hell on Amazon dude. >>4057784 I'm 26 and old enough to have read a lot of both and Kant's still fucking shit.

Anonymous Sun Aug 25 03:22:04 2013 No.4057797

>>4057773
I dont "redpill" with anything. Just imagine that somewhere from the time we were single-celled, brainless organisms, up to now as intelligent humans, females developed endorphins that enable them to attach to their child and wish for their well-being. Does that not sound plausible? These are millions and millions of years we are talking about. It definitely makes a lot of sense, i.e. plausible. There are definitely neurotransmitters that werent existent millions of years ago.

>>	Anonymous Sun Aug 25 03:29:05 2013 No.4057809 What's with the prejudice against the word "redpill"? Is it a /pol/ thing?

>>	Anonymous Sun Aug 25 03:30:05 2013 No.4057811 >>4057809 sounds like some gay reddit shit le redpill amirite

>>	FiRez !!tndrCZJHE+I Sun Aug 25 03:31:04 2013 No.4057813 The Selfish Gene.

Anonymous Sun Aug 25 03:32:04 2013 No.4057815

>>4057809
I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure it's related to /pol/ dropping a bunch of graphs relating race to IQ. But now it seems much more broad, relating to how women are whores, looks/alphaness are everything, and, well, the race thing hasn't gone anywhere either.

>>	Anonymous Sun Aug 25 03:34:05 2013 No.4057819 >>4057809 Because people of 4chan will argue about anything and make a point in doing so.

>>	Anonymous Sun Aug 25 03:36:04 2013 No.4057822 >>4057815 I thought it was just a matrix reference. Where did all the race stuff come in?

Anonymous Sun Aug 25 03:38:04 2013 No.4057824

>>4057815

Redpill is a general term for "give me the truth" or "enlighten me" on a certain subject. A reference to the movie The Matrix when Morpheus offers Neo the red or blue pill. Red = see world for what it really is. Blue = go back to ignorance is bliss

>>	Anonymous Sun Aug 25 03:39:04 2013 No.4057825 >>4057822 I mean, it is. But I think its popular usage on 4chan came about through /pol/ "redpilling" people on what they think are the realities about race and intelligence.

Anonymous Sun Aug 25 03:47:04 2013 No.4057833

>>4057824
The matrix ultimately deals with the allegory of the cave, except neo was given a choice, whereas in the cave, the subject was forcibly dragged out because otherwise he wouldnt give up his warm and cozy reality. Perhaps Morpheus himself was the one forced out, and everyone else has the choice to accept or not accept his teachings, and if any of the "enlightened" return to the cave/matrix/people of greece in the case of socrates and spread their teachings, they will or will be potentially killed.

>>	Anonymous Sun Aug 25 03:48:04 2013 No.4057835 >>4057833 So very simply, it means enlighten.

>>	Anonymous Sun Aug 25 03:51:05 2013 No.4057837 >>4057835 Yeah but there's a tone to the word. It's like saying "Give it to me straight" or "No bullshit just give me the hard facts." Ironically, most of the time the answers are stereotypes like "Blame the Jews." I like it personally.

Anonymous Sun Aug 25 03:51:05 2013 No.4057839

>>4057809
>>4057811
>>4057815
>>4057819

Man, come one guys.

It's a reference to the red pill scene in the movie The Matrix. Neo takes the red pill to be awoken to a whole new world and the truth.

/pol/ made a meme of sorts out of it to mean knowing the truth about whatever you're being "redpilled" on. But they take to stupid levels so there are shitposting threads like "red pill me on Miley Cyrus" and shit.

>>	Anonymous Sun Aug 25 03:54:04 2013 No.4057845 I don't think anyone didn't know it was a Matrix reference. We were just talking about its usage on here.

Anonymous Sun Aug 25 03:55:04 2013 No.4057847

>>4057833
ok dude everybody knows the allegory of the cave and it's a shitty allegory anyway
I'm a lot smarter than you and I never worked hard at anything

>>4057824
people on /pol/ will also talk about "redpilling" other people or that more people are getting "redpilled" about some topic
it works into their general apocalypticist program, too; once an hundred and forty and four thousand are redpilled the day will come and so on

>>	Anonymous Sun Aug 25 03:55:04 2013 No.4057848 >>4057837 He just redpilled you on the word "redpill." So meta.

Anonymous Sun Aug 25 03:58:04 2013 No.4057852

>>4057825
Is there an actual response to that? I don't post on /pol/ or have far-right views, but it seems obvious to me that if individual differences exist, they aren't likely to magically manifest themselves equally within groups, especially when those groups have been geographically separated for extremely long periods of time in vastly different environments.

The common argument against this seems to be that race is a social construct, but I don't see how that's a valid argument. Lots of things are social constructs. That doesn't mean they don't refer to anything real or significant.

So what am I missing here?

>>	Anonymous Sun Aug 25 04:02:04 2013 No.4057853 >>4057852 That /lit/ is a board where we discuss literature, so cite some fucking anthropological literature in relation to your pathetic unsubstantiated personal opinions or deleted your post.

Anonymous Sun Aug 25 04:03:04 2013 No.4057854

>>4057852
So you'd rather have that ol' argument without even questioning the idea that the current quantification of intelligence is specious at best?

Btw, what your question comes down to is populations, which aren't delimited by what we refer to as "race."

>>	Anonymous Sun Aug 25 04:04:04 2013 No.4057855 >>4057854 >So you'd rather have that ol' argument without even questioning the idea that the current quantification of intelligence is specious at best? mentioning, not questioning

Anonymous Sun Aug 25 04:18:04 2013 No.4057860

>>4057854
>So you'd rather have that ol' argument without even questioning the idea that the current quantification of intelligence is specious at best?

I don't know enough about IQ tests to say whether or not they can reasonably measure intelligence, but I do think we all essentially know what we mean when we say intelligence. A loose definition might be problem-solving ability. Maybe someone has a better definition, but either way, no one would argue that Sarah Palin is smarter than Stephen Hawking. When someone says that whites are on average smarter than blacks, no one is really confused about what they mean.

>Btw, what your question comes down to is populations, which aren't delimited by what we refer to as "race."

That just seems like a semantic argument to me. If we refer to black people as a population rather than a race, what does that change?

>>	Anonymous Sun Aug 25 04:20:05 2013 No.4057862 >>4057860 >but I do think we all essentially know what we mean when we say intelligence No we don't.

>>	Anonymous Sun Aug 25 04:20:05 2013 No.4057863 >>4057853 It was a simple question. I don't see why I need to cite anything.

>>	Anonymous Sun Aug 25 04:27:05 2013 No.4057866 >>4057863 Your question is worthlessly premised.

>>	Anonymous Sun Aug 25 04:28:04 2013 No.4057868 >>4057795 The book is on bookfi.org if that's your thing.

>>	Anonymous Sun Aug 25 04:28:04 2013 No.4057869 >>4053148 democracy the god that failed by hans-herman hoppe and machinery of freedom by david friedman.

>>	Anonymous Sun Aug 25 04:28:04 2013 No.4057870 >>4057862 When someone says that Stephen Hawking is smarter than Sarah Palin, are you confused about what they mean? If not, why doesn't it confuse if intelligence is so impossible to define?

>>	Anonymous Sun Aug 25 04:30:04 2013 No.4057871 >>4057866 How so?

Anonymous Sun Aug 25 04:34:04 2013 No.4057873

Since we're doing this, let me say this: There are clear differences, genetically, between the races.

Why would you assume that the capacity for intelligence is the same when, for example, the capacity for physical strength and endurance is not? How can we be equal in regards to such a thing when it's obvious that our physiology is not?

For those interested: http://psychology.uwo.ca/faculty/rushtonpdfs/pppl1.pdf (THIRTY YEARS OF RESEARCH ON RACE
DIFFERENCES IN COGNITIVE ABILITY)

In closing I'd like to say that I think that every person should be treated as an individual. There is no need to actively discriminate.

Anonymous Sun Aug 25 04:36:18 2013 No.4057874

>>4057870
>When someone says that Stephen Hawking is smarter than Sarah Palin, are you confused about what they mean?
I'm not, because 99% of the time they mean that Hawking is more educated than Palin.

However, despite sloppy vernacular language we all know that intelligence and education are different concepts.

> If not, why doesn't it confuse if intelligence is so impossible to define?
It's impossible to define because there are hundreds of different and often unrelated concepts hiding behind the simple word 'intelligence'. Human language is sloppy and vague.

>>	Anonymous Sun Aug 25 04:36:18 2013 No.4057875 >>4057871 Because you obviously know none of the contextual or theoretical debate.

Anonymous Sun Aug 25 04:39:18 2013 No.4057877

>>4057860
>If we refer to black people as a population rather than a race, what does that change?

It isn't semantic at all. Not even close. What we refer to as "race" socially does not at all account for the fact that, say, the genetic variations in European and Asian populations are subsets of the variation in African population.

The population conception of race defines it as a cluster of local populations that differs genetically from other clusters. And each individual is recognized as an individual and cannot represent his/her entire cluster. This is kind of a modern, evolutionary geneticist view of race that has been developing in recent years and that has been replacing the old taxonomic model.

>>	Anonymous Sun Aug 25 04:39:18 2013 No.4057879 Heidegger, Hegel. Granted you will have to read everything else to understand them, but let's be honest they are the best.

>>	Anonymous Sun Aug 25 04:46:56 2013 No.4057883 >>4057873 Population studies don't really count as hard evidence of anything.

Anonymous Sun Aug 25 04:49:37 2013 No.4057887

>>4057862
>>4057862
Forget the word "intelligence". Let me put it this way: could there be a genetic basis for something that strongly correlates with the ability to perform complex intellectual tasks, such as doing calculus or understanding more difficult literature and philosophy? If so, is there any reason to believe that this trait manifests itself equally within groups? And if not, could this possibly be worth knowing given that we live in a society in which certain types of skills are becoming undervalued and it is becoming increasingly necessary for people to be able to perform more complex intellectual tasks?

Look, I really don't have a dog in this fight, but from my layman's perspective, it seems to me that people are playing with ambiguities in the language and pushing impossible standards to avoid thinking about something unpleasant.

>>	Anonymous Sun Aug 25 04:55:13 2013 No.4057891 >>4057887 >If so, is there any reason to believe that this trait manifests itself equally within groups? Equally? No. It would literally vary individual to individual. Which is why a population study wouldn't tell you much.

>>	Anonymous Sun Aug 25 04:55:13 2013 No.4057892 >>4057887 Your something unpleasant is less credible than YHWH.

>>	Anonymous Sun Aug 25 04:57:13 2013 No.4057894 >>4057892 http://www.news-medical.net/news/2005/04/26/9530.aspx

>>	Anonymous Sun Aug 25 04:59:57 2013 No.4057900 >>4057894 That's a strange address for a peer reviewed journal.

>>	Anonymous Sun Aug 25 05:00:57 2013 No.4057902 >>4057891 So does that mean that a single wealthy black man means that we can't accurately measure wealth disparity between racial groups?

Anonymous Sun Aug 25 05:01:57 2013 No.4057904

>>4057883
>>4057891
It's fine that you don't bother with reading the article I linked. It's cool that you want to dismiss it by just saying that population studies don't count.

What I'm actually interested in now is this: Do you believe that the differences between individuals have nothing to do with genetics?

Anonymous Sun Aug 25 05:01:57 2013 No.4057906

>>4057891
Of course, it would vary from individual to individual, but I'm talking about averages. If one group is on average significantly smarter than another, that's worth knowing, isn't it? If, for example, blacks are less intelligence than whites, that could be a better explanation for their poor academic performance and higher crime rates than white racism and lack of social funding, could it not?

>>	Anonymous Sun Aug 25 05:01:57 2013 No.4057907 >>4057894 J. Philippe Rushton is a psychology professor, not a geneticist. Arthur Jensen is a psychologist.

>>	Anonymous Sun Aug 25 05:02:57 2013 No.4057910 >>4057894 >>4057900 I linked the actual study earlier, >>4057873 : http://psychology.uwo.ca/faculty/rushtonpdfs/pppl1.pdf

>>	Anonymous Sun Aug 25 05:05:57 2013 No.4057916 >>4057904 >It's cool that you want to dismiss it by just saying that population studies don't count. Correlation not implying causation is the first thing they teach you in statistics.

>>	Anonymous Sun Aug 25 05:07:00 2013 No.4057920 >>4057916 >blacks are poorer >must be because of white privilege

Anonymous Sun Aug 25 05:09:00 2013 No.4057924

>>4057906
>but I'm talking about averages.
But averages wouldn't tell you anything that you could extrapolate and put into use justifiably. Literally, they would tell you the average of that sample and that is it. Correlation does not imply causation.

And you keep ignoring the fact that evolutionary geneticists don't use the social definition of "black" because it's useless. The cluster of local populations who evolved in region A of Kenya are going to be classed differently than the cluster of local populations evolved in region C in South Africa.

>>	Anonymous Sun Aug 25 05:12:00 2013 No.4057929 >>4057920 I don't think you can be serious. You do realize that the civil rights movement was less than 50 years ago, right? Martin Luther King, Jr. was assassinated 45 years ago. Social factors can't be ignored.

Anonymous Sun Aug 25 05:20:28 2013 No.4057938

>>4057929
The point is that correlation implying causation is fine when people talk about race and privilege, but apparently not fine when people talk about race and intelligence.

American slavery lasted a few hundred years. People living in different environments across continents lasted tens of thousands. Why must we assume that only the former is responsible for all racial disparity ever?

Anonymous Sun Aug 25 05:24:56 2013 No.4057944

>>4057924
You keep stating that they use the social definition of "black" when they don't, again, read the article. You keep saying that correlation does not imply causation, but that is not the main issue at hand, it's whether or not a correlation between race and intelligence exists, which is not only likely, it's almost certain. And while causation is not implied, the hereditarian (50% genetic–50% environmental) hypothesis accounts far better for all the experimental and statistical data than the culture-only hypothesis.

You ignored my previous question, "Do you believe that the differences between individuals have nothing to do with genetics?", intended of course to reveal the bias that you seem to harbour.

You really don't like the idea of people not being entirely equal, do you?

Anonymous Sun Aug 25 05:28:56 2013 No.4057949

>>4057924
>But averages wouldn't tell you anything that you could extrapolate and put into use justifiably. Literally, they would tell you the average of that sample and that is it. Correlation does not imply causation.

I never implied that anyone's race caused them to be intelligent or unintelligent. That would obviously be disproven by every smart black person and every dumb Asian. I'm simply saying that there might be a correlation, possibly a very strong correlation.

>And you keep ignoring the fact that evolutionary geneticists don't use the social definition of "black" because it's useless. The cluster of local populations who evolved in region A of Kenya are going to be classed differently than the cluster of local populations evolved in region C in South Africa.

What if every one of those populations that we colloquially refer to as "black" are significantly less intelligent than all the others? Do you really not see any value in knowing this? Besides, even if we keep it strictly to local population clusters and don't expand it into some broader category, what does that change? Then the question just becomes, are the people in this local population cluster smarter or whatever else than this or that local population cluster?

Anonymous Sun Aug 25 05:33:56 2013 No.4057957

>>4057938
>The point is that correlation implying causation is fine when people talk about race and privilege, but apparently not fine when people talk about race and intelligence.

Just because people do it, doesn't mean it's "fine." It isn't fine in either case. Most people aren't statistically literate and will think anything attached to the word "study" is scientific fact.

But arguments about what's responsible for racial disparity are almost impossible to translate into exact numbers at this point, so it's going to be a bunch of messy social science, arguments made from empathy, etc. There's no "right" answer.

Anonymous Sun Aug 25 05:36:56 2013 No.4057960

>>4057944
>You really don't like the idea of people not being entirely equal, do you?

It's funny, because I don't believe that. Like, at all. I think you need to read up on human genetic clustering for this argument to get anywhere. That article by those two psychologists means nothing to me unless it has genetic data. Does it?

Anonymous Sun Aug 25 05:40:56 2013 No.4057964

>>4057949
>Besides, even if we keep it strictly to local population clusters and don't expand it into some broader category, what does that change? Then the question just becomes, are the people in this local population cluster smarter or whatever else than this or that local population cluster?

Again, all this would say is that cluster A is, on average, smarter than cluster B. Do I "really" not see any value in knowing this? I don't mind the studies being done, but I'm not sure I see the value of knowing the correlation. It's not like education programs could be tailored based on the results. "Okay, let's see Trayvon, you descend from a lineage of cluster B morphed with cluster D that migrated to cluster F, which means you take all of these classes." It gets messy.

Anonymous Sun Aug 25 05:48:57 2013 No.4057971

>>4057960
Well, for starters they introduce section 2 with this:

>To define terms, based on genetic analysis, roughly speaking, Blacks (Africans, Negroids) are those who have most of their ancestors from sub-Saharan Africa; Whites (Europeans, Caucasoids) have most of their ancestors from Europe; and East Asians (Orientals, ongoloids) have most of their ancestors from Pacific Rim countries (Cavalli-Sforza, 2000; Cavalli-Sforza, Menozzi, & Piazza, 1994; Nei & Noychoudhury, 1993; Risch, Burchard, Ziv, & Tang, 2002). Although he eschewed the term
race, Cavalli-Sforza’s (2000, p. 70) maximum likelihood tree made on the basis of molecular genetic markers substantially supports the traditional racial groups classification. Of course, in referring to population or racial group differences we are discussing averages. Individuals are individuals, and the three groups overlap substantially on almost all traits and
measures.

I can see how you might think that they've just tested certain populations without actually accounting for their actual genetics, but that is not the case, I would claim. Mind you, this paper is not just a single small-time test made on a single population, it is, as the title reveals, an examination of "THIRTY YEARS OF RESEARCH ON RACE
DIFFERENCES IN COGNITIVE ABILITY".

But hey, if we for a moment forget the whole race-intelligence debate, I suppose we can agree that genetics are cause for significant differences between individuals, yes?

>>	Anonymous Sun Aug 25 05:48:57 2013 No.4057972 >>4053148 The Hobbit

Anonymous Sun Aug 25 06:05:56 2013 No.4057980

>>4057971
>I suppose we can agree that genetics are cause for significant differences between individuals, yes?

Yeah, I didn't ever mean to imply otherwise. My issue stems from what is still a huge issue in modern genetics regarding clustering methods and what racial divisons come to mean when we apply them. It really comes down to people arguing that the variation is so complex that dividing regions even into so-called "continental races" becomes eventually arbitrary and that each sample cluster is going to differ enough to count. But it's an issue that we're not likely to resolve on 4chan.

I've got the paper bookmarked, I'll give it a fair look when I get back from the gym.

>>	Anonymous Sun Aug 25 06:11:57 2013 No.4057981 >>4057720 http://emilkirkegaard.dk/en/wp-content/uploads/David-Buss-Evolutionary-Psychology-The-New-Science-of-the-Mind-2007-496p-Evolutionary-Psychology-3rd-ed.pdf

>>	Anonymous Sun Aug 25 06:34:56 2013 No.4058009 Public Choice III by Dennis C. Mueller. Public choice is a coherent, correct, and useful theory of pretty much every government that can be, and it will also teach you to think in terms of incentives.

>>	Anonymous Sun Aug 25 07:17:56 2013 No.4058039 File: 28 KB, 250x358, 255.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>	Anonymous Sun Aug 25 07:33:56 2013 No.4058061 >>4057981 does it just assume all cultures are the same?

>>	Anonymous Sun Aug 25 07:35:57 2013 No.4058064 >>4057944 don't confuse race with genetic difference

Advanced search
Text to find
Subject [?]Search by post subject. Leave empty for any.
Username [?]Search for user name. Leave empty for any user name.
Tripcode [?]Search for tripcode. Leave empty for any.
Email [?]Search by email. Leave empty for any.
Filename [?]Search by image filename. Leave empty for any.
From Date [?]Enter what date to start searching from. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
To Date [?]Enter what date to start searching until. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
Image hash
Search in	All Posts OPs Only
Deleted posts	Show all posts Show only deleted posts Only show non-deleted posts
Internal posts	Show all posts Show only internal posts Show only archived posts
Order	New posts first Old posts first
Capcode	All Posts Only by Users Only by Mods Only by Admins Only by Developers
Results	Posts Threads
Action	[ Simple ]

/lit/ - Literature