/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.4931300]

Any redpill books like pic related?

[Evola « Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » K(...) !vKJYJAzBlI No.4931369]

>>4931300
women do not right "redpill" books

[Feminister !!F9QVQ82MjmE No.4931559]

>>4931369
I don't know if you're an expert, dude. The only books I've seen you mentioned you've read are Evola's stuff and Might Makes Right. You have a pic you post of writers, but I don't think you've read many of them. Critical conclusions are built on questions more than assumptions.

[Anonymous No.4931560]

>>4931369
>right
what

[Anonymous No.4931561]

>>4931560
English isn't is first language.

[Anonymous No.4931563]

>>4931561
>English isn't is first language.
>isn't is first
>is

I could delete that post out of shame, but it's just too damn funny.

[Anonymous No.4931565]

>>4931369
>women do not right "redpill" books
Who knew Evola kid would be illiterate and hideous.

[Anonymous No.4931572]

It cannot get more redpill than pic related.

[Anonymous No.4931604]

Rogue Economics by Loretta Napoleoni.
Everything by Barbara Ehrenreich.

All the stuff from Martha Gellhorn.

[Anonymous No.4931610]

>>4931369
Women do not write book worth reading, in general

[Anonymous No.4931614]

>>4931610
Yes they do.

[Anonymous No.4931624]

Feyerabend's Against Method recently blew my mind

[Anonymous No.4931639]

>>4931614
Nam one

[Anonymous No.4931645]

>>4931300
Guns, Germs, and Steel
Salt, Sugar, Fat
Days of Destruction, Days of Revolt
Fast Food Nation

[Anonymous No.4931648]

>>4931639
It's irrelevant, you lack the critical faculty to objectively evaluate a book, evidenced by your belief in an actual meaningful, blind-testable difference between the writing of females and males. Your mind is made up.

Zadie Smith, for example. I'll save you the typing and respond for you:
>Implying she isn't shit
Harper Lee
>Implying Mockingbird isn't YA trash
Jane Austen
>Boring
Bronte, Le Guin, Oates
>Irrelevant
>Reading fantasy
>2014
>Nice tits when she was younger, haven't read anything of hers though

And so on.

[Anonymous No.4931653]

There are few from Foucault, that are pretty "redpill":
Society must be Defended
Security, Territory, Population
The Birth of Biopolitics.

If /pol/ would get their heads out of their asses and stop just crying "FAG" and "SJW" every time someone mentions Foucault, they'd realise, first, that he is close to their idea of "redpill" in his critique of modern society, and second, that their nationalism, nat-sco leanings and racism are all products of current society and not a rebellion against it, as they wrongly think.

[Anonymovs No.4931655]

>>4931645
>Guns, Germs and Steel
>mfw

[Anonymous No.4931673]

>>4931655
Ah yes.
Never gets old.
Never gets correct either.

[Anonymous No.4931679]

>>4931653
>/pol/
>being able to see past shitty buzzwords
You know this is never going to happen. It's the same reason they will never appreciate Teddy Adorno's brutal criticism of pop culture.

[Anonymous No.4931684]

>>4931679
You're unfortunately completely right.
This sucks, because /pol/ can be fun, even interesting at times, but most of time is complete and utter shit. Oh well, thankfully most of threads about political philosophy and theory are still permitted in /lit/, which is way better at serious discussion than /pol/.

[Anonymous No.4931722]

Jean Baudrillard - Simulacra and Simulation
Guy Debord - The Society of the Spectacle
Marshall McLuhan - Understanding Media / The Medium is the Massage / War and Peace in the Global Village
Edward Bernays - Propaganda

These are a good start, and they're all interesting reads.
The Medium is the Massage and War and Peace in the Global Village by McLuhan are very fun and light reads, also - they're mixed media. Read them first for fun, and then dive into Baudrillard and Debord - they're complimentary.
Bernays is essential reading for advertising and basically the 20th century.

[Anonymous No.4931725]

>>4931300

Industrial Society and It's Future (also known as "Technological Slavery" or the "Unibomber's Manifesto")

While America Sleeps (pretty mild redpill, but I reckon it's still good)

All The President's Men

Growing Up Absurd

The End of History and the Last Man

anything by Neil Postman - Amusing Ourselves to Death, Technopoly,The End of Education

[Anonymous No.4931727]

So, is No Logo worth reading?

[Anonymous No.4931736]

>>4931727
It's very interesting. It will depend on your political stance whether you agree with some of its conclusions. It's a great book, though. Very detailed with extensive research.

Give it a read - after 50 pages, drop it if you don't like it.

[Anonymous No.4931741]

>>4931722
Oh yeah, I forgot to add Adorno and Horkheimer, which is pretty much gospel in critical theory.
I am in college in Germany right now - I'm not from here, I'm an expat - and A&H are gods in the eyes of those studying critical theory, cultural studies, sociology, political science and even history, but justifiably so.
Dialectic of Enlightenment is page after page of brilliance.

[Anonymous No.4931744]

Everyone should read this at least once.

[Anonymous No.4931745]

>>4931725

>anything by Neil Postman - Amusing Ourselves to Death, Technopoly,The End of Education

this

if you want redpill, you cannot get any better than Postman

[Anonymous No.4931756]

>>4931300

I quite enjoyed The Black Swan by Nassim Nicholas Taleb, pretty mild by comparison but also not untolerably edgy unlike many other "economical redpill" books. It also discusses surprisingly many philosophers concerning epistemology or who have (half)-relevant ideas that can be applied to economy/statistics, which managed to spark my interest in philosophy.

[Anonymous No.4931763]

>>4931369
Are you a christian?

[Anonymous No.4931780]

If you liked No Logo, read The Shock Doctrine.

Also:
Manufacturing Consent by Chomsky
Anti-Intellectualism in American Life by Hofstadter
One-Dimensional Man by Marcuse
Eros and Civilization by Marcuse
Eclipse of Reason by Horkheimer
Discipline and Punish by Foucault
The Most Radical Gesture by Plant
Society of the Spectacle by Debord
First as Tragedy, Then as Farce by Zizek
Postmodernism, or, The Cultural Logic of Late Capitalism by Jameson
Dialectic of Enlightenment by Adorno
Tristes Tropiques by Adorno
Escape from Freedom by Fromm
History and Class Consciousness by Lukacs
Tristes Tropiques by Levi-Strauss
Myhologies by Barthes
The Revolution of Everyday Life by Vaneigem
Anti-Oedipus by Deleuze and Guattari
Simulacra and Simulation by Baudrillard
The Second Sex by de Beauvoir
Orientalism by Said
Gender Trouble by Butler

That should keep you occupied for awhile

[Anonymous No.4931791]

>>4931780
*Negative Dialectics by Adorno, not Tristes Tropiques

[Anonymous No.4931794]

Are there any that aren't left wing?

[Anonymous No.4931797]

>>4931794
You want /pol/, they are the chief proponents of unironically using the term, 'redpill'.

[Anonymous No.4931802]

>>4931794
Best I can do is Revolt Against the Modern World by Evola.

[Anonymous No.4931803]

>>4931797
It's just a phrase m80. We all know it just means, 'good books on political issues'.

[Anonymous No.4931817]

>>4931572

[Anonymous No.4931825]

>>4931780
Nice. This was my reading list in my undergrad degree from years 1 to 4.

I'd suggest OP starting out with Myhologies by Barthes and then moving on from there.

What country are you from?
I want to meet with you and chat. I am hard-up for a chat about theory.

[Anonymous No.4931830]

>>4931794

All The President's Men (which someone else already mentioned) and Fear and Loathing on the Campaign Trail '72 basically go after Nixon (who, through his successors George HW Bush and Henry Kissinger) laid down the foundations of the modern GOP

you also have Imperial Life in the Emerald City, which delves into how Dubya botched the Iraq Occupation and The Triumph of Politics is a long ass story about Reagan by a GOPer who hates the Establishment GOP

[Anonymous No.4931839]

>>4931727
No, its shit. Read something by actuall academics.

[Anonymous No.4931843]

>>4931780
Shock doctrine is retarded. Those charter schools by Friedman did make your stupid murrican niggers perform better in school.

[Anonymous No.4931847]

>>4931843
>Fear and Loathing on the Campaign Trail
I hope English isn't your first language.

Also, /pol/ is leaking and it's just annoying, not edgy or upsetting. It's like having a noisy wasp in the room - a noisy wannabe WASP.

[Anonymous No.4931851]

>>4931847
Oops, had that book title highlighted and it was included in the message. Disregard it, but read the non greentext bit.

[Anonymous No.4931854]

>>4931825
Good ol' US of A. I'd love to meet more theorists around here. There's none to be found.

[Anonymous No.4931867]

>>4931843
>Shock doctrine is retarded. Those charter schools by Friedman did make your stupid murrican niggers perform better in school.
This is not an argument.

[Anonymous No.4931873]

>>4931854
Ah, I'm in Germany, alas.

[Anonymous No.4931878]

>>4931300
Since nobody seems to have mentioned it:
The Empire-Multitude-Commonwealth series by Antonio Negri and Michael Hardt.
Even if you disagree with the practical part of their explanations, the analytical is just stellar. Probably the best account of globalisation so far.

[Anonymous No.4931884]

>>4931794
Spengler and Schmitt, I would say, especially Schmitt.

[Anonymous No.4931886]

>>4931744
It's a great book. But one wonders what it has to say in this day in age. It's very much the handbook of the 60s and 70s.

[Anonymous No.4931898]

>>4931886
It's actually rather frightening how relevant the book still is and how prescient it was. Many of its predictions have become reality.

[Anonymous No.4931951]

new book about nazi bankers (2013)

[Anonymous No.4932083]

>>4931867
Shock doctrine is retarded because it uses education to fight an entirely ideological battle while harming actual students.
In Canada we have a similar program (lots of funding for alternative, private, french, and christian schools) and it's been pretty succesfull. I realize America's a shithole, but encouraging people to come up with better alternatives to your usual crap of an education couldn't hurt.

[Anonymous No.4932111]

>>4932083
Why are you so focused on charter schools? The main theme of the book is much more important than the petty fixes to get the dispensable parts of the people back into the machine.

[Anonymous No.4932145]

[Anonymous No.4932157]

>>4932083
Some cities and counties have voucher programs.

[Anonymous No.4932278]

>>4931653
>heir nationalism, nat-sco leanings and racism are all products of current society and not a rebellion against it
This!

[Anonymous No.4932321]

>foucault
enjoy your blue pill

[Anonymous No.4932341]

>>4932321
I'm one of those who recommended Foucault.
And I'm honestly interested in this book. I'm guessing the main critique of him, and in general of post-modernism, is that it gives no alternative, and almost no option of rebellion against it.
At least this is the most common critique from the marxists. And to some extent, yeah sure, but there's still this personal ascetics option, of almost anarcho-individualism that runs under most of the po-mo.

[Anonymous No.4932792]

>>4931653
I like Foucault and I'm still right wing. Suck my dick.

[Anonymous No.4932849]

>>4931794
Check out elite theory, Robert Michels, Gaetano Mosca and Vilfredo Pareto.

Even before the left began to realize that their beloved Enlightenment would led only to a new oligarchy, they have been calling this bullshit out.

[Anonymous No.4932873]

>>4931653
>that their nationalism, nat-sco leanings and racism are all products of current society and not a rebellion against it, as they wrongly think.

So is the communism of Foucault.

Evola-sempai actually realized that way before, when he criticized fascism and biological racism from the right. Many of the ideas of the New Left (post-structuralism and the Frankfurt School) has always been staples of the "Old Right". Criticism of the Enlightenment, mistrust of liberal democracy, skepticism of modern science and reason. But the leftist academia only embraced these ideas when it became useful for them, when they lost control of the Enlightnement, which they thought would make them the philosopher-kings they always wished to be, to apolitical technocrats.

[Anonymous No.4932917]

ok dinosaurs arrived. time to let the thread die.

[Anonymous No.4932929]

>>4932917
Just for that I'm giving it a bump.

[Anonymous No.4933070]

>>4931300

[Feminister !!F9QVQ82MjmE No.4933117]

>>4931655
>I don't know the difference between taming and domesticating!

[Anonymous No.4933128]

>>4931854
>usa
>no other theorists around
Yup, you're the only one.

[Feminister !!F9QVQ82MjmE No.4933135]

>>4932873
Foucault wasn't really a communist by the time his name became known. Sartre called him the last defense of the bourgeoisie, Foucault said Marxism doesn't breathe outside of the 19th Century, and he was a vehement critic of the USSR unlike the members of the Communist Party. He used to be a member of the party, but he distanced himself from it due to its homophobia and dogmatism. Foucault listed separating the worker from the wealth he generates as one of three major forms of struggles, but that was a facet of Foucault's concern rather than the concern itself. Foucault was a radical, post-existential individualist; where he had socialist leanings it was only where they were congruent with that.

[Anonymous No.4933196]

>>4932873
>Many of the ideas of the New Left (post-structuralism and the Frankfurt School) has always been staples of the "Old Right".
Oh yeah? Where?
I give you Spengler, but only for his criticism of liberalism.

>Criticism of the Enlightenment
The whole concept of Enlightenment was criticised way before the concept of "the right" or "the left" arose. The thing about the Frankfurt School's criticism is that they criticised reason by using the terminology and notions of Enlightenment. The only person who thought of that before would have been Max Weber.

>But the leftist academia only embraced these ideas when it became useful for them, when they lost control of the Enlightnement
Enlightenment is not a battle or a fucking trophy...

>which they thought would make them the philosopher-kings they always wished to be, to apolitical technocrats.
You sure know them filthy commies!

>>4933135
I'm sure he wasn't a marxist any longer, even if he used some of Marx's concept. But I'm pretty sure that he was socialist/communist (whatever distinction you wish to apply here).

"Radical, post-existential individualist" does not necessarily exclude being a socialist, I would say.

[Feminister !!F9QVQ82MjmE No.4933210]

>>4933196
Communism is extremely collectivist by nature, and collectivism is about as reconcilable with individualism as Jesus is with Stirner.

No, but if he was he was probably a market socialist. He was not really in favor of a crystallized society. If you've read "We", I's philosophy was probably along the lines Foucault thought.

[Anonymous No.4933443]

>>4931741
Adorno gets a lot of shit around here
I vaguely remember enjoying Minima Moralia as YA, don't get the hate

>too pleb too discern differences between various philosophers

[Anonymous No.4934937]

>>4932145
wish i knew more about The Invisible Committee

[Anonymous No.4935083]

What are some essential philosophical and political works, real entry level stuff

[Anonymous No.4935116]

>>4935083
g
r
e
c
s

[Anonymous No.4935159]

>>4935083
Plato's Republic
Hobbes's Leviathan
John Locke's Second Treatise on Human Nature

[Anonymous No.4935163]

>>4935159
Oh, forgot de Toqueville's Democracy in America

[Anonymous No.4935166]

>>4931655
He directly addresses that point in the book, if you're going to pick holes actually do it accurately. There are several wrong parts of the book and that isn't one of them.

Also the fact that the British shipped horses to South Africa instead of using the local zebra which are in abundance (like they did with Elephants in India) pretty much proves their uselessness.

[Anonymous No.4935168]

>>4935083
so this guy
>>4935159
>>4935163
is a pretty good start. what realm of philosophy are you looking to get into? if you're into politics, you would also want to look into moral philosophy, epistemology, power, etc

[Anonymous No.4935169]

>>4931604
Barbara Ehrenreich writes some brilliant books. I'll check out the others. Thanks for the suggestions anon.

>captcha: was tootsy

[Anonymous No.4935176]

Does "The Corporation" count? I thought it was really interesting, especially with the doco to complement the reading.

[Anonymous No.4935187]

David Graeber's Debt. I think it's mildly funny that so many here seem to think the required reading from their English major is 'redpill', when it's really just its own kind of cultural-ideological millieu. I fail to see how McLuhan or Barthes could 'redpill' anyone who is old enough to be allowed on this board.

[Anonymous No.4935198]

>>4935166
I'm sure the friends of the first hunter-gatherer on the plains of central Asia or wherever to capture and train a horse instead of eating it right away would have laughed at him and thought him crazy too. Trouble is, the Africans never had that thought, to use the animals for anything than food.
Takes hundreds of years to domesticate a species- of course the Brits didn't want to fuck around with that when they could use familiar, domesticated horses. Or elephants. Hmmm. African elephants can be trained too right?

[Anonymous No.4937117]

Picrelated is pretty much redpill.

[Feminister !!F9QVQ82MjmE No.4937148]

>>4937117
>drawing natural science conclusions from social science
>thinking "intelligence" is a neurological trait
There are several traits that roughly make up our cultural understanding of intelligence, including memory, conscientiousness (which is partially genetic, partially environmental), theory of mind (which you can be blind in genetically, but you must develop with significant use in order be a genius in it), spatial cognition, and several other factors. "IQ", by itself, is not a genetic trait anymore than you can genetically inherit an exact running speed of x.

[Anonymous No.4937169]

>>4937148
All these features are genetic and only modified by social interaction. You can make some handicap good by giving kids a better education but statistifcally the effects will still be there. This is not social darwinism, it's just an analysis.

[Anonymous No.4937179]

>>4937117
psychology is not a hard science

>>4937169
errm not really, things aren't that simple
saying "X is genetic" is retarded anyway

[Anonymous No.4937182]

>>4937179
>>4937148
pomo libtards getting btfo by psychometric as usual

[Anonymous No.4937188]

>>4937182
no, i just happen to know what i'm talking about
take up some fucking biology courses sometime

[Anonymous No.4937194]

>>4931300

The White Plague.

[Anonymous No.4937202]

>>4937182
>psychometrics
>being actually taken seriously by hard sciences
>being this much of a behaviorist

[Anonymous No.4937220]

>>4931794
The Decline of the West by Oswald Spengler

[Anonymous No.4937294]

Principles of Population Genetics, Fourth Edition
Hartl, Clark

[Feminister !!F9QVQ82MjmE No.4937323]

>>4931884
>>4937220
>Considered in itself, the Roman world-dominion was a negative phenomenon, being the result not of a surplus of energy on the one side — that the Romans had never had since Zama — but of a deficiency of resistance on the other. That the Romans did not conquer the world is certain; l they merely took possession of a booty that lay open to everyone. The Imperium Romanum came into existence not as the result of such an extremity of military and financial effort as had characterized the Punic Wars, but because the old East forwent all external self-determinations. We must not be deluded by the appearance of brilliant military successes. With a few ill-trained, ill-led, and sullen legions, Lucullus and Pompey conquered whole realms — a phenomenon that in the period of the battle of Ipsus would have been unthinkable. The Mithradatic danger, serious enough for a system of material force which had never been put to any real test, would have been nothing to the conquerors of Hannibal. After Zama, the Romans never again either waged or were capable of waging a war against a great military Power. Their classic wars were those against the Samnites, Pyrrhus and Carthage. Their grand hour was Cannae. To maintain the heroic posture for centuries on end is beyond the power of any people.

>I distinguish, again, "soul" and "world." The existence of this opposition is identical with the fact of purely human waking consciousness (Wachsein). There are degrees of clearness and sharpness in the opposition and therefore grades of the consciousness, of the spirituality, of life. These grades range from the feeling- knowledge that, unalert yet sometimes suffused through and through by an inward light, is characteristic of the primitive and of the child (and also of those moments of religious and artistic inspiration that occur ever less and less often as a Culture grows older) right to the extremity of waking and reasoning sharpness that we find, for instance, in the thought of Kant and Napoleon, for whom soul and world have become subject and object.

[Anonymous No.4937327]

>>4937323
Why do you keep posting this?

[Anonymous No.4937353]

>>4937327
Because its easy to copy paste cherry picked spenglah excerpts than read The Collapse of Complex Societies by Tainter

[Feminister !!F9QVQ82MjmE No.4937379]

>>4937353
If you're going to read a cyclic theory of history, then read Machiavelli or Durant, not an historian who incorporates metaphysics into his theory.

[Anonymous No.4938147]

OK not to get this off topic but can anyone explain to me what Zizek means when he talks about ideology. I was watching the perverts guide to ideology recently and I had a hard time understanding some of it. Any books that talk about this I found it really interesting, with what I could understand.

[Feminister !!F9QVQ82MjmE No.4938154]

>>4938147
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideology#Marxist_view

[Anonymous No.4938227]

>>4937379
But Vico is superior to both.