Books on National Socialist ideology.

[Anonymous No.6481838]

Any good reads about National Socialist ideology? Not Mein Kamf.

[Anonymous No.6481843]

>>6481838
Might want to start with Nietzsche

[Anonymous No.6481929]

>>6481843
might want to read Schopenhauer first

[Anonymous No.6481934]

>>6481929
Might want to read Hegel first

[Anonymous No.6481936]

>>6481929
Might want to read Kant before that for context

[Anonymous No.6481940]

>implying National Socialism actually has a coherent system of thought and isn't whatever Hitler says it is.

[Anonymous No.6481941]

>>6481936
Might want to start with the greeks

[Anonymous No.6481942]

>>6481936
Probably good to be familiar with Hume before Kant though

[Anonymous No.6481945]

>>6481936
Might want to read Hume first to know who Kant is responding to.

[Anonymous No.6481956]

>>6481945
>>6481942
a cursory understanding of the scholastics is necessary before getting into the empiricists like Hume, however

[Anonymous No.6481963]

>>6481956
Can't read the scholastics without understanding Aristotle

[twinshia !b2E8KBMQGk No.6481964]

>>6481940
Well, it is mainly inspired by Fascism,
which originates with Mussolini,
who was previously a communist.
Right wing socialism.

[Anonymous No.6481975]

>>6481963
Can't read Aristotle without the presocratics, dog

[Anonymous No.6481984]

>>6481964
Socialism wasn't part of the NSDAP after the Night Of The Long Knives in 1934, when the Strasserists were murdered/had to flee

[Anonymous No.6481989]

>>6481963
And who can read Aristotle without knowing their Plato?

We've done it! This is why you start with the Greeks.

Now everyone lock yourself in your room until you're muttering Sappho in your sleep. Maybe then can you can start to think about reading something more modern, like Seneca.

[Anonymous No.6482002]

>>6481964

One of the most common narratives right-wingers give themselves is that of "former socialists turned conservative" and those who do are usually the most zealous after conversion: Sowell, Eastman, Burnham for example became instrumental in the creation of the neoconservative movement.

But for some reason, when that person is Mussolini, that singular exception, they no longer count this as an example of how socialism is "just a phase" but to raise the argument that his posterior political philosophy has to be influenced by the previous one and that one is therefore to be blamed.

[Anonymous No.6482045]

The Crisis of German Ideology - George Mosse

[Anonymous No.6482086]

>>6482002
Does this really need to be spelled out? When people like Kristol and Horowitz rejected their revolutionary socialism, they rejected it largely wholesale (expect, arguably, with regards to things like universalist foreign policy being adopted by ex-trotskyist neocons). When Fascist ex-socialists discarded their far-left influences, they intentionally kept and held in esteem concepts like industrial alienation, class struggle, unity in a state, revolutionary mass-action, etc, but rejected the socialist solution to these problems with their implicit anti-nationalism, egalitarianism, and collectivist internationalism. The difference between rejecting revolution in favor of orthodox conservatism and rejecting it in favor of fascism is one of rejecting the problems raised by the radical left as solvable on the first hand, and disagreeing with how to solve it on the second. Fascism is a right wing ideology, but it had heavy, considerable influences from the state socialist tradition.

>The petit bourgeois Social Democrat and the trade union boss will never make a National Socialist, but the Communist always will.