/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.7249390]

Hello /lit/, i'm a /pol/ native and i was wondering if you could reccomend any good political books aside from the memes (mein kapf, das kapital etc)

Pic related is what i already know of

[Anonymous No.7249396]

>>7249390
Prometheus Rising
Thomas Carlyle's work
Glubb's Fate of Empires

Make sure to read outside of what you already believe and use other people's ideas only to supplement your own. Don't let other people's thiughts take root in your head. Politics are dangerous.

[Anonymous No.7249414]

>>7249396
I try to do that; i've read some of Marx, Chomsky, and Orwell's works even though my political ideology is most accurately described as fascist

[Anonymous No.7249418]

>>7249414
>fascist
Read some history maybe. Mussolini was a clown, Hitler was a neurotic psuedo-sperg and Franco was like a saner Mugabe. Fascism a shit, Robespierre did nothing wrong revolution of virtue now.

[Anonymous No.7249423]

>>7249418
>Hitler
>Fascist
well meme'd, goy

i knew there would be some attempt to criticise my ideology and i would like to say now that anonymous posters on a mongolian pottery forum are not going to change my mind

[Anonymous No.7249424]

>>7249414
What have you read of Marx? The Communist Manifesto doesn't really get to the bulk of Marx's political thought. Usually I recommend people to read Engels first (Ludwig Feuerbach and the End of Classical German Philosophy, and Socialism: Scientific and Utopian) before moving on because it's short and succinct.

What have you read in the reactionary list, or at least on politics in general? I'm not a fascist, and I don't really have a background on fascist politic, but I'm curious. ΟΥΤΙΣ here wrote this a little time ago, and if I were to ever read into it, I'd get these. Have you read Giovanni Gentile?

[Anonymous No.7249428]

>>7249423
>Hitler
>anything but trash
I hope you keep these thoughts confined to the internet. Maybe drop politics for a while, the world is much bigger than you so it's smarter for you to accept it than worry about changing it. Read Anne of Green Gables or The Sound of the Waves maybe. Bick back, be bull. You might not thimk it be like it is but it do. Liberty. Equality. Fraternity.

[Anonymous No.7249432]

>>7249424
I've read the communist manifesto but it was a few years ago now

I found das kapital too bulky to read.

In terms of the chart, i haven't fully read any of those books; i'm trying to compile books that i would like to read first because i don't have much money to spend on books.

[Anonymous No.7249436]

>>7249428
I wasn't saying Hitler wasn't trash i was saying he wasn't a fascist.

I'm trying to make a point of only arguing about politics on /pol/ and i'm simply requesting that people reccomend me political books.

[Anonymous No.7249454]

Read Evola

[Anonymous No.7249463]

The Republic
The Statesman
The Laws
The Politics
Nicomachean Ethics

The Republic and The Laws (Cicero)
The Meditations of Marcus Aurelius (Don't get the Emperor's Handbook)

The Prince (get the Mansfield translation)
Discourses on Livy

Since you're a fascist:
https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateFascism/comments/39tunn/fascist_book_reading_list_add_yours_in_the/
^-- this might interest you

[Anonymous No.7249487]

>>7249454
okay
>>7249463
thank you

[Anonymous No.7249503]

Macintyre's After Virtue.

Strongest BTFO of liberalism.

[Anonymous No.7249514]

>>7249503
Might have to read that

[Anonymous No.7249574]

>>7249514
To summarize a bit, he wants us to return to Aristotle's conceptions of the virtues and of politics (eg. communitarianism).

He argues that our moral climate is shaped by Nietzsche AND enlightenment thinkers (like Kant and the utilitarians). The enlightenment tried to find a universal rule to govern ethics but couldn't really find that rule. Nietzsche came along and showed how enlightenment ethics is just bullshit, there is no rule etc

We've forgotten all about Aristotle and seem to think morality is either just bullshit people tell you (Nietzsche) or morality is some universal rule that should be applied in all situations (Utilitarians, Kant) . So we now have a YOLO morality and think anyone should do want they want if it gives them immediate pleasure.

Macintyre says the whole enlightenment itself was a mistake. Aristotle knew both that there is no universal rule to ethics but also that it's possible to make ethical claims without it.

Now most of our ethical claims are "Emotivist" in the sense that "Something is good if it makes me feel good." When we say "X is good" we're really saying "Yay X!" and not "X is good [because this argument]. Liberalism and SJW arguments will eventually crumble because they're not based on a real argument, just a feel good sentiment.

We should never have tried to find ethical rules but should always have been cultivating the virtues.

[Anonymous No.7249578]

>>7249574
Sounds very interesting, i'll almost definately get that

[Anonymous No.7249592]

>>7249574
Could you elaborate more on Aristotle's conceptions of virtue?

[Anonymous No.7249597]

>>7249414

>i'm a fascist

You are my enemy.

[Anonymous No.7249619]

>>7249597
*tips fedora*
*unsheaths katana*

nothing personnel, just ideology

[Anonymous No.7249622]

>>7249436
Hitler was a fascist. If you want a deconstruction of Hitler's political machinations:

The Coming of the Third Reich

>There is no story in twentieth-century history more important to understand than Hitler’s rise to power and the collapse of civilization in Nazi Germany. With The Coming of the Third Reich, Richard Evans, one of the world’s most distinguished historians, has written the definitive account for our time. A masterful synthesis of a vast body of scholarly work integrated with important new research and interpretations, Evans’s history restores drama and contingency to the rise to power of Hitler and the Nazis, even as it shows how ready Germany was by the early 1930s for such a takeover to occur. The Coming of the Third Reich is a masterwork of the historian’s art and the book by which all others on the subject will be judged.

Epub: http://bookzz.org/book/1110719/19c0f5

Griffin, Roger. The Nature of Fascism. London: Routledge, 1993.

>Innovative study proposing an “ideal type” intended not to specify some essence of fascism but merely to provide a heuristic tool, recognizing that every manifestation will be both typical and atypical. Takes as the mythic core of fascism “a palingenetic form of populist ultra-nationalism,” redeeming the nation from decadence (pp. 26, 38). But argues, at the same time, that the fascist revolutionary project, linked to dynamism and myth, was inherently unrealizable.

PDF: http://bookzz.org/book/2495339/3cbb39


Laqueur, Walter. Fascism: Past, Present, Future. New York: Oxford University Press, 1996.

>While providing a good concise account of classic European fascism, emphasizing what differentiates it from ordinary dictatorship, it is especially helpful in considering neo-fascism and what the author calls “post-fascism” in certain clerical regimes and in the new Right in post-communist Russia. Notes that whereas we should not expect some second coming of classic fascism, we can still learn from it in order better to understand novel forms.

PDF: http://bookzz.org/book/864898/b9028b

I hope you arent "redpilled" and I'm not wasting my time pointing you towards valid scholarly works.

[Anonymous No.7249634]

>>7249622
The thought of calling myself "redpilled" unironically is cringeworthy.

But Fascist believed in more economic freedom and less government spending than National Socialists, and were united ethnically and culturally rather than racially

[Anonymous No.7249641]

>>7249634
I disagree, I see no reason to deconstruct that far,

Its enough to say Authoritarianism + Nationalism + Cult of Personality + Right Wing

[Anonymous No.7249676]

>>7249634
>But Fascist believed in more economic freedom and less government spending than National Socialists

[Anonymous No.7249684]

S T I R N E R

[Anonymous No.7249689]

>>7249641
>>7249676
Fair points but as i said before i came here to be reccomended literature not debate politics

[Anonymous No.7249698]

>>7249689
see
>>7249622

The politics of fascism in historical study.

Evans especially goes to great length to elucidate on the intellectual background of the parties in question, even pre-war.

[Anonymous No.7249700]

>>7249684
Just another smug retard who didn't read Aristotle.

[Anonymous No.7249711]

>>7249700
>implying
Aristotle is shit.

[Anonymous No.7249717]

>>7249619

Bring it on.

[Anonymous No.7249724]

Thucydides - The Peloponnesian War
Plato - Crito, The Republic
Aristotle - Politics
Cicero - On the Commonwealth, On the Laws
Augustine - City of God
St. Aquinas - Poltical Writings

[Anonymous No.7249729]

>>7249717
>tfw the end result of the revolution is Cuban hotel owners fiending for a twice daily ferry from the US mainland and the beginnings of commercial flights.

Its basically gonna be Godfather 2 Land, come and experience pork sandwiches and the 1950s and nightclubs.

[Anonymous No.7249772]

>>7249597
>muh strong anarchist women

[Anonymous No.7249779]

Bertrand de Jouvenel - On Power

James Burnham - The Machiavellians (as a introduction to the ideas of Gaetano Mosca, Robert Michels and Vilfredo Pareto

It's actually quite frustrating to discuss politics with people with no knowledge of these works.

[Anonymous No.7249827]

>>7249772
>fascists are so insecure that they can't even tolerate people who disagree with them being alive

[Anonymous No.7249853]

>>7249827
Actually, fascists only kill enemy soldiers and subversives. It is communists who kill everyone who disagrees with them, even if they take part in no political activity.

[Anonymous No.7249884]

>>7249853
so you never read schmitt's concept of the political?

[Anonymous No.7249896]

>>7249884
No, but I know enough to imagine that this concept was distorted by Foucault and Deleuze for their own purposes.

[Anonymous No.7249949]

>>7249896
imagination isnt enough. you must understand.