Jow Forums Approved Reading List

>doesn't know how to quote on Jow Forums
>Your building a
underage b&

The authors of classic antiquity are bretty good, currently reading Plutarch's Lives of the Illustrious Roman and Greeks

Ask me why I know you never read it.

The protocols of the elders of zion, irrelevant of if you believe it to be a forgery or not.

>Ask me why I know you never read it.
Ask me why you're a sub 80 IQ baboon. You don't have to emulate all that you take in.

Anything by Julius Evola

Attached: Julius-Evola.jpg (1038x584, 249K)

>Political knowledge
Look into the CIA, the origins, the founders, the Dulles brothers, the Rockerfellers, MK Ultra, Operation Paperclip, Operation Mockingbird, the lies about the holocaust, etc

Quit trying to approach the world as an intellectual. It's really one of the major downfalls of white men that we think we can solve the world's problems philosophically.
Read books about what's really going on in the world instead of what philosophical approach leads you to 'the best one'. Read: The Franklin Coverup, Secret Societies and Psychological Warfare and Tragedy and Hope.

That is the quote Socrates is talking

>still doesn't understand how to quote on Jow Forums
>still posting on Jow Forums underaged

interesting point. I still believe educating oneself on political philosophy is important in tandem with the practical workings of the world. I'm aware of the Operations and deceit you mention, just looking to read more about politics in general.

>still doesn't understand how to quote on Jow Forums
I am not quoting a post I am quoting the book

>i'm not quoting i'm just quoting
underage b&

This.

Attached: 1497574917587.jpg (1975x2229, 1.06M)

>stuck halfway through the peloponnesian war because of how dreadfully dry it is.

Unironically based. This a good introduction to mysticism, ancient history, initiation, etc. I would recommend a lot of Evola and Jünger. Also, the Carnegie book is not worth reading.

For fiction, I’d add some Mishima, letters from underground, LOTR, Don Quijote.

IDK if you did this, but the Hegel's 'Phenomenology of Spirit' is much more relevant than Marx's 'Capital'
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Phenomenology_of_Spirit
This omission in the Jow Forums reading lists has made posting more difficult for me.

evola is trash

>tradistionalism good
>why
>bc its good here look at this building

hes a retard

Plato was an initiated member of the Mystery Schools and The Republic is hot garbage OP. Try reading Frederic Bastiat's The Law or some Dostoevsky instead.

Get on my level. The Laws is the greatest achievement in the history of political thought.

Attached: 9D72DF2E-59FE-4EC6-93ED-2432F496124A.jpg (300x345, 23K)

The Laws is much better then the republic

the concept of the political, anything nietzsche wrote, hegel.

Attached: 9780198245971.jpg (281x430, 22K)

Letters and Numbers by Zachary K Hubbard.

The Bonfire of the Vanities, by Tom Wolfe.

The book isn't about Republic

Evola has great arguments against Nietzsche in Ride the Tiger.

>t. Faggot who didn't read Plato

Fine!

The Great Replacement by Brenton H. Tarrant
web.archive.org/web/20190320190103/https://images.encyclopediadramatica.rs/5/50/The_Great_Replacement.pdf

Attached: 1567113260710.jpg (320x330, 18K)

The Haldemann Diaries shows the ins and outs of modern politics better than anything.

Attached: Diaries.jpg (1500x1700, 1.6M)

Do people who aren’t philosophy majors actually read Hegel? Isn’t he the most difficult philosopher to read? A couple of YouTube videos can’t suffice?

It's alomost impossible to understand that book in your pic, it's the most complicated and confusing book I've ever read.. I don't know about the English translation though.

>How to make friends and influence people
tired ass shit that everyone knows but almost no one ever puts to use.

Starting with Nietzsche right now. Reading Birth of Tragedy, my first read of his works, next will be The Twilight of Idols and likely Beyond Good and Evil.
On the side, I'm making my way up to Kant, next work is Spinoza's Theological-Political Treatise.

I certainly want to at least give him a try after I read Kant.

>no one ever puts to use.
This is because there is a difference between "knowing" something and legitimately understanding it. Real understanding is what leads to behavioral change.
Great book.

Kill yourself

Fuck off with Hegel. Schopenhauer rightfully roasted him and the rest of his German idealist scam artist crew. Don’t read anyone who writes with empty verbiage and drawn out pretentious sentences like Hegel, Fichte, or Heidegger. All of them have nothing good to say.

You forgot, "Beelzebub's Tales to his Grandson"

Attached: 979AE2FC-3784-4A6F-9054-4C3A6B3B40A3.png (500x610, 136K)

Harry Potter And The Chamber Of Secrets

Anne Frank's Diary is a Jow Forums must read. "Night" by Eli Weisel is also a Jow Forums approved read. Anything affirming the monstrous actioms of the shitfuck naxis during the holocaust are all Jow Forums bestsellers.

Thus Spake Zarathustra
Hegel's Philosophy of Right

Siege is such a bad book. It's a masturbation fantasy

Attached: bloomer.jpg (1724x3701, 1.48M)

Hegel's Philosophy of Abstract Right is a pretty good way to understand how the left believes power is derived

>calls out plato
>recommends a freemason
Nu/pol

I advise to read Birth of Tragedy after reading Schopenhauer’s world and will and rep. And if you want a comprehensive understanding of Nietzsche, you absolutely must read all his works, beginning with his earlier works first (e.g. human all too human or untimely meditations). Have fun!

Tractatus Logico, a must read

Thus Spake Zarathustra, one of Nietzche's best works.

Hegel has been just as influential on the right as he has the left. You can't escape him. It's like calling Plato a conservative or leftist--it's anachronistic to call him either.

Attached: cult marx readin.png (821x1516, 200K)

Attached: 1497632186747.jpg (1975x2229, 1.1M)

Can confirm that. Idealists are really annoying to read, they can't write straight. They started the trend of writing overly compicated texts who nobody understands. The postmodernists are masters in this discipline, just look how much empty gibberish (beside some good ideas) you find f.e. in Foucault.

Attached: Karl_Popper.jpg (468x600, 65K)

No.
Its better than that other Jow Forums chart that gets posted all the time but still skips a ton of shit. These are always weird vertical cuts of history and philosophy. Most of the books in this chart are completely useless if you don't understand the context behind them. Just read all of the Greco-Roman classics, literally all of them, and plenty of supplementary reading. You will learn more about politics from intensely studying the cultures and governments of antiquity than you will get out of 100s of modern books. Unless you intensely despise classicism, every moment you spend not reading something written by a Greek or Roman is a waste of time.

Attached: literally me.jpg (900x707, 122K)

I don't disagree with you fren, my interest is in producing better-informed anons, delving deeper into Hegel will provide the underlying theorems upon which Marx rests.

True, but I think the left takes the concept of Will and Right differently than the... ugh... right does.

Attached: 1032230-_0.jpg (825x1200, 130K)

Based and schopenhauerpilled

No. Wittgenstein is the most difficult to read. Hegel writes beautifully.

I wonder what Jow Forums thinks of my school's reading list
Obviously there are a few that no one here would like but it seems like pol lists are usually pretty similar to this one
college.columbia.edu/core/sites/core/files/pages/Literature Humanities Syllabus 2019-2020.pdf
college.columbia.edu/core/sites/core/files/pages/Contemporary Civilization Syllabus 2019-20.pdf

Nice choice: Tristram Shandy, great book! Had a lot of fun with it. The best text by Plato is "Symposion"

The Iliad and the Odyssey, at least a couple times over as they are meant to be absorbed because for some reason these stories aren't as mandatory as they should be.

Attached: rightwinglit.jpg (3200x2839, 952K)

Just read one of Beiser's books. Pinkard's legacy of Idealism is also good.

based, most modern writers and literature is nonsensical watered down trash.

The Passing of the Great Race by Madison Grant

Conquest of a Continent by Lathrop Stoddard

Into the Darkness by Lathrop Stoddard

The Living Races of Man by Carleton S. Coon

The Races of Europe by Carleton S. Coon

All decent books. Just go to Archive.org and most stuff is there, I prefer owning the paperback though.

a must read for all leafs.

Attached: canada-in-decay (1).png (529x800, 219K)

Depends who you read, really.

Yeah Sterne was based.
>Symposium is best plato
I have a soft spot for Phaedrus

Attached: leftyfilm.jpg (1430x3350, 1.84M)

Hegel, for all his rhetorical genius, didn't even remotely grasp the spirit, hence writing from pure phenomenological perspective. Teleological would have been the smarter choice, but what the fuck do I know? Hegel's struggles in Phenomenology of Spirit are a sort of key to the locked mysteries of Jung's Man and His Symbols, I was fortunate to read the two in parallel and the parallax is astounding.

seneca

camp of the saints for all you euro boys

Attached: camp of the saints.jpg (3000x1800, 1.25M)

Paradise Lost

I think Nietzsche put it well in BGE when he said something along the lines of “Germans have a predisposition to be attracted to ornate writing.” just look at how terribly Kant wrote and how wonderfully Schopenhauer summarized it in the very beginning of WAWAR. Then again Kant was a hypochondriac, so maybe he gets excused.

>college.columbia.edu/core/sites/core/files/pages/Literature Humanities Syllabus 2019-2020.pdf
Mostly good. Unfortunate that you have to suffer through Austen and Morrison.
>college.columbia.edu/core/sites/core/files/pages/Contemporary Civilization Syllabus 2019-20.pdf
>Starting with the Republic
Just drop that course.

I have read WWR, although I haven't read Kant, and I definitely see why, I made the connection to Schopenhauer reading Birth of Tragedy. But it was a great experience and Schopenhauer introduced me to quite a bit of Kant's ideas.
I'm using pic related as guide, do you agree with it?

Will read it later on, I guess.

Attached: nietzsche.png (2342x6196, 1.56M)

Actually I made the list, the second version is here
Someone on /lit/ made an extended (and frankly better) version, but I can't find it.
And look, you can't understand contemporary politics without Capital, sorry. You could read 1844 Manuscripts instead, they're a lot more interesting.

I'm not even the same guy but you're being a childish dick and not contributing anything

for all you Americans.

resist.com/Onlinebooks/CWII.pdf

Attached: civil war 2.png (1012x1424, 2.07M)

>88nsm
Thousands of free downloads of PDFs and CDs that (((they))) don't want you to have

Eustace Mullins.

Attached: umu.jpg (746x960, 154K)

Btw Nietzsche was a huge fan of Sterne

That makes a lot of sense. Adorno and Benjamin loved the book too.

Old epics & Shakespeare should be required reading for everyone

The Culture of Critique by Kevin MacDonald
The Controversy of Zion by Douglas Reed
Hitler's War by David Irving

As for fiction: Robert E. Howard

If you are in a comfy mood go for Montaigne
Essays

Attached: montaigne.jpg (300x316, 37K)

It's required so I've gotta read it whether or not it's good, plus there's a cheesy thing with Republic being the starter apparently because of the guardians
What's so wrong to you about starting with Republic though?
Tbh didn't read the two women in the second semester, the little bits I did read were just unenjoyable

>everything by Ted Kaczynski
>everything by Savitri Devi
>Can Life Prevail? by Pentti Linkola
>A New Nobility Based On Blood And Soil by Richard Darré
Take the greenpill. Eco-fascism is the only way we can save our people and our planet.

>What's so wrong to you about starting with Republic though?
Plato's works are laid out like a lesson plan in my opinion. You need to start out from the beginning. Its way too easy to completely miss the point of the Republic without context, unless someone is holding your hand through it, which is even worse.

Sun Tzu, Antiphon, Shang Yang, Xenophon, Plato, Aristotle, Kautilya, Nagasena, Cicero, Seneca, Plutarch, Marcus Aurelius, Nagarjuna, Sextus Empiricus, Augustine, Padmasambava, Sankara, Aquinas, Machiavel, Montaigne, Bacon, Campanella, Munenori, Musashi, La Rochefoucauld, Locke, Tsunetomo, Voltaire, Schopenhauer, Stirner, Nietzsche, Guénon, Heidegger, Spengler, Schmitt, Evola, Cioran, Camus, de Botton, Scruton.

Attached: images (21).jpg (640x400, 33K)

He was right. German authors have the tendency to write very complex and obscure. That's why they ddn't like Schopenhauer. He wrote to light for their understanding. They think only very complicated philosophies can be true.

What about Ellul?
I've only read Kaczynski, where do I go from here?

I've never understood this so help me understand: Do Ecofascists want to keep Capitalism and industrialization or not? I know that, being fascists, they want to maintain/reassert a traditional hierarchical class structure, racially informed or not, and react against the hyper-individualism of modernity, but it always seems back and forth if you guys actually want industrial society.

You should probably read up about Kaczynski's hatred of Neoliberal politics. David Harvey's "History of Neoliberalism" is great

The solutions floated are not great but this dude's breakdown of why society is falling apart is on point.

Attached: download.jpg (420x647, 98K)