Anyone actually read this? Just came in from Amazon and looks a lot less appetizing in person just thumbing through it...

Politics aside, philosophies to study to better yourself?

The stoics and eastern philo.

Damn well worth the read

GET THE GREGORY HAYS TRANSLATION

I cannot recommend this translation enough. He formulates them as journal-type jottings written in straightforward prose, which is exactly how they were written in the original koine greek.

The translations that are 100+ years old are good secondary reading, but they add a lot of embellishment and generally feel archaic.

Somebody uploaded it here, but you should just buy it on amazon: seinfeld.co/library/meditations.pdf

It’s a solid book. It’s very fast reading, too. I’d argue it’s best to read little chunks and mull over it before moving on.

hes a common normie, most of them are incapable of acting beyond simple emotions. What some could call "autism" is just "retrospective thinking, and restrain to act with more thought"

No one is interested in your nonsensical rhetoric, fag. Endless altruism is the cancer of modern society, and the left exists entirely on this principle. Promoting the well being of foreign peoples to the detriment of the nation is no virtue. Egalitarianism is as unnatural as it could possibly get.
The only issue with American politics is the total absence of a true Right. The Trump admin echoes Clinton and other Dems of the 1990s.

Its not something that you read and will instantly give you meaning. its something that you read and highlight passages that seem to be relevant to you and when you find yourself dealing with some bs his thought help keep you on track.
he also had a 14 year old boipussy bf when hes like 30 so yeah /ourguy/

>public good
>appoint commodus as succesor
k

Can confirm this, his writing style is really damn good.

Alturism is how we got here idiot. If Egalitarianism didn't exist we'd still be in clans worshiping our ancestors and raping our enemies. I'm never gonna defend 21st century leftism, but the thought that Marcus would be on the right is dumb considering protection of dignity was so important to him. The fuck do you even consider true right, Fascism?
Appointing a cunt doesn't change the fact that he did good shit.

I am reading it now, got it last week. Read through the introduction and the first "chapter" of the lessons Marcus learned from important people in his life. I am loving it so far. It has already helped me. You don't read it like you would read most other books. Read sections and reflect on how they apply to you and your own life. If you don't mind defacing the book, highlight meaningful phrases or passages.

This. Get the paperback with the bird and feather on the cover.

Attached: meditations.jpg (179x281, 5K)

good book used to listen to it on the bus ride home from school.

Altruism has to be tempered with self interest or it is utterly destructive. The foundation of America took place before Egalitarian ideology bore its ill fruit. You call early America ancestor worshiping savages? Pathetic.

So the left is the complete lack of self interest but the right gets to claim the good parts? Yeah ok. Friendly fucking remind that half the American founding fathers were libtards for their time. The conservatism of the agricultural roots of the colonies were the only thing holding guys like Franklin and Jefferson back from going full French.

I don't read man

I did and I will reread it. Good start, in my opininon, but be sure to dive in the explanations during the reading (my book has it at the end).

Has interesting parts but lacks and central narrative/message. It's just a loose collection of different thoughts that are never really developed. It's like the Goodreads of philosophy. If you want into real stoic philosophy read The Handbook of Epictetus

All of the founders were Left for the era. Democracy itself is a Left ideology.
Get some perspective.

I am and and what you're saying was my point.

go back to Jow Forums

>stoicism

LMAO

It's good for people who have no self control or weak will, but past that it's not a particularly great philosophy. Read the Homer and the Greek Tragedies, then read Nietzsche, then order pic related and 1kg of glycine and you'll be well on your way.

Attached: bap.jpg (183x275, 9K)

the book is very instructional to OUR race, the white race. It is not meant to be viewed in an egalitarian light as they didnt have modern science, not biology in their age, neither did they have an influx of migrants. Completely moot point and you pervert the thread with needless lefty shit.

>stoicism
>good for people who have no self control or weak will
>Is literally entirely about self control

Attached: 1515032951692.jpg (800x456, 154K)

OP here. Geez guys just wanted a thumbs up or thumbs down not some Jow Forums level discussion you fucktards

Only has value if you're already into Roman history

That's the point, you should read it, internalize it, use it as a mental ballast on your way towards self-mastery, but once you have achieved self-mastery definitely don't stay there, there are far greater things out there.

Fair enough. I still think it's a good way of seeing someone at the top of their game maintain internalized perspective and virtue. I don't think any Stoic, modern or not, think it's a total ideology, just a moralistc baseline.

its great. Its not a “book” just a collection of notes and thoughts Marcus wrote to himself

Pretty sure he's talking about literal modern faggotry you kikes.

Good book but I ended up putting it down 75% of the way through. I either got busy during that time or thought I got it. I really ought to read it again, since it's almost a one-sitting read.

Confirm on how to read it. I should probably get the Hays translation then.

uh excellent lecture. I really like the idea of stoicism but its too nihilistic for my taste

It's not so much a book as a collection of quotes and thoughts Aurelius found important to write down. You're not supposed to read it from A to Z as fast as possible, that's just mind numbing. Read a few paragraphs here and there and reflect on them.
Also maybe don't adopt all his habits, like banging little boys.

Epictetus*

Yeah, it's a great book, a timeless classic. Truly helped me out with depression a few years back. I own three copies currently because I'm always looking to give them out to friends/family/etc who are going through hard times or could use guidance.

This, I read it first and loved it. When I got a different version, I fucking hated it

Based.

it's incredibly narcissistic.

How so?

lol MA is probably one the most humble people who ever lived especially given his position. Shut the fuck up

You'll never make it.

i read it, it has some good lessons in it, talks a bit too much about death something that i dont really give a shit about but yeah its nice

Ironic since all rightist ethnonationalist rhetoric is a phenomenon of the last 100-200 years. Nothing of the kind existed in the past.

to be fair theres a part in the book where he says scynthians i think are like animals for hunting

Mostly because each country was essentially an ethnostate by default back then. No reason to have that rhetoric when it's all you've ever known. And yes, obviously huge empires were ethnically diverse, but I'm talking about average nation states.

Reading classics is often a chore.
I've been trying to get through Camus for 5 years.

>tfw I'd gladly take a bullet for the mere ideals of Padraig Pearse and the spiritual nation of Ireland

People were so ethnonationalistic back in the day that they'd kill cunts for being from the wrong province. You'e an utter imbecile if you believe ethnic tribalism to be a modern invention.

And even then those mother fuckers rarely made it up in the political hierarchy, much less built empires. Even the mongols injected tolerance into their conquered lands.

?? its literally written by a nonwhite
( a med) who was an immigrant from spain to rome. might aswell think christianity and jesus were white people things

Are you under the impression the Brits weren't ethnonationalist? They literally genocides their closest neighbour TWICE for not being English. There was literally an ethnonationalist civil war in Northern Ireland that ended less than 20 years ago. The British in Northern Ireland literally celebrate the slaughter of Irish Catholics as an annual state holiday.

Don't be stupid.

not like the japanese closed their ports to any foreigners for hundreds of years

Attached: mXpYa.jpg (904x1039, 521K)

No no no guys medieval Europeans would be totally cool with Somalians moving in and trying to live amongst them. They didn't care about race, ethnonationalism is a new thing.

>Responding to a comment about broad personality orientations by making a small-minded dig at mainstream Republican leadership

Your mind is weak. Study harder.

Every genocidal attempt was a fucking nightmare for them. Every time the attempted to eradicate a local population they got fucked over. American colonies? Start cooperating more with natives after Roanoke. It wasn't until America got established and disease set in that the American Natives started dying out. India? Instituted rule of law through local proxies and used the existing caste culture to solidify legal rule. China? Sphere of influences attempted to extract straight resources and bribe the locals into westernizing themselves.

Ethnic supremacy? Sure. But every functional empire and global super power either encouraged or tolerated some level of diversity, and almost every empire that died or was conquered relates to some inability or unwillingness to adapt to diversity.

>Wasn't an empire
>Opened ports and militraized
>Curb stomped by a weapon created by a conglomerate team of scientists from multiple countries
Geez really did disprove my point there bud.

You're right. Let's list incident of medieval or earlier European tolerance

>the Irish forming an army from every province (who regularly warred with each other) to forcibly remove or kill all the Vikings in Ireland and any traitor who allied with those invaders

Christianity.

And not some faggoty feel-good lite version or cringy fundamentalist trash, either. Study Christ as the Orthodox, and to some extent the Catholics too, do. Read about a redeemer who teaches us to be transformed by our suffering.

Are you fucking disabled? A genocide not working out in the end isn't proof of tolerance you brain dead mongoloid.

Also, not every genocide failed. The Irish population still hasn't recovered from the Famine. Literally the only country on Earth whose population today is less than it was 200 years ago. That's genocide on a level most of you retarded yanks can't comprehend.

This

Attached: Western Post-Christian.png (869x500, 410K)

Vatican I is all you need.

someone learnt their history from gladiator

Are you comparing the fucking shitstorm of medieval Europe to the Aurelius's empire? That's dumb.
I'm not saying it didn't happen, I'm saying it was least effective. The genocide of Ireland still had substantial risks and violent outcomes until recently, yet thanks to the methodologies in China and India, the British are still getting benefits even after they disband the imperial policies.

Dude look, I'm straight anti-imperialism, but what I'm arguing is that straight genocidal ethnonationalism was never the most effective method for power or sustainability. The Spartans never left Sparta, but the Ottomans literally created their empire on the backs of immigrants bureaucrats. If control of populations is your metric of power, the way it was for MA and the Ancient Greeks, than you have to acknowledge that SOME level of tolerance was displayed.

Except that wasn't what you were arguing you fucking spastic. You were arguing that ethnonationalism DIDN'T EXIST until 200 years ago. You are objectively wrong. Suck it up like a big boy and stop embarrassing yourself.

>implying I was that user that stated that

>jumping in mid-argument to fire out your own retarded nonsequitur
My advice is the same. Stop embarrassing yourself.

>DIDN'T EXIST until 200 years ago.
No I didn't.
>And even then those mother fuckers rarely made it up in the political hierarchy, much less built empires.
I literally pointed out exactly that in my follow ups. Rarely would leaders of empires win with ethnonationalist policies, and even when/if they did, those policies weren't effective at building the empire.

Attached: 1514749416852.jpg (226x219, 10K)

I’m not that user you retarded dumbass.

subjugating the lesser people literally made all the european empires

Bro,reading is a big fat meme. They want you to spend all your time staring at meaningless words so you don't get as big as possible and steal their women.

>No I didn't.
>all rightist ethnonationalist rhetoric is a phenomenon of the last 100-200 years. Nothing of the kind existed in the past.
Stop embarrassing yourself you pathetic mutt.

Subjugating =/= ethnonationalism, at least to me.
> "nations are defined by a shared heritage, which usually includes a common language, a common faith, and a common ethnic ancestry".
The European Empires, even if they believed in racial superiority, still integrated those peoples or encourage integration in some for or another, either through proxy leadership or promises of a superior way of life through emulation. And times when they presented violent or exclusive actions as the only methodology, the outcome was trash for them, either immediately or eventually.

Stop embarrassing yourself.

Mike duncans history of rome podcast actually

>being fiercely in favour of your own ethnicity and your own nation to the point of genociding and enslaving all others due to their inherent inferiority to your own ethnicity and nation?
>heh that's not ethnonationalist at all kid
This is your brain on America

No, I am saying that ethnonationalism is NOT a new thing. Ethnicities even slightly different from one another have fucking hated each other for millenia

Yeah, nah, that wasn't me bud, I am
I'm 100% confident ethnonationalism existed for as long as the foundation of nations existed. It's a result of clanship and tribal organization. I'm just the user that's been arguing about how stupid it is.
No idiot I'm saying those policies failed and weren't effective at building empires.The policies that integrated populations were more effective. See: Genghis, Alexander, Napoleon, NATO, etc.

The British Empire subjugating India did not mean that the British wanted millions of street shitting Pajeets to move to Britain. They forced British culture on them, in their own locations, and dominated their homeland, not the other way around.

>still integrated those peoples
thats why the spanish and portuguese built their entire empires under genocide and slavery

Yeah man those Belgians really integrated the Congolese

Again:
>jumping in mid-argument with your own non-sequitur shit
Stop embarrassing yourself.

For the record, that is literally how the British Empire expanded to it's largest size. Only when they stopped the genocide and outright oppression did things fall apart. They tried to get Irish on board with Catholic emancipation and it only led to a strengthening of Catholic Irish identity which eventually led to Irish Catholic Padraig Pearse leading the rebellion that rid Ireland of England. If the British had crushed Gaelic identity entity with the same methods they used centuries before, they would own Ireland entirely. Just look at Northern Ireland. The Irish there were genocided and replaced with British Protestants and that is literally the reason Northern Ireland is still under British control.

There is actual living evidence that integration leads to freedom and ethnonationalistic genocide leads to controlling the colony. Imbecile.

Neitzche, go for his more positive works though.

Ok sure. I already said they were capable of subjugation and racism, but when they started integrating Indian and Chinese actors into the imperial government, than the idea of an ethnostate kinda goes away doesn't it.
Their propensity of fucking the locals kinda made them no-so-ethnically-homogeneous.
Yeah, ok, you keep using Ireland as the example of the entirety of imperial rule when I've given you 2 significantly bigger, further, and more successful examples of non-genocidal policies. Even if it DID work for Ireland, that would not be a sustainable policy for running the ENTIRE EMPIRE considering Ireland is a small island with zero access to outside resources other than through the imperial center.

>IT DIDN'T EXIST
>yes it did, here's proof
>UHHH IT DIDN'T WORK
>yes it did, here's proof
>THAT DOESN'T COUNT
Quit while you're behind.

user I can screenshot the (You)s if you want but I'm the one you've been arguing with and I'm not the one who said ethnonationalism never existed. I just said it was fucking retarded and not consistent with stoic ideals or effective imperial policy.

Attached: 1488846216064.gif (500x452, 987K)

And you were proven wrong several times over. It's time to stop posting.

No, one last argument: Would the Irish genocidal policies been effective to maintain the full British empire including South/Southeast Asia, Northern Africa, and the early North American colonies? If so how?

>how would replacing rebellious foreigners with British people make those nations more compliant and less likely to rebel?
You're fucking braindead

>Surely the British would've been able to murder the entire populations of India and major spheres in China without impacting their ability to extract resources later on.
Even the Native Americans wrecked the British until they realized to stay the fuck away. It wasn't until the DECIDEDLY non-imperial policies of Jackson and his ilk went after American Natives (after already getting fucked by unplanned disease and natural food shortages) that the genocide against them was successful.

Look dude, there wasn't a single significant Empire that was able to sustain itself through pure ethnonational policies. I'm still waiting on an example besides Ireland, considering I've given you multiple different empires, leaders, and more successful colonies.

My copy is on the way.

great lecture.

>we'd still be in clans worshiping our ancestors and raping our enemies.
this is a bad thing?

>we'd still be in clans
>muh ethnostate/x belongs to x people
>worshipping our ancestors
>WE WUZ X AND Y
>and raping our enemies
>*asylums/sextourists your path*