Is this a good list? Which books can I add to it? >inb4 go

Doesn't matter what you read, just read, and stop wasting your time here.

>>9843195
I find it hard to believe that Plato and Machiavelli are on the same level as Orwell.

>>9843199
but I'm already reading. atm I'm finishing The Republic

>>9843206
meh, I already studied them during high school so they're not really hard

>>9843218
But that doesn't change the fact that Orwell's books are probably pretty easy.

We could have given you a general politics chart to give you a grounded and balanced view so you could decide your politics yourself, but since that charts talks about the "path of red pill" you've outed yourself as a gibbering retard.

>>9843225
this is why I already read them when I was 18.

>>9843199
obviously untrue. I'm reading words here aren't I?

>>9843234

Touché

File: Screenshot (25).png (8KB, 391x364px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 391x364px

>>9843229
>ask if this is a good list
>ask how can I improve it
>you stop at the 2nd row because it contains the term "red pill" and call me a gibbering retard

really makes me think.
btw pic related is my political affiliation

>>9843218
>plato is easy
hm

File: bobbio1.jpg (37KB, 377x480px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 377x480px

>>9843195
EVERYTHING FROM NORBERTO 'FUCKING' BOBBIO
OUR LORD AND SAVIOR BOBBIO SHALL GUIDE AS TO POLITICAL ELIGHTMENT

No seriously, read him. His stuff is great, specialy his book about Left and Right.
Oh yeah, btw, carefull not to read his Law Works, they maybe not very usefull if you don't care 'bout law.

>>9843195
I was reading 1984 but i stopped at the time of reading Goldstein's book

I've got a decent list but I'm phone posting and it's on my computer. If this thread is up in the morning I'll post it for you OP

>>9843234
You are supposed to read good words

>>9843243
>I'm le syndacilist so you must approve of me more than le fascists xD
You don't have to do that anon.

>>9843321
Easy because (imo) it's easier to get a decent understanding of his philosophy compared to Kant and post-kantian philosophers.
I'm not looking for a complete understanding of him since I would need to a) switch uni course b) still not get it because we lost so much knowledge in 2000 years

>>9843350
It was just to prove that I don't really care about red pill bs and I'm just looking for good books suggestions in bona fide. I could care less about a random guy's approvation

>>9843338
Tbh you could skip Goldstein's book. The conclusion of it is basically
>okay so I know how but I still don't know why

>>9843195
This honestly comes across as a list compiled by someone who has read virtually none of the books listed.

>>9843195
>tfw started at tier 3
Idk I just wanted to read books

>>9843195
If you're going to be reading Orwell, Homage to Catalonia is necessary. You should replace either 1984 or Animal Farm with it, since they're quite samey (and everyone has read them both anyway).

I'm just checking if I'm still banned from this board, don't mind me. Also this is still pretty entry level btw. Add in some pomo, futurists, and more marxism.

>>9843703
Lol Animal Farm is nowhere near the same as 1984. Two completely different messages.

>>9843814
They're both criticisms of totalitarianism.

>>9843826
dis

>>9843826
1984 was more about how language leads to totalitarianism even without violence. Read Politics in the English Language then re-read 1984.

>>9843882
No its literally a direct criticism of donald drumpf

>>9844118
dronel clermpf must be stopped!

>>9843195
Go back

The Old Testament is more fundamental to politics and political theory than the New tbf

where is pt 2????

File: classics.jpg (2MB, 1280x2956px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1280x2956px

>>9843195
most /lit/ charts that focus on a specific ideology/quadrant on the political spectrum/whatever are kinda shitty

if you want an "essentials" guide or something try this

>>9845155
I came here to post something like this.

>>9845138
part two was focused on nazi, lolbertarian and reactionary right ideologies. Not my cup of tea

>>9845155
thx Anon

>>9843618
Yes.

From that list I consider the non-shit_tier entries to be:

Aristotle - N. Ethics, Politics
Plato - Republic
Machiavelli - Discourses, Prince
Montesuieu - Spirit

Smith - Wealth
Keynes - General Theory
Marx - Capital

Hegel - Phil. Right (not listed but more appropriate than listed)
Nietzsche - BGE

If you were to read only those in that order you would actually know something about the world.

>>9846506
>reading marx before hegel

File: GettyImages-sb10066016b-002-56d0dc293df78cfb37b97ca6.jpg (124KB, 735x979px) Image search: [Google]

124KB, 735x979px

how could anyone read all those books and still find /pol/ interesting/tolerable?

>>9843195
>Suggest people read "The Republic" in isolation without reading into the context of ancient Greece or reading any companion work
>Suggesting people read from outdated economics books like "The Wealth Of Nations" and "The General Theroy of Employment, Interest, and money" which an intro to economics textbook or even right wing memes like Sowells Basic Economics surpass
>Yet more reading on Greece that lacks context

It's shit honestly and it's not really an efficient use of your reading time. I don't really know why people insist on reading old economics books unless one has a specific interest in it.

>>9843195
Ive seen this list set before, im not /pol/, but if you are smart enough to not want your brain filled with retarded shit instead of actual political reactionary works, read this list and at the end where it splits into three political branches read the reactionary branch.

P.S. Do not take more intellectual reading advice from /pol/, less than 5% actually read the books they promote and that top 5% are the ones who make long and convincing posts, win arguments, and tell everyone to believe. You're better off doing your own research.

>>9843206
Read Orwell retaerd monkey

>>9843429
Yes I know but I found that I would postpone reading this book for the time being and for example I would return to it at another time. I read Orwell very quickly and wanted to take a break. Easy to read but easy it is not

Someone post part II?

>>9846591
You couldn't, even reading half of those books is enough to turn even Chomsky into a neoreactionary, especially Calvin.

>>9843233
>he read them when he was 18
Did you not take 7th grade English?

>>9843195
>expecting /pol/ to read books

Even that jpg has too many words for /pol/

>>9848998
>They didn't join the /brit/pol Magna Carta study discord
Your missing out.

File: 1500017204071.jpg (638KB, 1270x874px) Image search: [Google]

638KB, 1270x874px

>>9843195
>/pol/dditors need a trigger warning when reading Marx

>>9843206
True, orwell is a meme

>>9848995
>implying I'm from an English speaking nation
We read parts of the Divine Comedy instead

>>9843195
I absolutely love the new testament but the old testament (especially the torah and histories) deals much more with law and government.

File: 1487947435174.png (4MB, 2248x3442px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 2248x3442px

>>9843195
The second part of this has far better books.

>>9849448
>Lord of the Rings
>Foucault's Pendulum
Just why. They don't have anything to do with anything.

>listing Evola and LC Lewis together without their base lit (bible, multiple philosophical concepts)

Why do this meme charts always just throw things in they either haven't read or are the obvious sign of a small bibliophilic horizon.

>lemme just make a chart of the edgy looking books my father has in his reading room

>>9849576
> >Lord of the Rings

Mass manufacture of Orcs, which are corrupted Elves. I think that's why.

Add Culture of Critique by Kevin MacDonald

File: scoops.jpg (615KB, 1256x1484px) Image search: [Google]

615KB, 1256x1484px

>>9844118
CURSE YOU XLOMPF

fuck off

the only reason you want to read is to have others justify what you already believe you lazy sack of shit

you are cancer

you are a waste of humanity

you don't deserve books

>>9851241
>projecting.

>>9851429
>nuh uh, you are!

>>9851507
what does it matter to you if he wants to explore ideas he deems interesting and something to uphold? you are post modernist cancer who thinks everyone should be undermining their own self in the end at its most derived form of "thinking" and end up like Sweden taking Islamic terrorists in and claiming they're good parents.

desu.

>>9851512
You have to go back

File: DT2556.jpg (64KB, 491x625px) Image search: [Google]

64KB, 491x625px

>>9843195
>>9849448
>Starts with Plato's Republic, ends with Filmer's Patriarcha
Yeah, let's just all pretend that the Reformation never happened. (Sounds good to me, actually).

These are both good lists, though I have a suspicion that the title "a /pol/ack's journey" is a bit of a false flag to try to get /pol/ to read something besides AmRen and Stormfront. All good books, though, particularly on the first list. Regarding the second: not sure I'd put Cioran's Short History of Decay in the same category as Sorel's books, let alone anywhere near the "literally Hitler" category. Cioran seems pretty disillusioned with the possibilities of violence post-WW2. Do you want to make the same mistakes he did? You could swap out Short History of Decay with Drieu La Rochelle's Secret Diary; he was cowardly enough to shoot himself before he had to come to terms with the consequences of his play-acting.

>>9851241
Oh no, the /pol/acks actually read things which match with their interests instead of falling for meme books like Infinitive Just just to have the feeling of belonging in a community of other pseuds pretending to be into this shit.

>>9846681
The idea that you can only understand a book if you understand its context is an academic meme, bro. Here's the proof: how do you learn about a book's context without reading another book? And how do you understand that book without understanding its context, which requires another book? And how could you understand that context without another context, ad infinitum? At some point you're going to just have to sit down and read Plato, taking him at his own merits. So start there.

>>9851722
Addendum: either list could use Alisdair Macintyre for a right-ish alternative that's neither libertarian-core or "muh Odin"-level white natsoc memery.

>>9843429
That section of 1984 definetly could have been written better, we didn't need the entire un-interrupted chapter of the book Winston was reading, especially when, as you said, most of it is confirming what he (and the reader) already know.

But I wouldn't skip it, because it does contain some new ideas. The exact nature of how War works and why the 3 nations never actually advance on one another for example.

>>9843195
>Leviathan and wealth of nations BELOW Thomas Paine
>Paine, Mill and Calvin on the list at all
>Nietzsche at the culmination of the list

Needs more Catholic, reactionary, and fascist thought, less Protestant and empiricist thought.

>>9851587
>>9851587
No, you need to explain yourself why familiarizing ones self with something one finds interesting is inherently bad, fucking pseud faggot.

"You need to go back" and "/pol" are not arguments. Besides both those charts feature books from all ranges of political thoughts.

Explain yourself, but you can't, because you are a pseud.