A list of books that is /pol/ inspired, but Veeky Forums approved

Scorching critiques, marx.

>no Culture of Critique and 'On Women'

Kill yourself leftypol scum

oh fugg ebola

He is desu

learn to read nigger, CoC is in there

I'm white, you fucking retard inferior

lol more like cock

>he thinks only black people can be called nigger
user...

...

you’re a really smart guy, big boy, i bet mommy and daddy were also smart just like you :))
the poster you’re replying to is whyte idiot
REEED HAYAK READ BISES THEY FIGURED IT OUT JUST LET THE CORPORATIONS RAYP US TO DEATH FREE MAKETS FOR EVERYONE NO FREE LUNCH RIGHT TO WORK, CHILD SLAVES NO AGE OF CONSENT HAHAHAHAHA IM NOT A PSYCHOPATH WEEEEEEEEEEE NO ACCOUNTABILITY WEEEEE

But... capitalism is about fiscal accountability, user.

>NO FREE LUNCH
what are you, a lunar authority shill?

Hello sir

This is the best list I've come across here.

I guess the closest stuff to /pol/ that is non retarded would be Guillame Faye, Douglas Murray (Strange Death of Europe is big, although he is technically a neocon and is anti-racism), Tom Sunic, Benoiste... that kind of thing. Going back I would only really recommend Spengler and Evola (Revolt Against as well as some of his essay collections). Decline of the West is magnificent.

Some people are really into reading biographies like the one by Codreanu or Mein Kampf but I don't think they are as good.

Bear in mind far right views are of a semi religious nature (I don't mean naughty liberals here or "racialism" I mean full far right traditionalist or fascist stuff) so it tends to be taken on by people for complex and different reasons. Someone like Heidegger would not have had the same motivations as Oswold Mosely or Goebbels. If you want an outside perspective then there's an interesting book called "The Seduction of Unreason" by Richard Wolin who is an old style liberal who examines different groups of intellectuals who were swayed by fascist ideas. He includes the New Left in that, which in my view is preposterous.

Outside of non-fiction, Cioran's book "short history of decay" shows a bit of the nihilism that leads to some of these views (sometimes). I do think you need to have read Neitzsche to get why people signed up for this stuff. I think you can run too far with the "ideology replacing religion" argument but it does have legs. Evola talks about Neitzsche at length and with some interesting and often odd conclusions. If you read TS Elliot you will grab hold of some of the things that attracted modernists to these ideas.

One of the best places to start if you are looking to understand these views (or hold them and want a better defence than some garbled IQ stats), I would really recommend looking up Jonathan Bowden. The man was insane, made unwatchable art house films but he delivered a set of speeches on many of the authors I've mentioned, and others besides as well as political movements etc. He has a weirdly aggressive style but once you get into it its extremely addictive and he's formidably well read. I've included a link to a fantastic talk on Thomas Carlyle, who Bowden basically singlehandedly resurrected as a proto-fascist. Wrongly, I think, but its well argued.

youtube.com/watch?v=UKKv-Pu420E

There are really too many writers to mention properly. Avoid a lot of what people will post here, conspiracy theories whether true or not are moronic. Seek out some of the books here, and read an essay or lecture on them before to filter out JOOSSS tier garbage.

someone find a /pol/ nigger and give him the filr dump of all their shit, they have one,
he has to choose between retarded /pol/ nigger thought and principled but useless reactionary thought. Make it happen my beloveds

u okay buddy

Oh my friend this is the saddest thing I've ever read. In Barry Goldwater's autobiography he says the tragedy of his time is the left seems to view man only as an economic animal. It is a tragedy to watch the right do the same. Right wing economics are the last thing you should approach.

As to your claim right wing thinkers aren't respected, I disagree entirely. Heidegger is the obvious example. Hegel was not a leftist in the way he's been portrayed since, just like many of these figures his work was reinterpreted from a left wing perspective in the 20th century and this is all that's remembered. Same thing happened to Georges Sorel. Whenever you have someone who predates the modern "left/right" battlelines both sides often have a claim on the authors. The left has been more aggressive in claiming these authors as their own, but many thinkers even thinkers on the left from the pre war period hold certain views that are anti-egalitarian and elitist. Even some of the left (Orwell, Bernard Shaw), have a cultural admiration and even romantic nationalism that today would get you thrown out of the left.

I think Spengler is well respected, and I think many of the Victorian authors like Carlyle (see my post above) offer a proto version of this. If you look at the areas fascist ideas emerged from (hardline Catholicism, Neitzschean ideas), you get a rich tradition.

Also shill of the day (I keep mentioning this but I devoured it recently and loved it), has anyone here read "Darkening Age" by Catherine Nixey? Its an attack on early Christianity and the actions of the Church Fathers (especially Origen). Its great because almost everything on this topic so far has been by Christian apologists. Not off-topic as /pol/ is hugely into the Pagan vs Christian conflict. And it is central to right wing thought in general actually.

I really don't want to, this thread has some potential and if it gets sucked into "hur dur look at these graphs nigger" I'll be so bored. Most people on /pol/ are materialist liberals who are racist and want to argue that on technical grounds. Its boring and goes against the actual right (which I'll admit has been a bit useless).

Man is an economic animal, though. Our behavior can be studied- we act with purpose, have time preferences, homestead and appropriate. Material wealth, efficiency, innovation: all can be objectively maximized. I don't think there's anything more important to learn about.

>Veeky Forums leans hard left
That explains all the the jewry infographics.

If we are using /pol/ as a stand in for the far right here, then the key differentiation is that view rejects the economic animal and says man is a spiritual animal or at least an animal that requires higher motivations even if they aren't literally real. Those necessary myths can then be formed around state-worship, race-worship, catholicism / organised faith or in some weird variants "natural law". This is the far right ideology.

Incidentally, if you like economics, have a look at "The End of Theory" by Richard Bookstaber. It looks at modelling financial behaviour through agent based models, and working with heuristics to run simulations that can explain mans totally irrational behaviour. Behaviourism largely failed because it didn't account for sustained irrationality, the power of belief etc. The broader psychological concept of heuristics there is v interesting, basically saying that we have adapted rules of thumb that normally were developed for survival but which continue to ensure our behaviour is "sub-optimal" in the economic sense.

Are you all participating in the tedious leftypol strawman posting or genuinely falling for it?

>Leviathan (Hobbes)
nobody even reads Hobbes. anglo garbage desu

eh, i mean there is /lrg/.. the board has changed over the years, and chances are the more of an oldfag someone is the more they're going to be more worried about the federal reserve and less about the kali yuga. as for the rest, i'll look into it, thanks for the rec. i still subscribe to my heterodox a-priori-derived theories though.

>the more of an oldfag someone is the more they're going to be more worried about the federal reserve and less about the kali yuga
Haha, nicely put.

Everything I write is post-post-ironic

Take: ƒ(n) = n+1, where n is the level of irony or sincerity you presuppose i am and and ƒ(n) is what I actually am.

t. dabid bosder ballace :DD

thanks user

To clarify: what we call "irony" looks like this:

n = x, where x is anything within the set of natural numbers, e.g. if it was 1, I'd be sincere when i say "i hate libcucks". If it was 3, i'd be mocking people who say "i hate libcucks" ironically, on an irony level of 2.
post irony is where the lines between individual layers are blurred, e.g. n = x where x is anything we/in the set of positive reals

i dont know what post post post irony looks like. call a round table of former fyad posters to discern this brave new frontier

thanks for reading this entire post