ITT: essential liberalist readings

imagine being so fucking moronic and stupid that richard fucking spencer seems like an intellectual giant next to you. i would just kill myself but this retarded asshole is STARTING. A. POLITICAL. MOVEMENT. holy shit how deluded is he

What are some easy to read novels that make me >pic related

Jakron of Akbar and his cultists are illiterate, so there ain't none

What is with these retarded liberals trying to start political movements lately? Here's another guy who can't have a conversation but is trying to be a thought leader.

youtube.com/watch?v=yJ2WenOUmkw

I don't think Sargon is or ever was a libertarian. I think he's a classical liberal. However you're certainly right about him making up a term because they can't use liberal.

They originally called themselves skeptics, but they got a bunch of heat in the right side of youtube and other shit. So as a part of the skeptic community's reformation, they are trying to re-brand themselves as "Liberalist" see . It also seems like they are trying to distance themselves from the edgy alt-right, and i'm genuinely surprised on how well this term has caught on.

I may be completely off though as I base this solely on half a video of Sargon's and half a /pol/ thread.

This is only the second time I've seen someone use the term, the first time was a few days ago in a Veeky Forums thread by who I suspect to be the same poster. It seems kind of silly though. I mean most of the alt-right is obviously not anywhere close to classical liberalism, but I feel like if someone tried to parrot the views of actual historical classical liberals to a normal person, they would be branded alt-right. I don't know anything about Sargon's views though so who knows whether he's accurate to what he claims to be or not.

Loki? What, you tryin' to hide from the cops or somethin'?

I know this is a shitpost but Sargon actually suggests some pretty good books.
Here's small list of books I've read on his behest recently
>second treatise of government
>road to serfdom
>Rules for Radicals
>the Prince

I would honestly suggest reading all of them.

im dying of laughter at this post

I think he's just a retard

Why tho

Do you even argue with logos bro? I'll terrorize you with my Socratic method mate I swear on me mum.

You fucking moron.
Sorry
Have you read ANY polysci before? Why are you here- or rather, why do you think that list would be of benefit to anyone here? Just be aware

>polysci
you're not helping, polymer scientist

Lol no actually. I just started self-educating in polysci and philosophy less than a year ago and have no idea where the bar is.

I don't know a single person irl who has read any of those books so I'm here to find where to go next.

Polysci sounds cool as fuck dude get with it
>polyphil
What?
>polytheory
Lame as shit

>has started a liberalist movement, I'm not really sure what it means either.
cheerleaders for liberalism, just as communists are cheerleaders for communism, captialists for capitalism ect ect

stop watching sargon, for starters, then try picking up thucydides and plato. i suggest not really reading anyone from the 18th c. or later until you're facile with classical (read: Greek) thought. if you need something more contemporary, i suggest de Tocqueville. avoid anglos and hegel/marx/etc for now, they'll poison your brain.

i regret to inform you that "politics" does not contain a "y"

>the Prince
>reading a medieval shitpost

(OP)
Read Locke and stop shit posting you fucking faggit

I watch Sargon for the bants and because he's the first guy to wake me up to the shit. I'm not dumb enough to stan for the guy.

I read some Greeks but I'm not huge on it so I only read the essentials. I want to loop back after I read some more contemporary stuff because I find it interesting.

Who's Tocqueville?

IRREGARDLESS it is a term

Why do liberals need to start a political movement when they're already the predominant ideology in the west?

>Who's Tocqueville

Democracy in America is considered some of the best political writing of all time and I believe is still taught in pretty much every American university. I've only read part one so I'm not qualified to comment.

>IRREGARDLESS
brainlets when will they learn?

Fucken nazi

... it's not

He's like Lovecraft in that half the value of reading find is that you get to spot people misusing his name to describe things

Thanks I'll check it out. I think I need something subtle after slogging through Ayn Rand

Take a moment to sit down and enjoy the calculated irony, you'd think such abrupt capitalization would signify to you that perhaps the legitimacy of that particular word was humorously linked to the context in which it was used.

Yeah, the founding fathers and other people of the time were very racy and absolutely thought that 'only the best sort of people (us) should vote and our existence is precious'.

(And in 1923 America the supreme court ruled everyone from India 'too non-white' and started deportation, because only white people were allowed.)
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Bhagat_Singh_Thind

Good ideas transcend their creators. Lincoln said some crazy shit about black people in the south when he was running for office and he still freed the slaves

I would be interested in hearing some insane founding father redpilling tho

This. Its not fucking hard you retards. Stop parroting retarded memes about how dumb the name is, you just sound illiterate.
Not a proponent of Sargon's ideals btw, just sick of seeing people tout their own idiocy as an argument.

John Locke, Algernon Sidney, Milton's pamphlets answering the Eikon Basilike, James Mill and John Stuart Mill, Thomas Jefferson, John Calhoun, Lincoln's letters and speeches,

>and he still freed the slaves
When he was trying to break the South and win the war, yeah. And Lincoln wasn't in the South, his family removed from Kentucky to Illinois when he was an infant.

Anyway, you could use "it's progress" to justify any aberration at all. The fact is that the circumstances inducing the founders' to think that way have not changed.

The Framers favored classical oligarchy, but their arguments are applicable to a democratic state once you swallow the stone of accepting people as equal on matter of principle.

Well,"All men are created equal" would have applied to blacks had there been any way of freeing them without completely destroying the constitutional gov't. Still, that does nothing at all to justify the insane immigration we've seen in the past half century.

I meant in the south campaigning to get elected in the first place.

I would argue that things have changed. The fact that black people are people is relatively new info at least as far as being probably true, what with all the batshit theories of biology going on back then. If the slaves had been free people back then they wouldn't have added an asterisk.

The idea is unmarred by it, but the circumstances have definitely changed.

*proven true

>I meant in the south campaigning to get elected in the first place.
He said those things in Illinois, debating Douglas.
>The fact that black people are people is relatively new info
It really isn't. The founders considered them people, but not fit to be granted equal right.

Oh so that's just some new alt-right horseshit.
Got any dank Veeky Forums on the founding fathers? I want to read about them as people after I get through the works that inspired them

Hayek is legit, havent read the others

Just read their works
Here was Jefferson's opinion:
>Nothing is more certainly written in the book of fate, than that these people are to be free; nor is it less certain that the two races, equally free, cannot live in the same government. Nature, habit, opinion have drawn indelible lines of distinction between them.

Most of the founders saw blacks as people, but far below whites in general competence. No reason to think that today's information would change their opinions.

>the Prince
Discourse on Livy is better t b h

They were actually more racist than that

That's not racist lol, he simply did not want more foreigners.

that's because blacks are literally scientifically inferior to whites. seems like pretty common knowledge but now no one dares bring it up

Law of Power - Friedrich von Wieser
Constitution of Liberty - Friedrich Hayek
Progress and Poverty - Henry George
Enchiridion - Epictetus
Common Sense - Thomas Paine
On Liberty - John Stuart Mill
Individualism Old and New - John Dewey
Authority and the Individual - Bertrand Russell

Well in contemporary American English, "liberal" means "one who hates freedom".

t. anglogerman mutt

Thus from a mixture of all kinds began,
That het’rogeneous thing, an Englishman:
In eager rapes, and furious lust begot,
Betwixt a painted Britain and a Scot.
Whose gend’ring off-spring quickly learn’d to bow,
And yoke their heifers to the Roman plough:
From whence a mongrel half-bred race there came,
With neither name, nor nation, speech nor fame.
In whose hot veins new mixtures quickly ran,
Infus’d betwixt a Saxon and a Dane.
While their rank daughters, to their parents just,
Receiv’d all nations with promiscuous lust.
This nauseous brood directly did contain
The well-extracted blood of Englishmen.

>Progress and Poverty
Mein niger.

Yeah, American economists were fucking awesome.

The Rothschilds and Vanderbilts are mentioned in this book.

being libertarian and an intellectual is a biological contradiction, mate

I see Sargon and the Liberalists as one of the last vestiges of political centrism as we move further to more polarization. This attempt to rebrand the skeptic community will fail because it, like the mainstream Libertarian party, is full of people who hold freedom as the ultimate good, so if Sargon attempts to form any offline event it will be full of morally dubious fedora tippers. It will just turn off the mainstream audience seeing these freaks like pic related.

>a liberal recommending Alinsky
Either he is stupid for doing so or you are for following it

wikipedia.org

This.
Sargon wants to pretend that the fedora lords are just a minority but they're a substantial margin
>a book on tactics is useless because it was written by a communist
So can the anarchist cookbook can't teach me how to build a landmine because I believe in the existance of a state?
Besides, its a primarily an anti-socialist movement so at the very least it's important as a reference point for understanding opposition tactics.

Libertarians aren't centrists

That statement requires a definition of "centrist"

>liberalist
why not just call yourself fuckin alt-lib?????