Book thread

Unironically read Max Stirner, it may break up some boundaries in your head.

>inb4 Stirner memes

Unironically read the Ego and his own

just end philosophy and read Hume, then Stirner and Husserl. also understand the basic gist of Descartes, but don't waste your time with anything more than a synposis on any philosopher who deals in oughts or baseless claims.

no evidence, "forms" are an artificial abstraction at best, nothing objective.

this board's member actually think they're smarter than the average poltard

>stirner
Here's a basic tutorial video that should get you up to speed on his theories in less than a minute

Not arguing on a personal basis but I'm yet to find any constructive criticism of Stirners work that doesn't fall into the spook category. You are welcome to try, and I would certainly accept any sound arguments except pointless memeing.

I thought the point to memeing was amusement. In that regard I've done quite well. I hope you atleast enjoyed the webm.

As for blowing out Stirner I would be glad to share my perspective. I have to go now but if you're interested and this thread stays up I will talk shop with you about the transitory nature of nihilism and egoism.

Oh and one quick for-the-road. I've heard that he was specified that rationality, can, under certain circumstances be considered a spook.
This is to me is indefensibly stupid in a number of ways depending on what he had intended to say with that statement.

It's been quite some time since I read him the last time, but it could be true that he said that about rationality. In any way it would be great if you would share your opinion on Stirner since he gets memed too much, but I never saw that people actually talk about the "pro and contra" of his philosophy.

r8

I'm finishing Beevor's Stalingrad right now. Should I jump right into Berlin after?

I love the modern period but I don't mind the Classics

Some Classics history is great to read, any Plutarch or Livy (although both a slightly meme-worthy)

The Punic Wars by Livy I love, and Arrian's Campaign's of Alexander is also great, both enjoyable reads, I know these aren't political but still, anything by Cicero is kinda historical/political so thats a good place to go

If you're looking at more later works read The Prince, honestly one of the most important books to read regarding politics IMO, and read The Leviathan by Hobbes, difficult read but very interesting, especially regarding the 'State of Nature'
Ive been reading some Zizek lately, First A Tragedy then a Farce, what should I have a go at next? I got some wages lately and I dont mind spending £7 on a cheapo book

Am also reading that, it's pretty good

Do you think if the Germans had a tank that could effectively deal with the T-34 upon the outset of war they mighta had a better chance of winning?

not him but yeah, or just AT equipment in General

I mean things like KV-1s and early t=34s were unreliable and quite shit, but they had thick armour, those stories about single KV-1 crews holding off hundreds of men dont sound too unrealistic

if they faced less resistance from armour then they might have driven deeper into Russia

Read Leviathan.

It seems to me that the leadership structure for the USSR at the outset was not truly prepared and that they had terrible tank commanders. Perhaps having stronger tanks would have helped them push even further and faster than they did, but I doubt that it would've solved any of the problems the Germans faced, namely Soviet production far back in the Urals and the sheer manpower availability.

I know it's easy to sit here in the present and judge the past, but I don't really get what Hitler was thinking. Why provoke such a sleeping giant? Did he overestimate the differing racial prowesses of the USSRs' and his soldiers? Did he underestimate the strength of USSR's nationalistic unity (or propaganda)?

Julius Evola.

Good tip.

Also, the Prince by Niccolo Machiavelli is a very short and easy read.

...

>unironically posting the inferior version

Also, Machiavelli.
That smug fuck.

Also, consider Spinoza's Ethics or anything from Nietzsche.

This isn't a bad point. The difference here though is that both the execution and theory changes from attempt to attempt and doesn't seek to fufill a state as much as it seeks to create a product.
A more apt comparison would be: Uptopian society has never been tried. With many different ideologies. Unless something notable is changing in the continued socialist attempt that image is false.

The other one is much better. You talk of irony but you don't seem to understand post irony.

32/32

Not an argument

Here's an argument - socialist experiments would be much more humane if constant bourgeois invasion and intervention

If socialism is that good shouldn't it overpower the bourgeoisie.

Can somebody link me to Veeky Forums books pastebin?

>No Tim Pat Coogan
That's a 0/1916

Rate me Veeky Forums.

Why not? That's necessary to liberate the masses.

no older than 18
small dick low test
khv
phimosis