(Part 2) Best political philosophy books according to redditors
We found 870 Reddit comments discussing the best political philosophy books. We ranked the 243 resulting products by number of redditors who mentioned them. Here are the products ranked 21-40. You can also go back to the previous section.
27. Society Against the State: Essays in Political Anthropology
4 mentions
Used Book in Good Condition
The authors of Democracy for Realists argue the opposite, that direct democracy itself is often counterproductive since most citizens don't have the time to deeply understand many political issues.
They use the example of ballot initiatives to show that even when people come to the polls they often simply decline to vote on many initiatives at all. In addition, the mere wording of ballot initiatives affects how people vote. Can you really call that democracy in that circumstance?
Voting shouldn't be understood as supporting any policy position at all, but rather as a way to keep politicians accountable. Not that it is a great mechanism for that either, but attempts to use direct democracy instead of electing representatives will have counter-intuitive effects that won't produce better democracy.
That concept reminds me of a quote I jotted down from Sunic's book Against Democracy and Equality
>"For the New Right, the fundamental problem with liberalism is its self-contradictory attitude towards equality. The New Right emphasises time and again that equality cannot be controlled; once it is proclaimed in the legal and political fields, equality must run its full course in all other fields, including the field of economics. Accordingly, equal legal rights make no sense, unless they are backed up by equal economic rights, i.e., rights to equal shares of affluence."
Normalizing pedophilia is simply an extension of egalitarianism into the sexual realm.
It is essentially the primary logic of the "new left", via many of the famous french writers from the 1960-70s that are so popular in universities today.
They view everything through the lens of power and oppression. Even legitimate organizations, structures, and systems we voluntarily built to make the world a better safer place. As long as there is a tiny minority who are 'oppressed', even if it benefits 99% of people and improved the quality of life for nearly everyone, then the whole system system is wrong, or needs to be neutered, or centralized by government to the oppressed can have power over it.
In practice this translates to shutting down systems currently in place, regardless if legitimate alternatives exist, or crippling it's utility with countless rules and 'processes'. Because if the oppressed can't have it no one can (ie, school curriculums that get dumbed down to be inclusive to everyone, but useful to no one).
So with this worldview, if there are people who are the oppressed, real or imagined, past or present, they become the most powerful voice is all situations. Valued over rule of law, human progress, efficacy of prevention measures, etc.
Roger Scruton did a really good job breaking down this logic in "Fools, Frauds and Firebrands: Thinkers of the New Left", after I read it I started to understand how seemingly smart well-educated university people can buy into these silly irrational things like victim culture and calling everything 'colonialism'. (https://www.amazon.com/Fools-Frauds-Firebrands-Thinkers-Left/dp/1472935950/)
I know you're not actually interested, but for anyone in the audience who wants to learn about the sociological background, here are some books that elaborate on the patterns described above:
If you're interested in this subject I highly recommend reading Rogers Scrutons Thinkers of the New Left. Even if you're not conservative it's a valuable read for any moderate and one of the best critiques of the radical (mostly French) 1970s new left movement which heralded this obsession with 'power' and attacks on all forms of institutions.
> Scruton demonstrates that the New Left does not have "a system of rationally held beliefs", and is dependent on never questioned assumptions.
https://www.amazon.com/Fools-Frauds-Firebrands-Thinkers-Left/dp/1472935950
Few people have attempted to take on Focualt and Sartre and the like, and most of their political babble is just accepted without scrutiny these days. It'd probably be suicide for most professors.
A lot of people think this identity politics and weird obsessions with inverting power structures (as opposed to just gradually equalizing them), where only the alleged victims and oppressed should have a say in any matter, is a new phenomenon but it's far from it.
As for a great and modern introductory book, I highly recommend first reading(I have it in epub if you want it):
The meaning of Marxism - Paul D'Amatto
Next would be:
All of which are online and are ~< 50 pages each.
As for longer books, I'd suggest:
and finally
Just read Roger Scruton's 'Fools, Frauds and Firebrands' (good stuff) here a relevant excerpt:
> ..the deep structural similarity between communism and fascism, both as theory and as practice, and their common antagonism to parliamentary and constitutional forms of goverment. Even if we accept the - highly fortuitous - identification of National Socialism and Italian Fascism, to speak of either as the true political oppposite of communism is to betray the most superficial understanding of modern history. In truth there is an opposite of all the 'isms', and that is negotiated politics, without an 'ism' and without a goal other than the peaceful coexistence of rivals.
>Communism, like facism, involved the attempt to create a mass popular movement and a state bound together under the rule of a single party, in which there will be total cohesion around a common goal. It involved the elimination of opposition, by whatever means, and the replacement of ordered dispute between parties by clandestine 'discussion' within the single ruling elite. It involved taking control - 'in the name of the people' - of the means of communication and education and instilling a principle of command throughout the economy.
>Both movements regarded law as optional and constitutional constraints as irrelevant - for both were essentially revolutionary, led from above by an 'iron discipline'. Both aimed to achieve a new kind of social order, unmediated by institutions, displaying an immediate and fraternal cohesiveness. And in pursuit of this ideal association - called a fascio by ninetheenth-century Italian socialists - each movement created a form of military government, involving the total mobilization of the entire populace, which could no longer do even the most peaceful seeming things except in a spirit of war, and with an officer in charge[...] the two systems resemble each other in all other aspects, and not least in their public art, which displays the same kind of bombast and kitsch - the same attempt to change reality by shouting at the top of the voice.
Oh holy shit it's stainslemountaintops. He's the resident alt-right poster over at the german sub /r/de. I once posted a comment under a post about fascism explaining how, curiously enough, there doesn't appear to be any fascist philosophy, as opposed to conservative, liberal, marxist philosophy. What is fascism? What are its main textss? Fascists don't really want to tell as otherwise you'd be able to intellectually refute them. I linked to Umberto Ecos essay on the main attributes of fascism, including its antiintellectualism as an explanation.
This is where stains provided me with a few links to nouvelle droite literature, mostly by alain de benoist and Tomislav Sunic. Gems like Manifesto for a European Renaissance:
> It offers a strong argument in favor of the right to difference among cultures and civilizations, and the right of peoples to defend themselves from cultural homogenization. It also offers a vision of a regenerated Europe which will find its strength in a return to its authentic values and traditions, in opposition to the new imperialism of multiculturalism and the global marketplace. Alain
And Against Democracy and Equality:
>Dr. Sunic examines the principal themes which have concerned the thinkers of the New Right since its inception by Alain de Benoist in 1968, such as the problematic nature of the label 'New Right' for a school which sees itself as being beyond traditional concepts of both the left and the right; its revolutionary political philosophy; its conception of history in terms of cycles; its attitude toward democracy, capitalism and socialism; and its endorsement of 'pagan' spirituality
Not exactly the kind of proper, academic philosophy in the vein of Hobbes, Locke or Rawles I was looking for. I still maintain that fascism has no philosophy as it runs against its syncretic and antiintellecutal nature.
So anyway, that's how I came to know stains. He may be a new-righter, but he is a courteous poster.
This book is a great beginner's guide to Marx, very easy to understand and has all of the basics.
A People's History of the United States by Howard Zinn is also a great socialist history of the US and includes some anecdotes about radical religious figures.
I would also point him towards anything by Father Dan Berrigan.
For anyone wondering, the source for the text is this book (chapter 23):
> Generation Identity: A Declaration of War Against the '68ers, by Markus Willinger (2013); [Amazon].
Seems related to the Identitarian movement: "The book is considered the founding manifesto of the Identitäre Bewegung Österreichs."
> Those who say that Marx ignores human nature usually mean by ‘human nature’ egoism, selfishness. Marx does not deny that in existing capitalist society people tend to be narrowly egoistic… To look at people in capitalist society and conclude that human nature is egoism is like looking at people in a factory where pollution is destroying their lungs and saying that it is human nature to cough.
From here
You’re interested in arguing not learning so take care.
Jesus Christ. Do you even know what the NAP is? Libertarians are for as much free trade as possible as well as open borders to support free trade. Libertarians believe the governments job, only job, is making sure your rights arent being violated and you arent violating anyone elses. A strict interpretation of the constitution.
Jesus Christ man. Educate yourself, especially if you go around calling yourself a libertarian. Especially when you don't even know the basics.
Those are three resources for you to ponder on.
No problem, it is a fascinating topic. I don't know what to suggest, there's way way too many books.
Really top of my head, any anthropologist here will probably crucify me for forgetting something, I would suggest the following :
Some are more or less technical and harder to read without a background, I remember Malinoswki, Descola and Mead to be fairly easy to read. Tristes Tropiques is also very easy, it's like a novel. Mauss, Clastres and Savage Mind can be a bit more "advanced" but they are very readable.
EDIT : Fun fact about something similar to cargo cult. Some tribes, don't remember if it's in Africa or Oceania, value foreign objects as possessing supernatural powers. As such, they cover their shields (which are absolutely amazing) with stickers, such as beer brands. The anthropoligist that told me this said that he tried to tell them that they are ruining the beautiful shield and they just thought he was an idiot, the shield looked much nicer with the stickers.
The issue isn't that we need more direct democracy. Direct democracy can be dangerous, because quite frankly, while individuals may be perfectly reasonable, the masses are stupid and prone to poor judgement. Group think is incredibly powerful.
There must be checks in place to counteract this. Having a representative democracy is one check, though that clearly has some disadvantages as well. I don't think they outweigh the positives, though.
The other important thing...perhaps the MOST important thing...is to have is a constitution and an ingrained reluctance in the system to mess with it too much.
Great, and very accessible, book on this general topic:
http://www.amazon.com/The-Future-Freedom-Illiberal-Democracy/dp/0393331520
OMG he wrote a book:
https://www.amazon.com/Facts-Thatll-Convince-Liberal-Friends-ebook/dp/B07H4S4FW9#customerReviews
From the blurb:
> Why did America go to Iraq? Because of “weapons of mass destruction.” Our politicians took advantage of American citizens, who were in a vulnerable state after 9/11, and we were easily manipulated over the angering and terrifying thought of weapons of mass destruction and we went to war. Thousands of Americans died on that lie, trillions of our tax dollars were spent, and politicians benefited.
Oh... so they're going to shift the blame for 9/11 and Iraq/Afghanistan on "The Liberals"...huh...
While I agree with your sentiment that, for their day, the Founding Fathers of the United States were remarkable people they also had their problems. Nearly every problem that citizens of the United States are facing today were predicted in some fashion by other founding fathers. If you really want to understand the debate, at the time, you have to read the following two books.
If you kept an open mind and read those books you will probably find yourself much more suspicious of government than you might otherwise expect. The first book of this second list was written in the 19^th century and makes very clear the problems with the US Constitution. The last two are modern extensions of thought to Spooners' writings.
The History of Sexuality is where it's first used, but Foucault doesn't really use it much in that way. You might also consider looking into reading Agamben, particularly Homo Sacer: Sovereign Power and Bare Life.
>Let us assume that we are fucked. The particular nature of our doom is up for any amount of debate, but the basic fact of it seems largely inevitable. My personal guess is that millennials will probably live long enough to see the second Great Depression, which will blur inexorably with the full brunt of climate change to lead to a massive human dieback, if not quite an outright extinction. But maybe it’ll just be a rogue AI and a grey goo scenario. You never know.
Democracy for Realists.
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0713Q2B6T/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&amp;btkr=1
Egypt, Tunisia, Iran, Poland, East-Germany, Romania, Portugal, more broadly you can read this if you're curious about it
>"I collected data on all major nonviolent and violent campaigns for the overthrow of a government or a territorial liberation since 1900," she says -- hundreds of cases. "The data blew me away."
>Here's her chart, which pretty clearly suggests that nonviolent movements are much likelier to work:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2013/11/05/peaceful-protest-is-much-more-effective-than-violence-in-toppling-dictators/
https://www.amazon.com/Why-Civil-Resistance-Works-Nonviolent-ebook/dp/B005SZEEXQ/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1383657922&amp;sr=8-1&amp;keywords=chenoweth+and+stephan
OP: would you say that many of the responses you've gotten here provided a "fair and balanced" reference to the sort of literature you were looking for, or did they seem heavily biased toward one side or the other?
Anyway, as of late I've been working through both Scott Ryan's Objectivism and the Corruption of Rationality which, while not exactly on-target throughout, is a more fair-minded critique than just about any I've encountered on Rand; I've also been working through parts of the e-edition of the new Blackwell Companion to Ayn Rand by authors pretty much all supportive of Rand and some pieces done pretty well.
For the most expert secondary writing on the subject of Objectivism, Leonard Peikoff's work is invaluable and indispensable, and his Understanding Objectivism gets into areas of methodology that Rand's critics are largely unaware of.
It's been a while since I've read Huemer's criticisms linked elsewhere in this thread; however, on the parts I do remember - having to do with her ethics - he simply fails to demonstrate that he grasps the unique qualities of her egoism, and assumes that her egoism fits into the traditional categorizations (and hence advances arguments to the effect that egoism is incompatible with respecting rights as such, for example). There is plenty of secondary literature countering such misconceptions; googling "egoism rights" will provide some leads for that topic in particular.
The book with the most extensive scholarship covering the other secondary literature would be Sciabarra's Ayn Rand: The Russian Radical. The collection edited by Den Uyl and Rasmussen, The Philosophic Thought of Ayn Rand, has quality pieces, particularly those by the editors. The Ayn Rand Society has recently been coming out with volumes containing discussions between Objectivists and non-Objectivists on given topics.
Disclosure: I'm very big on Rand (edit: and Aristotelianism), don't care for her polemics against other thinkers (which are almost as bad as many polemics against her).
Haven't gotten around to it yet myself, but my law & literature professor recommended Homo Sacer by Giorgio Agamben.
https://www.amazon.com/Homo-Sacer-Sovereign-Meridian-Aesthetics/dp/0804732183
> To start, by repealing much of the crap legislation we currently have, and introducing small, specific bills that address clear problems. The bigger the bill, the more they'll rely on expert analysis of the consequences.
Okay, they tried that in California? Why didn't it work?
I thought I presented a pretty good list of arguments for why the direct democrazy you propose would probably be neither more representative, produce better legislation nor be less susceptible to corruption. Why is it that you think that direct democrazy will solve the problems of government (that I acknowledge exists)? What evidence do you have to support this conclusion. I submit that the evidence does not speak in favor of direct democrazy, as per the example of California.
In any case, if you truely wish to change your view about it, then you should read The Future of Freedom. It is a relatively short book and easy to read, and it demolishes the idea that more democrazy is always good.
Absolutely! The points I've been making are based on a Marxist analysis of capitalism. Here's some excellent resources:
Lots more can be found on the /r/socialism suggested reading list. Additionally, Socialist Alternative run weekly Introduction to Marxism discussion groups in most capital cities.
As has been indicated, most academic philosophers don't take Ayn Rand seriously. But there are a relatively small number of philosophers who do regularly discuss Ayn Rand's philosophy and who take her quite seriously.
There is a section of the American Philosophical Association devoted to Rand: The Ayn Rand Society. There is also an academic "Journal of Ayn Rand Studies," an entry on Ayn Rand in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, and a number of academic books on Rand by such people as Tara Smith, Allan Gotthelf, Gregory Salmieri and Harry Binswanger. This includes a recently-released book in the Blackwell Companions to Philosophy series: A Companion to Ayn Rand.
> as the Constitution provides.
That piece of paper signed by a few elected officials that didn't even have full support at the time it was written? Well, in that case, if we can use amazon links as evidence, I'll just do this.
> Basically - get into automation and learn how to be more valuable to the higher-ups. What would you do?
I'll answer your question by outlining my year goal of education in the work place.
I'm doing leadership for engineering themed courses, with the goal to influence decisions and outcome.
I'm aiming to get some more specific and hands on coaching, to help talk to upper manglement.
Another take on it is this. If I was going back to the very start of my career and had 0 knowledge in my head (And it was present day). I'd target a few things:
I already said above what I am: A Traditionalist Monarchist, after Evola and De Maistre.
Nazis took what was left of the corpse of the old Germany and tried to revive it, and what they got was Frankenstein's monster.
They had the right instinct, to restore what once was, but entirely the wrong approach.
They're part of my ancestors, and as such I have to respect them. But that doesn't make them any less wrong.
But what we need is not a revived corpse, it is a new body, inhabited by the old soul of the German people, that, which is slumbering deep within us.
We need to look to the past to shape the future of our people, but not 70 years, 700 years or more.
That, naturally, goes for the German people alone. I have little notion what the natural state of other peoples looks like. Somewhat similar in ideal, if not execution, I'd be willing to bet when looking back through history.
But damnit, if wanting to live a simple life among my own makes me a nazi, then so be it. Just be aware that it makes pretty much anyone that was lived before the 60s a nazi.
If you really care about a very detailed analysis of distinctions between my beliefs and those of the nazis or fascists in general, I refer you to this amazing collection of Essays.
You need to read this book.
"We conventionally define the state as the regulation of violence; it may be the origin of it. Clastres's thesis is that economic expropriation and political coercion are inconsistent with the character of tribal society - which is to say, with the greater part of human history."Can there be a society that is not divided into oppressors and oppressed, or that refuses coercive state apparatuses? In this beautifully written book, Pierre Clastres offers examples of South American Indian groups that, although without hierarchical leadership, were both affluent and complex. In so doing he refutes the usual negative definition of tribal society and poses its order as a radical critique of our own Western state of power.
You could start with places like South Africa and the legalized killing of white farmers. I really recommend reading "Into the Cannibal's Pot: Lessons for America from Post-Apartheid South Africa".
If you want to see a more down to earth example look at what happens to white people when they move in to a majority black or Muslim neighborhood. White flight exists for a reason.
If you want to see how white genocide progresses I suggest this article
She created a philosophy called Objectivism: https://www.amazon.com/Companion-Rand-Blackwell-Companions-Philosophy/dp/1405186844
I guess that would make her a philosopher even if you disagree with it.
I highly recommend this book “Meaning of Marxism” which is a great introductory text and comes with study questions for your group. I used this during my socialist reading group while I was in college. Haymarket Books is a great publisher for many of the texts you’ll need and they often run sales. https://www.amazon.com/Meaning-Marxism-Paul-DAmato-ebook/dp/B003P9X72Q
Hmmm, I believe this researcher used the US Civil Rights Movement as an example of a non-violent success. This ignores numerous race riots and the actions of more militant groups.
Not to take a shit on all her research though. I'll give Why Civil Resistance Works a read before I draw any conclusions. All I can say now is that the projects might not account for all variables per each event.
Here are all the local Amazon links I could find:
amazon.co.uk
amazon.ca
amazon.com.au
amazon.in
amazon.com.mx
amazon.de
amazon.it
amazon.es
amazon.com.br
Beep bloop. I'm a bot to convert Amazon ebook links to local Amazon sites.
I currently look here: amazon.com, amazon.co.uk, amazon.ca, amazon.com.au, amazon.in, amazon.com.mx, amazon.de, amazon.it, amazon.es, amazon.com.br, if you would like your local version of Amazon adding please contact my creator.
https://www.amazon.com/Libertarianism-Primer-David-Boaz/dp/068484768X
I'm sorry to say, but people who rely on a piece of paper to guarantee their rights and relying on a legal fiction. We need to start looking at this system and considering what incentives it provides for, and it clearly isn't for upholding rights.
You (and many others) should read No Treason: The Constitution of No Authority by Lysander Spooner.
Fareed Zakaria has a reasonably interesting coverage of this topic in his 2007 "Future of Freedom"
http://www.amazon.com/Future-Freedom-Illiberal-Democracy-Revised/dp/0393331520
In this book he basically debunks the American notion that "More Democracy" always equals "Better" and that Americans have Democracy confused with civil liberties.
Start with the essay Estranged Labor OP. Feel free to ask questions to us or in /r/communism101 (This is an educational sub. Not a debate sub. Find other subs for debate)
Or, if you want a secondary look at Marx's broader philosophy and methodology for looking at capitalism, look up Marx: A Beginner's Guide by Andrew Collier it's a cheap and accessible introduction.
You're saying Slate Star Codex represents 95% of the world population? WEW
It's lead and directed by one of Peter Thiel's sycophants, that goes out of his way to announce how much more "alive" billionaires are than us little people, and your attempt to wave pom poms on his behalf is pretty weak.
It's a technology cult on a good day, a right wing cesspit on a bad day.
http://web.archive.org/web/20130910231534/http://www.plover.net/%7Ebonds/cultofbayes.html
https://thebaffler.com/latest/mouthbreathing-machiavellis
https://www.amazon.com/Neoreaction-Basilisk-Essays-Around-Alt-Right-ebook/dp/B0782JDGVQ
"In that case you are just insane."
You added some ableist nonsense in defense of your cult. Not a good play.
Oh, you're also from Drama. Because of course you are.
Here. Watch this.
http://youtu.be/XO1t4Fif2c0
It's a documentary about Gene Sharp and his incredibly powerful (and proven) methods of non-violent revolution.
Stuff like orbital weapons platforms might make for fun Hollywood movies, but a) things will never be allowed by the vast majority of human civilization to reach that point, and b) we already know non-violent means work even better.
> Why Civil Resistance Works: The Strategic Logic of Nonviolent Conflict by Erica Chenoweth and Maria J. Stephan uses graphs, charts, sociological research and statistical analysis to show how in the last century, nonviolent movements were far better at mobilizing supporters, resisting regime crackdowns, creating new initiatives, defeating repressive regimes and establishing lasting democracies. Their evidence points to the conclusion that nonviolent resistance is more effective than armed resistance in overturning oppressive and repressive regimes and in leading to more democratic societies. -Source
Archives for links in comments:
----
I am Mnemosyne 2.0, Keeper of the KIA Dammaz Kron^^^^/r/botsrights ^^^^Contribute ^^^^Website
http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20190513-it-only-takes-35-of-people-to-change-the-world Here is a better article.
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B005SZEEXQ/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&amp;btkr=1 Here is the book if you are actually interested in the subject.
Violence is a shitty alternative. Those revolutions you listed? The French revolution involved the slaughter of political dissidents by revolutionary governments, ended in a dictatorship, then the restoration of the monarchy. France didn't get a long lasting Republic until 80 years later, after decades of political instability. The communist revolutions ended in brutal regimes being installed into power. Haiti ended in two genocides.
Nonviolent revolutions? Philippine people power revolution, Taiwan, South Korea, Color revolutions, Arab Spring, decolonization of India, end of Apartheid, goes on. Perfect? No. But a much better record than violent revolution.
Everyone in this sub needs to read Democracy for Realists already.
> There is literally NOTHING wrong with fascism.
I know you are just memeing, but that's not true.
Bare Life.
so much fail in this post.
you should seriously read this book:
http://www.amazon.com/Libertarianism-A-Primer-David-Boaz/dp/068484768X
ps: europe is not practicing "austerity" by any means. They merely raised taxes and called that austerity. There were no REAL spending cuts.
You are all kinds of confused about what a Libertarian is, son. Read up on the subject and get back to me. Check out some free-market economics while you're at it.
>techno-utopian transhumanist internet community
If that sounds interesting/stupid to you, I suggest reading SSC's (in)famous Mediations on Moloch as well as Neoreaction a Basilisk: Essays On and Around the Alt-Right, which discusses the Dark Enlightenment, the precursor to the Alt-Right ideology, and how it manifested itself as a bastardized child of these Techno-Libertarian/Skeptic communities.
https://www.amazon.com/Into-Cannibals-Pot-Lessons-Post-Apartheid/dp/0984907017
Good catch. I really meant to say “moving beyond our current form of liberal democracy” because the issue is not so much democracy, which as I mentioned I believe has benefits beyond merely producing a decision. I edited.
I highly recommend Jacque Ranciere’s short book Hatred Of Democracy. He presents a pointed and responsible critique of liberal democracy, and fleshes out an impressive an argument for this line of thought.
More History:
Europe: A History
Europe: European History
The Sleepwalkers: How Europe Went to War in 1914
The Iran-Iraq War
Hitler's American Model: The United States and the Making of Nazi Race Law
They Can Live in the Desert but Nowhere Else": A History of the Armenian Genocide
Postmodernism and academic nonsense:
The Sokal Hoax: The Sham That Shook the Academy
Beyond the Hoax: Science, Philosophy and Culture
Fools, Frauds and Firebrands: Thinkers of the New Left
More Politics:
A World in Disarray: American Foreign Policy and the Crisis of the Old Order
Human Nature/ Evolution:
The Red Queen: Sex and the Evolution of Human Nature
On Human Nature
Clinical Psychology:
Introduction to Clinical Psychology (8th Edition) I'm not trained in psychology but I was told this one was quite good.
Ok, that's enough...
edit: double entry removed + sorting
I dislike images with text, but the story check out.
Amazon #1 in Political Philosophy
Here is the link.
https://www.amazon.com/Facts-Thatll-Convince-Liberal-Friends-ebook/dp/B07H4S4FW9/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1536712873&amp;sr=8-1&amp;keywords=101+facts+to+convince+your+liberal+friends+to+walk+away&amp;dpID=51f5GINDRrL&amp;preST=_SY445_QL70_&amp;dpSrc=srch
https://www.amazon.com/Generation-Identity-Markus-Willinger/dp/1907166416
Erittäin hyvä kirja, suosittelen lukemaan
The Libertarian Mind by David Boaz.
> How am i saying things are definitive. I have on multiple occasions lamented i haven't gone after the actual papers yet.
Let me ask you something: Are academics god-like individuals with unparalleled perspectives from those of all other people on earth? If not, then chances are they are not really all that different from you or me in the sense that they are also products of the sociopolitical environment we live in. Furthermore, since they are invariably products of an institution that is all about certifying people as "knowing" what is best for society as a whole, do you not think they are also prone to overlooking their own, fascistic worldviews for this exact reason?
> Although, really the questions used in the RWA score are so on the nose
Are they? It's not really hard to imagine under what circumstances someone's response to, say, Statement 1 can go from maybe -2 or -3 to a hard 4 - all you need to do is to swap out the institution or authority that someone doesn't like for one they like.
The reason I have brought up "distribution of the sensible" is that what it seeks to point out is a group of people Jacques Ranciere refers to as the "political surplus". That is, if you are the part of "political surplus", your judgment, your moral values and your telling of your own life experience simply do not matter to the society you live in regardless of what they are. You are instead a de-politicalised object that exists only to "move along" in a system that serves to make statistics and metrics that point to no person in specific look good enough for whoever in charge to justify their own position and prestige. (It is also not hard to imagine that Ranciere is a staunch supporter of direct democracy and has written an entire book just to make a case for it.)
Given this picture, a society under "distribution of the sensible" is always authoritarian by necessity. Since, instead of an object, you are a political subject with thoughts and values, the only way to make you "move along" despite your inclination to question what you have been told is the police state - that is, a state founding itself on the operational logic of the police. Should you fail to comply with what you have been told to accept or follow - to "move along" - someone will simply come and shut you up and make you comply with the directions you have been given through whatever means necessary. Sometimes it's state-sanctioned violence, but, more often, it's just a chilling reminder to know your place and not to stick your nose where nothing concerns you (supposedly). This is also why one of the most frequent statements from your local police department is none other than this one:
"Nothing to see here. Move along."
Now, of course, since what you really are is a political animal with thoughts and values, these thoughts and values may very well align with that of the (police) state. If you are part of the "political surplus", however, the question of whether your thoughts and values align with those of the state simply does not matter. You can vote for a political candidate either willingly or begrudgingly, but, at the end of day, only what's written on your ballot counts. You can work your low-paying job either with a headful of resentiment or with an ear-to-ear smile, but, at the end of the day, only whether you have a job at all matters to employment statistics. Under the "distribution of the sensible", your approval of the state's designs and machinations is, for all intents and purposes, irrelevant to its own continued existence, and it is ultimately the "authoritarians" who will have an easier time getting by as the rejects and outsiders of the society they live in.
Do you see now how a systemic critique of society completely eclipses the necessity for trying to measure one's supposed, authoritarian tendencies?
The Prince by Niccolò Machiavelli (A classic political treatises)
Yeah, greatly. Reading this book is a great precursor to what happens to a country when whites become a minority. Some other good points of reference are Brazil and Rhodesia(Zimbabwe)
https://smile.amazon.com/Into-Cannibals-Pot-Lessons-Post-Apartheid/product-reviews/0984907017?sa-no-redirect=1
You can ask me specific questions, but most of this shit is readily available on Wikipedia.
SA is a bit harder to find, but its documented here: https://smile.amazon.com/Into-Cannibals-Pot-Lessons-Post-Apartheid/product-reviews/0984907017?sa-no-redirect=1
Reactionary Thought
Chartism – Thomas Carlyle
Latter-Day Pamphlets – Thomas Carlyle
The Bow of Ulysses – James Anthony Froude
Popular Government – Henry Summers Maine
Shooting Niagara – Carlyle
The Occasional Discourse – Carlyle
On Heroes, Hero Worship & the Heroic in History – Carlyle
The Handbook of Traditional Living – Raido
Men Among the Ruins – Julius Evola
Ride the Tiger – Julius Evola
Revolt Against the Modern World – Julius Evola
Reflections of a Russian Statesman – Konstantin Pobedonostsev
Popular Government – Henry Maine
Patriarcha (the Natural Power of Kings) – Sir Robert Filmer
Decline of the West – Oswald Spengler
Hour of Decision – Oswald Spengler
On Power – Jouvenel
Against Democracy and Equality – Tomislav Sunic
New Culture, New Right – Michael O’Meara
Why We Fight – Guillaume Faye
The Rising Tide of Color – Lothrop Stoddard
Liberty or Equality – Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn
Democracy: The God that Failed – Hans-Hermann Hoppe
****
Economics
Economics in One Lesson – Henry Hazlitt
Basic Economics – Thomas Sowell
That Which is Seen and That Which is Not Seen – Frederic Bastiat***
Man, Economy, and State – Murray Rothbard
Human Action – Ludwig von Mises
****
&#x200B;
Done and done.
Europe should also consist of ethnostates. Here is a book on this subject: https://www.amazon.com/Generation-Identity-Markus-Willinger/dp/1907166416
Why should Europeans also have a state or states in North America? Because Europeans came here as pioneers and created a society and state of their own on this continent. Compare the Turks in Turkey. They are originally a Central Asian people, from (more or less) Turkmenistan. They migrated west and conquered Turkey for themselves. This is pretty much how any people that possesses any land has acquired it. History can be brutal.
Europeans settled in America and created a nation for "Ourselves and Our Posterity." As they made quite clear in the First Congress (1790 Naturalization Act - google it), that means White people. The USA was created by, of, and for White people.
Further reading on the Founders: http://www.npiamerica.org/research/category/what-the-founders-really-thought-about-race
Further considerations on America and race: https://www.amazon.com/Death-West-Populations-Immigrant-Civilization/dp/0312285485
Because what you wrote is rambling, unrelated, untrue and barely coherent. You then cap it off by claiming the Russians and the Chinese chose communism. Nobody is going to touch that word soup.
For your 'average income' point you can start here:
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2013/12/06/chart-of-the-week-how-south-africa-changed-and-didnt-over-mandelas-lifetime/
Try to remember official SA government data classes East Asians as 'colored' instead of their own distinctive group.
Then read this:
https://www.amazon.com/Bell-Curve-Intelligence-Structure-Paperbacks/dp/0684824299/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1467876350&amp;sr=8-1&amp;keywords=bell+curve
Then if you have the stomach to understand the horror of what is happening in SA, read this:
https://www.amazon.com/Into-Cannibals-Pot-Lessons-Post-Apartheid/dp/0984907017/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1467876527&amp;sr=8-1&amp;keywords=into+the+cannibals+pot
According to Martin Gilens and Benjamin Page (political scientists and Princeton and Northwestern) the U.S. is not a democracy because average voters have absolutely zero influence over the policies that become laws. By contrast, Jacques Ranciere in Hatred of Democracy defends the ancient Greek conception of democracy as rule of chance. According to that understanding of democracy, the U.S. is definitely not a democracy, as in a democracy, power is supposed to rotate randomly, whereas in the U.S. and every other developed capitalist country, there is definitely an entrenched power bloc. I think of elections in modern countries as functioning primarily as a way to allow voters to blow off steam: allowing individuals to throw a temper tantrum every few years in the voting booth lets them to feel empowered even if they are not. This is remarkably different from the nineteenth century when many European elites feared that giving people the right to vote would lead immediately to socialism. The lesson of the 20th century for elites has been that this fear was totally overblown.
I liked this book when I read it:
Libertarianism: A Primer by David Boaz
http://www.amazon.com/Libertarianism-Primer-David-Boaz/dp/068484768X/
This is nonsense.
Critical theory is the amalgam of marxism and postmodernism applied to culture.
Many many feminism, genderstudies, and intersectionality journals are literally named critical theory or some derivative like gender theory, feminist theory, intersectional politics theory, etc.
The writing is not just all over the wall, its all over the covers of their 'science' journals. Not only do the people pushing the stuff identify it as critical theory : Pomo cultural marxism, but the enemies of those people identify it as the same. Naming it social justice gives it a much more innoculous ring though.
If you want a long winded, very detailed trek through the history, people, and development of these ideas [this] (https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1472935950/ref=ox_sc_act_title_1?smid=ATVPDKIKX0DER&amp;psc=1) lays it all out plainly.
you cant compare your need of a fascist modern state with a self organizing community, so yes, people can live without a state but capitalists/fascists will try everything to destroy it, obviously it will not last much in Europe.
I would recommend two books on the matter:
https://www.amazon.com/Society-Against-State-Political-Anthropology/dp/0942299019/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1539429544
https://www.amazon.com/Art-Not-Being-Governed-Anarchist-ebook/dp/B01N75OC23/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1539429842
My logic is the same as that of James Madison. See Federalist Paper No 10. See also Fareed Zakaria's essays on the matter in The Future of Freedom. Direct voting leads to all manner of dysfunction such as unfunded or contradictory programs. See California's Proposition 187 as an example.
The Libertarian Mind: A Manifesto for Freedom https://www.amazon.com/dp/1476752842/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_aKgHAbM92QCZ5