A reading list i got off Holla Forums

The one were only a tenth of the list were non fiction books? That was hilarious

...

Not that user but I took a look at the section on the Frankfurt school. Macdonald mostly uses secondary text in interpreting their works and seriously misunderstands the anti-positivism of Adorno and Horkheimer and its place in the German tradition, instead trying to link it back to something adopted to pursue Jew group interest as one example.

Macdonald is on NO place to be engaging with the Frankfurt school. Most of the section is on the Authoritarian Personality which I haven't read, but if the other parts are any precedent he most likely skewers that too. Other historians have criticized his use of their works in the section on communism saying he cherry picked and mashed up quotes etc.

There's a reason Adorno said that right wing mysticism was "metaphysics for dunces".

You… We have… so many of these, including all the shit in the threads (with an "s") that are currently stickied to the top.

all of these are shit though

I'm kept awake at night by the possibility people actually spend hours of their lives reading the esoteric nonsense recommended by Holla Forums, /liberty/, etc.

Don't worry, I've got the only reading list you'll ever need.

Didn't Stalin held the protocols true too tho?

Holla Forums is better suited for you, mate

now this is the only socdem book worth a damn

this is the only socdmen book I need

they get defensive when you just quote Mein Kampf at them pulling excuses out of their ass

wow, totally debunked ML!

your idea has been nationalised.

Fuck I remember that too

Mate, like half of them weren't even BOOKS.

good choice my man

here you go

kek, thanks

just so much gold on there no matter where you look

Seriously, why don't you just go on reddit? SocDems aren't leftist; you're just a capitalist, and you will be treated like a capitalist.

(that's the joke)

I'll get obscenely rich without having to work for it, and undermine democratically elected governments to push my every whim?

They have Hoebbes and Locke. 1984 and Brave New World. Lord of the Rings, and Beowulf.
Is it just me or has anyone else read or at last seen references to most of the reading on this list in High School.

1984 is a meme book, just like animal farm

It's an outdated, faulty translation with had access to fewer manuscripts than we do now. Stop fucking using it.

Just because conservatives take the wrong lessons from it doesn't mean we can't learn from it. It's a classic for a reason.

4chan lit already made a better one a long time ago

This is why everyone thinks you're dumb Holla Forums.

Lmao

actually just read Lightening and the Sun and god that book is fucking horrible. Pretty much calls for a theological exterminatus led by Kalki that would leave only the truly divine aryan alive, walking the earth as demigods. Very confused Heideggerian shit fucked together with Hitler worship and Hindu caste theology. Awful read and shows just how depraved and death worshiping fascism can become.

debunk this

debunk this

...

Deleuze and Guatarri's theories regarding coding, territory, and rhizomes is the theory expanded upon and granted greater complexity and nuance. More about it can be found in their two volume work Capitalism and Schizophrenia. Likewise, the works of Mao, Stalin, Marx, Engels, Il-Sung, and any other significant marxist leninist thinker contributes and expands upon the socialist science of development through contradiction and histories.

Does anything more bonkers than Savitri Divi even exists? I'd love to know.

the Buddhist/Hindu stuff is some of the strangest fascist writing

I mean Solzhenitsyn was really kinda anti-semitic…

Orwell explicitly calls for a revolution of the proletariat in the book, and the Goldstein's book section is where he stops bothering with story and just dumps an essay about how capitalism is to blame for everything. He didn't claim to be a socialist for nothing.
By the way, did you know that 1984 is the book that Brits lie the most about having read? :^) I bet that most people who criticise the book never get past the first few chapters.

...

it is

Oh god…
This list tries so hard to be good but it just fails so horribly.

It is

t. Dumbos who don't understand satire

The book isn't satire; that was Heinlein's genuine beliefs. The film however, is one of the greatest deconstructions of a piece of literature of the 20th century

Oh, I'm not saying it's not fascist, rather I'm glad that no butthurt neanderthal, who always come out of the woods in droves to defend Heinlein, had a say in its classification.

It is an authoritarian, militarist novel. You're probably thinking of the 1997 film directed by Paul Verhoeven which sought to satirize its source material.

All of these people are apparently totally rational, but somehow Kaczynski is on the same "batshit crazy" level as Devi.

...

...

The only way that could be believable is if Henry Ford and Joe McCarthy were Jews, but they aren’y. Seriously those two Pokies are who ruined American Culture.

How did Evola not think that through. Than again we’re talking about the man who walked around in the middle of a bombing run to “ponder the meaning of life.”

He menas in the same format.

Jesus Christ I expected something bad but not this bad

What’s that image

Are there any other adaptation that are that direct about attacking the source material? I find it to be an interesting subversion.

The inaccuracies of the King James translation are overblown, I still think it should be the bible people read as it is without doubt the single most influential piece of English literature.

...

I've seen you on Holla Forums shit posting, that one 4/pol/ user was right you are a shill haha. Good shit.

I've read a chunk of right wing lit, and in the end its a bunch of Heidegger hero worship bullshit and I really don't see the appeal

...

Only a pleb-tier reading of Tolkien would allow you to draw any sort of reactionary message from it. It really is its own self-contained universe. I guess it speaks to how idealist your average Holla Forumstard is though. They believe that we literally live in some kind of fantasy world and that their political opponents are part of a great host that is controlled by an evil entity/organization which wants to destroy them and their race for reasons which are never explained.

...

Nah Huxley was basically a 1930s hippy that just dropped acid and wrote BNW as the society he thought people were heading towards; not what he wanted.

The OSS 117 spy comedy films which are based on a dead serious '50s novel series satirize French history and politics.

> Yukio Mishima's Confessions of a Mask
… Uh? Of all the Mishima novels, some of which openly glorify nationalism and militarism like Patriotism or Runaway Horses, they chose to go with the one in which he mostly explore his homosexuality?

Dunno if you would count this but most adaptations of A Christmas Carol mock the source material to a greater or lesser extent

The film adaptation of Fight Club essentially has a reversed moral compared to the original (the titular fight club is cool vs the fight club is a terrifying glimpse into the psyche of the disenfranchised male), however this is probably more due to Hollywood ineptness than deliberate satire

The DC superhero movies can be said to be a purposeful shitting on the original source material, essentially saying the superhero mythos is a childish fantasy (which it is, but what they did with it was no better)

The short film version of Harrison Bergeron completely misses the point of the original by taking it as a criticism of socialism rather than a mocking parody of anti-communism

The film adaptation of Children of Men is a love letter to 'liberal values' and directly mocks religious fanatics who think the sterilisation of mankind is a spiritual punishment, while the original novel is a work that lionises Christianity, with the inability to bear children being an obvious parallel for the Virgin Mary and baby Jesus.

That's all I can think of for now.

Try actually reading the book.
The Federation described in the book is simply a capitalist republic with limited voting franchise.
Advocating for a limited franchise is not fascism, nor is exploring personal sacrifice and development in anyway fascistic.

The movie is not a satirization of the book.
It is a silly, enjoyable action movie that originally had nothing to do with Starship Troopers.
It was not until a producer noticed some loose similarities between the original script and the book (a unified earth fighting giant space bugs), that it was renamed 'Starship Troopers' and some very basic elements of the book (names and a few pieces of dialogue) were worked in.
The two minute scene at the beginning of the movie with its poor stand-in for Lt. Col. Dubois is literally the most the film has to do with the book - Even then it is heavily truncated and not even the actual focus of the scene.

Hell, not only did Verhoeven openly admit to never reading past the first chapter of the book.
But all of the elements in the film incorrectly regarded as 'satire' of the book by brainlets are actually just Verhoeven satirising WW2 era propaganda; Nothing like that ever appeared in the book to satirise in the first place.

Of course the technoautist would say this, but yes, franchise limited to the military is fascist. It will inevitably lead to warlike and aggressive policy.

He's right. It's authoritarian and militarist for sure, but not necessarily fascism. Fascism is authoritarian, but not all forms of authoritarianism are necessarily fascist.

That alone doesn't make it fascism but I would consider it one of the key 'traits' towards identifying a fascist system - that all power lays in the hands of the military. It doesn't nessecitate fascism but I would consider it 'fascistic'. Perhaps I'm being a little pedantic but I would call it a huge red flag.

No Heinlein didn't think he was creating a fascist system: that's the point of the movie, to show how his governmental model WOULD lead to a de facto Fascist state.

most likely its because of its very sexual fetishization of male death, as the only moment in which a man is allowed to beautiful, along with its length discussions about (a) being a weak effeminate loser in high school (b) being a weeb for neo classical and classical art (c) living a miserable adult life in which all you do is masturbate to porn you don't even like but you do it only to convince yourself you ain't gay. All these are common features in a fascist.

youtube.com/watch?v=U1MYMVfyHi0&t=1s

Try reading the book, anarcho-kiddie.
Franchise is not limited to the military.
It is limited to anyone that has completed a term of national service, of which military service is just one option.

Power does not 'lay in the hands of the military', the book clearly states that you cannot even vote or hold political office if you are currently in the military of the Federation.
I get that reading is scary for anarcho-kiddies, but please actually read the book before attempting to criticise it.
You are only embarrassing yourself.

It is not.
Verhoeven literally did not read past the first chapter of the book.
He did not have any idea of what the Federations government was like, beyond some cliff notes that a friend gave to him.
You cannot show 'what a government would lead to', when you have no idea what that government is in the first place.

Yeah and it's vague as fuck about what this actually means, since there are plenty of young people who throw themselves into the meat grinder for citizenship it can't be quite as easy as just picking up litter or something.

And no, I haven't read the actual book, but I know enough about it to say that your view is entirely wrong headed. As the other user says the book doesn't call itself fascist but the system described is at the very least at extreme risk of devolving into it. Plus, just cause someone isn't active military doesn't mean they've left the military behind them mentally, just ask John McCain, he's never seen a war he didn't like, and plenty of coups/coup attempts have been led by former generals and so on.

"It is limited to anyone that has completed a term of national service, of which military service is just one option."

"Power does not 'lay in the hands of the military'"

"You cannot show 'what a government would lead to'"
I don't believe you.

They won't read a single thing on the list they spend more time compiling lists than actually reading anything on it

Strictly, would military-franchise (assuming soldiers vote) not discourage warlike behaviour, since they know they're the ones who'll have to die?

No it is fucking not, asshole.
The book spends several paragraphs going into detail over other options for federal service besides military service.
You could be a fucking invalid and the federation would find something for you to do, as trying to complete a term of federal service was a constitutionally guaranteed right for everyone in the Federation.
Don't try and talk like an authority on something when at best you may have skimmed a Wikipedia article.

Firstly, federal service is explicitly not a 'meat grinder', the movie is not at all reflective of the book.
In the book things are unusually hard for Rico because he insisted on joining the military as his federal service and the only positions he qualified for was MI grunt or psy-dog keeper.

Secondly, counting pencils was an example given in the book as a possible federal service.
It is all dependant upon your abilities.
So there would indeed be people picking up litter for their service.

Color me surprised.
If you have not read it, then you are in no position to criticise it.

Oh yes.
I do really care about what some anarcho-kiddie thinks about my views.
Please do skim over the Wikipedia article for Utilitarianism so that you can attempt to criticise my position on that in the most embarrassing way possible next.

But you don't even know what the system described in the book is.
You only consider at 'at risk of devolving into fascism' because it not whatever assuredly shit system you want.
Trying to criticise something that you don't even understand does not fly outside of anarchist circles.

One would hope so.

Besides, you said that the power was in the hands of the military in the Federation.
That is literally not true.

Firstly, federal service is entirely optional.
You can still live a comfortable, happy life without ever doing it.

Secondly, one would be so lucky to serve something greater then themself.
While the Federation is certainly far from ideal, service to a state is an inherently noble concept.
It is the disgusting egoism of many on the left that is the true evil, the real danger.

Dissenting thought within reason is literally not punishable.
Why the fuck do you think that the Moral Philosophy classes were not graded?
You can think what you want in the federation, just expect a citizen to give your stupid ideas all of the respect they deserve.

Being in active service and fighting are not synonyms you fucking retard.

The state is comprised of citizens.
Only a percentage of which would be ex-millitary, please actually read the book.

Those that were ex-millitary were certainly not 'goons' however.
Indeed by virtue of completing their time in federal service, even the worst of them would be better then your ilk.

...

You are more then capable of living a comfortable life without being a citizen.
Hell, Rico's father was a very wealthy business man and a civilian.

They are disenfranchised, sure.
But if franchise was something that they actually gave a damn about to begin with then they would have done their term of federal service.

I have literally said nothing that qualifies as 'fascist rhetoric' by any sane measure.
Believe or not but concepts that some variety of fascism may have explored in the past are not forever tainted by fascism.

Political group uniforms, class based rhetoric, protectionism etc are all things that fascist groups of the past have explored, yet none of them are inherently fascist.
Likewise the rightful glorification of service to the state is not inherently fascist.

Really?
Because you are acting like an Anarchist, or perhaps a Maoist.

Sure.
But people seldom know what is actually in their best interests.
That is why Neo-liberalism is such a popular ideology.

If you have to resort to tired attempts to link my ideas to the fucking nazis, then you clearly have no interest in constructive argumentation.

tbh the "something greater than oneself" is a good ideal.
i know with the flag i'm walking RIGHT into it, but it's genuinely a good thing to have some kind of higher societal purpose - I mean, the USSR had "building communism" and the west had the vague idea of scientific progress during the space race. Even if you aren't personally doing much more than giving out parking tickets, it's useful to have people feel they're part of that.

There are three ways of reading this. One of them makes "their interest" meaningless, one of them contains a tiny internal conflict between perceived interest, and what the ego wants, and one of them makes humans such monstrous creatures that fascists would be heroes for killing en-masse in war.
Then there's a secondary consideration: Perceive to be their interest. Manipulating perception is so easy even dogs try it.

And if you don't agree with the government your only recourse should be complete overthrow? If you think a system in which only those who already agree are allowed input can work you're fucking retarded.

Hol' up
from an earlier comment
This is literally what fascism is, a capitalist state that has decayed into militarism, xenophobia and complete intellectual hegemony with an elite class who control the state, usually tied to the military
This is a line pulled by Richard Spencer, recently and every fascistic ideologue at one point in time.
The elite class
Case and point, does their dick taste good? You have the predilections of a rabid homosexual.

...

That reading of Clockwork Orange is probably correct, but it makes sense that Holla Forums would like Burgess since he was a weird tradcath reactionary.

Robert Heinlein fucking sucks who gives a shit

Also the fact that Barry Lyndon was about an Irishman, and the a good chunk of the movie was filmed in Ireland

Here's more.

What a bunch of fucking wanks.

I'd really love to know how many people on Holla Forums are beyond Tier 1.

what fucking garbage lists, only the ancap one is decent. The rest are absolute garbage.

I'm kind of annoyed that the only right wing sources you find on the French Revolution are written by either Liberal-Conservative or Tory Anglos.
I heard that Frenchies don't like translating their stuff for us dumb third thirdworlders but this is just bullshit. I want to read about the freemason-jewish conspiracy and about the wronged moral and pious royals and the maddened blood thirsty satanist revolutionaires, not about the lack of personal freedoms and the decadent aristocracy.

I'd like to know how many of those books the people who made the images have actually read.
My estimate is sub-10% read, with sub-50% "I skimread the wikiquotes" and ~80% "I at least looked at it on Wikipedia/Amazon to get the gist of it and find a photo of the cover."

Property was also held in common, and people were governed by the vanguard.

vonnegut isnt right wing, he was a socialist.
But the short story "Harrison bergeron" is an evisceration of the tyranny of forced equality and identity politics.

Its pretty much "what if tumbler ran the government"

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harrison_Bergeron

In the year 2081, the 211th, 212th, and 213th amendments to the Constitution dictate that all Americans are fully equal and not allowed to be smarter, better-looking, or more physically able than anyone else. The Handicapper General's agents enforce the equality laws, forcing citizens to wear "handicaps": masks for those who are too beautiful, loud radios that disrupt thoughts inside the ears of intelligent people, and heavy weights for the strong or athletic.

One April, 14-year-old Harrison Bergeron, an intelligent and athletic teenager, is taken away from his parents, George and Hazel Bergeron, by the government. They are barely aware of the tragedy, as Hazel has "average" intelligence (a euphemism for stupidity), and George has a handicap radio installed by the government to regulate his above-average intelligence.

Hazel and George watch ballet on television. They comment on the dancers, who are weighed down to counteract their gracefulness and masked to hide their attractiveness. George's thoughts are continually interrupted by the different noises emitted by his handicap radio, which piques Hazel's curiosity and imagination regarding handicaps. Noticing his exhaustion, Hazel urges George to lie down and rest his "handicap bag", 47 pounds (21 kg) of weights locked around George's neck. She suggests taking a few of the weights out of the bag, but George resists, aware of the illegality of such an action.

On television, a news reporter struggles to read the bulletin and hands it to the ballerina wearing the most grotesque mask and heaviest weights. She begins reading in her unacceptably natural, beautiful voice, then apologizes before switching to a more unpleasant voice. Harrison's escape from prison is announced, and a full-body photograph of Harrison is shown, indicating that he is seven feet (2.1 m) tall and burdened by three hundred pounds (140 kg) of handicaps.

George recognizes his son for a moment, before having the thought eliminated by his radio. Harrison himself then storms the television studio in an attempt to overthrow the government. He calls himself the Emperor and rips off all of his handicaps, along with the handicaps of a ballerina, whom he proclaims his "Empress". He orders the musicians to play, promising them royalty if they do their best. Unhappy with their initial attempt, Harrison takes control for a short while, and the music improves. After listening and being moved by the music, Harrison and his Empress dance while flying to the ceiling, then pause in mid-air to kiss.

Diana Moon Glampers, the Handicapper General, enters the studio and kills Harrison and the Empress with a ten-gauge double-barreled shotgun. She forces the musicians to put on their handicaps, and the television goes dark. George, unaware of the televised incident, returns from the kitchen and asks Hazel why she was crying, to which she replies that something sad happened on television that she cannot remember. He comforts her and they return to their average lives.

am i inappropriately contrarian if i think there might be a spark of a good idea in handicapping people to meet the aim of abolishing social capital without having to kill anyone?

he probably wrote that story to insult retards like you

you get the bullet.

That implies I get paid dear user :^)

...

The Bookchin list is fine if you really dig communalism. I'd toss in some Kaczynski for good measure.

Third image would be a decent book-path for a course on understanding the fundamentals communist economics with a decent amount of historical context. Not awful. Could benefit from adding the BREAD book and Bakunin.

Fourth list is just throwing everything against the wall in no real order.

You forgot "the most dangerous man in America" Walt Disney

tbh this story looks like the eternal right-wing strawmanning of equality being about making everyone the same.

Based succdom

General Glampers did nothing wrong tbh, Vonnegut described the perfect society.

After reading that I've finally had a clarification.
Everything in right wing literature should only be read in a "What not to do way." because of how fucking stupid the ideas are.

What does Holla Forums think of Industrial Society And Its Future?

Best fiction reading list I've seen in a while.

my sides have been shagged backwards m8

WEW
Christian identity, with all the jew removed!

Unexpected.

I really liked that touch to be honest, especially since it was saved for last.

That doesn't strike me as a natural enmity. See how close ancaps and libertarians are to fascists nowadays.

Given Vonnegut's politics, I always interpreted Harrison Bergeron as a mockery of objectivism, especially the fact that it's built atop fiction instead of theory.

I'm thinking of some unflattering adjectives, but "contrarian" isn't anywhere near among them.

breddy gud, post i in the booru and OC thread

The 1st and 3rd one have been passed around as intros to Marxism to people who are already above Holla Forums-tier, but I confess the philosophy one is way above me. The economic one seems okay tho.

Are these two really that bad, Holla Forums?

Freikorps = socdem death squads. (allegedly.)
I was hoping someone would give a reply like this so I could articulate the justification for that (because I couldn't think of a way to do it unilaterally that didn't seem too off topic and ponderous.)
It's basically a response to counteract the individualist approach we have today, where it's all about individuals, their talents, skills, etc, without enough appreciation of collective endeavour. The entrepreneur is our hero, rather than the workers he directs who do the actual work. If you want to vulgarize it to Holla Forums levels, it's an instinct that says "I would prefer society became too collectivist because I'm sick of it being too individualist."

In terms of a hypothetical implementation to illustrate the instinct, it would be banning people from the fruits of collective efforts to drive home the fact that they aren't the isolated individual they think they are. (i.e. in an industrial dispute where a Randian superman is fighting the workers in his factory, it should be perfectly legitimate for workers in other unrelated sectors to shut off his electricity, his water, etc. At an extreme and perhaps over-spiteful level, perhaps even revoking police protection and if someone wants to break his jaw, well, John Galt should've defended himself rather than asking for handouts…) In other words in most circumstances "handicaps" could be imposed socially rather than on the individual level. You're very funny, but Thatcherite? We don't need to stop you from telling jokes - just don't expect to do it on council property, television or the internet… I'm sure your dinner guests will enjoy your wit!
Remember, this is a hypothetical example rather than a proposal - but the gist of the thought ought to be that bad people should be subject to some form of unilateral revocation of the social contract until they learn their lesson. The world's best general is nothing without his soldiers, and if he forgets that his soldiers should shoot him. Though I do think there's a serious role in society for trade unions bullying the bourgeoisie.

That should hopefully pin down the spark. Less an opposition to individual talent (go Stakhanovites!), and more an opposition to individual egotism. The serious proposal is less that we actually go around encouraging gangsters to beat up Elon Musk, and more that we keep the instinct in mind in all areas of policy. (i.e. in the most distant sense, levying a wealth tax in a hypothetical society where all wealth is entrepreneurial, which will hit individuals to benefit the collective. Ideally if possible with some element of hitting the most insufferable individuals the hardest, though in real policy you must be subtle with this.)

...

Does anyone have a Zizek reading guide? I think I've seen one on here before but didn't save it.

I swear to god whenever they include Orwell I feel like they are trying to use it as a handbook

...

They're just trying to inflate the number of books by including ones they read in school

i just started at zizek

does this make me a brainlet
or him?

Keynes is a fascist not a socdem