Header image is The Embrace by Beneš Knüpfer.


  1. Introduction
  2. Reading list
  3. What to read: When and why
    3.1. Health
    3.2. History and philosophy
    3.3. Racial politics
    3.4. Basic political theory
    3.5. Tradition vs modernity
    3.6. Technology and collapse

1. Introduction

Someone asked me to create an introductory reading list for Right-Wing politics and philosophy. I’ve found that most Right-Wing reading lists are either excessively long or consist entirely of 20th century Fascist propaganda leaflets, which isn’t very helpful if you’re looking for a holistic introduction to (right-wing) politics. I’ve tried to put together something that’s more politically practical.

Always bear in mind that reading a handful of high quality books is infinitely better than reading an entire library of babble and nonsense. You have limited time and limited brain space, so use them wisely. In the words of Schopenhauer:

One can never read too little of bad, or too much of good books: bad books are intellectual poison; they destroy the mind. […] It would be a good thing to buy books if one could also buy the time to read them; but one usually confuses the purchase of books with the acquisition of their contents.

I’ve highlighted 15 books for “required reading” below, and included a bunch more that I’ve read or know to be of good quality. If you really hate reading, then look for audiobooks or politically neutral video essay summaries of the works (e.g. Philisophize This).

2. Reading List

* = Required reading (or at least find a good summary, at the bare minimum)

Background Reading:


  • Salter, On Genetic Interests: Family, Ethnicity and Humanity in an Age of Mass Migration (2003) *
  • American Renaissance key issues page (various dates) *

General Political Theory:

  • Aristotle, Politics (~350 BC) *
  • Hobbes, Leviathan (1651) *
  • Machiavelli, The Prince (1532) *
  • Schmitt, Concept of the Political (1932) *

Politics (Modern Left vs Right, intro)

  • Houck, Liberalism Unmasked (2018) *
  • Bowden, Why I am not a Liberal (2020, short essay)

Tradition vs Modernity

  • Raido, A Handbook of Traditional Living: Theory and Practice (2010) *
  • Spengler, The Decline of the West (1923, or abridged version 1991) *
  • Guenon, Reign of Quantity (1945)
  • Evola, Orientations (short essay) and Men Among the Ruins (1950s)

Right-Wing Philosophy:

  • Nietzsche, On the Genealogy of Morality (1887) *
  • Junger, Storm of Steel (1920)
  • Mishima, Sun and Steel (1968)
  • Bronze Age Mindset, BAP (2018) *

Other books of interest:
(That I can immediately remember, will maybe add more in future)

  • Seneca, On the Shortness of Life (49 AD)
  • Machiavelli, Discourses on Livy (1531)
  • Yamamoto, Hagakure: Secret Wisdom of the Samurai (1716)
  • Burke, Reflections on the Revolution in France (1790)
  • Carlyle, On Heroes, Hero-Worship, and The Heroic in History (1841)
  • Redbeard, Might is Right (1890, warning: not Christian-friendly)
  • Ludovici, A Defence of Conservatism (1927)
  • Tainter, Collapse of Complex Societies (1988)
  • Mallory & Adams, Oxford Introduction to Proto-Indo-European World (2006)
  • Buchanan, Churchill, Hitler and The Unnecessary War (2008)
  • Kaczynski, Technological Slavery (2010)

Leftist books of interest:
(Know thy enemy)

  • Marx & Engels, Communist Manifesto (1848)
  • Wells, The Open Conspiracy (1928)
  • Gramsci, Prison Notebooks (1935)
  • Huxley, Brave New World (1932)
  • Reich, Sexuality in the Culture War (1936)
  • Orwell, Nineteen Eighty-Four (1949)
  • Adorno, The Authoritarian Personality (1950)
  • Marcuse, Eros and Civilization (1955)
  • Marcuse, Repressive Tolerance (1965)
  • Critical Race Theory: An Intro. (2017)

3. What to read: When and why

Below is the general reading order I advise. I created it with total novices in mind. So, obviously, it won’t apply to everybody.

TL;DR explanation:

  • Health stuff: You should maintain a good physical and mental state to avoid becoming demoralized, and then turning into a blackpiller who undermines your own allies with despair posting.
  • Overviews of European history and philosophy: So you have an understanding of political/philosophical arguments, and tangible historical examples upon which you can base your own arguments.
  • Race realism: Simply to understand that racial and ethnic conflict is, and will always be, the primary (but not only) driver of history.
  • General political theory: It’s very important to understand what “politics” actually means; this will hopefully prevent you from wasting time with schizo ideologies and ground your politics in reality.
  • Tradition vs Modernity and general Right-Wing philosophy: I’d recommend starting with Nietzsche’s Genealogy of Morality, then Raido’s Handbook, which is a comprehensive summary of Evolian thought, and Bronze Age Mindset.

Again, this is just a general guide. It won’t apply to everyone.

Less TL;DR explanation:

3.1. Health

Everything in the Postwar West is strategically designed to destroy your mental, physical, and spiritual wellbeing: Toxic vegan slop diets, inactive lifestyles, constant bombardment of pornographic imagery, brain-frying social media, the list is near-endless. The powers that be want you physically enfeebled and doped-up to the eyeballs to prevent you from noticing and resisting their nefarious world-domination scheme. If you don’t maintain some level of physical fitness, you won’t maintain any mental fitness, then you’ll get demoralized, and become useless and toxic, and infect everyone around you with demoralization. This is a cancer on any political movement, regardless of ideology.

I recommend that you check out this short PDF (~90 pages) which contains general advice on diet and nutrition, exercise, hormonal health, supplementation, endocrine disruption, etc. The author wrote: “My goal in this guide is to lay all this info out so that you don’t have to spend the time researching information in all corners of the internet and libraries. So that you can focus on your goals – whether to create beauty, art, have children”

3.2. History and philosophy

History is foundational to politics. Racial history, expressed via national myth, is essential to the survival of a people. A nation without a shared history or national mythos can be more easily reduced to an amorphous mass of self-serving individuals, rather than one collective national organism. These people are still united by blood, of course, but biological necessity alone is generally only enough to unite a dis-unified people in face of an overt threat (e.g., extinction, war, etc.). To erase a peoples’ history makes them easier to destroy; as the civil rights activist Maya Angelou said, “If you don’t know where you’ve come from, you don’t know where you’re going.”

For a general overview of European history, try books like ‘Mythology’ by Edith Hamilton, or ‘Europe: A History’ by Norman Davies. If you’re really short on time, the Wikipedia article “History of Western Civilization” is actually a pretty good overview of the main events and is broken into different stages of history (I use it when I can’t remember dates of stuff).

With regards to politics, history acts as a foundation upon which we can build our own beliefs by providing real-world examples that we can use as reference to justify our ideas and theories. “Those who don’t learn from history are doomed to repeat it” doesn’t just apply to cringy Leftists who whine about genocides. History is integral to our ability to understand what makes a society strive or collapse, the difference between a great leader and a despised failure, and so on. Certain ideologies almost entirely discard history and work on the basis of pure utopian fantasy, which results in them being completely unfeasible. Any country that implemented Anarcho-Communism, for example, would soon collapse into complete chaos, or be overwhelmed and subjugated by its neighboring enemies.

How you engage with history is also important. The systemic powers of the Postwar West provide a very useful “not what do to” tutorial, in their constant manipulation and revision of history. Rather than denying or erasing history outright (Soviet-style), they simply mutate history to retroactively justify their current ideological position. For example, consider the way that the modern Left describes the Roman empire: It was not a brutal, martial, expansionist, Italian supremacist, imperial state, powered by slavery, oppression, and subjugation, but a cosmopolitan empire in which people of every race were tolerated and welcomed, akin to modern bourgeois multiracial society; “anyone could be a Roman, just like anyone can be a European today :).”

This approach is in no way useful to somebody who wishes to understand the world or create a functional political ideology. Its purpose is to indoctrinate, confuse, and misdirect the masses, to maintain the hegemonic power of the existing elite. Machiavelli’s ‘Discourses on Livy,’ in which he sets out to uncover the source of Rome’s greatness, is the quintessential example of “history used correctly.”

Oswald Spengler’s ‘The Decline of the West,’ in which he posited a revolutionary philosophy of history (the “philosophy of fate”) may also be useful to read, if only to break with the Liberal linear view of history. Spengler compares eight “high cultures” throughout history, including Babylonian, Egyptian, and Greco-Roman, identifying that they all followed a consistent cyclical pattern of growth and decay, analogous to the life cycles of biological organisms.

Alongside studying history, you should also familiarize yourself with philosophy in general, since there’s a lot of overlap between philosophy and politics. A basic introduction or overview should initially suffice; check out ‘A New History of Western Philosophy’ by Anthony Kenny. I don’t advise diving deeply into any one philosopher until you have a very basic overview of philosophy as a whole. Bear in mind that philosophy is essentially pointless bloviating if it isn’t applied practically or used to inform something practical.

3.3. Racial politics

Once you have a general understanding of history, you should learn about race and culture, focusing on the relationship between politics and human biology / anthropology / ecology / biodiversity / etc. I use “race” as an informal synonym for nation, ethnic group, species, subspecies, and so on — “biological group,” basically.

The biggest problem of the modern world is that Whites have been completely de-racialized, while all other races have been made hyper-aware of the realities of race. Most Whites claim that they “don’t see color,” while those Whites who do “see color,” believe that White = evil. This is simply a suicidal perspective to adopt. If you hate your kin, you will work towards their extinction.

What must be understood is that humans are no different from any other species on earth, whereby different biological groups have different survival strategies and behaviors. It is also important to understand what motivates these behaviors: Biological and environmental factors, physically weak vs physically strong peoples, intelligent vs unintelligent peoples, nomadic vs settled peoples, rich vs poor peoples, etc.

Understanding the basic distinctions between biological groups will save you from wasting time pondering the answers to incredibly simple questions. For example: “Why do Hispanics, who are predominantly socially conservative, always support far-left policies when they reside in the United States?” Answer: Because they are an invasive out-group that is biologically driven to take the resources and territory of the settled in-group (i.e., White people, who are represented by the Right-Wing). Understanding race will greatly improve your understanding and interpretation of history.

From a scientific perspective, you could look into the works of people such as J. Philippe Rushton or Richard Lynn. With regard to racial politics, you could look into works such as Race And The American Prospect by Samuel Francis or the ‘issues’ page on the American Renaissance website, which covers all of the relevant basics in detail. The book ‘On Genetic Interests: Family, Ethnicity and Humanity in an Age of Mass Migration’ by Frank Salter is unmissable.

3.4. Basic political theory

Before looking into more complicated Right-Wing politics and philosophy, my advice is to start by learning the basics of political theory via people such as Machiavelli, a pioneer of modern political science and philosophy; Carl Schmitt, an excellent anti-Liberal political theorist; and Thomas Hobbes, another pioneer of modern political philosophy. Aristotle’s ‘Politics’ is also a good introductory book.

[Note: Links above lead to quick introductory videos on each thinker].

The timeless work of Machiavelli, which is primarily concerned with attaining and maintaining power, is particularly important to understand. Although he talks of princes, aristocracy, and peasantry, the power dynamics between the different castes of society have changed very little since the days of Machiavelli. We still have a ruling elite, lording over upper, middle, and lower classes, which squabble for power among themselves. Machiavelli’s theories are still applicable to our era, all you need to do is shuffle around some terminology.

Familiarizing yourself with basic political theory will save you a colossal amount of time and, hopefully, prevent you from falling into traps, such as fantasy ideologies — those that are, and will always be, functionally impossible to implement: Libertarianism, Anarchism, Communism (as in the stateless utopia, not Communism in practice), etc.

3.5. Tradition vs modernity

Once you have an understanding of basic political theory, race, history, and philosophy, it would be a good idea to read some literature that deals with the nature of modernity itself, its origins, and how it contrasts the premodern world. This will give you a decent understanding of what it means to be ‘Right-Wing’ or ‘Conservative.’

In my opinion, the best introduction to the Modernity vs Tradition distinction comes via people such as Julius Evola (e.g.: ‘Orientations,’ ‘Men Among the Ruins’, or ‘Revolt Against The Modern World’), who was inspired by René Guénon (see: ‘Crisis of the Modern World,’ ‘The Reign of Quantity,’ etc.) and the philosophical ‘Traditionalist School’ (which is distinct from Evola’s political Traditionalism).

In the most profane terms, Evola’s Traditionalist political philosophy can be summarized as: “These values existed in every successful society throughout all of history until the disastrous French Revolution. They make society function normally. We should return to and maintain these values.” Traditionalism is not simply the continuation of ancestral practices (e.g., tribal dances or religious ritual) for mere aesthetic purposes, nor is it a quest to return to 1950s Coca Cola adverts (“modernity, but racist and sexist”). Traditionalism is the maintenance of the hierarchical ordering principles that have been present in every successful civilization and society in recorded history.

Generally speaking, Traditionalism, offers one of the best critiques of Liberalism to date (even if it is, at times, needlessly aloof and “esoteric”). Many other so-called “Anti-Liberal” philosophies and worldviews (e.g., Marxism, Socialism, modern “Conservatism”) are based on identical principles to Liberalism — equality, anti-hierarchy, abstract concepts of freedom, etc. — namely those of the French Revolution.

3.6. Technology and collapse

The problem of technology is ignored by far too many nationalists today, despite the fact that it is becoming an increasingly large threat, not just to Whites but humanity as a whole. Globalists already have overt plans to digitize our entire societies, introduce widespread artificial intelligence, robotics, gene editing, microchipping, trans-humanism, etc., much of which will be implemented in the impending Fourth Industrial Revolution. The Singularity, the point at which technological growth becomes uncontrollable and irreversible, is set to occur between 2040 and 2060. The threat of technology cannot be understated; the most powerful technology in the entirety of recorded history is currently in the hands of the most evil people in the entirety of recorded history.

The analysis of techno-skeptical thinkers — such as Ted Kaczynski (‘Technological Slavery’) or Jaques Ellul (‘The Technological Society’) — are as vital to the development of a holistic understanding of the modern world as the works of people such as Evola and Guénon (both of whom have criticized technology). I would recommend that you only look into anti-tech thinkers after developing an understanding of political theory, race, history, and tradition vs modernity, because they often blame technology for everything. Many of them essentially remove the actors from history, and replace them with the abstract force of capital-T Technology, as if technology has a mind of its own (which it does not) — similar to the way that Marxists replace historical actors with the abstract force of capital-C “Capitalism.”


Hope you find this helpful.