Best literature against globalism and in favor of nationalism?

Best literature against globalism and in favor of nationalism?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=jqRIGLxuQ0g
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

...

Read literally any political literature that isn't obvious jewish shilling and you should come up with Nationalism as a natural conclusion.

...

"anything i disagree with is jewish shilling"

I have yet to read any of these. I am curious myself, I also want to then start reading pro Commie lit after this

>It's another /pol/ baits /reddit/ thread

I hate to just give you a hand and help you out but I browse /pol/ too so whatever.

Stop looking for nationalism books, especially recent ones. Think of today's neo-nazis, then picture them writing a book. Very edgy and overall terrible.

If you read just about anything written before 1950 - - barring it isn't from known communist writers-- it's going to be redpilled by today's standards.

To really recommend good stuff: Read Nietzsche. Many Germans read him before and during the rise of National Socialism. To get a grasp of Nietzsche, read Plato and Kant.

For fiction, read: Tolstoy, Hemingway, Fitzgerald. Just some people who make you long for the way things used to be.

Read historic books. You can't be redpilled without knowing and grasping the bluepill so it's good to listen and read left wing garbage.


Really, the best thing for anyone to read in order to become redpilled is Nietzsche. I'm sure I'll be called edgy on this board or whatever but he truly has the most advancing philosophy for humanity and is by far the most well read out any of the bunch. I think he belongs on humanity's Rushmore. Zarathustra is absolutely incredible.

>No Heidegger, Evola, Weininger Etc.
???

...

Nothing because being against globalisation is utter dogshit tier

Hemingway was a socialist to the degree of literally being a KGB asset.

Probably also a closeted fag.

Nietzsche was an individualist anti-nationalist 'freethinker' paneuropeanist and anti-conservative. He liked aristocracy and hierarchy but detested populism and antisemitism and most other stuff associated with National Socialism.

By /pol/ standards he's anything but redpilled. He proposed to breed Prussian military officers with the daughters of Jewish bankers.

Socialism and nationalism aren't exclusive. In fact you could make the case that they only work together.

The stuff that is considered "leftist" nowadays, at least in the US (globalist capitalism, open borders, SJWs...) is not part of traditional left.

Also Fitzgerald was a Marxist.

History in general. Knowledge of the world in general.

The main point is that there are groups of people who benefit from globalism and free migration and groups of people who lose.

>For fiction, read: Tolstoy, Hemingway, Fitzgerald
>Not Papini, Hesse, Borges, Pessoa, Eliot

There's a reason why most intellectuals are globalist.

It's because nationalism is a philosophy for the narrow-minded proles. If you are a nationalist, it means you have pride in artificial concepts like borders and racial identity.

>There's a reason why most intellectuals are globalist.
wew
>it means you have pride in artificial concepts like borders and racial identity.
WEW

That isn't really fair, he wasn't considered useful or good enough to be considered a proper KGB asset.

Isn't Mishima the most obvious choice in fiction?

>year 2100
>Expecting anything other than United Earth to fight off aliens and conquer the galaxy

earth would stand a better chance without the dead weight

useless philosophers and writers?

>He liked aristocracy and hierarchy
No, not particularly. In fact Heidegger's reading (who others on here seem to think is right wing) was that workers had the Will to Power more than anyone. For Nietzsche aristocracy is only halfway possibly decent when new rulers install themselves after a revolution but that quickly degenerates. His two examples are Napoleon and his nephew (that you may notice a lot of people at the time commented on, famously they were first as tragedy then as farce with Marx) and Jesus. An aristocracy is even more subject to failure because the next ruler is in the shadows if all the old. Where he is pro aristocracy is in this idea of an aristocratic soul, but again you're more likely to find them in a garden shed than a palace.

>who others on here seem to think is right wing
Ah, Philo 101 I see.

>Joyce dies
>Hemmingway joins the KGB
Coincidence?

Tell me about H's garden houses then wise user. What does it truly mean?

Pic related.

He's the only modern and socially/academically acceptable conservative writer you'll find.

Trying to be a Societ spy as an American is not compatible with being nationalist. Neither is living most of your life abroad and posturing with how exotic and non-American your life is.

He was in all ways a traitor to his country.

Do people not know what the word "literature" means.

Proposal for sticky to clarify that "literature" is not synonymous with "book."

You're probably the one who doesn't know what literature means, user. It's not just fiction novels.

>scruton calling people frauds

In 2002 it emerged that Scruton had been receiving a fee of £54,000 p.a. from Japan Tobacco International (JTI) during a period when he had written about tobacco issues without declaring an interest.[64][65] He wrote articles for The Wall Street Journal in 1998 and 2000, and in 2000 wrote a 65-page pamphlet —"WHO, What, and Why: Trans-national Government, Legitimacy and the World Health Organisation"—for the Institute of Economic Affairs, a British free-market think-tank. The pamphlet criticized the World Health Organization's (WHO) campaign against smoking, arguing that transnational bodies should not seek to influence domestic legislation because they are not answerable to the electorate. He wrote that overall he was against tobacco—his own father died of emphysema after smoking for many years—but that it was an innocent pleasure.[66]

The payments became public when a letter to Japan Tobacco International signed by Professor Scruton's wife was leaked, in which they were asked to increase the payments to £66,000 p.a., in exchange for which "We would aim to place an article every two months in one or other of the WSJ (Wall Street Journal), the Times, the Telegraph, the Spectator, the Financial Times, the Economist, the Independent or the New Statesman." The failure to disclose these payments had the consequence that Scruton was no longer asked to write articles for the Financial Times[67] and Wall Street Journal.[68][69][70]

This has gotta be the most cringeworthy shit I've read on this board in years or it's really, really good bait that is just subtle enough to give hints that it may be bait

/pol/acks are mostly underage or retarded, so I would't be suprised if it was serious

>socially/academically acceptable conservative writer
aka controlled opposition

"Fiction novels" is redundant, hun.

*pats your head, gently*

Jews fear the samurai

>Zarathustra
What do you need to read before get into this?

Plato's "Laws"
>original colonist are selectively hand-picked.
>foreigners are welcome, and should be respected by citizens, for the purpose of needing them pragmatically for trade, but they're also restricted from becoming citizens unless they win over tribunal elders proving that they assimilated into the community. Foreigners are only restricted to staying for only a certain amount of years before getting forced out.
>conventional currency is eliminated among the populace, though it's kept around by the treasury for buying foreign supplies and when people travel for either recreational or diplomatic purposes.
>property is divided up among the populace to prevent inequality.
>promotes being self-reliant on their own produced goods as far as possible, and not relying on foreign trade.
>gods and festivals are restricted to what the State approves, no one can bring in differing or foreign ones.
>foreign influence on culture and society should always be constantly reviewed and censored if it could be damaging on the State's morales and ethics in the long-run.
>everyone, including women, are compelled to take up military training and exercise routinely for their own defense and for the State's.
>anyone who doesn't start a family or have kids is shunned; those who are infertile or can't produce more kids are compelled to adopt orphans.
>the main city should be far away from the sea and be landlock so travel and communication to the outside world isn't easy.

Jews make the samurai burn.

yurope is 250 pages of shitting on globalists and leftists

>not having pride in your culture, country, and race

Dismissed.

I honestly wonder why 101 is seen as an insult.

If even beginner students are taught it, it can't be that off or controversial. At worst, it may be a simplified version.

>having pride in things which you did nothing for
>having pride in things which largely exist for people other than me (the bourgeoisie) (okay okay, my country is relatively egalitarian and democratic but still)

Also read about the history of nationalism. Large parts of your national identity were invented just for the purposes of nationalism.

Hemmingway was trans, not gay

Almost everything else by Nietzsche. Along with that the Greeks, the Bible, every prereq of Schopenhauer because you also need Schopenhauer. Then Darwin and other evolutionists, psychologists, and Vico and Malthus. Then keep going because N liked to read a hell of a lot.

Nationalism has no place in our postnational world. The very idea of borders and countries will cease to exist. Homogenization is the way of the world now and will continue until only one flag unites us all. This is becoming more evident with the rise of social media.

Fucking debunked.

Yeah, eventually it will. With time cultures do cease to exist. But when you force that shit, you get nationalists.

Rather than depending on mass immigration and international trade countries should first build themselves up and be independent then if there is excess of supplies and jobs you take in people from other countries. That's what would've gradually happened. But currently it is being forced on people without an actual excess of supply and all we're getting from it is more violence.

S O U M I S S I O N

If that's the only thing you can take pride in, you should consider to kys to cleanse the genetic pool in favour of more capable beings.

This is such a bad logo design

I'd argue that has already happened in the bigger global powers of the UK and the US. But now its encroaching on countries that haven't really had any sort of foothold on the global stage getting flooded with immigrants/refugees (see Belgium). The fact of the matter is that the Eurostates are now sit in a threshold where anything they do is a catch twenty two.
Its beguiling the only "nationalist" group today (for lack of a better word) is the Kurds. Hell, even ISIS is globalist in a mutated way.
These are exciting times

>haven't really had any sort of foothold on the global stage getting flooded with immigrants/refugees (see Belgium).
You mean the country that took over the Congo and is now the headquarters for the EU?

Napoleon of Notthing Hill by G.K.Chesterton comes to mind as a particularly great read don the subject.
It's very specific in endorsment of national pride and borders.

In your own opinion, why does this seen like a good idea to you?

Honestly nationalists are the modern day equivalent of the luddites in the 19th century who tried to destroy industrialisation by throwing spanners into threshing machines.

No
If anything his works show how faulty tradition is

> the Bible
To be fair, plenty of western people with some sort of religious education can do without really reading the bible.

Doesn't only go for Nietzsche, also a lot of other things.

Also nothing stops anyone from diving into Zarathustra without any prior knowledge about anything related.
Its a well written and beautiful book.
And if you want to understand a philosopher, you never just read their work a single time. You re-read and you read secondary sources and so on and so on. It doesn't really matter whether you fully understand it the first time (you won't)

We are an evolving species. Now that evolution has integrated itself into our policies and societal forces. A united world is the future we are spiraling towards. Its inevitable. Death of religion, outdated capital ways, evolving media are all facets that will influence the creation of a one world.

I hope all cuckasian follow this and goes extinct within a century or so .

Worst of all is the fact that snow niggers unironically espouse these bullshits.It's not the J00$ that /pol/ should be worried about.

Haha you got me. We're the real threat to the world now.

Socialism as a movement seeks to end the present way of things, that includes borders, nations, classes, property and wage-labour. Socialism is not compatible with nationalism.

Postin nationalist material

There is a conversation in The Exiled Dialouges about how nationalism is just a way of looking to the past and thinking that your lineage was part of some greater glory and not just downtrodden peasants who got abused and exploited. That even the children of beggars and whores can look back at nobility and feel pride in them, even though their folk got the short end of the stick.

No need to flatter yourself ,You are the real threat to yourself, why should we be worry about a race of cucks and whores.

What worries us is the ones that will come in as a replacement.Not you ,not at all.

post 2

> revolutionary national socialists that idolize Charles Manson

Edgy as fuck but still a great read, why isn't this mentioned in any right wing literature charts?

>Rather than depending on mass immigration and international trade countries should first build themselves up and be independent then if there is excess of supplies and jobs you take in people from other countries. That's what would've gradually happened. But currently it is being forced on people without an actual excess of supply and all we're getting from it is more violence.

You seem to have zero understanding of capitalism. This could have never happend.

...

...

post 3

Most humans cannot cope with the idea of a godless world. There will always be a power vacuum in these people that government will happily fill. We've already evolved past capitalism. Today we are ran by the corporations who are putting your idea into place. Media will possibly never be fully controlled unless they rid the world of Internet.


These aren't good things. We've made it pretty damn far by being unique individuals, conforming would pretty much stop all innovation.

Wait a minute... were Tarot cards always there for the brown pill? I thought there were actual books there last time I saw this chart.

anything by Hegel

What the hell are you talking about? Just sprouting memes and buzzwords. Get out of your favela and experience the world shitdick.

I don't think it's about that much about the godless world, than an absence of an absolute dominant hierarchy.Without which Civilization and social structures can't be sustained.

People can on an individual level can very well cope with that,and they are doing so by giving into hedonism or becoming the nietzschean last man.Given it will be a very bleak existence and will eventually fuck shit up.

As for conformity,i don't think it's an major issue of our age,One can conform to a collective while simultaneously keeping the individualistic aspect thriving .

Most people will eventually have to face the fact of a godless world and will be left wondering how to fill that void. Consumerism has already superseded that in the West (whether some realise or not). There will be a breaking point of corporate interests by the way how Brexit and the TPP is handled. Media will become crowdfunded via internet, as happened during Arab Spring

I truly wonder what will happen when European nations start dipping below 50% white
fairly sure Germany will submit

Favela and basement dwelling maybe quite common among you cucks but here we actually have to work for a living and contribute instead of leaching off the welfare.You fucks disgusts me,once a great civilization now getting railed up the ass by mud people,cuz "muh patriotism is shamefur" "muh lyfe muh rule".

Fuck off and kill yourself

The cucks will probably help spread their wives' puusy lips to fit in Muslim cock.
youtube.com/watch?v=jqRIGLxuQ0g

It's over can't you see? you aren't in control of your own life so you hate anyone who is. SAD

Classic NEET rebuttal .

What makes you think that contributing automatically makes you not in control of your own life??

If anything then,being a freeloader and failing to provide for your basic needs is what makes you a slave and not the other way around.

Thats a nice assumption. What exactly do you do? Post on Burmese napkin dispensing boards on how you're the savior of the white race; meanwhile no self respecting woman would ever touch you? Sure proved me wrong.

>this niggah never heard of Sloterdijk

>Nazi's read Nietzsche
>doesn't understand how Friedrich' sister fucked his shit up and how Nietzsche would've been absolutely aversive to the Third Reich.

This is all on the same level as women in mid life crisis mode going very spiritual. Yoga, feng shui, self help books but right wing versions for their rebellious man children.

Why is Thomas Mann on this list? He actively opposed the NS party and became increasingly sympathetic to socialism over the course of his life. He fled Germany and his citizenship was revoked.

Also, why on earth is William Blake on this list?

>maybe if I discredit their philosophy with shitty ad hominems it will go away

Nationalism is not a universalist ideology, every nation has its own myths it needs to embody its particular values and interests of its community. German nationalism isn't analogus to all other nationalisms (though great thinkers like Fichte, von Herder and Junger are certainly worth reading in their contexts)

I'm Irish and much of our Nationalist canon comes from the Young Ireland movement (John Mitchel, Thomas Davis, Charles Gavin Duffy), Fenianism (John O'Leary), the Irish literary revival (Yeats, O'Grady, Martyn, Lady Gregory), the Easter rebels (Pearse, Connolly, McDonagh, Plunkett) and northern nationalists (Heaney, Montague, Fennell)

Mann was associated with the Conservative Revolutionary movement in the 20's, Buddenbrooks is a good example of his criticism of bourgeois ideals from a conservative protagonist

Ah, haven't read it. Why is Magic Mountain on the list? I ask because I am currently reading it (about two thirds of the way through).

Why should i even bother to prove you wrong,given you yourself didn't provided anything substantial to prove your assumptions right to begin with??

A basic "NO U" will suffice here.

As for the "savior of white race", it's us who benefits from the decline of the west.So I don't really care about the race,if anything then it makes me cringe at this point.

It would be better if people like you stop deflecting and realize that this delusion of "in control of our own life" is far from the truth and is merely an euphemism for your incompetence as an adult.

>globalism
Has been a thing since before the dawn of civilization. Trade networks, you know.

Honestly you gave exactly zero posts with any substance and arguments on this thread so why the fuck would you expect that other guy to give any back to you? You faggots always do this shit, you spout some stupid shit with zero substance and then get all "OH WOW NICE REBUTTAL KEKLORD" when someone else gives you a response at the same level of your posts.

(NOU)
I'm not going to post anything related to my career on this board just to prove a point; because you'll do nothing but largely ignore it and try to argue your way around it.


How is the West in decline (protip: don't use degeneracy as a counter) while we are at a precipice of larger cultural change we are hardly in decline.


mah nigga

nah he was just your flawed tragic hero who used nationalism as a front to off himself after years of repressing his homoeroticism

>international trade is the same as globalism

I bet you're the type of cunt that thinks a barter economy is capitalism and that welfare is socialism.

What makes you assume that i was arguing to begin with?

Also don't miss out that the user didn't presented an argument either,instead went on to raise matters of personal affairs based on nothing but thin air.Hence my reply.

> we are at a precipice of larger cultural change we are hardly in decline.

I can't help but to laugh at the denial of an archetypal Last Man. What makes it funnier is that you often comes up with euphemism for your demise and short comings,expecting it will change the nature of those.

Hence "incompetence" becomes "independence" and a "demographic genocide" becomes "cultural change".

So...based?