How do I write a financially successful novel, /pol/

Forgot pic.

1: Alienated people are more open to radical ideologies.
2: Right Wing Aesthetics vibrate with repressed sexuality, which is enticing and familiar to people of deviant tastes.

Nazis are hot m8 everyone knows it. /pol/ is full of semi-closeted fags who want to be hatefucked by the entire SS. They all want the obergruppenführer to find himself torn between his duty to shoot them in the back of the head and his deep carnal lust for femmeboy. They all want the bundeswehr blitzkrieg on their ladyboy lebensraum. They all want the Reichstag Rache Ramming. They want the Panzer Pounding. I have seen it Veeky Forums, I've been to a "pool party," half of them are the twinkiest little fuccbois on the planet.

The next time you see a /pol/post, just remember, it's probably a self-hating gay who fantasizes about being plucked from the gas chamber lines by the Oberst to be ravished by BIG ARYAN COCK because he never really had a good relationship with his racist father.

I'm Mexican
B& from /pol/ 2

Make your character a black transgender Muslim who has to over come lots of obstacles to discover their true identity.
Then make hir mom die of aids or something and the whole thing gets really pseudo-intellectual about death and stuff. The over all message is happy and white people are bad but make the story also have lots white people who feel bad about it and help the sjw cause.

I'm high too

>bundeswehr blitzkrieg on their ladyboy lebensraum

well played user

...

Just make up a sop story about a strong independent black woman overcoming abuse by nameless white men. Instant bestseller. Make sure to put in some nonsensical crap that makes the leftists feel intelligent, like "Only those with privilege can't understand it" or "It was through their dehumanization that I realized my humanity." Contents don't matter, just make sure it's vague, contradictory, or with an archaic sentence structure and it will be snapped up.

>projecting this hard

Write a 90 page political pamphlet calling muslims barbarians

I'm afraid there was a pamphlet written 1400 years ago which is more than up to the task of elucidating Arabic barbarism. It was called the Quran.

>already be famous
>publish book

I highly doubt you've ever even opened a Qur'an.

that might have been a good diss like six weeks after 9/11 but you can bet most of the anti-islam people have read the quran by now, and have definitely read the bible, which is more than you can say

>and have definitely read the bible
most western christians haven't gotten half way through the bible in their entire lives ya dingus

most just know half a dozen popular quotes and some church hymns

maybe you should get out of your hasidic enclave and meet some christians bro, they all read the bible, i mean actual christians who go to church not dumbass thugs with a cross tatooed on their arm or w/e

i grew up in a rural, fairly wealthy, ethnically/religiously homogeneous that was pretty much exclusively christian

at least half of people under 20 would identify as christian and pretty much everyone over 20 would as well

there of course were people who read the bible daily and made it a part of everyday life but they were in the minority

You must have met the uber-religious 10%. Most Christians do not read the bible and of those who do, many do not even understand what is written in there.

maybe, the people that actually talk to me about christianity tend to be more hardcore and so bible readers, but really this idea that if someone doesn't like islam it must be because they didn't read the quran and only if they had read it they would fall in love with this wonderful faith is a fallacy

it's true that most wouldn't fall in love with it just by reading it, but the ideologies within the bible and the quran are fairly similar so it's not something that people who have read the bible would read and outright hate
recent events by muslims (that would pretty much equate the level of the fourth christian crusade in terms of its ties to the actual religious ideology) give a pretty retarded view of islam, and portray an image of islam with a similar degree of hate to that of puritanical christians in early colonial america

point is, the book and the actions in the name of the book are so separate that to claim islam is barbarian in nature is just silly

dude, you grew up in a christian community and you can't see major differences between islam and christianity? they couldn't be more different, judaism and islam might have more in common, but islam and christianity? that's just happy horseshit by kumbaya faggots

>they couldn't be more different

>both monotheistic
>both believe in the same deity
>both are abrahamic faiths
>both recognize jesus and his virgin birth (one as a messenger of god, the other as the son of god)
>both have similar values towards salvation
>islam specifically promises salvation for all christians born before Muhammad, and regards christians above others due to their belief in the same god and their general humility towards god
"ok"

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_and_Islam

wow on the most superficial level they have some similarities! i guess that means they're the same!

>on the most superficial level
yeah, because their deity, creation story, prophets/messengers of god and values of salvation are definitely not core values

>i guess that means they're the same!
I never said they were the same, I said they were similar

>yeah, because their deity, creation story, prophets/messengers of god and values of salvation are definitely not core values

if they're the same why didn't mohammed just convert to christianity instead of starting a new religion?

>if they're the same why didn't mohammed just convert to christianity instead of starting a new religion?
because they aren't the same, they're similar

wow they're similar, then i guess we should just say fuck western civlization and all convert to islam

why don't u go get blown up in syria, faggot

>i guess we should just say fuck western civlization and all convert to islam
well you can do what you like i guess, but from that wiki link i posted above, the quran doesn't dictate hate towards christians and I haven't attempted to say that islam is the "correct" religion or that it was superior to christianity at all, just that there are core similarities between the bible and the quran

except that nazism is left-wing
so nice projection, my friend of inferior intellect

who said anything about "hate" you fucking retard, the religions are not the same, no christian is going to suddenly love islam just because they read the quran, and again it's big assumption to think people that are opposed to the islamicization of the west haven't read the koran, do you even know any muslims in real life?

>except that nazism is left-wing

wow hitler used the world "socialism" in the name to try to coopt the labor movement into nazism, i guess that means it must really be socialist!

pretend like you're writing for Honey Boo Boo's fat Jabba the Hutt mother

>who said anything about "hate" you fucking retard
well I assumed by "fuck western civilization" there was a hateful sentiment towards the west and christianity implied
>the religions are not the same
well of course not, but they share core similarities
>no christian is going to suddenly love islam just because they read the quran
most likely not, but most would find that the most active and notable fundamentalist muslims(ISIS, taliban, IQIM etc) vary extremely from the ideologies within the quran
>it's a big assumption to think people that are opposed to the islamicization of the west haven't read the koran
most of the people I know personally who are vocally anti-islam don't know much about it, and ironically, I know some who've said "fuck the muslim god" lmao
but yes, there are other reasons people have against islamicization of the west than lack of knowledge of the religion
>do you even know any muslims in real life?
yep, a guy going to my college from saudi arabia and another from syria and iraq, both pretty nice guys

t. steven crowder

the difference is christ never ruled over an earthly kingdom, there is no legal system or political ideology that is built into christianity, well that's the "problematic" as far as integration into western civ goes, but there are other things, like in islam you can can deny being a muslim if it means you might be killed, but a christian would never deny christ even if it means martydom, which means the only way for muslims to be martyred is to die fighting, etc. also their philosophy on art is completely antithetical to the western tradition, if you're just some fedorafag who things religion is just about "worshipping some imaginary man in the sky" then you're not gonna get it

>supernatural provider male
>takes mary sue female's virginity in the 18th Chapter
>anal in the 23rd
>potentially killed in final chapter just when mary sue realises she loves him
that's a five book contract minimum.

>the difference is christ never ruled over an earthly kingdom
although never officially, he was often regarded from external views as king of the jews or the judeans, and essentially led a religious revolution
>there is no legal system or political ideology that is built into christianity
not as extensive as sharia, but most of the ten commandments are the basis for many western laws
>you can can deny being a muslim if it means you might be killed, but a christian would never deny christ even if it means martydom, which means the only way for muslims to be martyred is to die fighting
you can deny being a muslims but not all did, and many muslims still became martyrs outside of warfare
>also their philosophy on art is completely antithetical to the western tradition
how so? aside from not drawing their prophet, the rest of islamic art seems to just do with regional culture that isn't necessarily tied to the quran as far as i know
>if you're just some fedorafag who things religion is just about "worshipping some imaginary man in the sky" then you're not gonna get it
I'm christian m8

National Socialism is Third Position. It is Centrist almost by definition, just very authoritarian. It is best to consider it a coalition between extreme right-wing nationalists and blue-collar laborers whose interests are vaguely socialist but who correctly distrusted the KPD because they were expressly Bolshevik subversives.

Something I find is that most people who consider themselves "right wing" are actually just Nationalists, and would be perfectly happy with social democracy if it did not come part and parcel with idiotic Leftist ideas of global revolution, atheism, the favoring of minorities, and the gross redistribution of wealth.

I hold Islam in the highest esteem as a religion, but I do so BECAUSE it is very explicitly a war cult. Modern humanistic reinterpretations of Islam are just that--and they are not catching on. That was a minor blip in the mid-20th century that has now been washed away by Wahabbiism and other more extreme interpretations.

ISIS does not misinterpret Islam at all, they simply emphasize the militant elements of the religion, which is entirely appropriate because the hadiths support such an interpretation. Most of ISIS's sins can be attributed to the fact that they are actually an Israeli-Saudi proxy-army, theologically they are spot on. Al-Baghdadi is a genius.

And I say this with great respect, because they are right. Extreme Islamism is the most effective repellent of Marxist doctrine yet invented. No people have ever so utterly purged weak secular liberal ideas from their society. No people have ever so one-sidedly and incontestably defeated the insidious grip of cultural Marxism as the Muslims have. Feminism, utterly defeated. The normalization of mental illness, utterly defeated. Globalist anti-nationalism, utterly defeated. Islamofascism would be a beautiful thing if it were not bent so easily to the will of the CIA,

>how so? aside from not drawing their prophet, the rest of islamic art seems to just do with regional culture that isn't necessarily tied to the quran as far as i know

if their views on art are the same as christians then why did they smash all of the ancient art in egypt while napoleon took what was left and put it in a museum?

also, the ten commandments are old testament, christianity attempts to update judaism from the bronze age into the new civilization, islam doesn't

>he nazis worked with the labor moviment so that totally disproves your point about nazism being left-wing
is this bait?

do u also believe that the democratic people's republic of korea is democratic? must be, i mean it has "democratic" right there in the name!

>not real socialism
is this bait?

Nigga you crazy

As for the distinctions between Islam and Christianity--I do not think this is a matter of any special depth, one need only look at the structures of the religions to see how wildly divergent they are.

Islam, in its original implementation, was Nationalist Mysticism. This meant that there was never a "church" fully distinct from the dominant culture. To this day Muslim Clerics and Imams are not part of a coherent institution, but rather they are simply individuals with a knowledge of the literature and religion who express their views and educate their people as to those views.

Christianity is more complicated, but the unifying factor is organization, the fusion of Roman Christianity with the Roman State, and the institution of the Patriarchs in the East. Christianity is historically a religion of structure and doctrine which integrated with various cultures in different ways, but which, until the Protestant Reformation, was deeply centralized.

Islam by contrast was decentralized. Every Arab was a potential religious authority if he possessed the expertise, and the religion was held more as a deep cultural value inseparable from the Arab (and later Persian, Bulgarian, etc) identities.

The two religions share theological roots of course but in structure and, one could say, in intent, they were and remain wholly different animals.

>Bulgarian

uh, bulgaria is christian dude

>if their views on art are the same as christians then why did they smash all of the ancient art in egypt while napoleon took what was left and put it in a museum?
Implying the christians didn't destroy roman pagan gods. Implying the Christianism of Napoleon times wasn't a weaken version of the smashers ones era.

It is now, but we are speaking historically, Bulgaria, Serbia, Bosnia etc. were all Islamified to some degree under Ottoman rule. A great number of Islamified steppeland peoples came to colonize Bulgaria at varying points in their history, the return to Orthodoxy was a later development.

yeah the difference is the christians made new art to replace it, not live in a barren world where geometric patterns that would be considered "design" work at best by western standards are what passes for "islamic art"

>Not knowing the difference between communism and socialism...

It simply was not. Christianity had more of a habit of assimilating Pagan ideas and iconography into its doctrine than in destroying them--which is why we have Easter and all those Nordic crosses which look like an inverted Thor's Hammer.

Nothing wrong with that mind you, but it is a bit different from actively destroying all remnants of pagan iconography. The iconoclasm of Byzantium did get pretty bad, but even that was mostly about destroying Christian imagery over doctrinal disputes over idolatry.

Another issue is that the Christians never really had a problem discussing Pagan philosophers, to the point that it actually became a problem when intellectuals who disagreed with classical Pagan philosophers were shunned regardless of the quality of their arguments. Duns Scotus (a genius) ended up having his first name used as an insult into the present day because he disagreed with Aristotle on some nonsense. This is where we get the word "Dunce."

In the Islamic world by contrast you have a recurring theme of Islamic scholars criticizing Aristotle basically because he was an atheist and they hated him. In their defense Avicenna's criticisms were so decisive that it surprises me we don't discuss him more often in western philosophy because it was a very good criticism desu,, but that line of criticism eventually led to the dismissal of many classical philosophic ideas out of hand simply because they associated with pagan thinkers.

Christianity never had this problem, because Christianity had few qualms about adopting pagan ideas as they suited purpose, even if it had been forbidden previously. Christmas trees come to mind.

>see weaken/reformed Christianism

The greatest constructions of Christian art did not occur in the modern day under "weak" Christianity, but during the very height of religious influence, power and culture. There was never a Christian prohibition on artistic expression, only on the worship of idols. In fact, the most extreme of what you would call "smashy" Christianity came AFTER the reformation, when Puritans and Protestants stripped away the color and beauty of their chapels and citadels in an attempt to exorcise vanity from their religious spaces.

The Catholics were (and still are) obsessed with splendor all throughout their history. The Muslims did enjoy periods of this as well, particularly after conquering Constantinople and being faced with the sheer cultural power of the Greek Orthodox. For a time, the Ottoman Turks used "Turk" as an insult akin to redneck or yokel, because they were all pretending to be Greek. Greeks who sipped yoghurt and slept on horses, but Greeks nevertheless. And part of being Greek--the purest remaining form of Christian at the time--was opulence and art. Hence we see the preservation of the great works of Byzantium and even their expansion. Is it a coincidence that the culture which most successfully absorbed large parts of Christianity was itself the Islamic culture which produced the most beautiful lasting works?

I think not. Very dialectical, as the Marxists say.

actually the reformation is what started the contemporary art market, art as something for bourgeois people to buy for their home, rather than the huge projects the ruling classes in italy would commission...so the return to "judaism" of protestant christians actually moved art history forward, meanwhile in islam ... art is still illegal.

Also, some decent illustration work was done by muslims in the persian influenced world, but that world is aryan and so ultimately has closer links to european peoples that to the nomadic desert tribes which birthed judaism and islam

A huge chunk of this is you talking about the pagan influence on Christianism, but guess what the same could be said about Islamism:
wikiislam.net/wiki/Pagan_Origins_of_Islam

hire a comic book artist, a novel quality story goes a long way in that field

come on bro if you want us to take you seriously at least don't make it so obvious that you're just a wikipedia cowboy parroting sjw points, i know ever since that one rich saudi dude you met at college didn't try to chop your head off you now think there is no difference between islam and christianity, but kys to be honest

> you now think there is no difference between islam and christianity
I've never claimed that, I'm not that user you was talking to initially. I just think the
Christianism as it exists today went though several reshapenings and humanizations and Slamism did not, that's why it's so fucked up from a ocidental perspective.

...

About right for a decent amount of the posters. To put it in a word that describes almost all of them: Insecurities. They have a lot of things right for the wrong reasons, many of them stemming from self-hatred.

I'm open to a new crusade to retake Constantinople. Never read much of the bible and never read the Quran.

I would disagree. The /pol/ narrative is not one of insecurity, but one of existential dread. /pol/acks tend to be self-confident to a fault. They are the "I have mine, fuck you" types, and that is not a position taken by people gripped by insecurity. Rather, it is a position adopted by people who have lost faith in others. These people believe that they can succeed if left to their own devices, what they fear is that their success will be taken from them by alien peoples.

This is the thing: All radical ideologies are adopted out of pathos. This is natural. Extreme Left-Wing pathos is insecurity. The idea that society is soulless and cold and that nobody will look out for anyone else because everyone is selfish and monstrous. Something must be done. We must come together and forge a common interest that overcomes our selfish nature and at least reach equity for everybody.

Right Wing people do not have that perception at all, because most of them are from small, rural communities. There, the perception is exactly the opposite. You have a community, but it is shrinking. Foreigners are flooding every quarter of the nation. They vote in their own interests, but you are expected not to. The Right Wing impulse is for that community to band together, ideally with other communities drawn along the most basic lines (racial) to stand together, and overcome the will of foreign elements, and at least secure a future for our people.

/pol/acks fear that their people will go extinct. Leftists fear that their kind will be exploited. These are very different forms of alienation. Homosexual /pol/acks are a subcategory who see this determination not to go extinct and want a slice of it because it represents something they cannot have: Continuation.

Write about how a young teen is the chosen one in a fantastical world and hope for a movie deal

East/south-east Asian doesn't count unless you're some Chinese Tibetan activist or an escaped North-Korean.

Looking at the statistics pon successful first time novelists, be a Jewish woman with well-connected parents. Talent and subject matter fall far behind in relevance.

Kek. Good post

kekd desu

nice post