Best nationalism books according to redditors
We found 61 Reddit comments discussing the best nationalism books. We ranked the 32 resulting products by number of redditors who mentioned them. Here are the top 20.
We found 61 Reddit comments discussing the best nationalism books. We ranked the 32 resulting products by number of redditors who mentioned them. Here are the top 20.
![Protestantism and German nationalism - political holy spirit of Weimar (2012) ISBN: 4000222244 [Japanese Import]](https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/51kAMgYoRhL.jpg)
Let's see
Googles Palaestra Media
From their website, a guy named Jonas Nilsson seems to be in charge. Let's Google him and- oh, yeah. Would you look at that?
Try one of Bobbio's books, Left and Right: The Significance of a Political Distinction. I think his definition is pretty universal in nature, since it doesn't focus on the specific political positions themselves, but how those positions are shaped by what you think society should be or strive for (such as "being in favor of hierarchization").
OpEd.
Author previously wrote:
>"...the radical Left controls education, the media, and the Democratic party…. and they seek to demean, demolish, and relentlessly attack America’s past in order to control America’s present. This toxic movement has already brainwashed an entire generation and is rapidly changing the cultural, historical, and spiritual bonds of our nation.
Theres more info in the rest of the thread, he wrote this book though and is a self proclaimed anarcho fascist.
Edit: Don't downvote this guy for having a question.
E por isso que eu gosto que o pessoal se exponha tentando falar de politica.
Os termos direita(right-wing) e esquerda(left-wing) são conhecidos mundialmente, muitos livros foram escritos no tema em todo lugar, durante anos. E Hitler é da direita. Mas o cara pode se encolher no cantinho dele, ignorar o mundo, e achar que o MEC ta conspirando.
Vai ler alguma coisa que presta, vai
If you want arguments in English for Québec independance, I suggest this blog: http://whyquebecneedsindependence.blogspot.ca/
Also, if you can find this book at your Library written by Jacques Parizeau in 2010, you will have the best arguing in favor of Québec independance: https://www.amazon.ca/Independent-Quebec-Past-Present-Future/dp/0981240569/ref=sr_1_8?ie=UTF8&qid=1468344101&sr=8-8&keywords=jacques+Parizeau
Religion is NOT about believing in a super natural entity. It is about sharing a moral code with a community. I was a HARDCORE atheist for 15 years until I realized Atheism breeds lonerism and moral relativity. If you have not ever heard of Dennis Prager, you need to check him out STAT. He's the conservative scholar that made Ben Shapiros parents Orthodox Jews.
Please read his books Still the Best Hope and The Ten Commandments.
Also, there is a biologist named David Sloan Wilson who argues that religion plays a vital role in evolution and this is its purpose. Check out his book Does Altruism Exist? to see the argument for religion and false belief as evolutionarily necessary.
Malice is kicking off his book tour w/ this appearance. Book drops tomorrow.
https://www.amazon.com/New-Right-Journey-American-Politics/dp/1250154669
I believe he mentioned that he'll have guest hosts on Night Shade this week (Dave Style, JoNo, Geno, Bill)
Please start your education early with the books that they will never introduce you to!! Here's a good start:
With this knowledge, no liberal will be able to fuck with you!
Actually it was:
Gregory Hood, American Renaissance, November 4, 2019
R.R. Reno, Return of the Strong Gods: Nationalism, Populism and the Future of the West, Gateway Editions, 2019, 208 pp., $23.33 (Hardcover), $12.99 (Kindle)
Return of the Strong Gods: Nationalism, Populism, and the Future of the West is typical of many conservative books. It analyzes the disease, but is afraid of the cure.
> How is the Republican Party still this cucked even after Trump won in 2016?
>
> Trump won because he realized the Democrats and the media were always going to call the Republicans racist sexist bigot homophobe Nazis, and he told them to go fuck themselves.
Do you ever watch Michael Malice?
Malice tells a great story about the moment that he knew that Trump would win. Basically he watched Trump brag about his dick on TV, and nobody cared. At that moment, he realized the rules had changed.
"In this current environment right now, we have a bunch of candidates who are languishing at 2% and 3% in terms of popularity, and you have a person like Donald Trump coming out of nowhere and he's number two in the Republican field when he's not even really a Republican. It's because this guy knows how to weild popular culture. The reason why Sarah Palin was so popular for such a long period of time, and why the left has attacked her so mercilessly -- and even those on the right have attacked her so mercilessly, is because she understands popular culture, and she weilds it well, and many in the Beltway, including conservatives, are threatened by her.
The person who knows how to play the media, who knows how to talk over the media, that knows how to weild the media, is the one who's going to win. Barack Obama understood that perfectly well in 2008; that's how come he won."
Analisis de Sistemas-Mundo, de Immanuel Wallerstein
Los Condenados de la Tierra, de Frantz Fanon
Las Venas Abiertas de America Latina, de Eduardo Galeano
The Age of Mass Migration, de Hatton y Williamson
OK, I'm gonna go full Murica' here so be warned.
There's many different forms of nationalism. The ones that are being referred to in relation to this conversation is civic nationalism and ethnic nationalism.
The US developed to adopt a form known as civic nationalism (at least so today in modern times) where it is simply the love of your country. It is grounded on the principle of a union of many different people. We are a very young country and we're a "new" group of people called Americans. We don't have the same millenniums of history that much of the rest of the world have. All we really have are each other and a symbol to stand behind that binds us together. So while Europeans are bound by ethnicity - a single place, a single culture, a single identity, a single group of people; we are who are from many ethnicities and places all around the world are bound by the idea of multiculturalism. There is no overwhelming single major ethnicity in America and that flag represent the many people from all all over the world that now inhabits the U.S. This is a nation of immigrants - there are only a select few that can truly call themselves non-immigrant and those are of course the natives that had been here long before European settlers arrived. So what do you do when you have all these different people from all walks of life in a single place? What can you do so that there won't conflict between us due to our differences? You give them something to stand behind - symbol of some sorts, and that is the Star Spangled Banner.
Civic nationalism (or American Nationalism as you referred to it in your question) doesn't carry the same amount of potential danger of that ethnic nationalism has. Europeans have always been embroiled in ethnic nationalism and in many cases, still are today and yes this has cause two world wars that killed tens of millions of people. As we learned from history some of the underlying causes was sense of superiority can cause territorial expansion, subjugation of "inferior groups of people" (Imperial Japan) or even flat out genocide (Nazi Germany). That is why when Europeans look at us, they feel creeped out and uncomfortable because they had a bad history of nationalism, while most of us on the other hand, don't really quite understand nationalism like they do. To them we are just simply indoctrinating little kids into fascism. Or that we're committing idolatry, as in we are worshiping some sort of an idol. And you kinda have to understand where they're coming from because the reasons why they feel that way towards us are legitimate because ... Well yeah, ethnic nationalism has indeed lead to some pretty horrible events.
That being said, civic nationalism too does carry it's own dangers as well, examples of which includes our awful treatment of the native Americans or perhaps further away from home like in the Philippines. It is especially dangerous when someone interprets it the wrong way as well because it can easily become fascism instead. Also, that's not to say that America doesn't have a portion of our population who are also embroiled in ethnic nationalism as well and have certain racist viewpoints. And of course, yes, we sure we do brag about how great we are with a smug sense of superiority quite often.
Regardless, the pledge of allegiance is a way to instill a sense of patriotism and cohesion among Americans because it's not meant to divide but to unite everyone within standing republic, a single nation that is indivisible that believes in the principles of liberty and justice for all.
Most people stopped reciting the pledge by the time they're a high school freshman anyways, and most of the hate are by people who aren't necessarily against the pledge, but wants the "under god" part removed as it doesn't really reflect the multiculturalism of America and that it's simply something that is left over from the cold war. Those who wants to do away with it completely are the same ones that think similarly to those like the Europeans who compare it to the Nazi salute (which I don't blame them because it does seem like so depending on the perspective).
My personal (and bias) perspective of this issue as an immigrant to this country is that... yes, it did integrate me into the American society. It helped me assimilated into a place foreign to me and eased me into my new home. So I guess you can say it was indoctrination, but i also would say that it's not necessarily a bad thing either. It worked as it intended to as it was meant to instill as sense of patriotism. So long as it remains to be the "right kind" of civic nationalism that we have right now, I don't see much harm in it at all. Once it becomes a "we are superior to these people and they should all die" mentality, then that's when you raise the red flags. However, I don't see that happening at all during this day and age.
edit: I highly suggest Blood and Belonging: Journeys into the New Nationalism by Michael Ignatieff, I read it a while back at my campus library and the source for the info above. Or if you're not too big into reading then here's a wiki overview
たっけーよ！！！！
The person you're arguing with is right about what nationalism is. I'm guessing you never took a college course on the subject but you should read Anthony D. Smith's book on it if you have any interest I'd also recommend Benedict Anderson's Imaginary Communities which is a classic in the field. That Google definition is frankly an incredibly narrow albeit somewhat popular colloquial definition but anyone who's studied the history of the subject would recognize it's faults.
an exquisite meme
Michael Malice will be on next week to talk about his book on this very topic.
Two things he touched that seem to connect to this issue is he answers whether or not there's a libertarian pipeline to the alt right (I think Rogan can fit in the place of libertarianism) and Malice argues there is. In the same way that 100% of crack addicts have tried marijuana there's many people who went from outcast ideologies to more radical ones.
The second being that he talks about how progressivism is a religion. The way I see it, not sure if he says it in this way, a devote christian is not going to ask a satanist what their world view is. It's the same thing with progressives. The other side doesn't have a good point of view or just a difference in opinion, they are evil and should be cut out of society.
I can't wait to see Malice bring up some of these ideas talking to Joe. Especially with all the alt-right adjacent talk that's been popping up recently.
And if anyone is curious, here's the book. I know I'm kinda shilling but I'm on chapter 4 and it's clearing up so much of modern politics. Malice has such a great understanding of these people. I'm thoroughly enjoying it so far.
In terms of preexisting islands, there are plenty of places which wouldn't mind selling the land to you (in the same way you could buy a small island in, say, the Great Lakes)...but giving up sovereignty would be another matter entirely. And in the history of "micronations", even if you were able to manage that, you very likely wouldn't be afforded the same protections other nations have if and when the former owners decide for whatever reason to renege on the deal and take the land back by force. In terms of man-made islands, the UN passed a resolution a few decades ago to the effect that any landmass, natural or man-made, which has not already claimed by a recognized sovereign nation, and is in international waters, would automatically default to the jurisdiction of the nearest sovereign country. Since the concept I linked to above wouldn't technically be a LANDmass, the people behind it reasoned they'd be exempt from said resolution. Here's a couple of related books, if you're interested:
http://www.amazon.com/Micronations-General-Reference-John-Ryan/dp/1741047307/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1254563140&sr=8-1
http://www.amazon.com/How-Start-Your-Own-Country/dp/1581605242/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1254563185&sr=1-1
I've read a good chapter in this book which goes into the differences between civic nationalism and ethnic nationalism.
I list Titoists as the exceptional tankies due to lack of major food shortage, and the fact that he was a worker for most of his "career".
This book will answer pretty much all of your question.
Better ask Jonas Nilsson that.
https://www.amazon.com/Anarcho-Fascism-Nature-Reborn-Jonas-Nilsson-ebook/dp/B075LWK4ZV
Don't forget the book: http://www.amazon.com/books/dp/1581605242
https://www.amazon.com/Left-Right-Significance-Political-Distinction/dp/0226062465
Em resumo: esquerda valoriza igualdade acima da liberdade; direita a liberdade acima da igualdade.
Direita aceita a hierarquia como natural e inevitável. Esquerda aceita a restrição imposta pela sociedade como natural e inevitável.
Mas essa definição dele tem seus críticos, naturalmente.
He's says it often in 2019. He just released a book on the New Right.
>But the OP's point is that it isn't anymore.
I was responding to your point that the rightmost wing is persuing changes towards the past, as I don't see evidence of that.
> civil war started 40 years in the future
maybe https://www.amazon.com/Coming-Civil-War-Tom-Kawczynski/dp/1719921466
It's not hard to find.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/germanys-far-right-party-alternative-for-germany-wants-to-bring-back-nazi-era-phrase/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2016/05/23/the-rise-of-national-socialism-why-austrias-revolution-is-not-over/?utm_term=.6f730ea83fe7
http://shoqvalue.com/the-nazis-were-leftists-lie
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/what-can-europes-far-right-tell-us-about-trumps-rise/
Here is a reddit ask politics as well.
https://www.reddit.com/r/Ask_Politics/comments/4aahf2/why_is_national_socialism_considered_a_farright/?st=j6cf249j&sh=7054c88b
https://www.thoughtco.com/was-adolf-hitler-a-socialist-1221367
>Hitler hated socialism and communism and worked to destroy these ideologies. Nazism, confused as it was, was based on race, and fundamentally different from class focused socialism.
http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/708248/Neo-Nazi-village-far-right-Adolf-Hitler-salutes
https://www.amazon.com/Right-Wing-Terrorism-21st-Century-Underground-ebook/dp/B01M01BPIV
Where Zimbabwe is concerned might be a bit harder. Few in depth studies have been done into the conflict, but, this book is a relatively easy to read primer on the subject. It is hard to find though. Note that it is also pretty dated but does cover all of the basics with the groups who were fighting against the white-led Rhodesian government.
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0006DGUMS/_encoding=UTF8?coliid=I1X1974R8ZNIDJ&colid=32KPXKTREJ27Q
WITH THIS KNOWLEDGE, you will destroy any Left-cuck argument he ever makes to you.
The people involved here probably don't even respect bussy all that much.
Snapshots:
^(I am a bot.) ^([Info](/r/SnapshillBot) ^/ ^[Contact](/message/compose?to=\/r\/SnapshillBot))
Ｅａｔ ｓｈｉｔ
Outlines:
^(I am a bot for posting Outline.com links.) ^(github) ^/ ^(Contact for info or issues)
Saving America
​
https://www.amazon.com/dp/1942825269
​
Non-Fiction. 170 Pages. Paperback. $9.99
​
​
republican,
conservative,
book
yea but classical liberalism is not libertarianism. Classical liberalism held that the state was necessary and central in protecting private property rights. But the state protecting property is akin to a rights violating Rights protector, a contradiction in estoppel jurisprudence. In what you are describing as AE is wrong, in IE AE systems, the "king" or leader respected his fellow comrades equally, thus the "egalitarianism", and they noble and courageous men(aristocrat). In Ancient Greece, the Hellenic tradition of rugged individualism and the idea of natural law produced massive amounts of intellectual works. Fast forward to the European Middle Ages, it was stateless ordered anarchy. No person or entity had absolute monopoly. Courts were decentralized. States enforced the law, rather than produce it. The Church was imminent in human society.
I really recommend "The Uniqueness of Western Law" by Richard Storey. Here: https://www.amazon.com/Uniqueness-Western-Law-Reactionary-Manifesto/dp/1912975033
Ricardo Duchesne writes an afterword to that book too.
Ive gotta get out of here
> I'm familiar with this popular understanding of what nationalism is but I'm saying it doesn't really line up with scholarship on the ideology and it's history. Read Nationalism by Anthony D. Smith or Imagined Communities by Benedict Anderson in order to get a basic introduction to the subject as they're usually among the standard college textbooks used in relevant courses. I've said this elsewhere in the thread but nationalism at it's most base level is a belief in the existence of nations, nation states and the concept of self-determination. A nation is an amorphous political concept that can be based on a large number of things from a perception of shared ethnicity to shared geography to shared history. The basis for the creation of a nation is known as national identity. Practically every country in the 21st century , professes a national identity and when a country does this it is known as a nation state (the wikipedia article for this concept is fairly narrow as it focuses on states that tie national identity to ethnicity and all but ignores civic nationalism and to some extent left wing nationalism )
None of this is about how the word is used in a socio-political sense though. And there is a very good argument that the popular view is the current correct view of the word's meaning.
> The United States is a nation state as...
I agree with most of your 2nd paragraph, but I would argue that for most people it's an expression of American Patriotism.
> Nationalism is further reinforced by national symbols ... ...Thus displaying any kind of flag associated with a nation (state or otherwise) is a display of nationalist sentiment.
Or patriotic sentiment.
> With that out of the way let's go back to the Olympics. I stated that the modern Olympic games themselves were founded upon nationalism and the belief that athletic competition offered a healthy outlet for duking out national rivalries as an alternative to conflict.
Agree.
> hat is why the Olympics themselves are an orgy of national symbolism from the Parade of Nations, the fact that athletes represent their nations at all instead of themselves, the playing of national anthems at medal ceremonies, etc. etc.
Agree
> With all that in mind rooting for your nation's athletes at the Olympics is an expression of nationalist sentiment.
Disagree. Most people who participate in and watch the Olympics are more than ready to acknowledge when their country isn't the best at something, and when other countries do well. That's Patriotism when they root for their team under those circumstances.
> Here's a couple of articles I was able to find on the subject after a two second Google search since I don't feel like digging up old academic articles. Hell, here's the perspective of a Communist (i.e. someone who actually rejects nationalism since they believe in the dismantling of all states and national identities).
All three are opinion pieces. The Vox one is actually talking about patriotism, but has fallen into the Nationalism/patriotism 'synonym trap'. Communist countries officially reject nationalism, but in practice are just as nationalistic as every other country.
> Nationalism in and of itself has absolutely nothing to do with blind loyalty to a particular government although chauvinistic nationalism does indeed manifest itself that way.
Not completely blind, but it does encourage unhealthy behaviors towards others. That behavior isn't implied in patriotism.
> In fact nationalism isn't contingent on the existence of a nation-state
Correct. Post WWI there was a lot of nationalism from ethnic and cultural groups that hadn't had their own country in centuries. However, gaining a country was their goal. A good example actually is post-colonial Africa.
> government and doesn't even necessarily advocate for one.
Actually, they always do eventually.
> Just look at the history of Black nationalism in the USA of which only a few strands (known as Black Separatism) advocated the creation of an African American state.
One would argue that the factions not advocating for separate statehood were actually patriots.
​
Wait, your saying it's americas fault these other countries don't have more resources? It couldn't be their oppressive governments or something within their own doing? It's the evil Americans came and sucked up all there resources. America has done more good for the world than any other nation ever. Have we had mistakes sure but the good outweighs the bad. If you disagree tell me one country that has done more good? You need to read this book: https://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/0061985139/ref=aw_wl_ov_dp_1_3?colid=2YZ3KS2EME2SN&coliid=I3NQCXTYGP23TC
So sick of us blaming America for the problems in the world. Blaming America is the ultimate cop out.