Has anyone read this? Was it any good? It seems like an appropriate

>>8430273
Isn't it just a more erudite proto-hollaback?

>>8430273
All I know about it is that /pol/ seems to have a raging hard-on for it. Which is usually a clear no-no for me. Then again even a broken clock is right twice a day

>>8430312
Why do you exclude something based on the fact that a particular group likes it?

Isn't that like judging a book by its cover? Or a person by the colour of their skin rather than the content of their character?

It's prescient, everything that's described in the book happened last summer. Though the prose is workmanlike you should read it for its ideas and subject.

>>8430324
/pol/ has a penchant for terrible mediocre shit like Mein Kampf, the Turner Diaries, the Trump books and that how to be a man book by that one over-compensating faggot.

All I'm saying is that /pol/ likes whatever fits their worldview. Even if it's trash. And most of the time it is.

>also implying that stereotyping has no rational foundation

>>8430348
Stereotyping does have a rational foundation. Hell you're even stereotyping pol users by grouping them all together and making claims about the whole group. Why? Because that is the general trend. Not everyone on pol likes what would generally be considered 'pol-tier' books, but you insinuate they do because in truth a lot of them do.

All stereotypes are based on reality. If not then they are based on what is perceived as reality and if people who are stereotyped don't like it they should attempt to elicit change within their group in order to remove that stereotype.

It's good and prescient, but /lit/ will never admit to it, being largely composed of marxists left behind by history.

>>8430348
The content of the Mein Kampf was good, and a cool story benis. The writing style maybe not the best but I enjoyed it.