/lit/ - Literature

>This and such a portrait, applicable to all nationalists, can be developed freely, and according to this scheme, to the end: a nationalist, as a rule, as a social being and as an individual, is equally null and void. Outside of this determination, he is zero. He neglected family, work (mainly clerical), literature (if he is a writer), social functions, because they are too small in relation to his messianism. Should we say that he is, according to the determination of the ascetic, a potential fighter waiting for his hour. Nationalism, to paraphrase Sartre's position on anti-Semitism, is "a complete and free choice, a global attitude that man accepts not only towards other nations but also towards man in general, towards history and society, it is simultaneously a passion and a conception of the world".

>A nationalist is, by definition, ignorant. Therefore, nationalism is the line of least resistance, commotion. It's easy for a nationalist, he knows, or thinks he knows, his values, his own, which means national, which means the ethical and political values of the nation to which he belongs, and he is not interested in the rest, they are not interested in him, hell, they are others ( other nations, another tribe). They don't even need to be checked. A nationalist sees only himself in others - a nationalist. The position is, shall we say, comfortable. Fear and envy. Determination, commitment that does not require effort. Not only "hell is other people", within the framework of the national key, of course, but also: everything that is not mine (Serbian, Croatian, French...) is foreign to me. Nationalism is an ideology of banality. Nationalism is, therefore, a totalitarian ideology.

>>19760054
Danilo Kiš, too, deserves a mention, but most of /lit/ will never read him because they're so rooted in Anglo thought.

What should I read of this guy? Heard The Enyclopedia of the Dead is a good place to start.