This will be my most lengthy, most important essay so far. I am resolved to utterly destroy the influence the alt-right has on young white losers like incels.
I first encountered "soft" nationalist ideas in 2006, when I was 12 years old. They seemed sensible enough and appealed to my natural sense of self-sacrifice and pride. You were born in a great country, defend it and bask in its eternal glory! What's not to like about this?
I was increasingly drawn to nationalist-type ideas and in 2008, when I was 15 years old, I stumbled upon white nationalism. The narrative was again compelling: white countries are currently being flooded by mass immigration of non-whites, and due to mathematical trends, the West is soon going to "disappear" as a distinct civilization and culture. There's a sense of urgency that immediately placates you. I searched for flaws in this narrative, and didn't find any. So naturally, I continued on my nationalist journey. (At the time, it was not called "alt-right".)
But then I started to notice a weird pattern. Most of my fellow nationalists, on blogs and forums I frequented, were losers. They tended to hide it well, but behind the surface, once you got to know them more, they were virgin, ugly, incel, pathologically shy, working a job they hated, suffering from a mood disorder, poor, low-IQ... They had at least one major flaw. Note that I said "most", not "all". It is possible to find gregarious, happy Chads in nationalist movements. They are however exceedingly rare, and always seem to gravitate towards actual political activism in real life rather than virtual political activism. I suspect the rapidity with wich Richard Spencer became the spokesman of the alt-right in 2016 had something to do with him providing "plausible deniability" for everything I've just exposed. The same goes for Jorg Haider and his scions in Austria.
White nationalism, I was soon to discover, had indeed suffered from such a reputation of being a "house of losers" for decades. The nationalist parties in the United Kingdom and Belgium never went anywhere because their leaders were ugly and obese, for instance. Dr William Pierce, head of the National Alliance in the USA, famously lamented the presence of so many "freaks" coming to his meetings, just before his untimely death.
Initially, I told myself "it's just a coincidence..." But then I started to think. Why would an ideology attract so many losers? I eventually came to the conclusion that it serves a psychological purpose that is ultimately selfish, and that the purported altruism of these losers is in fact very much self-interested.
Nationalism is a way to subordinate individual interests to community interests. It naturally appeals to individuals who have not achieved much in their life and tend to be jealous of those who achieve. Nationalism can be understood as a "bed of Procrustres" that destroys any achievement that does not serve the purpose of the community, of which the loser is part.
Nationalism is also a pseudo-religion, or secular religion. Like communism, it imbues material objects (such as a race, or a country) with mystical properties. Himmler and Hitler chanted the mysterious hyperborean origins of whites, and the contemporary WN movement glorifies the magical uniqueness of whites. It's a substitute for God, and religion is known to soothe losers and depressed invididuals.
Finally, nationalism can be an emotional substitute for personal achievement. If you don't have anything to show for yourself, just steal valor from your ancestors or other whites, bro! Yes, I know redditors mock WNs for this. "If being white is the only thing you're proud of, you're a failure". But they're right though. I know it hurts.
Now comes the central question: is white nationalism good for every white, as WNs maintain?
The answer is no. It all depends on what you value in life. WNs, who display the typical characteristics of a brain low in serotonin, value stability, similarity, duty and a collectivist political system with restrictions on personal freedom. Other whites, the majority, who display the typical characteristics of a brain high in serotonin, prefer novelty, excitement, freedom, happiness and love.
The negative consequences of mass immigration to the West and population replacement with non-whites are also very exaggerated. Technological progress and capitalistic resources will dampen most of the damage.
In conclusion, the alt-right movement will fail because it does not possess the necessary attributes that could make it a mainstream movement. There are not enough losers in a given population for it to work.
I first encountered "soft" nationalist ideas in 2006, when I was 12 years old. They seemed sensible enough and appealed to my natural sense of self-sacrifice and pride. You were born in a great country, defend it and bask in its eternal glory! What's not to like about this?
I was increasingly drawn to nationalist-type ideas and in 2008, when I was 15 years old, I stumbled upon white nationalism. The narrative was again compelling: white countries are currently being flooded by mass immigration of non-whites, and due to mathematical trends, the West is soon going to "disappear" as a distinct civilization and culture. There's a sense of urgency that immediately placates you. I searched for flaws in this narrative, and didn't find any. So naturally, I continued on my nationalist journey. (At the time, it was not called "alt-right".)
But then I started to notice a weird pattern. Most of my fellow nationalists, on blogs and forums I frequented, were losers. They tended to hide it well, but behind the surface, once you got to know them more, they were virgin, ugly, incel, pathologically shy, working a job they hated, suffering from a mood disorder, poor, low-IQ... They had at least one major flaw. Note that I said "most", not "all". It is possible to find gregarious, happy Chads in nationalist movements. They are however exceedingly rare, and always seem to gravitate towards actual political activism in real life rather than virtual political activism. I suspect the rapidity with wich Richard Spencer became the spokesman of the alt-right in 2016 had something to do with him providing "plausible deniability" for everything I've just exposed. The same goes for Jorg Haider and his scions in Austria.
White nationalism, I was soon to discover, had indeed suffered from such a reputation of being a "house of losers" for decades. The nationalist parties in the United Kingdom and Belgium never went anywhere because their leaders were ugly and obese, for instance. Dr William Pierce, head of the National Alliance in the USA, famously lamented the presence of so many "freaks" coming to his meetings, just before his untimely death.
Initially, I told myself "it's just a coincidence..." But then I started to think. Why would an ideology attract so many losers? I eventually came to the conclusion that it serves a psychological purpose that is ultimately selfish, and that the purported altruism of these losers is in fact very much self-interested.
Nationalism is a way to subordinate individual interests to community interests. It naturally appeals to individuals who have not achieved much in their life and tend to be jealous of those who achieve. Nationalism can be understood as a "bed of Procrustres" that destroys any achievement that does not serve the purpose of the community, of which the loser is part.
Nationalism is also a pseudo-religion, or secular religion. Like communism, it imbues material objects (such as a race, or a country) with mystical properties. Himmler and Hitler chanted the mysterious hyperborean origins of whites, and the contemporary WN movement glorifies the magical uniqueness of whites. It's a substitute for God, and religion is known to soothe losers and depressed invididuals.
Finally, nationalism can be an emotional substitute for personal achievement. If you don't have anything to show for yourself, just steal valor from your ancestors or other whites, bro! Yes, I know redditors mock WNs for this. "If being white is the only thing you're proud of, you're a failure". But they're right though. I know it hurts.
Now comes the central question: is white nationalism good for every white, as WNs maintain?
The answer is no. It all depends on what you value in life. WNs, who display the typical characteristics of a brain low in serotonin, value stability, similarity, duty and a collectivist political system with restrictions on personal freedom. Other whites, the majority, who display the typical characteristics of a brain high in serotonin, prefer novelty, excitement, freedom, happiness and love.
The negative consequences of mass immigration to the West and population replacement with non-whites are also very exaggerated. Technological progress and capitalistic resources will dampen most of the damage.
In conclusion, the alt-right movement will fail because it does not possess the necessary attributes that could make it a mainstream movement. There are not enough losers in a given population for it to work.
Last edited:
