A systematic, comprehensive destruction of the alt-right cope

[SoCalSuifuel]

It's funny because you made roughly the same point as me in your thread, the Jews have won, sensible whites have admitted defeat and only delusional losers remain.

Which by the way is what the nazi Alfred Rosenberg had predicted regarding the outcome of a German defeat in WW2. Before the war, he had intelligently remarked that the outcome of the conflict would determine history for a thousand years. Back in time, political leaders had a better sense of reality and humility.

The way you say what you're saying is the problem. You just sound like every bargain bin anti-racist on twitter. It's boring, it's bland, it's not worth reading. And you make post after post saying the same thing.

 

[Johny.speiz]

Modern Nationalism, no matter of what nationality it represents, has the same, single enemy – Globalism. Everyone, German Nationalists, Polish Nationalists, US Nationalists, Iranian Nationalists, Chinese Nationalists and so on.

Nationalism is anti-thesis for Globalism and modern Globalism has two faces – Liberal Democratic Marxism and Capitalist Globalism. Both Marxists/Socialists/Communists and Liberal-Conservative Capitalists represent the same coin – Globalism.

Leftists who shout about "evil Globalization" spread lies, because they are the part of this movement. Ask them about immigration. Only Nationalism opposes both, immigration and emigration. We do not like neither of both.

Nationalism, simply, fights for Freedom and Dignity for every Nation, Tribe, Ethnic Group in this world. It is not my fault, that people still believe in Liberal/Marxist propaganda, related to Nationalism. You are free to believe in everything, even in your gibberish.

 

[rudolfhess]

Losers are the backbone of any revolution.
Losers were the backbone of the French, American and Russian revolution, and of Napoleon's, Mussolini's, and Hitler's rise to power.
A proper fascist revolution isn't possible now, but will be if enough losers are created.
The "alt-right will fail because alt-righters are losers" theory is wrong.
Also, normies always tend to pick up the ideology of the winner, that's exactly why normies don't like fascism. Losers contribuited to Mussolini's rise to power, but eventually most Italian normies supported him and his ideology.

Extremism is always relative

Well said.

Trump's belief in Birtherism and his failure to condemn the bigots of the alt-right sure doesn't help with that image. If he's truly not aligned with the alt-right, he should cut them off entirely. Why should Trump have to do so? The answer is simple: because the White Power nationalists of the alt-right have embraced him, and Trump has failed to make unequivocally clear he does not accept their support. This is not a hard thing to do. After some white nationalists praised a monologue she delivered, Fox News host Laura Ingraham went on the air and blasted them, declaring to “all white nationalists ... you don’t represent my views, and you are antithetical to the beliefs I hold dear.” Why can’t President Trump bring himself to say the same thing?

"Trump needs to alienate a bunch of his most fervent supporters in a worthless attempt to draw support from a left-wing that will always hate him and never vote for him regardless."
Lmao no

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.

From the standpoint of evolutionary psychology, there is no scenario where large populations of any kind, as they exist in modern society, can happily cohabitate. Whether drawing losers to the supposed club of the ubermensch is ironic or not, to deny the genetic differences between the races, and the 100% bulletproof scientific confirmation of racial loyalty and tribalism, is frankly disappointing coming from someone as smart and knowledgeable as you.

Saying that the fact that Chad has no reason to be a WN (because he is well adjusted socially or physically attractive or high serotonin or whatever) is proof that white nationalism is invalid is, frankly, a bullshit line. Every dog has the innate ability to start dog paddling when dropped in water. Every human baby is born with the ability to fear the sensation of falling, and avoid situations where it could fall. And every Chad is born with the ability to cut throats, hunt animals, and kill anyone he deems to jeopardize the nucleus around him that he has determined to share the most of his genetic material.

Your fallacious argument posits something we know to be untrue, which is that outward phenotypical expression and behavioral observation is enough to gather an accurate picture of someone's abilities. What you are essentially saying is that if you have never personally seen a dog put in water, that that means it cannot swim. This is obviously small-minded, and in the context of this example, that becomes clear. You are suggesting that, because Chad and all the normies have no reason to become open white nationalists, that that means they do not have the same genetic ties to individuals with shared DNA, and built-in aversions to people with vastly different DNA and outward appearances. WHICH IS UNTRUE.

It's as ridiculous as saying Cervantes' Don Quixote or Thoreau's Civil Disobedience are worthless written works because they were written or conceived while the authors were in captivity. The logical conclusion of your argument is that any scientific achievement, any great idea, any great piece of literature or art, all of it is crap if it wasn't created by a "high serotonin" Chad halfway through a yacht party or a Wall Street business deal.

And let's say for a moment you're right about everything. Who the fuck cares? WN is a cope, like anime or fapping or movies or TV or video games or reading. Who are YOU to say incels can't cope using WN? I'm not going to make a post deriding anyone who watches anime as their cope, despite my dislike for it. Why is it so important for you to beat a dead horse around this topic, proclaiming grandly that it's your noble duty to steer incels away from WN? Who fucking cares?

 

[ElliotRodgerHere]

Sure smells like reddit in here. Give your country up to third world mongrels or else you're a vicious raycist/loser/misogynist/shitlord. Thanks for the hot take, now fuck off and never post here again

Why is it so important for you to beat a dead horse around this topic, proclaiming grandly that it's your noble duty to steer incels away from WN? Who fucking cares?

Only a jew would care this much about whites waking up and preferring to be around their own kind in an increasingly darkening world

 

[Fontaine]

Sure smells like reddit in here. Give your country up to third world mongrels or else you're a vicious raycist/loser/misogynist/shitlord. Thanks for the hot take, now fuck off and never post here again

Why do you care so much about your country? Because you're a loser. You feel fragile, vulnerable, and therefore you're extra sensible to the breakdown of your national community. Successful people are sheltered by their money, diplomas, relations, etc.

Besides, I disagree that "third world mongrels" will necessarily mean the destruction of the West. Even if they are lower IQ on average, they can adapt and learn a profession faster than an incel NEET.

 

[ElliotRodgerHere]

Why do you care so much about your country?

Because it's where I live. I don't live in shitholes like somalia or haiti and I care even less about the people from there.

you're a loser.

Says the faggot on an incel forum who feels the need to make thread after thread about white nationalism. Pot calling the kettle black

 

[Fontaine]

Because it's where I live.

Fair enough. But don't you feel you greatly exaggerate the nuisance coming from non-whites? How are they more of a nuisance than white trash?

What about the vast majority of non-whites who are policed citizens and work harder than you? "Fuck off nigger"?

 

[VeganIcon]

What are your thoughts on globalism?

 

[Solitarian_Walker]

Low IQ.

I honestly don't know why people find jewish writing compelling.

I am completely unmoved by the rethorical tricks of jews like Fontaine.

It has zero effect on me.

However, as a public service, I'd like to break down some of the jewish rethorical methods used by Fontaine.

One is the mixing of truth with lies. You tell one true thing, then lies about another. For example, Fontaine draws a direct line between alt-right being full of losers (true) to nationalism being for losers. This is obviously not true, as history proves without a doubt, and current voting patterns as well. Nationalist parties are the largest or second largest in Europe.

Another method is the effeminate mixing of feigned sympathy mixed with emotional passive agressive attacks. This is how women attack each other, providing a shield to hide their insults behind. Fontaine does this by faking sympathy with you, putting himself in the box as loser, then directing it towards you, calling you a loser. I see this often by other ethnics as well. It's a cowardly faggotly way to live, which comes from a deep seated identity in which you feel inferior to white people. You're arguing like a woman, because you, like the woman, know you can't compete on equal terms.

Third Fontaine is simply lying by omission in ignoring the real life consequences by mass migration and race mixing, such as being attacked, jumped, robbed by ethnics, which most incels have experience with. As well as the demonstrable massive cost they put on society, which robs incels of their money and create a parasitical class of mainly female public employees who feed of this.

Astronomic IQ. Kiketaine is 100% Jewed.

 

[ElliotRodgerHere]

don't you feel you greatly exaggerate the nuisance coming from non-whites?

Feelings are irrelevant. Are nonwhites a nuisance to native whites or not is the real question and the answer more often than not is definitively yes.

How are they more of a nuisance than white trash?

Because white trash is an in-house problem that could be more easily addressed without the added complication of nonwhite trash.

What about the vast majority of non-whites who are policed citizens and work harder than you?

I think the civilized nonwhites are fantastic and I hold nothing against them, I just don't want to live around them. They would be doing far more good improving their own shithole nations rather than diversifying my own with their ugly brown faces

 

[Fontaine]

What are your thoughts on globalism?

Something that has always existed (the Roman Empire was globalist in the sense it wanted hegemony and cultural homogeneity worldwide; the same goes for the British Empire or the French Empire). There was a revival of globalism in the late XIXth century, largely driven by technology rather than military conquest this time.

Before the first transatlantic cable, communications between Europe and the Americas took place only by ship. Sometimes, however, severe winter storms delayed ships for weeks. The transatlantic cable reduced communication time considerably, allowing a message and a response in the same day. Five attempts to lay a cable were made over a nine-year period – one in 1857, two in 1858, one in 1865, and one in 1866. Lasting connections were finally achieved with the 1866 cable...

Instant worldwide communication paved the way for an international banking system, etc. Politics mostly followed the trend and did not create it.

 

[Deleted member 12355]

Is this thread still going? It's an obvious bait

 

[Johny.speiz]

What are your thoughts on globalism?

Communism was an experiment. But Capitalism was the cause. And I must quote mr Marx once. Marx said very clearly, that evolution of social-economic order, will bring Fascists to power, in case of Capitalist failure.

Capitalism fails and it will fail, because it is based not on moral, Corporatist norms and values, but on primitive human features like greed. Communism has failed to deliver any alternative. Capitalism and Communism also represent the same model of relations in the world – Globalism and global governance. We see it, today, UN, EU, NATO, ASEAN, GCC, One Belt-One Road and other.

EU is the product of the same evil ideologies and political systems, as these who are responsible for the mass murder and destruction of the social order. Not only in USSR or Communist China, but also in other places, like Colombia.

But of course, we must be wary of these takeovers. For me it is crystal clear, as long as we live in Capitalism, we must be opened for the world. Global Capitalism vs National-Corporatism, this is the choice. Since then, I do not have any "multinationals-phobia" as many people, especially from Far Left and even Far Right. If we want to fight with multi-national companies and their rising strength, we must do it, civilized one, through Nationalism and its elements, like trade barriers. I am a proponent of changing domestic VAT into import tariffs.

People still believe in Marxism, in so called "equality", in some Liberal bullshit. It is their choice, I stand for free choice, if someone wants to follow the path of Marxism or Liberalism, Conservatism, may do it. But solely.

For me, neither system, besides Corporatist system, implemented in many countries, in 20th Century is suitable for the modern Global World. We face 2 options – we will become slaves within the Globalist system or we will opt for Freedom, within the National-Corporatist world. It seems, that majority of people, opt for enslavement.

 

[incel4life]

The idea behind racial nationalism is that it is natural to want to promote the survival of those genetically similar to yourself. It's obviously natural to want to promote the wellbeing of those who are your blood relatives, like children, nephews, siblings, etc. White nationalists then claim that it should also be natural to want to promote the survival of those who share your race, since they are more genetically similar to you than people of other races.

There is a small amount of truth to this, but there are more important factors at play. Sometimes foreign genes can be helpful or necessary for the survival of our offspring, so it can in some cases be helpful for our genes' survival if we promote the survival of the foreigners with useful genes and encourage them to breed with our children. I think the fact that most living organisms do not rely on asexual reproduction is proof that genetic similarity is not the only thing that matters.

Another argument I have against racial nationalism is the fact that having a good culture is important for your genes' survival, and the people who promote a good culture are not necessarily the people who are the most genetically similar to ourselves. If you have a good monogamous culture, it's incredibly great for your your genes' survival - it means that you get to get married and have kids, and your kids get to get married and have kids, etc. If I had a child that promoted a bad sexually free culture, I wouldn't mind if he were slaughtered so that he wouldn't ruin the culture for my other children. Likewise, if there was a person who was genetically dissimilar to myself but contributed to the betterment of our culture, I would do everything possible to contribute to his survival so that he makes the world a better place for my children.

 

[Fontaine]

The idea behind racial nationalism is that it is natural to want to promote the survival of those genetically similar to yourself. It's obviously natural to want to promote the wellbeing of those who are your blood relatives, like children, nephews, siblings, etc. White nationalists then claim that it should also be natural to want to promote the survival of those who share your race, since they are more genetically similar to you than people of other races.

There is a small amount of truth to this, but there are more important factors at play. Sometimes foreign genes can be helpful or necessary for the survival of our offspring, so it can in some cases be helpful for our genes' survival if we promote the survival of the foreigners with useful genes and encourage them to breed with our children. I think the fact that most living organisms do not rely on asexual reproduction is proof that genetic similarity is not the only thing that matters.

Another argument I have against racial nationalism is the fact that having a good culture is important for your genes' survival, and the people who promote a good culture are not necessarily the people who are the most genetically similar to ourselves. If you have a good monogamous culture, it's incredibly great for your your genes' survival - it means that you get to get married and have kids, and your kids get to get married and have kids, etc. If I had a child that promoted a bad sexually free culture, I wouldn't mind if he were slaughtered so that he wouldn't ruin the culture for my other children. Likewise, if there was a person who was genetically dissimilar to myself but contributed to the betterment of our culture, I would do everything possible to contribute to his survival so that he makes the world a better place for my children.

Excellent points.

 

[Passing]

High IQ. I must admit that the number one reason I dislike racemixing is that I find racemixed women (especially mulattoes) much less pretty than white women. But I'm not getting any anyway, not even here in a small German town where 90% of people are white.

We all know where you live.