Extensive Analysis: How the Nationalist Movement Could Attract A Lot More People

Have you ever wondered why it is that so many people have a hard time understanding that current European immigration policies are, to put it mildly, not ideal? Why is it that the nationalist movement has failed to attract a mainstream audience despite how bad the situation is?

When one first starts to realise what is going on regarding immigration into the West, it can be a very frustrating experience. It seems like a lot of Nationalist groups are frustrated, which is understandable, and since they feel that way they also tend to present their message in an equally frustrated and angry way, which does not come across well to the majority of the population.

Below, you see an excerpt of a mindset that is common amongst people frustrated with the current situation:

“Why it is so hard for many people, especially those liberal leftist brainwashed people, to just accept that Third World immigrants commit more crime than us Europeans? That is just a fact! That things have gotten much worse since the Thirld World started to pour into our countries? That these immigrants tend to be more violent and that we are less safe, and that Islam is obviously dangerous with its values and how they view women? That most immigrants just live on welfare and don’t contribute to society, that they cannot be integrated into our society because of the big cultural differences etc., and that this is just plain LOGIC! Why don’t these leftist people understand this? Is it because they are only emotional, naive and incapable of understanding real simple logic? Are they totally brainwashed? Are they too naive, tolerant and nice so that it is transitioning to become madness? Why are they not attracted to nationalist movements who just want to restore order and common sense? Why do they keep wanting more immigration into our homelands?”

After having studied at university and attending a marxist safari for years, where I met and observed all kinds of leftist academic people everyday who eagerly supported more non-European immigration into our homelands, I have some perspective on why they are not attracted to the “white nationalist movement” around the West.

In the first part of this article, we will go through some steps points regarding WHY most Europeans have not been attracted to the nationalist movement during the last few decades, and then we will go through some suggestions and solutions relating to how things could be instead in order to attract a lot more people! After all, we want more people to care about our future and to engage in practical politics in order to do something about all of this.

Before we start, let it just be known that we do have a huge respect for all people out there who are actively doing something, and who might have been traumatised, heartbroken, wounded or made victims in one way or another as a consequence of the anti-white policies. If you feel criticised whilst reading this text, do not take its content personally. These perspectives are based on our own research and experiences from talking to leftists, which have helped us to understand their mindset and how they react. We endeavoured to discover what works and what does not. We hope to share with you our insights. If you are a person who really wonders why the old nationalistic ways of reaching others have not really worked well, here are some considerations:

The old nationalist rhetoric is antisocial

Violently screaming harsh messages, such as “REFUGEES GO HOME!”, gives off aggressive and hateful vibes (you have probably often heard the leftists claim that others are ‘hateful’). These types of statements are commonly heard amongst many nationalists today and have been for a long time. Phrases and messages such as “Kick the trash back to their shitty homelands” and “Go back to your country!!!”.

Often, the response is equal. People scream and react with hatred. As the old folk proverb says: What a man yells in the forest, echoes back at him.

However, many ordinary people out there do agree with many nationalistic points, as most white people are subconsciously pro-white (or at least they aren’t anti-white). We know this by taking a closer look at what people actually DO in their lives, and not what they necessarily say.

White flight is an obvious example, as most Europeans move to European neighbourhoods and associate with other Europeans (and the same can be said by immigrant/non-European groups who have a preference to live amongst their own kind of people). This is natural. But Europeans are not attracted to fear-based or hateful rhetoric. It is viewed as evil and it brings negative vibes.

So what is being said, in this case “GO HOME!!”, and how it is said (with aggression, fear and hate), is something that people pick up on, and it gives off bad vibes.

The message and rhetoric is exclusionary, and excluding is negative. It conveys fear-based and reactionary feelings. The result, as we have seen over the past few decades, is that the previous nationalist movements have remained unattractive to the vast majority in our society.

On an individual level, when a person is excluding other people in social situations, that person will always be viewed by others as antisocial and unpleasant. The same rule applies to a group of people with the same attitude. If a group is violently screaming exclusionary messages, this will be viewed as antisocial and unpleasant by most people. On the other hand, an individual who has an aura of inclusion is like a magnet in social situations. Other people like to be around such an individual because they feel safe and accepted. You probably do too!

Just like children like to be around and listen to a cosy old grandfather who tells them stories with a safe and warm voice, healthy adult people are attracted to that warm, good and inclusive vibe amongst other people they meet. A welcoming person (who does not feel threatened by other people) is a safe person, and a safe person is someone other people can rely on. The same rule applies with group dynamics.

To summarise:

Antisocial people = Bad vibe.
Inclusive people = Good vibe.

People in general are attracted to things that are just, bright and good. They are not attracted to things from which they get a sense of criminality, darkness or evil.

The rhetoric has to be social, inclusive and just in order to attract. If we are the good guys, we should show it.

So how can we reverse Third World immigration without ostracising?

Reversing Third World immigration from our countries does not have to be viewed as exclusion if we adopt the correct mindset. There are civilised ways to help Third World immigrants to return home to their countries. Besides, it is not inhumane for Chinese people to live in China, or for Pakistani people to live in Pakistan and so on.

We have to first realise that the question of our survival as Europeans/whites has in itself nothing to do with other groups of people. They just happen to be here because of the anti-whites who brought them here. This will consequently lead to our people becoming a minority in our countries. In that sense, the immigrants are a tool for the anti-whites; pawns in their game. This is a question about us and our will to exist!

You have probably heard the quote from Mahatma Gandhi: “Be the change you want to see in the world”. This is also true for a group of people. One should focus on one’s own group and one’s own family.

The fact that we find ourselves in the situation we are in today, where we are at the brink of becoming a minority in our own lands, is not the fault of other races. It is our people’s own fault as we have allowed this to happen. It is our own people’s anti-white mentality that has put us in this situation. If we had stronger national unity amongst our own people, we would not be in this situation.

Therefore, when talking to other Europeans/whites about this, the focus should be to condemn other whites who eagerly want to justify us becoming a minority in our countries, a.k.a. the anti-whites. They are the reason we are in this situation. If we do that, then the dynamic of this whole discussion will be something totally different.

Many people who define themselves as nationalists have a bad self-image

Many, but far from all, people who call themselves nationalists have a mindset that they have to be a necessary evil in order to restore order and peace. Some of them have a lot of suppressed anger which has transformed into a sort of bitterness and malice towards society and ordinary people outside the nationalist movement. They feel these people have abandoned all responsibility.

It is understandable though, considering how far society has fallen and how individualistic we Europeans/whites have become today, where we tend to seek our own personal gain instead of caring about our community and our people. These deep feelings of anger and resentment tend to create this sort desire for revenge which is directed towards the society which has let them down, or towards immigrants who behave badly. We call it “the practical necessary evil syndrome”.

Many people who view themselves as nationalists do actually believe that they are egotistical for choosing to be pro-white instead of “multicultural”. The thought is that nationalists say one should care about their own people first. The objection from the multiculturalists, then, is that we should care about all people from all over the world, not just the people in our own countries. The response from the nationalists is often that although it may be best to be like the multiculturalists, i.e. to care about all people, the harsh reality is that their approach (or even philosophy) does not work in the real world.

Similar to lifeboats on a sinking ship, the nationalist mindset is typically that we cannot realistically expect to fit all people into the lifeboats, therefore we need to be “egoistic” and have an approach based on ‘necessary evil’ in order to deal with the situation. Meanwhile, multiculturalists would have you believe that there is room for everyone.

So to be more egoistic is viewed as necessary by the nationalists because they see all the chaos and social unrest many immigrants cause in the West, and believe that to deal with the situation practically means that we cannot afford to be “too nice” towards other groups of people.

This mindset drains vital energy in the long run of course. They might not feel they have good moral values or feel good about themselves, but they feel that they have to have that attitude in order to be realistic. If they let go of that strict and harsh mentality they are afraid that they are risking becoming softer, much like the liberals or “lazy left-wingers” who are “nice people” in a way but do not understand the tough realities out there.

It is a responsibility they do not want to take but feel that they MUST take because no one else does, which again does not help attract ordinary Europeans outside the nationalist community. Feelings of duty are not long lasting if they motivated by negativity, but to feel joy in fighting makes an individual fight harder and longer.

To be a nationalist in itself is not viewed as “evil” or bad by people in general. It is the whole attitude and approach surrounding nationalism, which we outlined above, and the current mindset associated with it, that they tend to react negatively to. I know this, because I know leftist friends who love our traditions in my country, who do love our flag and customs, but they do not like to brag about it in a provocative manner. How you choose to express or celebrate your heritage is an important factor in not alienating people!

People who view themselves as a necessary evil will act accordingly. That can cause problems for them.

There are many steps to take in order to change one’s worldview and mindset. For anyone who recognises themselves in the description above, it will be a process to establish a new, more positive and loving attitude, and with more optimism it will be easier to see more possibilities.

You can read about the “necessary evil” syndrome in this article. We will write another article about how to view the situation in order to feel good, as well as topics about having decent intentions and how to attain the moral high ground in social situations.

The movement has a mindset of constraint

You have probably noticed that many people who define themselves as nationalists often feel that they “must” do things. They see that no one else takes responsibility around them and that they are therefore forced to be responsible themselves because it is practically necessary in the situation we face. It is something they do not want to do, of course, but they feel that it is their obligation in one way or another. Their duty, so to speak. This type of mindset also creates an attachment to a certain outcome, which creates a lot of anxiety and fear.

The first step is to realise that there is not anything in this world that you must do. You are not forced to do anything. You have to acknowledge everything that is, but at the same time not accept it. You have to let go of everything that you fear losing. When you have let go of the attachment(s) in your heart, THEN you can look at the whole situation again from a new perspective. You will then feel different about it and take a moral view of the whole reality before making a decision that is free from attachment.

There is not anything in this world that we must do, but there are things that are just, moral and honourable to do.

One thing that is morally right is to fight for one’s own people’s chance to continue to live on into the future! Most Europeans today are individualistically minded. They care mostly about themselves. If you have enough strength and love in your heart to really care about your countrymen around you, then you are above egoism. You reach idealism.

The leftists often think progressively; they want change and reform. The conservatives want to preserve things as they are. Change can be scary for some, but change in itself does not have to be bad; it depends on what type of change we are talking about. To change Western civilisation to the point where it resembles the Thirld World is a destructive change for our European people. What you want is a constructive change which assures our survival.

Europeans are attracted to new and progressive things. They are attracted to change and creativity. They are not attracted to fear and rigid rhetoric. You might be able to scare some people to your way of thinking, but you do not attract them.

The mindset has to be “leftist” in that sense i.e. you should become a person who does not get entrenched in fear and holding on to whatever you have, rather, you embrace positive change.

Instead of saying “We MUST preserve the white race”, you should say:

“I want to give our people a chance to live on into the future”.

The psychological effect of words are often as follows:

Words like:
Preserving = holding onto (fear based rhetoric, having attachment).
Also, “the white race” is abstract. It is better to say “our people”. Make it personal.

Words like:
“Chance”, “give”, “live” and “future”= Moving forward (strong, free and abundance based rhetoric).

Use progressive words to describe your intentions.

You have probably heard people on the right say that leftist rhetoric is “too nice” and “too idealistic”. That it is “a good idea but isn’t realistic enough because people are inherently selfish”. In discussions about immigration with other Europeans/whites, however, you want to be viewed as “too nice” and “idealistic” for being nationalistic and caring about your people. Then you can bring forth your love and positive vibes by talking about how wonderful it would be if we Europeans/whites came together as brothers and sisters and started caring about one another again! To work together for higher goals as comrades! Talking like that, with a determined attitude, conveys a positive, progressive and idealistic vibe.

Anyone who does not agree on that and tries to justify more Third World immigration into all and only Western countries is anti-white, and that is morally wrong.

The movement lacks visions and moral high ground

Blaming another group of people is considered antisocial, even if that other group is doing bad things. It is always considered antisocial to focus negatively on, or to blame, others. Whether it is an individual who is blaming another individual or a group of people blaming another group, the same social rule applies.

Europeans/whites today view blaming as antisocial behaviour. But this is not something that they have been brainwashed to believe. Talking badly about other people, or blaming others, has always been seen as antisocial. On the other hand, acknowledging one’s own faults and weaknesses is seen as strength of character in a person. The same rule applies in group dynamics. It appears more social to self-criticise than to see faults in other people when talking in groups.

The old nationalist movement focuses a lot on all the negativity around immigrants. They do this in the hope of convincing their fellow “un-awakened” Europeans. They think that once the “un-awakened” Europeans agree, they will also agree to “throw out the immigrants” from our countries. But this is not what is happening. The effect is that all our fellow European brothers and sisters see and hear is a group, or an individual, which/who generalise(s) and blame(s) other groups of people, which again is viewed as antisocial and bad. Many Europeans feel ashamed of their own people when they see other Europeans talk badly about different groups of people.


Pointing out problem is generally seen as okay, as long as you have a solution and can present it constructively.

The old nationalist movement is not solution-oriented

Nationalists are very good at pointing out negative things. Mostly what we hear from the nationalist movements is complaints, blame, anger and frustration. That is all it is, and that is all people outside of the nationalist movement hear and remember.

People in general think: “Okay, I hear you are upset about things, but what is to be done then?”.

No one from the nationalist movement (except maybe certain political figures) has, in public, presented any real answers to that question except for a simplistic answer such as “KICK THE IMMIGRANTS OUT!”, which is viewed as hateful, exclusive and antisocial.

Of course, feelings of anger and frustration are natural and legitimate when one is being forced to become a minority in his/her own country, but those feelings have to be used constructively in order to reach and attract other people, and to do anything constructive in general.

You might feel anger or sadness about the situation. This is healthy and natural, but what is one to do with such feelings?

Do not suppress anger, or any feelings you have, but use your anger and aggressiveness to become more assertive.

Those who are assertive have control of their feelings. When they feel anger (as all humans do), that emotional energy transforms into assertiveness and people around them have respect for them. Do not dwell or focus on negativity. That will drain your life energy. Objectively see the negative, but live emotionally in the positive and be optimistic as much as you can. It is a process and you have to practice it over time.

Trying to realistically find long lasting constructive solutions to the things you see which are damaging in society. We believe that is our best chance of winning!

*  *  *

We recommend that you to reflect on this article for a while, and leave your comments below! Bring your perspectives, questions and reflections!

Leave a Reply

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

newest oldest most voted
Notify of

The psychological effect of words, that was mentioned, is very high in my view of what has to be considered, but also of what has to be done. Precise, self-explanatory and clever words/phrases to provide pro-white ideas is key; I would add, though, that we should also develop an offensive arsenal of words/phrases to mute anti-whites’ narratives and attacks. I would like to see the opening of a discussion that will bring fresh ideas into such an arsenal and a broadening of the use of the most successful ones. For example and as a start, what do you think of… Read more »


Hi everyone, I’ve just discovered and joined the group, great article which I totally agree with. Another argument which I’ve been using with people recently with friends and colleagues during the Brexit debate, is that of ‘Sustainability’, initially when I would talk about the need to control immigration, I’d get the usual reply that I’m racist, especially from those who don’t know me, however, when I framed my argument in terms of sustainability, people were more positively responsive, by starting your approach initially from the perspective that the UK has finite resources and if we love our country and want… Read more »

Mikael Ternedahl

This article is genius!


Brilliant analysis! Best strategy: Be the best example of your vision!

Pin It on Pinterest

This website uses cookies and third party services. Ok