Nationalism — Empathy is Not a Bad Word

Part of humanity’s progress has followed from picking up on ideas learnt from others, using and conserving them. One reason why human beings rule the planet, as opposed to the genetically almost identical great apes, is that we can keep building on what others have already accomplished.

A mental instrument that we often apply to do this is called empathy, also a highly miscomprehended and misrepresented sort of word and concept.

In this text, I will essay to give empathy back its original meaning. The plan is to bring the concept of empathy back to its deserved place and stature – and also to point out why it matters, and matters vitally, to Nationalists of all extractions.


Media, SJW’s and PC flakes have lately taken to fielding empathy as a sort of fashion or buzzword. What they seem to mean, and I am not sure that the majority of them could state this in any intellectually acceptable way, is that everyone has to understand and accept most everything that happens to be going on at a larger scale, at the peril of being accused of having no empathy.

Where they go wrong is exactly here:

a) having empathy means being able to understand another person’s way of thinking, inclusive of his underlying motivations, his possible misunderstandings and his general philosophy, rooted in his feelings (Greek empatheia means feeling or passion), because what and how we feel is just the preamble to what and how we think

b) having empathy has, in and of itself, zero implications for accepting or approving of another person’s way of thinking, or that way of thinking’s consequences – we can accept, sympathize or choose to do the opposite at our discretion, as long as we have an empathy-based basis of insight on which to found our conclusions

We apply empathy when we play chess (at least when we play in any sort of meaningful way). We want to understand our counterpart’s thinking, reasoning and the game plan to which we surmise that these will lead. It does not follow that we would think any differently about trying to win the game itself. We also apply empathy in team sports, both in understanding members of our own side and members of the opposite side. We have no less intention of winning the game because we take care to understand what the participants are thinking.

The Enemy Doesn’t Know Jack About Empathy

Partly because the enemy – media, SJW’s and PC flakes to mention just a few – doesn’t really understand empathy or how to apply it, his propaganda game is very often a joke. The enemy embraces globalization’s agenda of Islamism, mass migration, social disintegration, offshoring of jobs from the Occident and the complete dismantling of the national state, all in the name of understanding and tolerance.

Just because these phenomena have cropped up and seem to be going on of their own mystical accord, the enemy feels that this is somehow a natural progression of affairs and that understanding and acceptance is in order, inclusive of migrants, robber barons and crooked politicians… Empathy? No, anarchism, indifference and contempt of humanity. How have they managed to sell all this to the public over the last few years? F is the only possible grade they can get, and one preponderant reason is that the enemy and his shills can’t think outside of the narrow box in which they are jammed – they just can’t muster the empathy to understand how worried the public is about the many negative goings-on that globalization entails. With a minimum of empathy, they could have fooled a lot of the people, for a lot of the remaining time before the showdown.

Further, the enemy understands zero about Nationalism and the Alt-Right and the only feeling about us that he allows himself is unreserved revulsion. Just listen to him around sabotaged Trump rallies, for instance: “Who shuts **** down? WE shut **** down!”. Or any other similar example from anywhere around the world – no real way to endear yourself to your target audience, or getting them to see what it is that you want. This has a way of obstructing his analysis and the crafting of solutions to counter-act us.

It seems clear that it just isn’t the done thing in enemy circles to even try to empathize with us, to understand anything about us, who we are, where we are coming from or what we are doing. It is a low-status sort of endeavor to even study us – mainly relegated to B-grade journalists when there is not enough to do in the way of reporting from dog shows or the like. The results come out as you might expect, and there is no real reason to worry that the enemy will understand anything material about us until it is too late. For him.

It is a critical strategical advantage that we hold that the enemy neither understands the concept of empathy, nor holds any real capacity for empathy. The message to me is that this is an advantage that we should press.

Nationalism and the Alt-Right Need to use Empathy for Leverage

If the enemy doesn’t want to put empathy to meaningful use, this is all the more reason why we should pick up what he dropped. We don’t need to compromise for as much as plugged nickel’s worth about our core values, or about our end objectives, just because we have our listening ears on and take time out to understand other people – other Nationalists and Alt-Right sympathizers as well as enemy representatives, and most importantly of all, the public that we need to get on our side.

We need to state our case in a way that is tailored to the way that the, as yet, unconvinced portions of the public can most easily accept. It may not always be the most elegant way, or the dialectically most impressive way. Think what you will about Dale Carnegie (he lived in a different world, where mass migration was not allowed to displace civilizations), but his basic message is for everybody with an ambition for reaching out to the public – try to mentally walk a mile in any targeted person’s moccasins, understand what drives him (and what doesn’t), and see if his self-interest, as you can best understand it, isn’t the right way to win his heart and mind. Above all, we must be patient and gracious. No hard feelings for late-comers, just think about the Bible’s Prodigal Son and the message of that story to us, today.

We need to have our conflict with the enemy in the way that most efficiently demoralizes and confuses him, and also in the way that most efficiently wins the public to our side. There is no substitute for studying and understanding the enemy, in order to exploit his deficiencies. There is very often a kind of method in his madness (unlike Hamlet, the enemy doesn’t have to pretend that he is mad, he just is mad), and we need to understand it so we can pick it apart. Empathy – again, not the same as sympathy – is a critical tool in the toolbox.


What I hope comes across as a meaningful general message here is, of course and necessarily, embedded in portions of what may be self-evident to a number of sophisticated readers. As always, I welcome a follow-on discussion and constructive criticism.

David Gellerman
the authorDavid Gellerman
David Gellerman is a long-time Swedish Nationalist with political roots in the movements of the early 90's. His interests run to writing and ideology, particularly Identitarianism. At present, he has no firm affiliation with any organizational entity, and in the absence of such, he likes to market mutual understanding, tolerance and a general ecumenical standpoint among Nationalists of all extractions.


    • Even if you were right, and I hold this in doubt, the problem is passing away. We are no longer just angry young men in momma’s basement, we come from all walks of life and we are playing with a full set of cards as far as emotional intelligence and interpersonal skills. We even have some LGBT folks on board because they feel much the same as we do about islamization, and more are coming on.

      Read up on what the Koran says about you and what would happen to you if the believers came to power, and then you come on board, too. Welcome.

      • How exactly am I supposed to feel? And I appreciate the offer but I will never become a member of any far side. I love being an independent and being able to take a step back without the bias of it being my group that I closely identify with (because something you’re close to you’ll jump to defend most of the time, just as an immediate reaction).
        I have found that whether the far left or the far right the more likely there is to be hypocrisy and blind following, even when something is being done wrong. The members tend to stick up for it. And no, I am not saying always, but it is very common, again on both sides.
        So again thank you, but I will be fine without. I am going to kindly pass the offer.

        • Your call. Your life is yours and your choices are your own, but should you choose to look more closely into the Alt-Right, without prejudice, my prediction is that you would find a critical, objective attitude throughout, inclusive of self-criticism when this is due.

          We don’t always back up our own, at least not when they go far enough wrong. We dispensed with Milo, who is a unique and God-given talent for controversy, spin and publicity, because he went wrong. When is the purple-haired lynch mob of the left going to dispense with the hate preacher Yvette Felarca?

          Oh, but I forgot. You use a different yardstick for them. Well, good for you.

          • I do appreciate the honesty and the openness. I feel that no side is free from hypocrisy, not even I am and I will admit that. It just seems, again from what I have observed being on both sides of the argument and listening to the opinions of all before making a decision or even saying I was not wanting to be involved in it, (which is rare I will say) the further on a side you are the less likely you are able to see the people blindly standing up for something that side wouldn’t normally endorse especially when it comes to some more radical ideals.

            I do also really appreciate that you mentioned Milo. I do see a lot of people standing up for him but also see that a lot of alt right members have gone full stop and said that they don’t appreciate what he’s said and have refused to be told that someone like Milo represents them as a movement. I do know that the left is holding on to some people who claim to represent them, who are indeed just hurting them in the long run. That is their issues and not everyone on the left is saying they support, a majority still are. That is for them to decide. It still doesn’t mean they are up for criticism while the right is not. I feel all sides at all times should be criticized , as should those standing in the middle and watching the bullets fly by, such as myself.

            I am watching the video on the link you sent. I think that this woman was under the right to freely speak her mind just as Milo is allowed to speak, but I also feel that she is ridiculous for calling him a fascist. This is someone who is trying to silence free speech, just as Milo fights against. Although, I would say I have indeed seen the alt right doing the exact same just in a different way.

            Anyway, I really did enjoy this conversation and if you would like, later on, I would love to exchange ideas and discuss some other issues. Have a great night and thank you again for providing a civil and pleasant conversation. It’s more than I can say for most of the members of the alt right that I have tried to converse with .

  • I really liked this article, it says exactly what is the most attractive about the alt-right, the alt-right is not underestimating it’s opponents… i read an article today on the guardian, titled ‘backlash against Trump must start with Merel Streepe golden globe speech’ the article continued on to state that cool people cannot support trump or farrange… so we the people are not cool? Trump is a glimmer of hope for democracy, but it still might be that only a military dictatorship can save us from Michelle Obama being elected in 2020.

    • Thanks! Always glad to oblige. 🙂

      I have often seen it written that ‘it’s hip to be cool’. It’s in my mind to wonder how ‘hip’ (knowledgeable) all these ‘cool’, streepoid hecklers really are.

      They have no idea what is going on, and they will never know, because they are to ‘cool’ to bother. This means that they are too ‘cool’ to bother about whether they will prevail in this whole conflict at all. So maybe losing is the new ‘cool’, because that’s where they’re headed.

      Take your time and tell us all you know, Meryl Streep. Definition of zero time.

Leave a Reply