I'm sure you've noticed they aren't the biggest fans of Russia.
With Russia being a largely White nation and unimpeded by massive levels of immigration - I'm not sure I understand the lukewarm attitude in Nick's case and the hostility in Richards.
I'm not a cheerleader for the Russian state - but their positions on this is perplexing to me. Any thoughts?
Do you think ethno-pluralist democracy is a good model for Europe? Is the main goal of the identitarian revolution to convince western elites and parties to take up remigration politics? Conservative parties such as CDU seem to have taken these positions (as Merz has in Germany) to repatriate a considerable amount of foreign born asylum seekers, could this be promising together with a larger identitarian shift?
Are you aware of any attempts to address the rate at which a nation can absorb immigrants without sacrificing its social cohesion and demographic identity? I have seen in your writings citations to Aristotle’s position on the ideal *size* of a society, and I think you tweeted not long ago about being open to limited immigration into Ireland if it were limited to Europeans and on certain terms. But I don’t think I’ve seen anyone attempt to address on a scientific or sociological basis the degree to which a society can absorb foreign peoples without sacrificing its identity so to speak.
I think this is a much needed issue to address in the nationalist movement. Too many people are uncomfortable with the nationalist position simply because they believe it prohibits integration on any level whatsoever. Simply identifying a reasonable scientific or sociological basis that permits some limited degree of “integration” would make the nationalist position far more credible and attract more adherents.
What about basing an immigration policy on the sociological phenomenon of the rule of 150? Roughly speaking, it seems to be a sociological phenomenon in which the ideal group size for close, personal social cohesion is about 150 people. Think of a company in the military context like Easy Company in Band of Brothers. Beyond 150 people, it becomes harder to truly know a person on a personal level.
Perhaps one could fashion an approach to immigration based around such a principle? One new member of a society per 150 citizens per generation. Coupled with strong general assimilation pressures, visa restrictions to ensure newcomers are not coalescing in a given area, and possibly even various civil rights granted to newcomers over time or even across generations might be an effective approach.
I would love to see someone tackle this issue. I can think of no better person than you. Fleshing out this issue even a little bit would really help ground the nationalist position and make it more palatable to a lot of people.
Democracy means rule by the demos, the people. It is not a set of procedures such as elections, parliaments, courts, and a free press. It is a condition in which an actual people, coherent enough to recognize itself as the thing doing the governing, controls the state it built. The procedures sit downstream of the people. Where there is no demos, there is no democracy, however many votes are counted. Nationalism and democracy are therefore the same thing. A demos is a nation, and a nation governing itself through its own state is what democracy has always been, from Athens through Rome through the pre-1965 American republic through the functioning nation-states of the present. Every durable democracy guarded the boundary of its demos, because a people that loses control of who belongs loses control of the state.
Augustus did not abolish the Roman Republic. He hollowed it while preserving its appearance. The Senate still met, the consuls were still elected, and the vocabulary of res publica still conferred legitimacy, but the Senate ratified what Augustus had already decided, the consuls executed what he had directed, and the elections were held on schedule while the people who voted in them believed they still lived in the Republic. The conversion was administrative, gradual, and dressed in the language of restoration. The shell continued while the people’s actual control of their state was removed. By the time the demos understood what had happened, the Republic was gone. This is the cleanest demonstration in the historical record of how a nation state is replaced by an empire while keeping the procedure of the thing it replaced.
Today the European nations face a far more sophisticated empire led by the international Jewish coalition to name a few, The Anti-Defamation League, B'nai B'rith, the American Jewish Committee, The American Jewish Congress, the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society, The National Council of Jewish Women, the NCRAC is the institutional ancestor of the contemporary Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations. The same coordination architecture that ran the 1965 Hart-Celler campaign runs, with the same continuity, the institutional position on every American foreign and domestic policy question to the present day. Across the Atlantic, you have the Open Society Foundation and the World Economic Forum two pillars of international Jewish governance in Europe. All of this and it doesn’t even touch the organization downstream these groups influence or control, so again I ask, what is to be done?
Another post on X? another Substack? Another podcast? We have the people and the momentum they must be organized and put to work. The problem the movement currently has isn’t the amount of people, we have reached numbers this movement hasn’t had since the early 20th century. Many commentators, such as Nick Fuentes, seem to have no plan or ideas on where to go. They vehemently advocate against organizing due to the fear of being arrested or even killed. I ask you how could we expect nothing less, imprisonment and death are the price for the continuation of our people. The people of this movement must come to these terms, they are fighting for something far greater than their own lives, do nothing and you will by the end of your easy lives see your nations cease to exist in any meaningful way. The English will be a minority in the land that bears their name, the Germans will be a minority in the land they’ve called home for over 3000 years, their will be no European countries left, not in some distant future but in our lifetimes. So my question is, what is to be done?
More observation than request. It would be helpful to socialise the concept of 'the open society and its victims'.
Avid listener of Fuentes and Spencer.
I'm sure you've noticed they aren't the biggest fans of Russia.
With Russia being a largely White nation and unimpeded by massive levels of immigration - I'm not sure I understand the lukewarm attitude in Nick's case and the hostility in Richards.
I'm not a cheerleader for the Russian state - but their positions on this is perplexing to me. Any thoughts?
Also, your new book was great.
What is that music with which you open your podcasts?
Do you think ethno-pluralist democracy is a good model for Europe? Is the main goal of the identitarian revolution to convince western elites and parties to take up remigration politics? Conservative parties such as CDU seem to have taken these positions (as Merz has in Germany) to repatriate a considerable amount of foreign born asylum seekers, could this be promising together with a larger identitarian shift?
Are you aware of any attempts to address the rate at which a nation can absorb immigrants without sacrificing its social cohesion and demographic identity? I have seen in your writings citations to Aristotle’s position on the ideal *size* of a society, and I think you tweeted not long ago about being open to limited immigration into Ireland if it were limited to Europeans and on certain terms. But I don’t think I’ve seen anyone attempt to address on a scientific or sociological basis the degree to which a society can absorb foreign peoples without sacrificing its identity so to speak.
I think this is a much needed issue to address in the nationalist movement. Too many people are uncomfortable with the nationalist position simply because they believe it prohibits integration on any level whatsoever. Simply identifying a reasonable scientific or sociological basis that permits some limited degree of “integration” would make the nationalist position far more credible and attract more adherents.
What about basing an immigration policy on the sociological phenomenon of the rule of 150? Roughly speaking, it seems to be a sociological phenomenon in which the ideal group size for close, personal social cohesion is about 150 people. Think of a company in the military context like Easy Company in Band of Brothers. Beyond 150 people, it becomes harder to truly know a person on a personal level.
Perhaps one could fashion an approach to immigration based around such a principle? One new member of a society per 150 citizens per generation. Coupled with strong general assimilation pressures, visa restrictions to ensure newcomers are not coalescing in a given area, and possibly even various civil rights granted to newcomers over time or even across generations might be an effective approach.
I would love to see someone tackle this issue. I can think of no better person than you. Fleshing out this issue even a little bit would really help ground the nationalist position and make it more palatable to a lot of people.
What is to be done?
Democracy means rule by the demos, the people. It is not a set of procedures such as elections, parliaments, courts, and a free press. It is a condition in which an actual people, coherent enough to recognize itself as the thing doing the governing, controls the state it built. The procedures sit downstream of the people. Where there is no demos, there is no democracy, however many votes are counted. Nationalism and democracy are therefore the same thing. A demos is a nation, and a nation governing itself through its own state is what democracy has always been, from Athens through Rome through the pre-1965 American republic through the functioning nation-states of the present. Every durable democracy guarded the boundary of its demos, because a people that loses control of who belongs loses control of the state.
Augustus did not abolish the Roman Republic. He hollowed it while preserving its appearance. The Senate still met, the consuls were still elected, and the vocabulary of res publica still conferred legitimacy, but the Senate ratified what Augustus had already decided, the consuls executed what he had directed, and the elections were held on schedule while the people who voted in them believed they still lived in the Republic. The conversion was administrative, gradual, and dressed in the language of restoration. The shell continued while the people’s actual control of their state was removed. By the time the demos understood what had happened, the Republic was gone. This is the cleanest demonstration in the historical record of how a nation state is replaced by an empire while keeping the procedure of the thing it replaced.
Today the European nations face a far more sophisticated empire led by the international Jewish coalition to name a few, The Anti-Defamation League, B'nai B'rith, the American Jewish Committee, The American Jewish Congress, the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society, The National Council of Jewish Women, the NCRAC is the institutional ancestor of the contemporary Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations. The same coordination architecture that ran the 1965 Hart-Celler campaign runs, with the same continuity, the institutional position on every American foreign and domestic policy question to the present day. Across the Atlantic, you have the Open Society Foundation and the World Economic Forum two pillars of international Jewish governance in Europe. All of this and it doesn’t even touch the organization downstream these groups influence or control, so again I ask, what is to be done?
Another post on X? another Substack? Another podcast? We have the people and the momentum they must be organized and put to work. The problem the movement currently has isn’t the amount of people, we have reached numbers this movement hasn’t had since the early 20th century. Many commentators, such as Nick Fuentes, seem to have no plan or ideas on where to go. They vehemently advocate against organizing due to the fear of being arrested or even killed. I ask you how could we expect nothing less, imprisonment and death are the price for the continuation of our people. The people of this movement must come to these terms, they are fighting for something far greater than their own lives, do nothing and you will by the end of your easy lives see your nations cease to exist in any meaningful way. The English will be a minority in the land that bears their name, the Germans will be a minority in the land they’ve called home for over 3000 years, their will be no European countries left, not in some distant future but in our lifetimes. So my question is, what is to be done?