Tangential to the remigration question is a different approach to dealing with criminals. The EU, especially Western Europe, has incredibly lax punishments for violent criminals and repeat offenders: people who destroy the public space.
The EU needs to reintroduce the death penalty for a wide range of violent crimes and most certainly for repeat offenders.
Britain had their chance in the spotlight. The world has moved on, only through an alliance of culturally Anglo nations can Brtain possibly have a chance.
Maybe the banking system, but I admire the decentralized nature of its system. I’m not in favor of a centralized bureaucracy. Though, I do recognize the need for a military and the federal government shouldn’t just sit and do nothing,
Really good essay. Let's see if the people that matter start to consider some of your proposals. But just as you pointed out in your previous post about how the dismantling of the EU would scare away the normies from our cause, I suspect what you're suggesting here would do so even more. Therefore this would have to be a plan for the distant future rather than anytime soon.
This article actually has a lot of good (and practical) proposals. I definitely recommend reading this one. I really like the idea of using the Union to coordinate deportations.
Great article 👍. I am not European but this seems like the best approach for the continent, allowing for self determination and sovereignty while also maintaining a united front against existential threats like mass migration and economic decline. This EU should also focus on completely eliminating Zionist Jewish influence in the region, since there are many "nationalist" parties that still bend the knee to this dangerous ideology
It is certainly true that white nations should band together and use their collective strength to insist that the Third World takes back their migrants (and not just the illegals), but this doesn't mean that an EU body is required. I suspect that beneath Keith's white nationalism lurks his more atavistic passion - anti-Englishness. There is no reason for Ireland to be in the EU - particularly now that the net subsidies are over. For a long time, Ireland was a net recipient (= in fact, English money being handed to Brussels to hand to Ireland, as England was always a net contributor). Now Ireland has become a net contributor, there is no reason to be in the EU. And around 50% of Ireland's trade is outside the EU. Ireland only remains as an expression of anti-Englishness. I'm sure Keith knows this, and I'm sure Keith will deny this.
These proposals we can all agree with, but the unification project was driven from the start by the likes of Jean Monnet and his anti-fascist and globalist friends, for whom ending national sovereignty and building a new super-state was and is the sine qua non. The EU Commission in particular exists solely to drive the anti-national agenda. Would you close that and repudiate its work? Likewise, nearly all the existing staff will be trained agents of that agenda. They would all have to be fired. Like the BBC, there might be something to salvage, but it would need thousands of new, wholly different staff.
Great article, mostly agree. I am curious about how defense would be handled as I didn't see it mentioned much, maybe I skimmed over too fast. I would imagine a platform for European armies to coordinate with each other would be in place to fight outside foes like Turkey with Greece over sea disputes or potential clashes with America over Greenland.
Furthermore, I am curious if England would be maintained as a lingua franca, or would another language be instead? An examole being Latin which is very influential on all European languages and has no country to truly give it soft power the way English does.
I don't believe turkey will go to war with Greece. And Greenland would be easily conquered by the US. (Not that it would happen). Also English is a horrible language, Spanish would make more sense.
I don't any war between Turkey and Greece would come in the foreseeable future (next 5 years) nor would any war likely be in the form of direct territorial conquest, but rather the use of military forces to enforce claims on Aegean waters that host energy reserves or (less likely) a direct conflict over Northern Cyprus. Turkey has become a military power onto itself with military bases spanning across the Middle East and North African and essentially gaining new puppet/client states in Libya, Azerbaijan, and Syria to an extent. Its rise is something Europe must watch out for.
I agree with your Greenland take and I honestly think Greenland should sell it to America, with Greenland becoming an American protectorate with autonomy.
I have no idea why Spanish would be better than English, but maybe you were just joking lol
Keith, great work, and this is fascinating for me to read as an American. What is your view on tourism? It is my view that mass tourism is almost as harmful as mass migration. Let's face it, places like Venice wouldn't have an economy without massive amounts of Chinese, Japanese (and okay, American) tourists coming to take photos and buy cheap crap.
I think this mass tourism is incredibly harmful because it 1) massively strains infrastructure, 2) creates a weird, artificial economic environment, and 3) worst of all, hollows out the indigenous culture. How many Viennese walk into St. Stephensdom every day to worship vs. how many Chinese tourists for a thirty-second photo shoot? A church, store, or bridge built by Europeans to function for Europeans becomes an oddity like a memento in a museum: passingly interesting to a tourist, but impractical to its original purpose. Dead, almost.
Thoughts on limiting mass tourism to revitalize European culture? Maybe a system where preference is given to tourists of a more closely shared culture, e.g. Christian or American?
The greatest error people always make is assuming that the Treaties need to be “reopened”, “renegotiated” or “repealed”; they’re not a Constitution.
You just need to replace them. Come up with a new Treaty and adopt it unilaterally by National Parliaments. The European Union cannot do anything in response but whine and cry, which is what they do best anyway. Dismantling the EU is the easiest part, you just need to replace it with a successor organisation the same way the League of Nations was subsumed into the United Nations.
Do you think reform is ever possible without wholesale collapse of the previous institution?
I don't think this isn't just a word game about the difference either.
I'm not aware of historical examples where large scale governmental organizations were successfully reformed from within - the model seems to be that the old entity is destroyed and a new one takes its place.
Gorbachev wanted to 'reform' the USSR but really it needed to collapse completely and be rebuilt, the whole point was that the reformers kept failing because the old guard power structures were too entrenched for real change.
The EU likely needs some kind of crisis to break its power hold and a rival alternative needs to appear.
I suppose you could argue the likes of Tony Blair or David Cameron 'reformed' their parties but these are much smaller scale and more easily controlled entities. The sheer sprawling size of the EU seems designed to break attempts at reform and so abolishing or collapsing it externally first might be necessary.
Doesn't your suggestion to ban online censorship fly in the face of deconstructing the supremacy of European law? EU censorship is not wildly more repressive than those of the individual countries.
"Added to this economic straitjacket are needlessly punitive regulations like the cookie law and GDPR"
This whole article seems like a plea to Musk, but this in particular is just weird. The EU's fight against overreach by Big Tech was one of the best uses of their regulatory power. Contrary to retardery online, having to click a cookie policy one time for each website is a small prive to pay for not having your data used and abused in any which way by massive, and basically otherwise unaccountable megacorps.
Your whole section on economics is not comprehensive enough. These regulations exist for a reason, they are the compromise that economic elites of the different countries have made with eachother to remain in a free trade Economic bloc. If you're allowing economic competition between EU nations again what would become of the Euro? Would there still be free trade? If there is free trade that would mean endless competition via subsidies instead of tariffs. What exists is basically an armistice with everyone's hands tied behind their back, but that armistice exists for a reason.
You should set up a foundation and get Musk and others to fund it. With the realization of the "Krainer Hypothesis" as I call it, there will be billions in spooky money flowing to EU nationalists and that entire scene. This is the theory that the Undead British Empire and the gaylords currently in power like Starmer, Macron and Mertz, are in a secret financial war vs the Estados Unidos.
This is the latest rundown. If you stick with it they have fun by floating a psycho-analytical theory about Womyn in power towards the end, as well.
All of this accords, especially with the new US National Security Strategy.
Its fascinating. UK DR types aren't too hot on it, understandably. It kind of takes the focus off of Bagel power and puts it on the Limeys. Academic Agent rejects it out of hand, which should get Keith interested ;)
I'm hoping to generate interest in this topic. I think its the hottest theory in geopolitics right now.
Also, check out my ongoing review of AA's new book, "Applied Elite Theory":
I will also be discussing returning to Academia at middle age as a family man on Millenniyule this Christmas eve. Sorry for the link spam. Its all good stuff, though!
Aside from ideological stupidity, the EU has a huge problem in that it was constructed back to front. You do not do functional unity before political unity, or you end up with what we have now: Detached technocratic administration above the political arenas the people influence.
The principle of European unity is a real common interest in our current global environment. We share some very real common interests. The EU sadly forces union where its not needed, rubbing nations up the wrong way which has fractured trust where union is actually essential.
The EU needs to be replaced with a simple and organic model that is bespoke to what Europe actually is and needs. It should not try to construct an artificial vision because of grandiose ideological dreams. The line to walk is something that gives us maximal internal sovereignty yet on those few external essentials we have serious deep accountable unity.
Glad someone's thinking about it, but I've read too many tracts like this over the years to even get up from my chair and refill the glass. I guess it's better than having to reload, although I think that's coming. Sorry, and keep up the Deep Thought
Tangential to the remigration question is a different approach to dealing with criminals. The EU, especially Western Europe, has incredibly lax punishments for violent criminals and repeat offenders: people who destroy the public space.
The EU needs to reintroduce the death penalty for a wide range of violent crimes and most certainly for repeat offenders.
There's some truth in what you said.
I believe the current EU is unsalvageable and should be abolished and replaced with a European Confederation based on the Swiss Model.
Sounds like we want the same thing, really just a political question of the more realistic way to achieve it.
Agreed. But should Britain be apart of it or should they along with America form an Anglo Union?
The us is obviously rightful British land.
Britain had their chance in the spotlight. The world has moved on, only through an alliance of culturally Anglo nations can Brtain possibly have a chance.
Call it the 4th Reich.
Switzerland is cringe though.
Maybe the banking system, but I admire the decentralized nature of its system. I’m not in favor of a centralized bureaucracy. Though, I do recognize the need for a military and the federal government shouldn’t just sit and do nothing,
Really good essay. Let's see if the people that matter start to consider some of your proposals. But just as you pointed out in your previous post about how the dismantling of the EU would scare away the normies from our cause, I suspect what you're suggesting here would do so even more. Therefore this would have to be a plan for the distant future rather than anytime soon.
This article actually has a lot of good (and practical) proposals. I definitely recommend reading this one. I really like the idea of using the Union to coordinate deportations.
Great article 👍. I am not European but this seems like the best approach for the continent, allowing for self determination and sovereignty while also maintaining a united front against existential threats like mass migration and economic decline. This EU should also focus on completely eliminating Zionist Jewish influence in the region, since there are many "nationalist" parties that still bend the knee to this dangerous ideology
Yeah like reform UK.
It is certainly true that white nations should band together and use their collective strength to insist that the Third World takes back their migrants (and not just the illegals), but this doesn't mean that an EU body is required. I suspect that beneath Keith's white nationalism lurks his more atavistic passion - anti-Englishness. There is no reason for Ireland to be in the EU - particularly now that the net subsidies are over. For a long time, Ireland was a net recipient (= in fact, English money being handed to Brussels to hand to Ireland, as England was always a net contributor). Now Ireland has become a net contributor, there is no reason to be in the EU. And around 50% of Ireland's trade is outside the EU. Ireland only remains as an expression of anti-Englishness. I'm sure Keith knows this, and I'm sure Keith will deny this.
Anti-englishness is low iq. Ireland belongs to the English and the idea of "Irish independence" is nothing more than a bad joke.
These proposals we can all agree with, but the unification project was driven from the start by the likes of Jean Monnet and his anti-fascist and globalist friends, for whom ending national sovereignty and building a new super-state was and is the sine qua non. The EU Commission in particular exists solely to drive the anti-national agenda. Would you close that and repudiate its work? Likewise, nearly all the existing staff will be trained agents of that agenda. They would all have to be fired. Like the BBC, there might be something to salvage, but it would need thousands of new, wholly different staff.
Great article, mostly agree. I am curious about how defense would be handled as I didn't see it mentioned much, maybe I skimmed over too fast. I would imagine a platform for European armies to coordinate with each other would be in place to fight outside foes like Turkey with Greece over sea disputes or potential clashes with America over Greenland.
Furthermore, I am curious if England would be maintained as a lingua franca, or would another language be instead? An examole being Latin which is very influential on all European languages and has no country to truly give it soft power the way English does.
Keep up the great work!
I don't believe turkey will go to war with Greece. And Greenland would be easily conquered by the US. (Not that it would happen). Also English is a horrible language, Spanish would make more sense.
I don't any war between Turkey and Greece would come in the foreseeable future (next 5 years) nor would any war likely be in the form of direct territorial conquest, but rather the use of military forces to enforce claims on Aegean waters that host energy reserves or (less likely) a direct conflict over Northern Cyprus. Turkey has become a military power onto itself with military bases spanning across the Middle East and North African and essentially gaining new puppet/client states in Libya, Azerbaijan, and Syria to an extent. Its rise is something Europe must watch out for.
I agree with your Greenland take and I honestly think Greenland should sell it to America, with Greenland becoming an American protectorate with autonomy.
I have no idea why Spanish would be better than English, but maybe you were just joking lol
Keith, great work, and this is fascinating for me to read as an American. What is your view on tourism? It is my view that mass tourism is almost as harmful as mass migration. Let's face it, places like Venice wouldn't have an economy without massive amounts of Chinese, Japanese (and okay, American) tourists coming to take photos and buy cheap crap.
I think this mass tourism is incredibly harmful because it 1) massively strains infrastructure, 2) creates a weird, artificial economic environment, and 3) worst of all, hollows out the indigenous culture. How many Viennese walk into St. Stephensdom every day to worship vs. how many Chinese tourists for a thirty-second photo shoot? A church, store, or bridge built by Europeans to function for Europeans becomes an oddity like a memento in a museum: passingly interesting to a tourist, but impractical to its original purpose. Dead, almost.
Thoughts on limiting mass tourism to revitalize European culture? Maybe a system where preference is given to tourists of a more closely shared culture, e.g. Christian or American?
Raising prices is the organic way to do that. But don't; Im not rich and I love travelling Europe!
lol real
The greatest error people always make is assuming that the Treaties need to be “reopened”, “renegotiated” or “repealed”; they’re not a Constitution.
You just need to replace them. Come up with a new Treaty and adopt it unilaterally by National Parliaments. The European Union cannot do anything in response but whine and cry, which is what they do best anyway. Dismantling the EU is the easiest part, you just need to replace it with a successor organisation the same way the League of Nations was subsumed into the United Nations.
That’s all.
Do you think reform is ever possible without wholesale collapse of the previous institution?
I don't think this isn't just a word game about the difference either.
I'm not aware of historical examples where large scale governmental organizations were successfully reformed from within - the model seems to be that the old entity is destroyed and a new one takes its place.
Gorbachev wanted to 'reform' the USSR but really it needed to collapse completely and be rebuilt, the whole point was that the reformers kept failing because the old guard power structures were too entrenched for real change.
The EU likely needs some kind of crisis to break its power hold and a rival alternative needs to appear.
I suppose you could argue the likes of Tony Blair or David Cameron 'reformed' their parties but these are much smaller scale and more easily controlled entities. The sheer sprawling size of the EU seems designed to break attempts at reform and so abolishing or collapsing it externally first might be necessary.
🎯
Europe First🤍
Europe is a White civilization.
Doesn't your suggestion to ban online censorship fly in the face of deconstructing the supremacy of European law? EU censorship is not wildly more repressive than those of the individual countries.
"Added to this economic straitjacket are needlessly punitive regulations like the cookie law and GDPR"
This whole article seems like a plea to Musk, but this in particular is just weird. The EU's fight against overreach by Big Tech was one of the best uses of their regulatory power. Contrary to retardery online, having to click a cookie policy one time for each website is a small prive to pay for not having your data used and abused in any which way by massive, and basically otherwise unaccountable megacorps.
Your whole section on economics is not comprehensive enough. These regulations exist for a reason, they are the compromise that economic elites of the different countries have made with eachother to remain in a free trade Economic bloc. If you're allowing economic competition between EU nations again what would become of the Euro? Would there still be free trade? If there is free trade that would mean endless competition via subsidies instead of tariffs. What exists is basically an armistice with everyone's hands tied behind their back, but that armistice exists for a reason.
You should set up a foundation and get Musk and others to fund it. With the realization of the "Krainer Hypothesis" as I call it, there will be billions in spooky money flowing to EU nationalists and that entire scene. This is the theory that the Undead British Empire and the gaylords currently in power like Starmer, Macron and Mertz, are in a secret financial war vs the Estados Unidos.
This is the latest rundown. If you stick with it they have fun by floating a psycho-analytical theory about Womyn in power towards the end, as well.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aC5TxCXh4Wc&t=2s
Another good summary of the Krainer Hypothesis, with good backup from economist Tom Luongo. It seems very authentic to me:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LNBtNM6_YK0&t=1949s
And if you want to hear it in a nice Scottish accent, here you go, from yesterday: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jgx6S7WadEo
All of this accords, especially with the new US National Security Strategy.
Its fascinating. UK DR types aren't too hot on it, understandably. It kind of takes the focus off of Bagel power and puts it on the Limeys. Academic Agent rejects it out of hand, which should get Keith interested ;)
I'm hoping to generate interest in this topic. I think its the hottest theory in geopolitics right now.
Also, check out my ongoing review of AA's new book, "Applied Elite Theory":
https://substack.com/home/post/p-178723757
I will also be discussing returning to Academia at middle age as a family man on Millenniyule this Christmas eve. Sorry for the link spam. Its all good stuff, though!
https://www.millennialwoes.com/millenniyule?y=2025
Aside from ideological stupidity, the EU has a huge problem in that it was constructed back to front. You do not do functional unity before political unity, or you end up with what we have now: Detached technocratic administration above the political arenas the people influence.
The principle of European unity is a real common interest in our current global environment. We share some very real common interests. The EU sadly forces union where its not needed, rubbing nations up the wrong way which has fractured trust where union is actually essential.
The EU needs to be replaced with a simple and organic model that is bespoke to what Europe actually is and needs. It should not try to construct an artificial vision because of grandiose ideological dreams. The line to walk is something that gives us maximal internal sovereignty yet on those few external essentials we have serious deep accountable unity.
Glad someone's thinking about it, but I've read too many tracts like this over the years to even get up from my chair and refill the glass. I guess it's better than having to reload, although I think that's coming. Sorry, and keep up the Deep Thought