Speaker 1: Hello, everyone, Welcome to Continuum, brought to you by EU
Speaker 1: Open Media. I'm Keith Woods. This is my host, Ryan,
Speaker 1: also known as Natives Concern, and in this our first episode,
Speaker 1: we're going to be talking about why we're here, how
Speaker 1: we got here, and what we hope to achieve. Ryan,
Speaker 1: it's good to have a here yet another right wing podcast.
Speaker 1: Do you want to explain why you thought this one
Speaker 1: was necessary?
Speaker 2: Because the brand of nationalism, the national idea, has become
Speaker 2: very weak and dissipated. I think in large part due
Speaker 2: to its online nature. The energy is easily dissipated, The
Speaker 2: ideas can be extremely broad organized into different little niches,
Speaker 2: and if we're to take power and change the course
Speaker 2: of history, we actually need to convince you know, a
Speaker 2: huge number of our people to believe in a unified
Speaker 2: idea of nationalism.
Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker 1: I think there's always maybe a tension between like the
Speaker 1: popularity of an idea and specifically of this subculture and
Speaker 1: how developed the ideas are. I think back, I mean,
Speaker 1: essentially we're representing, like you said, the national idea of
Speaker 1: nationalism here or you know, a kind of biorealist perspective
Speaker 1: that takes you know, race realism and you know, differences
Speaker 1: between sexes, differences between people groups as real things that
Speaker 1: influence society and that have profound effects. That's the perspective
Speaker 1: we're coming from. More than ten years ago, twenty fourteen fifteen,
Speaker 1: there was a kind of alternative right subculture that was
Speaker 1: very developed intellectually. You know, you had in influences like
Speaker 1: the French New Right. You had influences like Jonathan Bowden,
Speaker 1: who was very intellectual in his approach, and you had
Speaker 1: a set of pretty developed ideas in terms of a
Speaker 1: sense of a collective European identity and history, in terms
Speaker 1: of a critique of the existing right wing conservative establishment.
Speaker 1: And thankfully those once French ideas have become a lot
Speaker 1: more popular in terms of talking about demographic change, the
Speaker 1: influence of certain ethnic lobbies and so on.
Speaker 3: But of course with that there has been a.
Speaker 1: Delusion of the message, of the intellectual consistency and rigor
Speaker 1: of the message, and to a degree, I think there's
Speaker 1: more of a blurring of the lines there between, you know,
Speaker 1: conservatism and nationalism and these different strands on the right
Speaker 1: as these ideas have become more accepted.
Speaker 3: By the mainstream right. But yeah, I do.
Speaker 1: Think along the way we have lost something which was
Speaker 1: valuable in that original more intellectual right, which attracted a
Speaker 1: certain kind of person. And I think now as it
Speaker 1: has become less rigorous, as it has become much more
Speaker 1: focused on memes and simpler talking points, outrage the kinds
Speaker 1: of things that drove algorithms on social media, I think
Speaker 1: it's attracting a different kind of person, and the concern
Speaker 1: for me has become what's the kind of person we're
Speaker 1: losing with that.
Speaker 2: Yeah, we've spoken about it before. We preferred the fairy
Speaker 2: cell era. I think you can divide the movement into
Speaker 2: sort of three categories. Twenty sixteen to nineteen. Fairy cell
Speaker 2: era just kind of came out of the Trump election
Speaker 2: and the energy that was built up there. Then there
Speaker 2: was a COVID era with you know, the rise of
Speaker 2: conspiracy theories, and then there was the coming out of
Speaker 2: that Kanye Tate ban, the ADL.
Speaker 4: And the algorithms changed.
Speaker 2: There became more free speech on Instagram, Elon Musk acquired
Speaker 2: X and everything got very radical in some ways but
Speaker 2: less intellectual.
Speaker 1: So Pauls October seventh as well, that was an event
Speaker 1: where really the Desigonist influence and the question of Israel
Speaker 1: really came to the fore, and that had a spirit
Speaker 1: on nationalists discourse as well, in terms of you know,
Speaker 1: becoming much more focused on the Jewish lobby and so on.
Speaker 2: Yeah, the you know, the Jewish interests were being attacked
Speaker 2: from both the right that we had built up over
Speaker 2: a few years, and then the left and Jewish intellectuals
Speaker 2: and media started pivoting right to defend you know, the
Speaker 2: idea of Israel. So there have been some changes, but
Speaker 2: I think we've lost something with those changes.
Speaker 1: Well, I mean, I guess me and you were both
Speaker 1: examples maybe of people that came a more intellectual route internationalism.
Speaker 1: Because it's always interesting to me to hear how people
Speaker 1: ended up at these ideas. And it's incredible now how
Speaker 1: many people are from that period of like post October
Speaker 1: seventh and you hear them, you know, they they stumbled
Speaker 1: on an Instagram reel or TikTok video they found one
Speaker 1: of these influencers. There was a much more established pipeline
Speaker 1: of like, you know, you would go from there used
Speaker 1: to be the libertarian a right pipeline, they'd call it.
Speaker 1: You'd go from like a conservative to libertarian. You know,
Speaker 1: you become more anti war, you become more principled on
Speaker 1: economics or something, and then you go to like Hans
Speaker 1: Herman Happa. You you know, because you're a libertarian, you
Speaker 1: become anti democracy. You know, you blame mass democracy for
Speaker 1: for implementing socialism. And then from there, you know, you
Speaker 1: up alternative ideas on race, and then you you know,
Speaker 1: become old right. I used to be kind of an
Speaker 1: established pipeline and there were many gateways for people. You know,
Speaker 1: there was the old light people. There was like civic nationalism,
Speaker 1: there were you know, the counter You had people that
Speaker 1: talked a lot about Islam. But yeah, it was it
Speaker 1: was you know, part of it with with with censorship
Speaker 1: as well. These ideas were a bit more siloed. It
Speaker 1: was a longer process to get there. But now yeah,
Speaker 1: now it's in your face with with influencers and clean
Speaker 1: edits and everything. But that that has changed things a
Speaker 1: little bit as well in terms of how people approach
Speaker 1: these ideas. But I think you and I are both
Speaker 1: people that had very different politics and came to this
Speaker 1: maybe more slowly than you see with people now.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I came from liberalism. I had a very average
Speaker 2: British suburban upbringing, but I've always been interested in the truth.
Speaker 2: I've really always despised liars and you know saw myself
Speaker 2: as you know, a fighter for justice. I think my
Speaker 2: personality is also built on the antagonism between the patriarchal
Speaker 2: scientism and matriarchal Catholicism I was raised with. I was
Speaker 2: you know, always around a different races being born in London,
Speaker 2: but I remained a liberal despite being a biological determinist.
Speaker 2: I saw the differences and races at a very young
Speaker 2: age in primary school that some were leading academically, others
Speaker 2: were leading in sports and sprinting and things like that,
Speaker 2: and yeah, I went through a rather different development in
Speaker 2: my adulthood just through seeing the changes in society.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I got a different background, I guess. I mean
Speaker 3: I didn't. A lot of people in the scene grew
Speaker 3: up around and.
Speaker 1: People will you know, have stories about some encounter they
Speaker 1: had that really really changed their mind on the on
Speaker 1: you know, racial egalitarianism or something. I never had anything
Speaker 1: like that. I had a very homogeneous background in terms
Speaker 1: of you know, growing up in rural Ireland and schooling
Speaker 1: and so on. And for me it's like, yeah, I
Speaker 1: don't have a story of oh I encountered, you know,
Speaker 1: some area or someplace, and that was so terrible and
Speaker 1: it made me rethink everything. It was a much more
Speaker 1: intellectual journey for me. I did kind of come from
Speaker 1: the left. I mean maybe not everyone knows is at
Speaker 1: one point I was actually go help me. I was
Speaker 1: a member of Young Shin Feen. I think I joined
Speaker 1: when I was when I was sixteen, So that was kind.
Speaker 3: Of my politics.
Speaker 1: Definitely left of center on things like economics and so on.
Speaker 1: But even then I always had patriotic sentiment and that's
Speaker 1: how I viewed shin fin at the time. I mean,
Speaker 1: on the one hand, I'm always a bit more sympathetic
Speaker 1: to leftists in terms of you know, people talk about
Speaker 1: everyone on the left is hopeless. You know, these people
Speaker 1: will never sympathize with us, and you know, they just
Speaker 1: delude themselves or they'll say that they can't possibly believe
Speaker 1: this stuff about blank slatism and so on. I never
Speaker 1: agree with that because I really did kind of take
Speaker 1: that for granted. You know, racist is skin deep, that
Speaker 1: these are just basically it is basically just just skin color.
Speaker 1: And you know, I've never fully bought into like, you know,
Speaker 1: they're all motivated by malicious intent and so on, because
Speaker 1: I can you know, I can relate to believe in
Speaker 1: those things at some point. But then at the same
Speaker 1: time I think about it, and you know, immigration just
Speaker 1: wasn't an issue, wasn't something that was talked about. And
Speaker 1: even when I was drawn to Shinfein, it was coming
Speaker 1: from a place of patriotism.
Speaker 3: At the time.
Speaker 1: I was very interested in learning about you know, Irish
Speaker 1: War of Independence and the troubles and the history of
Speaker 1: Irish nationalism and so on. And because imgration it just
Speaker 1: wasn't an issue. Everything was so economics focused. Then it
Speaker 1: was after the financial crisis, a lot of the immigrants
Speaker 1: had gone home, a lot of the remaining ones were
Speaker 1: Eastern Europeans. It wasn't as pressing as it is now.
Speaker 3: Because of that, I could still.
Speaker 1: Buy into shin Fein as this you know, patriotic nationalist alternative,
Speaker 1: and you know, they were very much gate kept and
Speaker 1: hated by the establishment parties at the time and did
Speaker 1: signal quite populous in some ways. It's funny thinking back,
Speaker 1: like in the early twenty ten, shin Fein were like
Speaker 1: releasing stuff about how they were going to take florid
Speaker 1: out of the water and this kind of thing. So
Speaker 1: there was kind of a blending of ideas there, but
Speaker 1: still at the same time, from a very young age,
Speaker 1: you know, as soon as I learned about you know,
Speaker 1: Irish history and so on, I had a strong sense
Speaker 1: of national identity and patriotism. So you know, sometimes I
Speaker 1: wonder would I have gone in a nationalist direction no
Speaker 1: mautter or what when I saw you know what ended
Speaker 1: up happened into the country with immigrations, numbers and so on.
Speaker 1: Or was it because I, like you had this kind
Speaker 1: of like kind of classic streak, wanted to find the truth,
Speaker 1: went to heterodox ideas a lot, and ended up finding
Speaker 1: my way that way.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I think I was always a patriot, but that
Speaker 2: was I think, as was normal for the time in Britain.
Speaker 2: All that patriotism was still defined by World War Two.
Speaker 2: You know, I remember as children chanting these you know,
Speaker 2: World War two things.
Speaker 4: In terms of football.
Speaker 2: I lived with my grandfather as a child, and he
Speaker 2: was a World War Two veteran. My dad was a
Speaker 2: complete anti Nazi boomer, and I was raised with the
Speaker 2: you know, classic European tradition, a Greek mythology, Roman policism,
Speaker 2: and in terms of media.
Speaker 4: I love James Bond, and I saw.
Speaker 2: The British as the enforces of the.
Speaker 4: Correct moral order in the world.
Speaker 2: And I think that only really started to change for
Speaker 2: me when I got into adulthood and I had to
Speaker 2: live in a house in a state in London where
Speaker 2: I was one of the only white people there. I
Speaker 2: worked in the city of London, and I saw how
Speaker 2: the financial power worked. When I left that job and
Speaker 2: started working for myself, I had a lot more time
Speaker 2: and ended up, you know, seeing things on social media
Speaker 2: and then sort of shifting my ideas and wondering what
Speaker 2: is the you know, the true meaning of life, having
Speaker 2: spent you know, my early adulthood in just the pure
Speaker 2: pursuit of money.
Speaker 1: Yeah, so social media was, I guess, the gateway for yourself.
Speaker 1: For me, it wasn't really a typical social media pipeline either.
Speaker 4: I mean I was just.
Speaker 1: I got alienated with the leftist politics of like Irish
Speaker 1: Republicanism pretty pretty early on, because as I got more
Speaker 1: into philosophy, you know, I remember I read Nietzsche when
Speaker 1: I was when I was a teenager, he offering into philosophy,
Speaker 1: and like, you know, like every teenager that that reads
Speaker 1: reads Nietzsche, you start thinking you're you're, you're above the
Speaker 1: the herd, the masses, you're the the uber mench But
Speaker 1: I got I got critical of of the leftist insistence
Speaker 1: on on human rights egalitarianism, and and just came to
Speaker 1: see that this was all kind of groundless.
Speaker 3: You know.
Speaker 1: That's that's I think that's what you properly take from Nietzsche,
Speaker 1: if you read him, is not so much that he's
Speaker 1: offering any any positive system, but that he's shown how
Speaker 1: how lacking in foundation all.
Speaker 3: Of our our you know, modern moral.
Speaker 1: Vocabulary is because it's based on on this Christian foundation,
Speaker 1: that the people that actually believe in it won't defend themselves.
Speaker 1: And that's certainly true with the social democrat left. So
Speaker 1: I got interested in this question of trying to find, well,
Speaker 1: what is the ground of a moral basis for politics,
Speaker 1: and became critical of the left of its kind of
Speaker 1: just you know, taken for granted kind of nihilism and
Speaker 1: just assuming a kind of post.
Speaker 3: Christian moral order. And so that's that sent me oiled
Speaker 3: down all sorts.
Speaker 1: Of roots of of try looking at like a more
Speaker 1: individualist leftism. Max Stirner, who is this kind of similar
Speaker 1: to Nietzsche Nietzschean anarchists. I got interested in those trends
Speaker 1: of individualist anarchism, which sounds like a total contradiction, especially
Speaker 1: you know, for for an American audience watching right libertarianism
Speaker 1: is always this like market liberal, right wing thing. But
Speaker 1: there is this STrenD of like individualist anarchism. Not basically
Speaker 1: you're you're trying to equalize people to maximize their individual liberty.
Speaker 1: So I was looking at these strends of post leftist
Speaker 1: thought and so on, but quickly abandoned them for you know,
Speaker 1: the reasons people do abandoned header ducks strains of leftist thought,
Speaker 1: which is it. It just just doesn't seem very realistic
Speaker 1: to implement these things, you know, all of the kind
Speaker 1: of collective action problems, you get a few abandoned markets
Speaker 1: and so on. So I kind of lost interest in
Speaker 1: politics for a while, but I think my interest in
Speaker 1: philosophy eventually took me back. But you know what was
Speaker 1: driving it. I was always quite interested in in heterodox
Speaker 1: iconoclastic ideas. How can people believe what seem like indefensible ideas,
Speaker 1: you know, in the modern world, how can people have
Speaker 1: these you know, outdated traditionalist ideas, and so I was
Speaker 1: kind of interested just from like even an entertainment perspective
Speaker 1: in these people, Peter Hitchin's Haaleo conservatives, traditional conservatives, and
Speaker 1: then I started reading a lot of that kind of thing,
Speaker 1: you know, counter enlightenment thinkers, Burkean Conservatism, Edmund Burke, this
Speaker 1: kind of thing, And it was just a curiosity originally,
Speaker 1: but I see found you know, they were articulating and
Speaker 1: what had sort of alienated me from the left in
Speaker 1: the first place, which is, you know, a critique of
Speaker 1: a nihilistic foundation for politics, a purely economistic, materialist approach
Speaker 1: to politics. And I realized that, you know, the things
Speaker 1: I had maybe struggled to articulate earlier was actually critique
Speaker 1: that had been made for a long time by people
Speaker 1: coming from a more traditional right. Now I still didn't
Speaker 1: agree with a lot of that stuff in terms of,
Speaker 1: you know, the economics. Still a lot of these people
Speaker 1: still tended to be very kind of market liberal and
Speaker 1: their economic orientation, which seemed to me a contradiction to
Speaker 1: hold that alongside traditional social views.
Speaker 4: And so on.
Speaker 1: And so that was kind of always I think drawing
Speaker 1: me back in the direction of nationalism. And then yes,
Speaker 1: eventually found people that that articulated a national idea that
Speaker 1: that made sense to me.
Speaker 2: I mean, I didn't start my intellectual journey until twenty
Speaker 2: sixteen or so. I think prior to that, I took
Speaker 2: everything for granted. I was very focused on my own mission,
Speaker 2: which was to make money and gain personal freedom. I
Speaker 2: think I had that ambition from a very young age.
Speaker 2: I felt like I went without a few things as
Speaker 2: a child and became very money and freedom oriented, and
Speaker 2: my goal was really to.
Speaker 4: Just make money and retire.
Speaker 2: But then in my adulthood I became more intellectually curious
Speaker 2: through the Internet.
Speaker 4: I started out.
Speaker 2: With things like Jordan Peterson, you know, YouTube, Joe Rogan podcast,
Speaker 2: some interesting guests on there. And I'd been using Twitter
Speaker 2: for a few years because of my job. And then
Speaker 2: through Brexit and the Trump election, things were moving on
Speaker 2: politically there and I came across one particular influencer to
Speaker 2: Andrew Joyce, who was talking about particularly professors in American
Speaker 2: universities who were talking about the end of whiteness and
Speaker 2: how we needed to eradicate whiteness and it was all
Speaker 2: some evil system. And he was pointed out that many
Speaker 2: of them were Jewish and I thought, wow, that's I mean,
Speaker 2: that really discombobulated my ideas. And then I had to
Speaker 2: start recalibrating everything, doing you know, various reading and trying
Speaker 2: to come up with a new worldview. You know, as
Speaker 2: you said, I was influenced by Jonathan Bowden French New Riot,
Speaker 2: abandoned my libertarian ideas, became very statists, more you know,
Speaker 2: a collection a rejection of the social contract, and a
Speaker 2: more organic theory of the nation and the state. And yeah,
Speaker 2: it's just been a journey since then trying to bring
Speaker 2: these you know, political theories together with updating them for
Speaker 2: you know, modern economics, and try and come up with
Speaker 2: a unified worldview and theory of nationalism.
Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker 1: I actually encountered Joyce as well around that time, and
Speaker 1: he was probably, from what I remember, the first person
Speaker 1: that I encountered to talk about that question as well.
Speaker 1: And again, you know, I wonder if it was someone
Speaker 1: that was you know, less sophisticated in their in their approach,
Speaker 1: would I have just rejected it? You know, I found
Speaker 1: I found this interview with him talking about this question,
Speaker 1: which I hadn't really considered before, and the way he
Speaker 1: presented it in terms of you know, he's a PhD
Speaker 1: expertise in history and just presented in this very logical
Speaker 1: way of of kind of group interest and how groups
Speaker 1: compete and and you know, what's what's in their interest collectively.
Speaker 1: And I don't think at that moment I've I've fully
Speaker 1: accepted it, but it certainly set the wheels turning.
Speaker 3: And then of course you see, you see these.
Speaker 1: Patterns play out with that intellectual framework in the back
Speaker 1: of your head. So yeah, that was kind of a
Speaker 1: big red pill for me as well, and that goes
Speaker 1: for other thinkers as well. I mean, I remember, I
Speaker 1: think the first time I really started thinking about demographics
Speaker 1: on a mass scale around twenty sixteen, maybe twenty fifteen,
Speaker 1: when I was into this kind of you know, Save
Speaker 1: the West, civic nationalists, counter g had stuff.
Speaker 3: I actually had a phase of that, funny enough, didn't
Speaker 3: last very long.
Speaker 1: But these like I don't know if you encountered this,
Speaker 1: but like the Robert Spencer ears how many times the
Speaker 1: Qur'an mentions violence and all this kind of thing, and
Speaker 1: you know how Islam is like incompatible with Western values
Speaker 1: such as feminism and all these kinds of things. It's
Speaker 1: almost like leftist critique of Islam. But I remember I
Speaker 1: read Pat Pukanon's Death of the West, thinking it was
Speaker 1: going to be that kind of book, you know, how
Speaker 1: bad modern art is, a modern archetype, sure, and all
Speaker 1: this kind of thing, And to my surprise, it was
Speaker 1: almost all about demographics, you know. And he was talking
Speaker 1: about fallen birth rates in Europe, population replacement, immigration, what
Speaker 1: the trends were showing on that countries were eventually the
Speaker 1: native population will be a minority. You know, how many
Speaker 1: millions of Russians would be lost because of the collapse
Speaker 1: in birth rate. He was talking about areas of the
Speaker 1: United States where Latino immigration was totally changing the character
Speaker 1: of the country. I think that's the first time I
Speaker 1: really considered you know, immigration, you know, to me, it
Speaker 1: was always just thinking that there's a few immigrants in
Speaker 1: the country and they work and whatever. It doesn't really
Speaker 1: change anything. But that was the first time I've really
Speaker 1: taken seriously, well, no, think further out, think in terms
Speaker 1: of decades, think in terms of combining it with fallen
Speaker 1: birth rates, and then actually, if you change, you know,
Speaker 1: you change the demographics, it's going to fundamentally change the
Speaker 1: character of these countries, and then of course you just
Speaker 1: look at the numbers, how profound that is in terms
Speaker 1: of how much immigration there is and how.
Speaker 3: Fast that's happening.
Speaker 1: And then at that point, yeah, that's quickly adopted that
Speaker 1: And you know, I think with any of these people,
Speaker 1: you know, there's probably an initial hesitation where you've you
Speaker 1: would have felt uncomfortable seeing someone talk about race, demographics
Speaker 1: or any of these things. But you know, if you
Speaker 1: are intellectually minded, I think there's an openness there where
Speaker 1: you say, Okay, I might be uncomfortable with this, but
Speaker 1: you know his arguments makes sense. He's a reasonable guy,
Speaker 1: and you accept it. But yeah, I mean you think
Speaker 1: back those guys like Bowden, Joyce, even bu Canon himself.
Speaker 1: I mean, these were very impressive people intellectually, with a
Speaker 1: very well rounded knowledge of things, you know, of history,
Speaker 1: of sense of European civilization and ethos and and you know,
Speaker 1: are just unimpeachable in terms of how they present their case.
Speaker 4: Yeah.
Speaker 2: I found that attractive, the intellectual side of the you know,
Speaker 2: national political theory. Jonathan Bowden was a huge influence on me.
Speaker 2: I used to listen to his speeches as I fell asleep.
Speaker 2: I read a lot of the French New rights stuff.
Speaker 2: That was something that Generation Identity were pushing, but also
Speaker 2: you know, more stuff in the mainstream, like Douglas Murray's
Speaker 2: Strange Death of Europe that was an influence on me.
Speaker 2: That also talks about Jewish organization and multiculturalism, and yeah,
Speaker 2: like you, I started to do the numbers. I looked
Speaker 2: at the birth rates where we were in Europe. I
Speaker 2: you know, I saw that in my own country he
Speaker 2: hadn't had a replacement birth rate since nineteen seventy five.
Speaker 2: And all these ideas started to form a new worldview
Speaker 2: in my mind and a new mission for the rest
Speaker 2: of my life, which was to reverse the demographic replacement
Speaker 2: of white people's and the idea of belonging to a nation.
Speaker 2: I went to lots of different meetings, lectures, you know.
Speaker 4: Got involved with the scene.
Speaker 2: It really threw myself in and once I developed what
Speaker 2: I felt was an adequate knowledge base and a holistic worldview,
Speaker 2: then I started podcast. Did that for about two years,
Speaker 2: and that kind of ran into the COVID period. Is
Speaker 2: the absolute sort of Britain, Yeah, the absolute state of Britain.
Speaker 2: I was on that for a couple of years, you know,
Speaker 2: we spoke particularly about what had happened in Britain. We
Speaker 2: had a lot of international guests as well. We had
Speaker 2: like a very pan European Western civilization approach to things,
Speaker 2: and the COVID period I really think dissipated a lot
Speaker 2: of the intellectualism and political organization that was emerging.
Speaker 4: And the wider Internet.
Speaker 2: And also, you know, people that were previously identified as
Speaker 2: nationalist became you know, conspiracy theorists of the highest order
Speaker 2: got very confused about what was going on, started saying
Speaker 2: that this was the one world government takeover by the WEF.
Speaker 2: And yeah, I mean there were you know, certain accounts
Speaker 2: that were kind of going to the World Economic Forum
Speaker 2: YouTube or taking a white paper from the Internet, making
Speaker 2: a half hour video using tiny clips and saying that
Speaker 2: they've got all these plans, and they became so popular,
Speaker 2: and all of a sudden, people were being misdirected from
Speaker 2: the question of nationalism to a critique of technocracy, one
Speaker 2: that wasn't even a you know, political vehicle. It's you know,
Speaker 2: the WF is a financial lobbying organization. Yes, they have power,
Speaker 2: capitalism has power to lobby you know, liberal democracy.
Speaker 3: Well, such a I mean it's socially a forum, right,
Speaker 3: it's you know, it's it's talking shop.
Speaker 1: I mean, that's the funny thing is, like you can
Speaker 1: you can get clips of left wing economic economists at
Speaker 1: the World Economic Forum talking about the you know, the
Speaker 1: need for a wealth tax and like being heavily critical
Speaker 1: of of the Davos elite as they're there.
Speaker 3: Like it it is. It is quite a mix of ideas.
Speaker 1: But yeah, that that wasn't especially bleak period, I think
Speaker 1: because it was just a lot of it was just
Speaker 1: a lot of wheel spinning. I mean, there was the
Speaker 1: Biden presidency at the time, so there was a sense
Speaker 1: of of you know, everything being shut down. The censorship
Speaker 1: became the worst that have ever been including on on COVID,
Speaker 1: skeptical people heavily censored. But of course that was that
Speaker 1: was expanded to everyone. But yeah, I think the nationalist
Speaker 1: scene that was really a bleak point. There was, like
Speaker 1: you said, there was dissipation of any kind of progress
Speaker 1: of the scene intellectually and organizationally, partly because you know,
Speaker 1: we just couldn't couldn't organize with the restrictions and so on.
Speaker 1: But yeah, that's when I saw this problem of so
Speaker 1: many people going in this schizo direction, and you know,
Speaker 1: there were a lot of people that had an issue
Speaker 1: with US pushing back in it, like why counter signal?
Speaker 3: These conspiracies and the conspiracy theories.
Speaker 1: Were many, right, There was there was going to be
Speaker 1: a mass die off due to the vaccines. There was
Speaker 1: going to be a global digital idea that was going
Speaker 1: to be rolled out for some reason the World Economic Forum,
Speaker 1: We're going to do.
Speaker 3: Food shortages, which was which was.
Speaker 1: Never explained to me. I think this is like the
Speaker 1: essence of like kind of the you know, the like
Speaker 1: rhytoid world view. There's a nefarious elite and they want
Speaker 1: to do things to harm you, and it's not really
Speaker 1: explained why or what the purpose is, which I mean,
Speaker 1: to my mind, it never materialized and it kind of
Speaker 1: just sent nationalists into unproductive roots for a few years.
Speaker 2: I mean, people were even doing a victory lap over
Speaker 2: four year old theories over the digital ID bin brought
Speaker 2: into the UK, which has since been canceled. So there
Speaker 2: are you know, a couple of people saying, oh, told
Speaker 2: I told you so. But you know, during that period,
Speaker 2: like seriously intelligent people were coming to me with the
Speaker 2: vaccine conspiracies from you know, startup influences with doctor in
Speaker 2: front of their name. If anyone that had doctor in
Speaker 2: front of their name was like the ultimate authority, you know,
Speaker 2: no need to mention the ninety nine percent of doctors
Speaker 2: that said the you know, the vaccine was safe and
Speaker 2: everyone should take it. The scene became just you know,
Speaker 2: the one percent of doctors that decided to exploit this,
Speaker 2: you know, unorthodox thinking over the over the safety of
Speaker 2: the vaccine.
Speaker 3: We're not we're not vaccinate it. By the way, people
Speaker 3: are going to be record.
Speaker 2: You know, we were discussing it in the in our
Speaker 2: group chat, like what what line we should have on
Speaker 2: the vaccine, and you know, neither of us took it
Speaker 2: because we were actually concerned with, you know, what is
Speaker 2: what is the value of taking it as a thirty
Speaker 2: year old in in good health. But again I think
Speaker 2: it was you know, liberal answers to liberal problems. It's
Speaker 2: you know, the the culture of egalitarianism, like an eighty
Speaker 2: year old needs it as much as a four year
Speaker 2: old or whatever. And it's just you know, big, big
Speaker 2: ships turned very slowly, and when governments are faced with
Speaker 2: a problem which could end up with a big death toll,
Speaker 2: they need to come up with a blanket solution which
Speaker 2: you know, covers themselves from any wrongdoing, and it's going
Speaker 2: to be very focused on harm avoidance and you know,
Speaker 2: escaping any culpability for harm. So that was my take
Speaker 2: on it, that it was basically a function of democracy boomers.
Speaker 2: Women aren't going to want to die of a deadly disease,
Speaker 2: and we're not going to look after themselves and their
Speaker 2: children or whatever. But you know, during that time, people
Speaker 2: would denounce in nationalism. They were actively saying to their audiences,
Speaker 2: forget nationalism, this is more important, like this is the
Speaker 2: final takeover of the technocracy.
Speaker 1: It also black builds some people so much that they
Speaker 1: basically give up. Like I had so many influencers. You know,
Speaker 1: at the time, we were kind of all confined to telegram,
Speaker 1: But I remember people saying, you know, the World Economic
Speaker 1: Forum is such control that if you try and start
Speaker 1: a move, it's going to be taken over by their infiltrators.
Speaker 1: If anyone is any thread time thing, they'll be shut down.
Speaker 1: They're going to bring in these social ideas. You won't
Speaker 1: be able to go outside with their permission. They're going
Speaker 1: to replace the COVID lockdowns with like climate lockdowns, all
Speaker 1: this kind of thing. Bestically, it will be impossible to organize.
Speaker 1: And basically what you should do is just move to
Speaker 1: the woods, live off grid and uh, you know, post
Speaker 1: a telegram about about uh Claus Blowfell and and and
Speaker 1: you know, sharing misery with other blackpill people. But basically, yeah,
Speaker 1: give up on politics. Don't put yourself at the risk.
Speaker 1: They have too much control. And then this thinking was
Speaker 1: rampant right up until the end of COVID. And you know,
Speaker 1: since then, I think nationalism, immigration restriction, this kind of
Speaker 1: thing has really come into the mainstream, and there's there's
Speaker 1: been a lot of momentum for these ideas since that
Speaker 1: period ended. But yeah, I mean it was it was
Speaker 1: difficult to speak out against the kind of prevailing consensus.
Speaker 1: I mean, that's when I saw a lot of the
Speaker 1: problems with this kind of rye oid mindset, where you're
Speaker 1: going to go against whatever the official narrative is, You're
Speaker 1: going to take this adversarial stance regardless. And of course
Speaker 1: a lot a lot of people attack that prediction, but
Speaker 1: it turned out to be pretty much spot on. But
Speaker 1: you know, the point of making that prediction was just
Speaker 1: to show, like, I have a way of analyzing this right,
Speaker 1: I think what basically dominates Western governance is finances and
Speaker 1: is the impetus for economic growth. And at that time,
Speaker 1: I think that the stock market it very much wanted
Speaker 1: things to return back. They wanted the economy to get
Speaker 1: going again. There were issues with lockdowns and with the
Speaker 1: strain of public finances, and so I just saw, you know,
Speaker 1: Amiicron comes along and there's a chance for her community.
Speaker 1: They're going to put things back to normal if they
Speaker 1: get the chance. Because fundamentally, I think it's a misunderstanding.
Speaker 1: You know, these Western leftist democracies, what they want is
Speaker 1: control first and foremost. They want this nineteen eighty four
Speaker 1: style totalitarianism. And I think it's just a misunderstanding. And
Speaker 1: it comes again from the sort of ride out mindset
Speaker 1: people in power evil. They want to hurt us, and
Speaker 1: that's like you're starting an endpoint of of how you
Speaker 1: analyze things. But I mean, I had influencers coming to
Speaker 1: me tell me you shouldn't be taking a different line
Speaker 1: on this, and I would tell them, well, you know,
Speaker 1: I try and argue with them. You know, the people
Speaker 1: that are making predictions about you know, half the population
Speaker 1: is going to be dead in five years because they
Speaker 1: took the vaccine. But I was finding a lot of
Speaker 1: them actually didn't believe this stuff themselves, and they just
Speaker 1: felt it was basically the most lucrative position to take
Speaker 1: because that's where the audience was, that's where other influencers
Speaker 1: were going. And you know that that kind of highlighted
Speaker 1: another problem with the scene for me, which is that
Speaker 1: now with so much censorship and at the time everyone
Speaker 1: was live streaming, people basically have to answer to their
Speaker 1: super chatters, and they basically have to chase where the
Speaker 1: superchat money is. And you just get this, you know,
Speaker 1: you get this herd mentality that's basically led by the
Speaker 1: kind of mass of law information people that are that
Speaker 1: are tuning in, and the influencers are largely led by
Speaker 1: their audience. And I think that's still a problem we
Speaker 1: see now now you've just heavily like JQ kind of audience,
Speaker 1: the kind of people that watch kind of swans and
Speaker 1: they've they're kind of gone in.
Speaker 3: Just as crazy a direction as they were then.
Speaker 4: Yeah, I think COVID was a double edged sword.
Speaker 2: As much as it made people paranoid, it did lead
Speaker 2: to this broader politalization of the population, and it intersected
Speaker 2: with the sort of new woke culture of Netflix, you know,
Speaker 2: making the kings and queens of medieval Europe black actors,
Speaker 2: and you know that got a lot of attention and
Speaker 2: made people paranoid. And then there was the trans issue.
Speaker 2: People will say, what the hell like, they're letting men
Speaker 2: into women's bathrooms, and you know that got supported by
Speaker 2: celebrities like JK Rowling obviously very influential, and Elon Musk,
Speaker 2: and that was around the same time that he acquired Twitter.
Speaker 2: So we had a more broadly politicized population, a dissemination
Speaker 2: of ideas that questioned liberal government. And then we had
Speaker 2: freeer speech on Instagram, which was quite a surprise. You know,
Speaker 2: more local groups on Facebook talking about immigration, the immigrants
Speaker 2: that have been brought in during the COVID period. And
Speaker 2: then you had a broader discussion of the transgender issue
Speaker 2: on you know, a platform acquired by Elon Musk, who
Speaker 2: promised free speech, but he faced a lot of backlash
Speaker 2: for that and it was not It was looking as
Speaker 2: though there may be a total boycott by the liberals,
Speaker 2: by the left on Twitter or you know, passing laws
Speaker 2: to stop people using that platform. Effectively, and that's when
Speaker 2: you started the ban the Idel campaign, which was a
Speaker 2: success and raise your profile.
Speaker 3: Yeah, bandy Adel was huge.
Speaker 1: That was like August September twenty twenty three. Yeah, number
Speaker 1: one worldwide trend, like one hundred thousand posts on the
Speaker 1: first night. But I think that was the first time
Speaker 1: where there was a sense of like, now with the
Speaker 1: expanded free speech on a platform like X, that we
Speaker 1: could create this broader coalition of people to push in
Speaker 1: the same direction on you know, a few core issues
Speaker 1: of like we want freedom of speech on these platforms
Speaker 1: away from the meddle end of the Anti Deformation League
Speaker 1: and similar leftist anti wide organizations that had really captured
Speaker 1: these platforms prior to Musk bringing people back on the platforms.
Speaker 3: Nick Fuent has ended up being a part of.
Speaker 1: That, and Gropers were a part of it, and then
Speaker 1: just generally pushing back against this Jewish SCIONUS lobby that
Speaker 1: we were showing was was influential in a number of
Speaker 1: other ways as well. You know, in the US, the
Speaker 1: a d L is involved in training FBI agents and
Speaker 1: that used a huge influence of organizations like APAC, and
Speaker 1: of course that segued right into October seventh was the
Speaker 1: next month, and then everyone started talking about a pack
Speaker 1: and the Zionus lobby and so on, especially on platforms
Speaker 1: like TikTok. It really blew up, and it did spread
Speaker 1: to the left. But yeah, with those two events, there
Speaker 1: was a sense of a you know, a broader coalition
Speaker 1: of people that we don't we don't share every interest politically,
Speaker 1: but on this issue on you know, giving everyone free speech,
Speaker 1: on being on these platforms and being able to talk
Speaker 1: about political issues free of outsideer foreign lobbies, and and
Speaker 1: you know, a basic whether you left to write a
Speaker 1: you know, a basic national sovereigny that people should be
Speaker 1: able to have these conversations without foreign lobbies, and then
Speaker 1: into a broader conversation of you know, lobbying and these influences.
Speaker 3: We put these.
Speaker 1: Questions of national differences and culture issues aside and we
Speaker 1: just focus on this one problem of foreign interest groups.
Speaker 1: I think that's that's really reached its limit. And you
Speaker 1: see it in people like candae Owans and others that
Speaker 1: have come at this in a kind of Schitzo direction
Speaker 1: and don't have the ideological foundation that was there previously
Speaker 1: when nationalists discussed this. You know, when it was people
Speaker 1: like Andrew Joyce or Kevin McDonald or these people. And
Speaker 1: it's not that, you know, they're not as intellectual, they
Speaker 1: don't have a PhD like Kevin McDonald or any of this.
Speaker 1: It's not a problem of intellect. It is a problem
Speaker 1: of ideology. That there used to be a coherent critique
Speaker 1: of this, that we are people, we have interests, we
Speaker 1: push back against you know, subversive lobby that harm that
Speaker 1: interest and promote minoritarianism in their own interest. But now
Speaker 1: with Candice and others, and part of it is it's
Speaker 1: become this very kind of third world that's like spread
Speaker 1: beyond the West. There's a lot of pro Palestine influencers
Speaker 1: that are coming from the left that are very much
Speaker 1: anti anti nation, anti racist. There's a lot of you know,
Speaker 1: pro Palestine people that have this kind of broad anti
Speaker 1: colonialism view, and I think it's gone in the direction
Speaker 1: a lot whatever you want to call it, like the
Speaker 1: anti regime, anti system people that talk about JQ stuff,
Speaker 1: it's very much gone in the direction of just a
Speaker 1: sort of general Schitzo critique that often bleeds into even
Speaker 1: anti white memes and has really totally lost that connection
Speaker 1: of it being about you know, a national interest asserted
Speaker 1: against minoritarian subversion. And so there's been that broad movement
Speaker 1: that's been created on social media. And then a lot
Speaker 1: of nationalists and people that do talk when immigration restriction
Speaker 1: have gone in a very kind of one dimensional direction
Speaker 1: of you know, just hammer the meme of remigration in
Speaker 1: the US. I think they've very much gone in the
Speaker 1: direction of like tying themselves to trump Ism and and
Speaker 1: very single issue on immigration destruction, immigration restriction, and then
Speaker 1: no longer talking about other issues like like minoritarian subversion
Speaker 1: and so on, and so these these two paths have
Speaker 1: kind of diverged, and I think what we're missing is
Speaker 1: what was there in the past where these were united
Speaker 1: as one and you had an intellectual critique that went
Speaker 1: across themains and could assert a positive interest and talk
Speaker 1: about these individual issues and geopolitics and international issues. And
Speaker 1: that's why I think now that there does need to
Speaker 1: be a decoupling where we established, Okay, well, what is
Speaker 1: the nationalist position. It's not just this broad you know,
Speaker 1: Kumbai like talking points about you know, you know, conspiracies
Speaker 1: about about Israeli.
Speaker 3: Influence and so on. There needs to be something positive
Speaker 3: there as well.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I think where we are at the moment is
Speaker 2: we have a lot of different tribes online that kind
Speaker 2: of been categorized as the dissident right. I've always despised
Speaker 2: that vague branding. I think it's very easily exploited by
Speaker 2: influencers that want to you know, raise their profile or
Speaker 2: monetize certain ideas. And because of the way the algorithms
Speaker 2: work on these social media platforms, it's a lot of
Speaker 2: shock content, it's a lot of alternative takes. It's critique
Speaker 2: of the man beside you and I'm more base than
Speaker 2: him or whatever. We've got these, you know, people that
Speaker 2: want to identify primarily as Christian, and then you've got
Speaker 2: the Nietzschean vitalists and things like economic completely neglected. And
Speaker 2: then you've got this you know, new thing of one
Speaker 2: dimensional politics only remigration matters. Well, sure, that's a you know,
Speaker 2: a compelling idea, and it's important. But when you're critiquing
Speaker 2: a very integrated economic system and that requires the bond
Speaker 2: market being paid and developing new industry or whatever the
Speaker 2: liberal government is working on, you need to propose a
Speaker 2: broad range of philosophy politics, economics, geopolitics. How is it
Speaker 2: all going to come together into a better future. And
Speaker 2: at the moment, I think the scene has really lost
Speaker 2: any authority to you know, propose ourselves as a new government.
Speaker 1: So yeah, we saw a good example of that recent Yeah.
Speaker 1: I really don't have a problem with her as an influencer.
Speaker 1: I think she does good work. But even if Lardingbrook
Speaker 1: was interviewed on Tucker Kauson and he asked her, well,
Speaker 1: who is responsible for the demographic change and she said, well, yes,
Speaker 1: there must be someone responsible for it, but I don't know.
Speaker 3: You know, again, I think she does good work. But
Speaker 3: it's like again, we have people that.
Speaker 1: Have basically devoted their lives to activism around preserving the
Speaker 1: European ethno cultural identity against demographic change, and they're asked, well,
Speaker 1: what is responsible for this demographic change? And they blank
Speaker 1: and say I don't know. And it's just I mean,
Speaker 1: it's just if you can't if you can't explain the
Speaker 1: very basics of your worldview of what is driven this,
Speaker 1: you're just not going to attract people.
Speaker 3: We have to be able to offer answers to these questions.
Speaker 1: Like you said, you know, there is a huge degree
Speaker 1: of this change that is being driven by economics by
Speaker 1: technological change increasingly in the next few years. Those are
Speaker 1: big questions that are going to have to be answered
Speaker 1: in terms of the revolutionary technology change that's going to
Speaker 1: be driven by AI and so on. And you know,
Speaker 1: you do go to a national scene where the consensus
Speaker 1: has been to embrace a very one dimensional politics, where
Speaker 1: you know, inflation is caused by too many immigrants, and
Speaker 1: debt is because of too many immigrants, and et cetera,
Speaker 1: et cetera, And these are fine as maybe propagandistic talking points,
Speaker 1: and so you know, what I'm really affirming is that
Speaker 1: if we want the best people, if we want the
Speaker 1: elite human capital, if you want intelligent people, these are
Speaker 1: people that are high in openness, that are curious intellectually
Speaker 1: about a number of topics, and it can be compelled
Speaker 1: by a genuine alternative to what's on offer now.
Speaker 3: And I think.
Speaker 1: We've really forgotten offering that alternative in favor of just
Speaker 1: hammering the slogans. And sometimes there's a sense that you
Speaker 1: have to do maximally what's popular to the most amount
Speaker 1: of people. But it can be kind of paradoxical in
Speaker 1: that if you just focus on what's popular, if you
Speaker 1: just focus on sloganeering and propaganda and reaching as many.
Speaker 3: People as possible.
Speaker 1: You actually lose a number of pipelines by which people
Speaker 1: were coming to you, productive pipelines where people were coming
Speaker 1: by all these intellectual avenues. That know, you go through
Speaker 1: the broadest possible reach. But it's just one simple message,
Speaker 1: and you miss a lot of people with that.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean, it hasn't hasn't all been bad news.
Speaker 2: We've made a lot of progress. I kind of view
Speaker 2: this as at our tenth year as a movement. We've
Speaker 2: got many things in our favor. You know, the populace
Speaker 2: right has between twenty and forty percent across you know,
Speaker 2: many European nations, and really we're just calling for reorientation
Speaker 2: away from you know, this niche tribalism. We're calling for
Speaker 2: more cooperation, more intellectualism. We're hoping to bring you know,
Speaker 2: more ideas to you know, act as a new intellectual foundation.
Speaker 2: I mean, I'm particularly interested in psychology, neurology. I think
Speaker 2: there are serious critiques of liberalism and and the way
Speaker 2: technology is being wielded in the modern world. So there's
Speaker 2: a there's a lot there to cover, and you know,
Speaker 2: all credit to you you've you've put the work in,
Speaker 2: you've you've Wroten written these essays on sociology of nationalism,
Speaker 2: the kind of prim primordial origins of nationalism, which was
Speaker 2: kind of a counter attack to you know, some Jewish
Speaker 2: intellectuals claiming that nationalism was this fake Enlightenment political theory,
Speaker 2: you know, and our movement has really suffered from people
Speaker 2: being able to write it off as low iq and incorrect.
Speaker 2: I mean, people claiming to represent our worldview are making
Speaker 2: mistakes all the time with you know, wacky theories. You know,
Speaker 2: even mainstream politicians like Robert Kennedy at the moment, it's
Speaker 2: really to the mainstream, and it's easy for liberals to
Speaker 2: just wave that away and say like this isn't serious,
Speaker 2: Like I'm going to back the you know, the likes
Speaker 2: of Macron or the you know, the German CDU, because
Speaker 2: they they're serious people. So we have to be a
Speaker 2: theory of everything. We need to be more organized, more cooperative,
Speaker 2: more intellectual. So yeah, that's that's what we're going to
Speaker 2: bring in the following episodes in in in this podcast.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I talked.
Speaker 1: With Nick Flants about this on a recent a recent
Speaker 1: stream that a lot of appeal.
Speaker 3: In political ideologies.
Speaker 1: They're appealing to intellectual, intelligent types precisely because they give
Speaker 1: you a leends that you can kind of apply to everything,
Speaker 1: you know, whether it's libertarianism or Marxism. You know, there's
Speaker 1: a Marxist theory of history, there's a libertarian theory of
Speaker 1: business cycles. There's kind of a libertarian moral philosophy in
Speaker 1: terms of like the right space discord. And there are
Speaker 1: modern Marxist economic economists and libertarian economists, and and you know,
Speaker 1: they have their own geopolitical analysts. There's you know, there's
Speaker 1: Marxist literary theory, but that does appeal to a certain
Speaker 1: kind of person that wants these broad, kind of systematizing lenses.
Speaker 1: And I do think we can do that with nationalism. Now,
Speaker 1: of course, the problem with nationalism it's a more particularist idea.
Speaker 3: But I think what we have to offer is a.
Speaker 1: Basic biorealist insight that I cited earlier that uh, you know,
Speaker 1: biology does affect human groups. That this is a taboo
Speaker 1: that you can't talk about in the post war consensus,
Speaker 1: but it's so obviously real, and we so obviously take
Speaker 1: it for granted in a number of different domains. But
Speaker 1: what's lacking is someone looking at it from the lens
Speaker 1: of a social scientist or from the lens of philosopher
Speaker 1: and bringing it together across demands and saying, Okay, what
Speaker 1: are the consequences of that, and how would you build
Speaker 1: society based on that insight? And yeah, I mean my
Speaker 1: Nationalism and Politics of Identity. That is a collection of essays,
Speaker 1: many of which we're focused on the sociology of nationalism.
Speaker 3: The fact that you can.
Speaker 1: Critique the mainstream modernist consensus by looking at historical examples
Speaker 1: where there was clearly a national identity that.
Speaker 3: Was ethnically based.
Speaker 1: And that's that's a case where the material is very
Speaker 1: much there, and you can very easily apply this lens
Speaker 1: to history and find a lot of insights and a
Speaker 1: lot of case studies that have been overlooked.
Speaker 3: And it's not.
Speaker 1: Because you're so brilliant intellectually or you've so many millions
Speaker 1: of sources. It's just because the exists in academic structure
Speaker 1: ignores this due to ideological reasons. You know, one of
Speaker 1: the people, I said often, one of the people who's
Speaker 1: very good on this is an Israeli historian called Azer
Speaker 1: Gad and you see a lot of a lot of
Speaker 1: study of nationalism and race that that is maybe more
Speaker 1: taboo in the West has coming from Israel because that's
Speaker 1: the people who's whose interests. It's in there and they
Speaker 1: can study it freely. But we could easily be doing
Speaker 1: the same work and the same basic insight can apply
Speaker 1: across a number of domains, and of course there's going
Speaker 1: to be a lot of very intelligent, impressive people that
Speaker 1: go into those domains and that are interested in those
Speaker 1: domains that agree with us politically. See, I think there's
Speaker 1: great work to be done, and the scene has never
Speaker 1: been bigger. We've never had more people in positions of
Speaker 1: influence that share our worldview, and that will be even
Speaker 1: more influential in the future. So yeah, no, I think
Speaker 1: it is just a case of professionalizing it and codifying
Speaker 1: what that worldview is and we'll see even more success
Speaker 1: in the future. But this is the logical next step.
Speaker 2: You know, we've been around events lately, a lot of
Speaker 2: people have come up to you and said, you're an
Speaker 2: influence on me. Now I'm in an organization, Now I'm
Speaker 2: in a political party, I'm working in parliament, and you know,
Speaker 2: I think we can make the confession that possibly we
Speaker 2: were wrong about entryism and it's actually been a lot
Speaker 2: more successful than we anticipated. You know, you've got FPO
Speaker 2: in Austria, they're over forty percent. You've got Jaiger new
Speaker 2: national political party in Portugal, they've gone right to the
Speaker 2: top of the opinion polls. Restore in Britain has just
Speaker 2: launched a radical nationalist agenda the out flanks. Nigel Faraj,
Speaker 2: all these nationalist movements are succeeding pretty well in the
Speaker 2: mainstream and our worldview is nothing to be ashamed of,
Speaker 2: and we need to normalize it and intellectualize it, and
Speaker 2: you know, let's be optimistic and be proud of the
Speaker 2: progress we've made.
Speaker 4: It really is just re.
Speaker 2: Orienting in a more professional direction, and I think we'll
Speaker 2: be successful.
Speaker 3: All right, Well, I.
Speaker 1: Guess that's a good place to leave it. Thanks everyone
Speaker 1: who tuned in. And yeah, next episode we will be
Speaker 1: discussing one of these insurgent nationalist movements and how they're
Speaker 1: changing the political scene.
Speaker 3: But that's all for now. Take care