I enjoyed reading the outcome of your discussion dismantling the " Ethnostate". True that ethnic purity dilutes intellectual resources. People who migrate are people with sufficient resourcefulness, resilience and intelligence to do so. .Therefore the intellectual resources of diverse populations enrich a state. My concern is about the ethics and value systems across populations. Which differences enrich philosophical perspectives and which differences are lethal.. I am considering radicalisation and terrorism.

Here is the recording of our latest session. In our latest daily session, the discussion moved beyond the lazy slurs of mainstream political discourse to conduct a forensic audit of the "America First" ethno-nationalist argument. We analyzed the rhetoric of figures like Nick Fuentes and the growing "Dissident Right" to answer a fundamental question: Is Western civilization a product of European genetics, or is it a set of operating principles that can be run by anyone? The room refused to settle for moral outrage. Calling an opponent "racist" is a tactical failure that convinces no one. Instead, the group steel-manned the opposition. We confronted the arguments regarding IQ distributions, high-trust societies, and the undeniable friction caused by mass, unregulated migration. We examined the claim that culture is strictly downstream of race. However, the collective intelligence pivoted to a more devastating critique. The ethno-state is simply a bad business model. The discussion highlighted that true nationalism is not about isolation or racial purity. It is about cognitive resource extraction. The greatest strategic advantage of the American experiment was its ability to poach the highest-IQ individuals from every other nation on earth. The debate revealed a critical paradox: if you filter strictly by ethnicity rather than merit, you are actively choosing stagnation. You are leaving the "good ones" to build the economies of your rivals. We concluded that the "White Identity" argument is not a defense of the West. It is a rejection of the specific meritocratic machinery that made the West dominant. The ethno-statist does not want to compete. He wants a handicap. We do not fear dangerous ideas; we dismantle them with logic and history. If you are tired of echo chambers and want to test your worldview against a room of sharp, disagreeable minds, take your seat at the table. View the calendar at this link to join our next discussion: https://www.skool.com/libertypolitics/calendar

My name is Mavin Andrew I'm new to this community

Here is the recording of our latest group discussion. In the cold calculus of geopolitics, sovereignty is often just a polite fiction we maintain to mask the reality of leverage. This uncomfortable truth became the center of gravity during our latest daily session. The room stripped away the usual rhetoric of "shared values" and "unbreakable bonds" to analyze the alliance between the US and Israel through the lens of pure survival. The consensus was built around a brutal medical metaphor: if the two nations were to sever ties tomorrow, the United States would suffer a migraine, but Israel would suffer a massive heart attack. The group dissected the data without sentimentality. For Washington, losing the alliance would be an expensive logistical headache. The US defense sector would lose a prime R&D hub, and tech giants like Intel and Google would face friction in their semiconductor and software supply chains. It would cost billions and take years to replicate the innovation currently outsourced to Tel Aviv and Haifa. But the American empire would endure. The economic hit would be little more than a rounding error. For Israel, the room noted, the equation is existential. The discussion highlighted that the danger is not merely losing the annual financial aid, which is relatively negligible. The real threat is the loss of the diplomatic "Iron Dome" provided by the American veto at the UN, the access to US capital markets, and the specialized munitions that no other nation can supply in volume. We dismantled the fantasy that China or Russia could serve as viable alternatives. Beijing steals technology rather than buying it, and Moscow offers chaos rather than security. The conclusion was stark: independence is a noble goal, but in the modern war economy, survival depends on the correct choice of dependencies. These recordings capture the conclusion, but they miss the friction of the debate itself. The daily session is an unscripted arena where narratives are dismantled and reconstructed in real-time by the collective intelligence of the room. To stop observing and start shaping the analysis, verify the schedule for our next live assembly: https://www.skool.com/libertypolitics/calendar

Let’s get to know each other! You can use this simple format: Hey, I’m from ____________. For fun, I like to ______________________. Here’s a pic of my myself or something I like.