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

It feels like every major political debate eventually circles back to one core tension: how much freedom are we willing to trade for a sense of security? Some argue that strong protections digital, economic, or social require giving the government more authority. Others believe that once you hand over those freedoms, you rarely get them back. I’m curious how people here navigate that balance. What do you think is the right amount of government involvement when it comes to keeping society safe without overstepping into our personal lives? Open to all perspectives and hoping for a thoughtful exchange.

What topics do you suggest we discuss in our next group discussion?