Today I am talking with my friend Arch Warhammer and we just did the first part of this talk and that's available on his channel.
So first link in the description if you want to hear us talk a bit about the horror heresy and transhumanism and robotization and a few different topics.
But now we're going to talk a bit about politics.
Welcome to the channel, Arch Warhammer.
Thank you for having me, Golden One.
So you are located in our esteemed brother nation, Norway.
And I suppose you, along with a lot of other Norwegians, are looking in horror at the turn for the worse Sweden has taken over the last few decades.
Oh yeah, I mean I'm a southerner here in Norway and as you probably know, our two countries basically don't have a border.
So if your country goes down, mine's next.
Yeah, and I saw a headline a year or two back and said, like, if Sweden collapses, Norway will take measures to, I don't, I can't remember what it was.
But the levels of awareness between the Norwegian establishment and the Swedish establishment is quite significant.
And obviously, as I've said in previous videos, like all of the West are facing the same sort of problems, but you notice, especially as a Swedish individual, that there is a difference in how the mainstream conversation goes, how the politicians talk about these things.
And I mean, the Norwegian politicians, they are a lot more sane than our Swedish ones.
So I suppose that a lot of Norwegians and also Danes and Finns, they're looking at Sweden and just ask themselves what is going on.
So is this something you have noticed with other Norwegians as well that they ask themselves what is Sweden doing?
Oh, definitely.
I mean, we were kind of heading in your direction for a while.
I mean, we had politicians asking for Sharia courts, increased immigration, all of this shit.
But your poor country essentially was the one who received the most immigrants first.
And so we've kind of been shielded.
So thank you, I suppose.
We took the bullet for Norway.
And I haven't been to Norway since I was little, so I don't know how the situation looks now.
But as far as I've understood, like talking with Norwegians, is that Norway as Norway in general is quite well off still, except for parts of Uslo.
Is that correct?
Yeah, we've done a relatively good job here in Norway with integration because we've received small enough numbers to the point we've actually been able to integrate most of them.
Most of our proper foreign immigration from third world countries, etc., has gone relatively well as well as these things can go.
Actually, one of our largest problems with immigration crime comes from Polish people who steal anything and everything that isn't nailed to the floor.
Okay, okay.
Yeah, the Polish people in Sweden are quite nice, actually, like very hardworking and generally good people.
So I suppose you attracted the bad polls and we got the good polls.
I mean, they probably look at this like, okay, Sweden's currently turning into an Islamic Republic.
Let's just skip that and steal the Norwegian stuff instead.
Yeah, also, I didn't properly introduce you.
Something that I might point out is that Arch Warhammer and I have some differences in our political views.
So, and you would describe yourself as a more like liberalist, is that correct?
Oh, definitely, yeah.
I'm the kind who, I mean, I like the state.
I'm not an anarcho-crazy or anything like that.
I think the state does stuff that the rest of us can't be bothered to do, like maintaining our goddamn roads and stuff.
But other than that, I would like to see people have as much in the way as liberties as reasonably possible within a civilized society.
All right.
And obviously, we had a conversation a while back where I elaborated on the Eleven Ethno-State, which is a future goal.
And obviously, my political goals is to basically secure a future for my people.
I want Sweden to be Swedish in 100 years.
I want there to be people who look like me in 100 years as well.
So, the question of integration is not something I'm overly fond of.
I think that we can integrate other Europeans, and then obviously we can have a very limited immigration of people who they're here as esteemed guests.
So, for example, in Sweden, we have immigrants from Japan who does a bit of everything.
They have sushi restaurants, and I see no problem with that at all because they don't make any mess, they don't cause any trouble, and they don't want to impose their way of life on us.
And also, I might elaborate on this quickly as well: that the problem, I don't have anything against immigration per se.
I absolutely do not hate anyone based on their birth.
I do hate people, but that's because they've done something wrong.
So, for example, the mainstream politicians of Sweden, I do, I can say that I feel a bit of hatred towards them, but I don't hate anyone based on their birth.
But the situation in Sweden is that we are, or in all of the West, by the way, we're being replaced as a people with other peoples who have distinctively different genetics of ourselves.
And if all of these people integrate, there will be no people who look like me in 100 years or 200 years, and that is a top priority for me.
So, that is basically my take upon the political situation.
And when I say political, I would rather say like the survival situation.
So, yeah, I just wanted to have that said.
But is that something you agree with?
Or do you have any other takes on that?
See, I don't view it to be as dire of a situation.
For me, it matters less.
But at the same time, I really don't mind that kind of opinion.
If you can achieve your goals via the society you currently live in, via voting, etc., I don't mind at all.
I mean, in Sweden, you should be allowed to make whatever rules you want.
And considering the current situation in Sweden, I actually consider your position to be far more reasonable than I would in many other countries.
Because, I mean, your country has seen some of the absolute worst of good old-fashioned multiculturalism.
Yeah, to say the least.
And also, I know, yeah, we talked about this before, and a bit we talked about the means of achieving our goals.
And I was at a conference in Stockholm yesterday, which was very nice.
And shout out to everyone and anyone who came up to say hello, including a contingent of Norwegians, like 30 Norwegians who were there.
So very pleasant indeed.
And we had, I held a speech, and then some other people held speeches.
And then we had a QA.
And perhaps the most one of the questions, at least, and it's obviously a hugely important question, is that how do we achieve this goal?
And the goal of them being securing Sweden for Swedes or for white people or what have you.
And my response was the following.
The first thing we do is to cut off any economic incentives for people to come here.
Because that's what they do.
The majority of people who are coming to Sweden, they do so because their smugglers have promised them that, oh, if you go to Sweden, you will live a life in luxury and you will get a girlfriend and you will get a car and you will just have a life of complete luxury.
The reality obviously looks a bit different, but that's why they come here.
So first step is that we cut off all economic incentives for this sort of people to come here.
And the second part of it is to create economic incentives for them to go back to their own homelands.
And I am absolutely certain that they would feel a lot better in their own homelands.
Or I would actually say that I know for a fact that they do feel better in their own homelands, in societies created by them for them in an environment that is suited to them.
So it's also, obviously, I put my people first at all times, no regrets about that at all.
But also for their sake, it's better if they live in their own nations.
Okay.
With the removal of economic incentives to come to the country, I 100% agree.
I mean, here in Norway, if you arrive in Norway, I think you're given a house, full interior decorating, of course.
It's usually a pretty fucking big house as well.
I mean, you're given a car, you're given better welfare services than native-born Norwegians for years upon years upon years, and you are just cuddled to death by the state.
And I'm like, okay, I don't see the point in this.
I really don't.
As for getting them to leave with economic incentives, I don't, again, particularly mind.
I personally don't see the point in it in the situation of Norway.
In Sweden, yeah, I can see far more of a point in it because I'm kind of like, okay, we've already given these people literally millions.
Do we really want to give them millions more to leave?
Yeah, but I mean, a multicultural society is never something that is desirable.
It has no benefits to anyone.
And it doesn't benefit the Norwegians to have a large population of, well, basically non-Europeans there.
And it doesn't benefit them at all because they have.
So if we have an African, for example, he would feel and thrive much, much better in Africa because over countless generations, he has been genetically and evolutionary suited to that sort of environment.
So we can take such a thing as the sun.
For you and I, we have our pale skin and everything like that.
We can feel good enough with the level of sun and how the weather is up here.
For someone who is evolutionary created to work well in a sunny and hot climate, if I was an African, I most definitely would not actually want to live in a cold and dark place such as Sweden.
Would probably feel absolutely horrible with myself because of absolutely natural reasons, such as that they haven't been evolutionary suited to a cold and dark place, just as I would perish in the hot sun down in Africa.
And I'm important there to point out that this isn't to say that, oh, these people are better or those people are better.
It's just that we're adapted differently depending on where we live.
So I would definitely say that it's a sunk cost with all of this.
What matters is the future.
And for me personally, I want to see an ethnically homogeneous Norway which is productive.
And I know for a fact also that an ethnically homogeneous Norway, which focuses all its effort on, well, caring for their own people.
And then definitely, if we want to help people, we can help them via not missionary work, but work in their nations, creating good, stable conditions for them to develop themselves in.
So yeah, that's my take on the Norway question at least.
Yeah, and again, I think our primary disagreements is with the necessity of it.
Like, for me, for example, I'm entirely fine with there being people from different cultures in Norway, as long as they are willing to put Norwegian first.
And I love nothing better than to see a proper black man, like four sub-Saharan African, speak in a heavy trunder accent.
That amuses me greatly.
Yeah, I mean, it can be fun and all that, and it can be endearing to see someone who has, you know, appreciates Norwegian culture to the fullest.
But the end game, the end result of that sort of assimilation is that there will not be genially Norwegian-looking people around anymore.
And for me personally, I place a certain value in just the fact that Scandinavians look in a certain way.
I don't want that to disappear.
Then, of course, the situation in Norway isn't as dire in Sweden, but if I look at the trajectory of Western civilization, I still want there to be people who look like us in 100 years.
And the long-term result of an assimilation is that there will not be any more people with our recessive genes.
It will just be a standardized human people.
And I know that's what a lot of globalists want.
They want all people to be one size fits all, because that's useful in a free market economy where they can base an identity upon stuff you buy instead of having an identity in blood, etc.
But for me, as I see it right now, the Eleven ethno-state is definitely something I want to see.
Now, with that said, it's not that I want to kick out everyone who isn't Norwegian, but if we're talking about the trends and the trajectory, so if I see right now in Sweden, if we had completely stopped immigration and if we assimilate all non-Europeans in Sweden and they completely mix with the native Swedish population, that would be a travesty to the world.
Then we would have a lot less of our people, basically.
So that is why I'm seeing this beautiful Scandinavian people are in danger because of that.
So that's my reasoning right there.
Okay.
No, I understand.
Again, I just don't think we have the same value system.
I don't mind as much.
I am primarily concerned about Norwegian culture.
The look of the people, that's something I care less about.
But at the same time, I can also understand your position.
And in the case of Sweden, again, I can respect it.
Yeah, yeah.
I mean, I'm sure when it comes to realpolitik, we agree with each other on quite a lot of things.
But just a note there regarding the culture, is that Swedish culture is a direct result of Swedish people.
Without Swedish people, there can be no Swedish culture.
So everything we have and everything we take for granted, it's because it has grown from our uniqueness as a people.
And if we replace the people, we will inevitably replace the culture.
Because genetics is the bedrock of everything, basically.
And it might be a harsh truth, but it is the truth nonetheless.
So that is also why I am adamant in pointing out that the majority of the genetic stock of Sweden must be Swedish for us to maintain the beautiful society we once had.
And then also when it comes to certain things, such as I know you are in agreement with a lot of classic liberal ideas in regards to freedom.
And I would argue that freedom is something that we can have in the north, in Scandinavia, because our people are well suited to it.
And then also, it worries me quite a bit if those freedoms can exist in a Nordic, in a Western country.
I'm not as sure that those kind of freedoms would exist in a non-European Sweden, for example.
That's a really interesting question because it's a fucking complicated one as well.
Because then we come into the entire point of evolution, why people are how they are, how they become how they are.
Like nature has a certain influence upon that.
Like you said, white skin because of the sun, etc.
The needs of the society we're in, for example, in northern countries, I believe the theory is called the harsh weather theory or something.
Basically, we had to evolve a more complex cooperative society quicker because if you didn't build up a serious supply of food for the winter in Norway or Sweden, you just fucking died.
Whilst in sub-Saharan Africa, for example, whilst you might have a very harsh life if you didn't plan ahead, it wouldn't be as bad, etc.
Yeah, yeah, definitely.
And that's also something when I talk about like it's not about who is better, it's about who is more adapted to what sort of societies.
So in Africa, for example, planning ahead hasn't been as important because food was always there, but there was always the danger of other males or other like wild animals, etc.
So whereas for us here in the north, we had to think about how to survive winter, planning ahead, not being as, well, we can't have the luxury or like luxury, it's not a luxury to fight with like wild animals either, but the luxury of living in the moment.
So and that's obviously had a profound impact in how we build our societies.
And something that I really want to point out is that it has taken a long time to create this final product of the Scandinavian people, for example.
It's a long line of refined evolution that has gotten us to this point.
And when I see such a people being replaced on a genetic level, I can see it's like a tree or a flower that has been growing for a very long time.
And then someone comes and cuts it down.
Obviously, exceptions will happen, definitely, but when it happens on a grand scale, it truly breaks my heart.
So that is at least the point of my issue with the genetic question.
But moving on to another topic, which we have discussed before, and that's the bit more classic liberal view of a lot of things.
So obviously freedom of speech is quite a hot topic at the moment.
Is freedom of speech also something that is a core belief of yours?
Personally, I'm of the opinion that freedom of speech should be absolute.
Because I don't care how insulting or how vile something somebody has to say is, they should still be allowed to say it.
Because otherwise, you're basically saying that your society is too weak to handle it.
Yeah, yeah.
Yeah, no, I agree.
I absolutely resent the sort of internet culture where it's only about insulting people.
And I have taken a lot of hit over all these years as well.
But the alternative is not something I wanted.
I would definitely not want censorship.
And I mean, the whole issue with Count Dankula now, it's just horrible.
And especially since it happens in the birthplace of classic liberalism, like Great Britain, that he will then be harassed by the state for making a bad joke.
It's ridiculous.
And like you said, here's the thing.
Freedom of speech is absolute, but that doesn't mean we can't encourage people to actually have a civil conversation about things.
I mean, I would even say to go so far as we should kind of shame people that can't have a civil conversation.
We should let them speak, but we should also point out, like, okay, you're acting like a child now.
Yeah, definitely.
And this is something I've begun doing as well here on YouTube a bit.
I'm quite fed up with a lot of people who comedy is rude and it doesn't have to be rude against me.
It's rude about other people or it's rude about things in general because it doesn't, it hardly aids our cause in, you know, for freedom of speech or for saving modern Europe, etc.
And it's just not something that should be encouraged.
So I'm all for shaming people who can't conduct themselves in a good way also.
Mockery has its place, certainly, especially when you're conversing with somebody that just isn't willing to listen, like far-left feminists.
It should also be a measure of last resort, in my opinion.
First, you should try talking to them, and if they won't talk, okay.
Then you'll have to try and convince the audience by mockery, by humor, etc.
Yeah.
So I know we haven't talked about this before, so this is just throwing a question at you, but were you active here on YouTube when the whole Gamergate came to light?
No, I missed out on that by about a year or so.
I started YouTube out of a complete impulse moment because I knew Total War Warhammer was coming and I was like, okay, I fucking hated Rome 2 because they ruined that.
So I wanted to make sure that this time I could shout at them if they fucked this one up.
All right.
So, and that was in, was that in 2015 in May or something?
Um.
Something like that, I think.
All right.
Yeah.
Okay.
So your channel is quite new then, I would say.
I think I've been doing this for three, four years, maybe?
Yeah, yeah.
Yeah, it's new enough, I suppose.
Well, you obviously, your channel is bigger than mine, so I suppose I'll have to pull the I'm older than you card.
But yeah, no, it's a good channel.
Yeah, no, I sort of missed that as well, or I was more into fitness when that whole thing transpired.
But in the grand scheme of things, I think it was a good wake-up call for a lot of people, seeing these horrible feminists come in and want to take our games away from us and not only our games, but our lore as well.
And something I fear is that the feminists will start going after Black Library and Horace Heresy and stuff like that.
That would truly break my heart.
Oh, definitely.
Gamergate was a real wake-up call for the gaming industry and an effective one.
And I mean, we're starting to see some serious fight back as well, inspired by Gamergate in stuff like Marvel, for example, which is finally starting to de-feminize itself just a little bit.
But the threat is by no means over, not even fucking close.
And I do believe that within the next, I'd say, couple years, is going to be the danger zone for Games Workshop.
Because they've just recently started communicating with their goddamn fans for the first time in 20 plus goddamn years.
And if they start listening to the wrong type, we're going to see them going much the same direction as Marvel, I'm afraid.
And I really hope we're going to avoid that.
Yeah, yeah, definitely.
As I said, it would truly break my heart, especially since I've read so many Horace Heresy books and also Warhammer Fantasy books.
So yeah, hopefully they will listen to.
And I mean, the thing with Games Workshop is that their fanbase, as far as I know, are quite homogeneous.
It's like young, white, straight men, basically.
And I definitely hope that they will cater to that fan base instead of trying to gain...
Because here's the thing, Games Workshop, it's a company as well.
Obviously, they want to expand their markets and they want more people in the hobby.
I definitely understand that, but I really can't see Warhammer becoming popular with, I don't know, the majority of other groups than it already is.
I might be wrong, but point being, I hope.
And if anyone in Games Workshop is listening to this right now, please keep it as it is.
Yeah, because I think you're right.
The 40k fanbase is relatively homogenous, both because it's been a very niche thing for ages, a niche European thing.
It's getting more widespread now.
In fact, I think it's slowly but surely approaching actual mainstream.
But one thing that's really interesting is, regardless of race, gender, colour, creed, etc., the vast majority of 40k players are on the conservative side.
They're center-left to center-right.
There's very little extremity in this.
There's very little far right, very little far left, really.
I would actually say that there is probably a I don't like to use the term far right, but I would say that a lot of people who are attracted to, well, mainly the aesthetics of the game are well leaning a bit to the right, so to speak, because I mean, the aesthetics, it's powerful, militaristic.
And if we're talking about such things as the Primarchs, for example, heroic demigods, it is a quite right-wing.
Well, put it like this: it's very hierarchical.
It's about hierarchy.
A leftist will obviously not appreciate the differences in a Primarch and in a Space Marine and a regular human.
So I'd say that there is this element of traditional right-wing views ingrained in the Warhammer world.
And as we talked about on your channel in the first part of the conversation, that it's geared, like the whole Empire of Man or Imperium of Man is geared towards the survival of humanity.
And I'd say that there is something inherently right-wing with that.
And I mean right-wing in the sense of the word today, so I'm not talking about workers' right or anything like that.
But yeah, that was a tangent I went off on.
I think it's again a question of degrees.
I don't like the term far left or far right either.
I usually use far left to talk about the literal communists.
Because I think a lot of us are fairly centered.
Like, I wouldn't even consider you to be far right.
I would consider you to be a fairly reasonable right.
I mean, the far right, you know, the people that go like, oh, revolution now.
We must kill the immigrants.
I'm like, okay.
Yeah, I'm the thing with those kind of people is that they don't many of these people, and this is very regrettable, is that they don't really care about modern Europe.
They don't really care about Sweden.
They get a kick out of pretending to be extreme.
They get a kick out of provoking people.
That is what ultimately drives them.
Anyone who's truly dedicated is going to try to present himself and our views in the best possible way.
So, I mean, when someone, an anonymous commenter talking about bloody revolution and everything like that, that is not someone who's dedicated enough to have a good grasp of the situation.
So that's just something that I know it's a weakness within the right-wing part of politics, that there is a lot of anonymous commenters that are misrepresenting us in a horrendous way.
And this is also very demoralizing because I know that when the media, like mainstream media journalists, are looking through my social media and channels, etc., they are absolutely looking for these sort of impulsive individuals who are writing a lot of stupid things.
So yeah, they're not ideologically driven.
They're just out to provoke.
That's yeah, sorry to interrupt you.
I just wanted to clarify that.
No, that's fine.
Now, I think it is a question of maybe would realism be the correct word almost?
Because I think like you said last time we spoke, revolutions are messy.
Yeah.
And neither side tends to really come out that good from a revolution.
I mean, in Sweden, I agree.
need to start taking some pretty radical measures to get control over the situation because I mean you it's not um how do I put it It's not a made-up threat that's in your country.
You are in a general position of danger.
You've gotten so much Islamic immigration that you are in danger of becoming an Islamic goddamn state.
I mean, well, you have at least one active Sharia court in a Scandinavian country, and that's just like, that's wrong.
It's very wrong.
Yeah, yeah, it is.
We are in a dire situation, and that's just, like on so many levels, the welfare system obviously have failed a long time ago.
We have elderly people who are more or less being thrown out on the street.
That wouldn't have been the case 20 years ago.
And a lot of things going on behind the curtains as well.
A lot of decay in society, purely because of economic reasons.
when someone sees oh there is a there's a riot in Rinkeby or something like that there's a riot in an immigrant heavy area I mean that's just yeah it looks bad but that is just the tip of the iceberg they The things I'm worried about are, you know, the very fabric of our society is crumbling.
That is the horrendous part.
So yeah, I mean, definitely we are in a bad situation.
But to just white pill people here, I definitely think there's hope.
And we obviously have an election coming up this year.
So that will be quite interesting.
And there is a ray of hope, isn't there?
Because the more far-left forces in Swedish politics are starting to lose a bit of ground now.
Yeah, the political situation and the metapolitical situation in Sweden has changed so much over the last eight years.
Sweden Democrats got 5.7% in 2010.
And if you said that you voted for Sweden Democrats then, you were just branded as the worst sort of fascist there ever was.
Now, however, I mean, when they're doing test polls, etc., on certain occasions, Sweden Democrats have gotten up to about 25%.
And if you'd said that to a Swedish person eight years ago, they wouldn't have believed it.
So, I mean, the political situation has changed so extremely much.
Now, I don't necessarily think Sweden Democrats is enough to solve the situation, but that they're getting more support is obviously something at least.
I think the Sweden Democrats are definitely a step in the right direction.
They're Swedish nationalists.
They're fairly conservative.
It's a reactionary movement, true, but that doesn't invalidate it, in my opinion.
I definitely think they are what Sweden needs right now.
And the best part is, now that their positions are starting to actually get some traction in the mainstream and become popular, and people start to realize that they are just Nazis, they are starting to influence the other parties.
I mean, I paid a little bit of attention to the Swedish politics and stuff.
And now you see people like from the Social Democrats and the moderates starting to parrot Sweden Democrats' talking points and basically pretending that, yeah, yeah, no, no, we always agreed with this.
You know, we were just not speaking about it before.
Yeah, yeah, that's exactly the case.
And it's so hilarious to see like the social democrats and the moderates, like four years ago, they were just calling the Sweden Democrats the absolutely worst fascists.
And then now, yeah, as you say, they parrot the same sort of rhetoric.
And they obviously do this because here's the thing with politicians.
They have one goal, and that is to get into power.
So when the metapolitical landscape shifts, the politicians will shift with them.
And that is why I'm so adamant about we must win the metapolitical war because politics is downstream of culture.
Change the culture, change the politics.
And they obviously see that, oh, the Sweden Democrats are growing at our expense.
We need to get these people back.
So they harden the rhetoric.
Now, the problem is that the Sweden Democrats, they have had a unique opportunity to go to more reasonable measures.
But instead, they've adapted themselves to the mainstream because they want to be accepted by the mainstream.
So we have a new party incoming.
And yeah, it's a new party.
So I can't say too much about them at this particular moment in time.
I might give a general update in the coming months.
But they have more reasonable positions than the Sweden Democrats because they're talking about expelling criminal immigrants, etc.
So if you have committed a crime while in Sweden, you will be sent back to your country of origin and a lot of really, really good, solid, reasonable positions.
So yeah, the Sweden Democrats has also opened up for more reasonable alternatives.
It's like you say, isn't it?
No matter how a party starts out, the goal of the party's politicians is to get in power because it's literally their fucking job, isn't it?
And so they will almost always sand off the edges and become try and become mainstream, kind of try and become accepted.
I mean, we've seen this throughout human history, really.
I mean, hell, even the split in the alt-right, for example, of the proper alt-right and the alt-right light movement, essentially, essentially happened because of Trump.
And they became quote-unquote popular for a while.
And to become more popular, they figured they could sand themselves down a little bit, which how well that's worked out for them, not sure, but we'll see.
Yeah, yeah, definitely.
And I mean, I kind of like the alt-light because, and I mentioned this before as well, that the alt-light drives people to people with deeper analysis of the situation.
And now, the reason I don't call myself alt-right is because I started my own metapolitical or metaphysical crusade before the term alt-right was popularized.
So I don't want to be absorbed by some other teachings.
And then obviously there are a lot of people who refer to themselves as alt-right who do not adhere to my own teachings.
So it's not that I want to distance myself or that I want to disavow anyone.
It's just that I want to be solely responsible for my own teachings, for my own vision, and for my own political beliefs.
But anyway, back to the alt-light, the way I see it is that they are driving traffic to me, for example.
So if I know if Sargon or Milo has mentioned me in a podcast or whatever, people will, oh, who is this golden one?
And then they might watch a video and get my perspective of things.
So I don't agree with this animosity people on who refer to themselves as the real right or whatever that they have towards the alt-light because they're doing their job and everyone has the has a part to play.
It's become kind of a blanket term.
It's the problem with our modern conversation about politics, defining things as right, far right, left, far left.
Because with the rise of the internet and public discourse having become what it has become, there are so many different positions and so much more nuance than there ever was before.
Yeah, yeah, definitely.
A lot of different labels.
And of course, it's convenient to label everyone of certain general political thoughts as one thing.
But yeah, no, it's the alt-right term, it's not something I'm overly comfortable with.
And I've said this from the start as well, even when the term was more popularized because I still wanted to maintain my own, how shall we call it, intellectual freedom, or I wanted to be responsible for my own take on the situation.
And that obviously differs from other people.
And it obviously depends on what kind of nation you're in.
So my take on what is achievable and doable in Sweden is not really translatable to the Americas, for example, whereas the general trends and the general teachings are obviously very much applicable to American guys, for example.
It's just that they need to take the glorious pill in their own unique context.
Yeah, because I don't know if you watched it, but I had a talk with Richard Spencer a while ago, and they essentially presented their idea of their own Elven ethno-states in a far more extreme way.
I mean, they have the 500-year plan that's going to require the collapse of America in its entirety.
And I'm just like, okay, you do understand that the collapse of America is going to have some repercussions, right?
It's probably going to be horrible for everybody involved.
And as far as I know, you're not arguing for the separation of Sweden into individual smaller states?
I mean, it depends on how it all turns out.
There is a real possibility if there becomes a large contingent of non-Europeans within Europe.
I mean, we've seen the same thing in Kosovo.
Like, Kosovo was once a Serbian territory and then moved in a lot of Albanians, basically, and then they declared the land for themselves.
And it wouldn't be completely impossible for the same thing to happen in Sweden.
Like, I obviously don't hope that there will be separatism, etc., in Sweden, but it's not unheard of.
But obviously, like, the ideal situation is not a collapse.
The ideal situation is that we can change the way society thinks, the way society works, and solve this mess we're in in the most efficient way possible and in the most humane way possible.
Because, yeah, as we said before, like revolutionary revolutions are messy.
And another thing is that when change happens fast, it becomes unstable.
If we want a solid change, it takes usually more time.
So, yeah, what I'm aiming for is, as I said, economic incentives, because that's obviously how we got into this position in the first place.
They got here because of economic incentives, and they can live by the same token.
Yeah, possibly.
I personally would quite probably question the effectiveness.
I do definitely think that some people would leave, unquestionably, but at the same time, they know they've got it good here.
That's the problem.
Our countries are nice countries.
They're beautiful.
We've got good infrastructure.
We've got good social programs.
A lot of people is probably going to look back at the third world and think to themselves, yeah, maybe not.
I think this is also one of the reasons why we need to start helping more in those countries.
Because here's the thing.
If we send a million kroners to Afghanistan, we can build so much more infrastructure, so much more schools, so much more fields and agriculture and help them so much more there than we can here.
I saw an actual math piece on this, where I think we could help 100 people in Norway, like, you know, settle them.
And for the same price, we could help 10,000 people in their country of origins.
Yeah, that is a very good point.
And another point to emphasize is the brain drain aspect.
Like, if the very best of, like, imagine if the very best of a certain Middle Eastern country comes to Scandinavia, then we have effectively robbed that nation of competence that they desperately need.
So there is also a moral argument against this sort of highly skilled immigration.
Brain drain, a really good concept and something that we need to start questioning morally.
So what I would see is that definitely I have no problem with Sweden or Norway helping those kind of people.
I'm all for that because it can help them and it can help us.
We can send down engineers to basically train themselves down there and to create a more stable society.
So I mean, I have absolutely nothing against helping other peoples.
But yeah, as you say, it's about helping them in their own countries and not in our countries.
To me, it's really an efficiency question.
Like, again, because I think we can integrate people and I don't really mind integrating them because my values and yours are somewhat different there.
But for me, it really is an efficiency question.
I mean, if we can help 10,000 people in Syria or bring 1,000 people to Norway, I mean, I'm going to pick the 10,000 people just as a matter of expedience, really.
Yeah, yeah, yeah, definitely.
And it makes perfect sense as well to just with a logistic aspect of it all that you can help more people in their own nations.
And another aspect here is that the very aggressive war machinery of, say, Israel and the US, they are partly to blame for the instability of the Middle East.
And if we're talking about the political, I know Sweden as a state can't change what the United States or Israel does, but if we have politicians who are supportive of NATO, for example, that is obviously politicians that need to be shamed.
They need to know that the majority of Swedish population do not stand behind NATO and does not stand behind NATO in this sort of warmongering in the Middle East because I'm not saying that the Middle East was good before all these wars started, but it was a lot better than it is right now.
So, I mean, yeah, it's also a matter of the wars there, which the Western establishments have supported to a large extent.
That's actually interesting.
That's the first point we can actually agree with, disagree with a little bit properly, because I actually quite like NATO.
Their warmongering stuff that they have done occasionally, like in Yugoslavia, for example, or what used to be Yugoslavia.
I don't like that.
I think NATO should be a purely defensive measure, and I think it is a necessary one, because, well, America on one side, Russia on the other.
So, you wouldn't prefer a Nordic defense union, like Sweden, Denmark, Norway, Finland, and Iceland.
I've actually talked to a couple of guys in the military about this, and I actually really like the idea of a Scandinavian defense union where the countries take responsibility for different things.
Where, for example, one country pours a ton of money into aerospace research, creating better fighters, creating the best trained aerospace defense force, etc.
Another one pours a ton of money into defense on the ground, etc.
I actually really like the idea because us Scandinavian countries, we've bickered a bunch in the past.
In fact, Denmark and Sweden have been to war with each other more than any other country.
Yes, we hate each other historically.
Yes.
But the cooperation our countries have between each other really is unique almost in the entire world.
I mean, the fact that I can literally just cross the border from Sweden to Norway without anybody asking any questions is and there's no problems.
I mean, we're not fucking with each other.
You know, we're working together in a fairly unique fashion.
Yeah, definitely.
We have good relationship, I'd say, in a lot of things, like both with Norway and also with Finland, and nowadays also to a certain extent with Denmark.
So, yeah, I would be absolutely for a tighter Nordic sort of defense mechanism.
But as I see, NATO is, I do not condone of American foreign aggression at all.
I think the Americas had a reasonable foreign policy up until they entered the First World War.
Like when they said, you know what, we're dealing with our issues and we're not going to be overly concerned with intervening in the world.
Then obviously I understand that they want that the American economy or indeed the world economy is driven by oil.
So obviously they need to secure those sources and that's regrettable, but that in my humble opinion at least doesn't justify the wars of aggression they've undertaken in the Middle East.
Yeah, no, I do agree.
Some of them, like Afghanistan, I'm kind of on the fence about because after 9-11, I feel like it was a somewhat justified response.
But at the same time, Iraq, I really hated.
It's done far more harm than good, in my opinion.
And just the general meddling in the Middle East has cost no end of grief for the rest of the world.
And I mean, Israel, I have a fair bit of sympathy for, because they're literally surrounded by enemies.
And to survive in that situation, I do believe that a certain, shall we say, brutality on their part as a measure of intimidation might be the best solution, but it's a difficult question.
I really do think we probably should just fuck off from the Middle East and let them play with themselves for a while.
Yeah, I mean, the Israel question is very, very interesting and obviously very infected question as well.
And yeah, it's a hot topic.
I understand that Israelis, they are giving everything for Israel, but what I don't, like for in the American case, for example, a lot of American taxpayers' dollar goes towards Israel, like in foreign aid.
If I had been an American, I would not want that to be the case.
But then, as for the Israelis, yeah, I kind of understand how they feel.
Then, obviously, I don't condone everything they do.
They're quite draconian in the way they treat the Palestinians.
So, I don't endorse that.
But at the same time, it's a war.
Both sides hate each other.
It's one group of people against another group of people fighting for one area of land.
And it's a hot, it's a mess.
So, yeah, but yeah, interesting question.
You'll see that in another 500 years, Palestine and Israel will be just like us.
Oh, yeah, maybe.
If one doesn't eradicate the other, that is.
But the foreign aid question is something I find to be really interesting, though, because the American economy is not good.
I don't think anyone will disagree with that.
And yet, billions upon billions upon billions of dollars are being poured out to other countries.
And, like, okay, I am all for helping other countries.
In fact, I think it is a vital part of protecting the West by civilizing them.
It sounds horrible, but we do need to civilize them, unfortunately.
But you have to be able to afford it.
If your country can't afford to spend that money, you shouldn't spend that money.
Yeah, definitely.
The Americas has quite a few problems to take care of themselves.
Another thing with the American military and that they have so many people, like military personnel stationed abroad, is that it is a large industry.
It employs a lot of people.
It would have a profound effect upon the American economy if they were to detract all of their soldiers.
And that's obviously a regrettable fact of economic life, that that is the question.
But the way I see it, as I said, like slow change is good change, and rapid change is usually bad.
But in the American situation, what I would hope for is a slow but steady withdrawal of all of their soldiers stationed in the world.
So hopefully Trump can withdraw from Syria now.
We'll see how that turns out.
But yeah.
Yeah, that'll be a stink.
I don't remember where I found this, but I think the total military spending in foreign countries in the world, America has like 40% of it, which is insane.
Yeah, it is.
It is.
The simple fact that they can ship Abram's tanks to Iraq, but it's cheaper to leave them there than it is to bring them back.
It's just like all this shit.
But yeah, there needs to be change in America.
America is a strange country, isn't it?
They have been heading towards these economic abyss now for decades, and they still don't seem to be aware of it.
And I'm just kind of baffled.
Yeah, I'm actually reading a book by Piero San Giorgio.
It's called Survive the Economic Collapse.
And I haven't read all of it, but so far it's really good.
And he talks a lot about the global economy and also about the American economy because the American economy is obviously such a large part of the global economy.
So it will be interesting and see how that all develops.
I might have to read that because that is an interesting subject.
Yeah, definitely is.
So, yeah, we've been going on for quite some time now.
I see on the clocks this part of the talk was a bit longer than the one on your channel.
But do you have anything else you wanted to elaborate on or talk about?
I think as a final word, I'll just say that it's really interesting to me and cool that you and I can disagree on things and keep it really civil, just talk about it, friendly.
I think more people should be able to have conversations like this, really.
Yeah, no, definitely.
And it's an absolute pleasure to have the sort of collaboration and pleasure to have you on the channel.
And definitely, it's very important to talk with each other because if you don't have the exchange of ideas, then there can be no enlightenment.
So I'm all for having a reasonable discussion and sharing perspectives.
And you always learn something new when you talk with people who harbor different political ideas.
So yeah.
Definitely.
And there's certainly things we could go deeper into because we've been fairly loose in this one, just talking about general values and ideas.
But I think that's a good first step in the conversation.
I think more people should do that, just establish general stuff, rather than really go for the details immediately, because I think it helps building a certain respect for both parties.
Yeah, definitely.
Definitely.
But yeah, cool.
Thank you very much for having me on.
All right.
Thank you very much.
So that was my conversation part two with my Norwegian friend Arch Warhammer.
And the first link in the description, check out his channel.
Also does great lore videos on Warhammer.
And I will also link his first video of his I saw and it's about Conrad Kurse.
