Thinking Class

#103 - Martin Sellner - Remigration & European Identity

• John Gillam

Share episode

Use Left/Right to seek, Home/End to jump to start or end. Hold shift to jump forward or backward.

0:00 | 1:10:00

Martin Sellner is an Austrian activist, author and political organiser and his "goal is to save the identity and soul of [his] nation & Europe". He is author of several books in the German language, one of which, "Regime Change From The Right", is now published in English, while another, "Remigration", will be published in English early 2026.

Martin Sellner joins John Gillam to address the sensitive topic of remigration and national identity in contemporary Europe. Placing demographic shifts and political identity in historical perspective, this conversation explores why questions about cultural cohesion and national futures are increasingly central across European societies.

This episode explores:

  • the demographic pressures shaping European political discourse,
  • how identity and belonging interact with state policy,
  • and what “remigration” means in broader civilisational terms.

Listeners will encounter one of the most contested issues of our time framed as a structural dilemma rather than a polemic.

Listen to the other episodes in a mini-series for alternative views on 'what is to be done' about the issues facing Britain and Europe today. 

About Thinking Class:
Thinking Class is a long-form interview podcast exploring the cultural, historical, and moral forces shaping England, Britain, and the wider Western world.

Hosted by John Gillam, the show features serious conversations with historians, academics, and independent thinkers.

Thinking Class is concerned with discovering long-term patterns over headlines and hot-takes. Expect historically-grounded analysis on matters of national character, institutions, demography, belief, and political legitimacy.

New episodes every week.

▶️ Subscribe on YouTube
🎧 Follow on Spotify
📰 Read on Substack
🐦 Follow on X

SPEAKER_00

Hello, classmates, and welcome to Thinking Class. I'm John Gillam and today I'm speaking to Martin Zellner. Martin is an Austrian activist, author, and political organizer, and in his words, his goal is to save the identity and soul of his nation and Europe. Martin is the author of several books, currently in the German language, one of which Regime Change from the Right is now published in English, while another Remigration will be published in English in early 2026. In this episode, Martin thinks out loud about the end of censorship in Europe and the implications for the political landscape and the challenges of nation building in a diverse society. Why remigration is necessary to save European nations from demographic collapse, wide-scale change, and cultural dissolution, how demography devours democracy in the end, why a shift in public sentiment now favours remigration, why the AFD in Germany cannot be stopped, what Martin means by a cultural reconquista, and why he thinks it's the only viable way to salvage something recognizably European in the face of changing demographics, what the dangers of extremism in a right-wing movement are, and much, much more. I think it's fair to say that Martin has been considered a controversial figure. He has been branded far right, and yes, I must say that in his writings and now in this conversation, I've actually found Martin more moderate than I have found many of the emergent mainstream British right and the talking points within that sphere. Make of that what you will. However, I don't subscribe to the scare stories. I also suggest you should check out my conversations with other guests to hear what the alternative solutions people have in a demographically diverse Europe are and what else we should be thinking about. As ever, like, subscribe, follow, and share Thinking Class on your podcast platform of choice, YouTube and Substack. Enjoy the show, classmates. Thanks so much for joining me.

SPEAKER_01

Thanks for having me.

SPEAKER_00

Well, Martin, I'm particularly glad to have you because I've unintentionally um been on somewhat of a series of discussions that have explored lots of different routes forward for where Britain is right now. And I appreciate you right within the Austrian and the German context, but also just Europe more broadly. And I think as a brief scene set, I think most people would agree, regardless of their political orientation, that diversity is our strength, is a common mantra that we hear from our public and private institutions. And I would say I disagree with that. And in recent weeks I've spoken to people on the left who say that diversity is actually our greatest challenge. But then they go on to say that population replacement and cultural change would be okay if people actually consented to it, but they're not. Um, others I've spoken to who have been influenced by the Marxist left in previous uh intellectual lives say that whether or not a demographic replacement is halted or reversed in European countries, that we still need to save our soul and a re-Christianisation must happen. And then I've got others still who are like civic nationalists who say, look, British institutions are really strong. And actually, if we just gave this stuff up, we could force integration and we could say to the diasporas of foreign peoples that you need to leave away, leave behind your old ways and attachments and properly get behind being British. And now I speak to you. And you are the leader of what's termed online as a generation um remigration. Uh, you talk about being an identitarian for um Europeans, I suppose. And this is an opportunity for you to say, well, actually, besides all of those options, this is why I've committed my professional life to thinking remigration is one of the key things that European nations need to focus on. So, Martin, without much further ado, why should people focus solely on re-migration if they want to fix the issues facing European nations today?

SPEAKER_01

Before I answer, a short disclaimer. I'm not the leader of uh generational remigration, I'm a spokesperson for generation identity. And yes, I've written a book, uh remigration proposal, which is my definition of remigration, but I'm obviously aware that there are many people who have differing definitions of re migration. So I think there's a core of the term, which means we need to reverse the flows of mass migration, we need to have a minus migration to reduce the um whole migrant population in our nations, and this is the most important uh point. But how to do is who is affected, how quickly, how many. This is open for a very um open and very interesting debate, also within the right. So there are people who have a remigration position which is more radical than me, and then there are people who have a remigration position which is more soft than me. But overall, why I'm a remigration maxer is because I think the biggest problem is demographic. The biggest problem is the population replacement, the demographic replacement. This is the most important problem, and all the other issues are just superficial and they're all reversible. So a nation can overcome an economic crisis, a cultural crisis, also a faith crisis. But once the population is replaced to a certain degree, then the nation itself breaks, and what you have is a civil war scenario, like in Lebanon, like in Syria, or even like in South Africa. And that's what I want to avoid. So with only with migration we can save our nation, and only re-migration can save the ethno-cultural continuity and therefore identity of a nation, and democracy. Because as we've seen, and it's scientifically proven, democracy needs a certain amount of homogeneity, um, community, mutual trust to function and to work. And the social capital, um, we have a lot of studies and works on that, is being destroyed by ethnic diversity. So I agree, ethnic diversity is not uh something positive and beneficial. It's a huge burden for society, and those societies who are ethnically diverse very often experience civil war, unrest, high rates of corruption, high rates of criminality. So to without any issue, any problem, any benefit, turning these homogenous European nations into multi-ethnic, uh multicultural failed states, in my opinion, is a demographic crime. So I think re-migration is the better solution, better for us, but also for migrants, and it's the only logical answer to decades of illegal replacement migration.

SPEAKER_00

Well, your uh fears, I suppose, uh, of a balkanizing of the nations because of the multi-ethnic uh nature of European nations now in the West is something that has been shared by people on this podcast before who I think would consider themselves to be civic nationalists. They, like me, have personal reasons as to why you'd quite want that to work, this idea that you could um forge uh a strong nation, national unity, national identity with disparate peoples. And um I I've had uh people on the podcast who've then gone to say, Martin, well, look, we've got to accept that things have changed. The nations aren't what they were demographically, so uh maybe we what we need to do is start looking at a new Britain, a new France, a new Germany, and focus in on nation building. Um why do you think that is an untenable position? Is it possible or is it impossible to do that?

SPEAKER_01

It depends. So I don't think it's completely untenable. We have had national identities which were based on strong narratives, and they also had different ethnicities and cultures forming an ethnogenesis, a new nation. But what we've seen in history, in European history, these were ethnic groups who were very similar to begin with. So they had a very similar religion, they had um similar customs, and also a similar heritage. When you look back, what's happening right now with this massive immigration of non-European Muslim immigrants to Europe is the biggest, biggest ethno-cultural upheaval and change since roughly about 6,500 years, because there was the big invasion of the Amnaya in Europe and the mix with the people who live there, and this created basically the basis for the modern European nation. And obviously, there has been change, and I don't um have an essentialist view of a nation. A nation is something in development. It can take in new elements, and other elements can go out, but what's happening right now is cutting this threat. So I think we are not even in a situation anymore where we can talk about nation building because if you look at demographics, just one example, one probe, Vienna. Vienna, the majority of school children are Muslim. Of all schools of Vienna, the majority, the biggest group is Muslim. So to say now, okay, we do just a little bit of nation building and we make integration classes is just lunatic. I think these people live in a different reality. Some people call it boomer truth, and they really live in this world where in their age group they've always been the ethnic majority, and in their school classes, they've been the ethnic majority. Now they're old enough, they don't have to go to school anymore, they don't have to ride a bus, they don't go to a public swimming pool, they live in a nice secluded area. So for them, the whole world is still okay. And the only migrants they see is this one nice guy who's bringing them a pizza, or this one totally assimilated Persian doctor who lives in the same posh neighborhood. And these are the people dominating the discourse of migration. So I think it's uh just delusional. Yes, migrate uh integration and assimilation can work in um certain amounts, certain numbers, but only if your own population is uh the clearly dominant and strong cultural and demographic force. But in a scenario where you're fading away demographically, you have massive immigration, the only solution has to be remigration. And I think unless we have started re migration, first of all, Fortress Europe, stopping the mass illegal immigration, then starting a remigration process. Then I think when we have started this, then we can talk about a possible integration assimilation, can look closely at the parallel societies and what's really going on. But we first have to start this process to take control of our nations back.

SPEAKER_00

Well, let's think about what some of the common challenges, criticism of remigration are, and you can you can respond to those in turn. And then I suppose we can perhaps walk through what that might look like if people were to agree that that's the right thing to do. So I think it's fair to say that those who discredit re migration would likely refer to proponents of it as either being neo-Nazi or adjacent to it, or perhaps even white supremacist, white nationalist. Uh how would you respond to those who say that being part of a identitarian movement on the part of indigenous Europeans is aligned with any of these things?

SPEAKER_01

I would first ask them what the definition of um uh white nationalism or Nazism is, is a term sort of thrown around all the times and very rarely defined. Obviously, remigration is um uh proposition about migration policy. It's an answer to problems that arose in the 60s, 70s, but 90s and early uh uh 21st century. So it has nothing to do with ideologies from the past. You can even have a left-wing or even an ecological approach to re-migration because you are afraid of overpopulation and destruction of natural land. So I don't think it's a particularly just right-wing position. And I um it has, in my opinion, nothing to do with this, uh with any set of ideology. It's just a very rational solution and proposition and reaction to this problem that we obviously have. And I would say racism, if you define it as a blind, irrational hatred of whole ethnicities, is something that I personally reject. But today the term is used in a way that any form of positive European or white identity is being called racist, while at the same time they say black people can't be racist. So racism is a sin that only white people can commit. And racism, the sin is when we want to survive as Europeans, as a majority in our own native lands. So I totally reject this. On the contrary, I think to after an objective definition of racism, it is absolutely racist to deny us this right of staying in our lands and staying a majority there. Because if you fast forward 200 years, Turkey will still be filled with Turkish people, Japan, Japanese people, Israel, Jewish people, Afghanistan, Afghani people. But European people, white people, are fading away. And at the moment, European people almost have no nation in which they're not on the brink of becoming a minority, at least in Western and Central Europe. And this is something which is obviously wrong under any moral term, and it has to be stopped. So to claim that there's something morally wrong with migration is um as an idea, as a concept, is despicable. I understand if people say certain aspects or certain proposals might be morally questionable, I agree, but that's why in my book I've tried to compile and to create a proposal of remigration which is absolutely preserving the dignity of humans, which is totally just and absolutely legal.

SPEAKER_00

Well, let's go down the potential pitfalls then. So you you actually quote in your book a uh a very famous Marxist theorist, uh Gramsci, Antonio Gramsci. And within that, you say, let me pull up this quote. Uh it is here we go. So for those who are sympathetic with what you have to say, um, and you're trying to warn them of the dangers, the pitfalls of potentially moving in this direction, you have you quoted Gramsci who said, one must create sober, patient people who do not despair in the face of the worst horrors and do not become enthusiastic about every foolishness. Pessimism of the intellect, optimism of the will. So I know you refer to this being um the concern of right-wingers, but within that you basically include everyone who broadly agrees with your notion of the nation, right? There is a ethno-cultural homogeneity that exists somewhere, and the nations have been born out of that. And actually, we have um duties to our ancestors to uphold some of this, and uh and that, as you just described, this wholesale change, which has been done without people's consent, is going to lead to a radically different nation and thus the end of it historically. So I suppose the question being, you've rejected all of those um suggestions of look, this is not about white supremacy or neo-Nazism or all the rest of it, and that's misguided. Um, what are the foolish things that people could get enthusiastic about within this movement? So, what do you warn people against?

SPEAKER_01

Yeah, obviously, um, I think you're quoting from this book, uh, Right Wing Regime Change, which is a strategic book. It's not so much about re-migration, but about how we can get political power to make it happen, to make it possible. Uh, foolish things, for example, would be if young Europeans, young white men who are frustrated, who are angry, who feel powerless, turn to violence or turn to absolute extremes just to vent their frustration and their anger, or take out the anger against people who are not ultimately responsible and guilty for that. So it's also very important for me to stress our center, our power center, where we need to focus our activism and our criticism is politics, our own politicians, because they are behaving in a traitorous way, in my opinion, to their own people. And those flows of migration, these massive millions and millions of migrants who are coming to Europe, are also just tools, like chess figures in this bigger play. So I think they don't deserve um attacks or or this anger and frustration, like politicians, our own politicians and political institutions do. And I think if you don't organize the frustration, the anger, the political will and the will to survive of the European people, it will become or turn out in foolish, bravadoes, and sometimes maybe even criminal or violent actions which don't amount to anything, hurt ultimately innocent people, and then don't bring about any political change. And that's why I say this movement has to be democratic, nonviolent, organized. It has to propose serious and doable solutions, like my proposal for re migration. And that's why I focus heavily on Gramsci and I promote the right-wing Gramscianism, because I think we need to win the battle over the minds, over the media, over the streets, and then change in the parliament can happen. That's the basic message. And uh I think that people on the right who promote wyalism, who uh promote extreme ideas, which only attract a very small bubble and creates a very radical but very small group, dedicated group, are ultimately, even if they're act on good intentions, damaging this goal of re migration because they um prevent or create this metapolitical, this people power, this influence on real politics. That's um the message of this book, part of the message of this book.

SPEAKER_00

I think what will be surprising to people, Martin, because if they were to Google your name, they would probably find uh news articles that say Martin Sellner denied entry to Switzerland, Britain, whatever. And uh if that's all people would know about you, and if people read the articles about you, I think they would jump to the conclusion that you must be some sort of extremist nut who's whipping people up into a frenzy to commit acts of militancy and that you're a great danger. But everything that you've said so far in this show is that you absolutely do not support those things, and that actually what you care more about is the continuity of a nation and its people, and to do so in a non-violent, respectful way, and and also respecting people's human dignity, the migrants included, that you don't want them to be targeted. You have written within this book, The Regime Change from the Right, that there's a cultural hegemony that needs to be attacked. And I wonder if just in the context of you being denied entry to these countries on the basis of you being a supposed danger to the populations, is maybe you could tell us what that cultural hegemony is and why it has singled you and people who are, I suppose, engaging in this conversation and um encouraging activism in this direction have been perceived to be a threat and why there's an attempt to silence you.

SPEAKER_01

I think all these attacks, all this demonization just shows that they're taking us very seriously. So also see it as a kind of a medal of honor. I know it's a bit annoying if people Google me. If I Google myself, if I read my own Wikipedia article, I think okay, I never want to have anything to do with this guy. He must be crazy. So uh I know it um scares off some people, but those people, also people like you who really for the open dialogue and get interested and say, I want to see for myself, are the very interesting people. So this demonization also filters out NPCs and boring people. But I completely agree with you. It's uh they see us as a threat for the true center of power. Because a lot of right-wing populist politicians don't understand what power is. They think power takes place and happens and is centered in the parliament. But that's not the case, according to Kramshi, Artusia, but also Mosca, elite theorists, and a lot of people thought a bit deeper, and we've read all of them, we learned from them. We think power lies in media, in education. That are, according to Louis Artusaire, ideological state apparatuses. These are machines of the state and they're producing hegemony, they're producing ideology. And laws alone amount to nothing if they're not backed up by culture, media, and education, by ideology. Because what have all these laws against illegal illegal immigration brought us? Nothing. Uh how many legal, necessary deportations happen? They don't happen. What have all these laws against um drugs, pornography, etc. brought us? The laws against um Islamization, they don't bring anything because they're not backed up by. Culture by the media, and because they're seen as illegitimate. So this is where the actual power lay. And the left-wingers knew this because they read Gramsci, and what they did is they occupied the universities, they conquered the universities. Today you don't find any university on the whole continent which isn't very hardcore left, except for some private universities. And every teacher you have went there. Every journalist once went there. So once you have the universities, you can program anyone, any expert, any intellectual who has to go to the cycle of universities, and therefore you create a cultural hegemony. You can decide what is seen as rational, as humane, as intelligent, as progressive. You have control over the words, over the language, and therefore you have control over the way people think. And on the long term, this will affect obviously elections. And what we've seen in the past decades is in Europe, with all the different democratic elections in every different nation, all the nations went to the left. All the nations in West Europe embraced multiculturalism. All them embraced LGTBQ. Some people think it's a secret cabal. I think it's the control of the cultural hegemony in those nations by the same ideological group. And we are a threat to them because we know the secret. We have understood this, and that's why they're fighting so hard against us.

SPEAKER_00

So you you being an individual, I suppose you've had somewhat of a what is called in the Germanic countries, a brand mauver, a firewall, I suppose, put around you by those who you don't want you to come in and talk about these things. Um I know you've um, well, according to the media anyway, you've you've held conversations with party leaders in the AFD, AFD, Alternative for Deutschland. And now there's a party that also has a firewall around it. And there's been some, just to digress from the themes of your book recently, but I think this is useful to understand where the general public's heads are at with regards to topics of mass immigration, population replacement, and remigration, is the AFD majors on pushing back against all of those things. And within Germany, for example, there has been a concerted attempt to say we are never going to form a government with this party. It doesn't matter how many votes it gets, if provided we can get into a coalition, they're not going to get in. And um, in recent weeks, it seems that even some politicians from the parties that have become part of the firewall are now saying it's it's inappropriate, it's unjust, it's not okay. So just pausing for a moment on the theory and where we might be headed, um, what what do you think is bubbling on under the surface? Do you do you think there's any way for this cultural hegemony to hold within the political circles of the Germanic uh parts of Europe? Um, or do you think it's on borrowed time and people uh that are serving the AFD and parties like the AFD are inevitable in the end because that metapolitical shift you're talking about is already happening and pushing the political party into power? Or is it a false dawn?

SPEAKER_01

No, it's definitely happening. We're seeing this wipe shift. Um there was this viral summer hit, you know, the probably not a melody that uh thousands of people sang in the discourse. There's Sidney Sweeney refusing to apologize. You have so many cultural, pop cultural moments that um that are taking place, and you see it like a seismograph, this how they're showing this metapolitical change. I think um the scenes that like the biggest point of their power is already over, and this firewall is something I cannot take seriously because these mainstream politicians are total opportunists and account on the opportunism. They break every wow, they break everything they tell us, and the same will happen to the promises of a firewall once the AFD is powerful enough. And I can tell you I'm an Austrian, same in Austria, they said we will never go into coalition with the Freedom Party, and now in five out of nine regions in Austria, they are in a coalition in the regional government with the Freedom Party because it was impossible not to go there, and they wanted to keep their position of wealth and of power. And in the end, for those people, for the majority of politicians, for the majority of journalists, it's about wealth and power. And as soon as they see the only way to keep their wealth and power is to adapt to a change in ideology, they will immediately change the position. Look at what happened in Germany after uh um national socialism broke down, people became communists in the GDR in Eastern Germany. Just in one instance, from one day to another, everybody was a communist. And then this broke down, and from one day to another, everyone was a liberal Democrat. So that's how the majority works. And I don't really care about these politicians, about what NPCs say. It's important to find out who's the opposing elite, who's controlling this narrative and this power. And if you can break this narrative and if you can break the ideological stronghold, create a free and open debate, I'm sure that our ideas will achieve uh majority support, and then a change can and will happen very quickly. Especially, that's the last and important point, maybe another white pill for people listening. If you suppress and overdo organic change in society, if you can't do this anymore, it happens very quickly. Like the Berlin Wall. When it came down, there were hundreds of thousands who went to the West. If they never had the Berlin Wall to begin with, they would have just slowly and steadily left. And so same now with the discussion. If we had a free and open debate, no censorship. I'm I've been banned by um 94 banks. I'm banned on YouTube, on TikTok, on Instagram. And hundreds and thousands of people are banned like me. If there were no censorship against Patriots and if everybody could speak their mind freely without any censorship laws, remigration would have started 10, 15 years ago in Europe. So that's what I count on. Their power is resting only on censorship right now. They've lost any kind of attractiveness, coolness, and vibe. And the more desperate they get, the more they censor, the quicker the change will happen in the end.

SPEAKER_00

Well, I think we're experiencing that to some degree here in Britain. So don't know how much you follow the news, but we have a government that is um certainly willing to use state power against those it deems to be threats to the multicultural order, um, to the idea of the global goods and generally the promotion of minority rights above majority rights. And we see that within the justice system, we we see that um within the education system, we see it with the employment system, and it's been going on for a long time, but it's it's really ramped up uh of late. And um what I'm certainly noticing, and this is anecdotal, but I have lots of friends, friends who for many years have been put off by that um firewall, I suppose, that has been put around parties that have lent right. So we've got Reform UK as the insurgent party led by Nigel Farage. It's actually pretty liberal uh in many respects. Um, but just last year they were effectively being smeared as fascists. That doesn't hold anymore. Those same people who came to me worried about potential rise of fascism now find it to be a perfectly acceptable party. There are some saying, I think I'm gonna have to vote for them, or they're talking about things like immigration, which they would never have spoken about before because that Overton window is totally smashed. And these are people who are part of the polite society middle classes of England and Scotland who just want to get on with their normal lives, but now events have overtaken them, and the news cycle just constantly reminds them that things aren't working. And um we are seeing, I suppose, a more repressive state action here, and uh I think with that the acceleration of people towards these ideas. But as you've pointed out, there's a democratic angle to this, and I suppose we should talk about the possibility of what you're proposing being achieved through democratic means. And again, this is not talking about it happening via violent revolution, but rather what might prevent these things from happening. So you cited, cited is the wrong word, but you quoted the famous phrase, demography is destiny, which you hear many people talk about. You saw people bring it up when Zoran Mamdani was voted in as the NYC uh mayor, you've seen it when Sadiq Khan um was stringing up um uh lights for Eid in London. People say demography is destiny. You've put a different slant on it in the book, uh Regime Change from the Right, and you wrote that demography devours democracy. So, what do you mean by that? And what does demography mean for um democratic change to prevent, halt, reverse mass immigration, and all the rest of it?

SPEAKER_01

That's a very important um topic. I think it's the most important topic because if you really look at uh dangers from the threats today, the great replacement, demographic replacement, is the biggest threat, obviously, because all the other issues and questions are political ones and all problems are reversible, but the demographic replacement isn't, and the demographic replacement is attacking the police itself. So the basis of the political, the body politic, which is the nation, which is uh the this um ethno-cultural, obviously not only ethnic, but this political identitarian um being, which is attacked by demographic replacement. And the fact, the political fact, is the ethnic vote. When you don't have a population who is voting according to ideology, who is engaging in a more or less rational dispute about arguments, but the vote becomes an ethnic headcount. And then ethnic parties form, ethnic alliances form. And this is something that's been studied for years. Um, Rafael Don Sicher, a countryman of you, she's written his book, Dilemmas of Inclusion. I was one of the first who read it, and I wrote a lot of articles about it, warning people of it uh several years ago. The progressive Muslim vote, the alliance of communists and Muslims, Islamo-Gauchism, as the French call it, that's the new coalition of the future. Muslims vote for progressive parties, left-wing parties, and ignore the LGDPQ issues because they give them power, they hand them over the key to the city, literally, if you look at Madami and at uh Tariq Khan. And the left-wingers ignore the radical fundamentalistic Islam of these Muslim voters because they give them votes and give them power and help them to stay in power. And it was the treason of the Labour Party, one of the first socialist parties, who took the strategy to shock the Tories, to import massive migrants, naturalize them without any um second thought, and to import their own voters. So while we as patriots, identitarians, nationalists, conservatives try to convince people with arguments, they import people, breaking the law, hand them over to citizenship, and then get new voters. And this is very detrimental, and that's why I also think we only have a certain time frame for um democratic change before demographic change is going over a point of no return. So demography eats democracy alive. And actually, if you want to maintain democracy, if you are a democrat, you should fight for re-migration. Remigration is the only solution to save our democracies in Europe. And um, I think that's also why the people who are against remigration, who are for massive immigration, legal and illegal, are also becoming more and more anti-democratic. It's um, I would say, a coalition of the elites against their own people. That's also what Paul Gottfried wrote in his great book, Multiculturalism and the Politics of Guilt. Multiculturalism, politics of guilt, guilt-tripping people, is also a tool of power by elites, by more and more internationalist elites against their own people. It's a way to take away power from your own people. And every foreigner who comes in who gets the right to vote is decreasing the power you have with your own vote. That's what Tucker Carlson said a few years ago. Receives a lot of backlash, but it's just right. And that's um a big act of treason. I think it's a big political crime what's going on. And at some point, even if all the indigenous Englishmen and assimilated migrants who are also for re migration in many cases, would vote a party that wants to turn the tides, they would not amass enough votes because of the demographic replacement. And I think in around uh 2040, 2045, we will reach this point in France, England, Belgium, Austria, Italy, Germany, Sweden, and many other countries if we don't do something about it right now.

SPEAKER_00

Well, to pull a few examples out, so there's some practical reality for the listeners, and uh you feel free to respond with with your part of the world, Martin. But we have population projections for England specifically that show that the white English will be a minority by 2050, but seems to be certainly before that. And to bring your point to life about the importation of uh if I could just uh just um stress on it because it's important.

SPEAKER_01

Um, for me, if one-third of the electorate are non-assimilate non-European migrants who perform the ethnic vote, then it's over. So um uh you don't have to look at the whole population, uh the composition, it's way before there's a 50% margin. Because if one third of the electorate isn't um in any way convincible to we cannot reach them anymore with our arguments because they will vote either way for their own ethnic interest, which is more migration, more Islamization, then I think it will be impossible for a right-wing party to win because they would uh would need um so many um of their own indigenous voters which are hard to convince. France, for example, the Muslim voters who make about 10% of the French electorate never vote for the Rassemblement candidate, which means she has to convince 60% of the non-Muslim voters in France to have 50%. And that's uh the the issue we have right now.

SPEAKER_00

Interesting. Well, and just for the listeners' clarity, she is Marine Le Pen. Uh that's that's who she needs to be. Yes, yeah. Um well, your point about the demography devouring democracy. We have seen some examples of this just three days ago from the point of recording here in England. So in Birmingham, I think it's probably no surprise to many listeners that that is one of the most ethnically diverse cities in the United Kingdom. And uh it has returned a few members of parliament actually to Westminster in the most recent election, which all stood on a pro-Gaza anti-Israel ticket, and they are all um by heritage from the subcontinent um and they're they're Muslim. And one of them is called Iqbal Mohammed, and he was quoted, and there's a film that's uh sorry, a short video that showed up on Twitter a few days ago at um uh an event for a new party that has been set up by a former leader of the Labour Party, Jeremy Corbyn, and these pro-Gaza MPs who are independent, so they're not currently attached to a party. And his quote is: we must take over the whole of Birmingham, the whole of the West Midlands, the whole of the United Kingdom. We will not be taken for granted, and we will win. So, for anyone who thinks that this is theoretical and it's abstract, and that there's time, there are also 50 seats that are potentially on the line for the next election. So there were 50 seats that were close to seeing those adjacent to these views that will be capable of being won in 2034. So, sorry, 2029. So you could end up seeing, as you've talked about, the Islamo-gauche, the Islamo-left alliance, um making a huge, huge breakthrough into parliament. So the the five independent MPs so far, who all broadly think like Iqbal Mohammed and have campaigned for airports in Pakistan, uh cousin marriage, um, all of these kind of uh sectarian interests, um there will be even there will be even more of them. And um, I don't know if you knew this, Martin, but um recently uh there was a a football match between Aston Villa, a big club in Birmingham, and Maccabi Tel Aviv. And um basically it was decided to ban Maccabi Tel Aviv fans from traveling, from coming to the match. They weren't allowed in. And this was after there were lots of um sectarian protests and uh agitation from members of parliament, which are of uh immigrant heritage, and um it was decided it was it was best not to allow them into the stadium, and there were huge protests outside, even at the stadium, on the day when there weren't any fans from Israel there, at least one or two who'd got gotten in, and um they were it was quite aggressive. Um, and uh this is this is reality, and I suppose what you've talked about earlier on is there are lots of people in the electorate who live secluded lives from this.

SPEAKER_01

But the reality is here, you know, this is one example. Um, and if you look at uh what happened with a grooming gang scandal, rape on a on a genocidal scale, that's not what I say, that's what's what experts said about it. That's how people are suffering from that. And uh you see what you you mentioned and all of this happening, things happening, saying, Oh, it's not affecting you, how is migration affecting your life? It's just illusional. And the problem is this um ethnic vote, unfortunately, not only is caused by labor, also the Tories and conservatives in Germany betrayed their own electorate. On the surface, they're still a very bro-British, but on the local level, they already have set up many, many Muslim candidates, also radical Muslim candidates, and that's also something that Rafael Donsicher has proven in her book. In a region where Muslims have 20 to 30 percent, first the Tories uh the Labour wins with Muslim candidates, and after second, Labor win with the Muslim candidates. Tories always also use the Muslim candidate. And once the Muslim electoral potential goes beyond 30%, they start switching between Labour and Tory because they don't care about party flags. They only care about their own benefits, they have a very tribal, non-ideological mindset, and when they're strong enough, they form their own political parties. And that's what's happening now with the geopolitical issue, Israel-Gaza issue with the socialist and labor parties, they get betrayed by the own voters they imported, and that's will happen in the end. It's a bit like in this movie Alien, where suddenly the alien comes out of the human body. I mean, I don't want to say that any foreign is an alien, I just want to, you know, uh put a very brutal metaphor on it. These socialist parties, the conservative parties, um bribe the parallel societies for their votes, but when they're strong enough, they will just form their own parties and um then become a very dominant and very strong force. And in Germany, the CDU, the Christian Conservative Party, is heavily cooperating with Turkish nationalists, the Grey Wolf Organization, which is the biggest nationalistic organization in Germany, a Turkish one. If Germans would have the same values and the same slogans as the Grey Wolves, they would be persecuted and house raided. But these people, they get uh basically bribed um by conservative politicians because they want to have their votes. So that's happening on a global scale, this act of betrayal by conservative politicians and by left-wing politicians, they're flirting with the ethnic vote, they're suppressing our concerns or um patriotic and populist criticism. But I think it will not work long-term anymore because the whole world is changing. And um, I also think the repression is a sign of a loss of authority. There's a dichotomy between authority and repression, and when you when you're losing authority, then you have to amp up and increase the repression. And that's what we're seeing right now. And every regime that became totalitarian and repressive because it's lost its ideological um hegemony, in the end, fell apart. That's what's happening.

SPEAKER_00

I think you're probably right. Uh I th I I would like to see someone um put a counterpoint across that is convincing, but given given that we can see uh news items come out every day with all of the examples that you've just highlighted, um, I I think we can probably accept that as uh a political reality. Um a few things that I think are probably worth unpacking and getting your views on. So we've talked about those who are perhaps secluded from the downstream impact. Of the mass immigration policies that the West have undergone in recent decades. So they still live pretty nice lives. They're in metaphorical gated communities, if not real ones, or they're in the leafy parts of a country and perhaps economically secure. They don't really have to see the um the ethnic enclaves that have been um building up nor the crime and all the rest of it. Um what do you say to those people who potentially aren't that um um well off and and and um secluded from the whole conversation, but look at the political landscape as it is now, and they go, oof, this is a pretty heavy, dark atmosphere. Um it feels like it's best just not to get involved, and actually things will just be okay in the end. Sent common sense will prevail. What do you say to people with that mindset?

SPEAKER_01

I think if the um smart and um rational people always give in in the end, the stupid and uh treacherous people who are lying will win. So unfortunately, it's not only about the better argument, it's also about making more noise, being more visible. I think everybody needs to get involved. Also, people who have it maybe nicely for themselves, I think they have a responsibility for their own nation as a whole. Unfortunately, especially in class-based societies, a lot of people in the upper class who live in these gated communities, who have a paywall around them, um ignore the suffering of those of their own nation who are less well off. Because obviously, if your daughters aren't roaming around the streets in some poorer English cities, the likelihood that they get groomed by a grooming gang is very low. But these girls, these English girls who have been groomed, who have been raped, whose lives have been destroyed, are also part of your nation, of your community. You have a responsibility for them. So I think these people should look into the future, should look what their ancestors have built, that they are living and sitting on the shoulders of giants, they only can enjoy their life and have this civilization because of the deeds of their ancestors and their duty right now is to get involved and to become also the spokesperson, become the organizer for the people who are not so rich, not so well educated, cannot express themselves that well, but who are going on the streets by the thousands, what you see right now in the UK. And I think what especially UK needs are more intellectual voices, more um political representatives who uh become spokespersons for this will to live and will to maintain the identity of the broader population. With because I think it's definitely there. You see a race of patriotism in the UK, raise the flag movement. But I think um especially rich people, people from the upper class, lawyers, professors, all these people, intellectuals, public intellectuals, I think we we have a lack of them standing up, speaking the voice, and um helping this this massive movement, this grassroot movement that is forming.

SPEAKER_00

And Martin, you say that besides the hope of many people to that a political solution will come about by way of a party who'll get into power, you make the argument in your book that's not enough because, as you've already alluded to in this conversation, you need to have the hearts and minds of a majority of people, various different classes and occupations that will give the consent to those changes. So we've just talked there about how those people who are very much part of the elite in some way, it's them, I suppose, that needs to have the mindset shift because it appears that that mindset shift is certainly uh existent amongst the lower classes. Uh and you pin much of your hope within your book on change coming from that groundswell of changing opinion besides the people out there putting the message out and making these arguments. What what how do you see an elite switching overnight? Do you think this is a is this a uh Nikolai Chausescu moment standing on the balcony in Bucharest when he suddenly realizes the people are no longer with him? Um, maybe that's a bit too strong because obviously he ends up against the wall with a firing squad. Um, or is it something else? Is it is it effectively in the end, you can be sure that people will change their mind when they realize that it's not going away and their status is on the line? I'm trying to imagine what the practical reality looks like to a change of heart amongst those people who are civil servants, who are political leaders, who have commitments to the cultural hegemony that you talked about. Um, what what does it look like? And are there any examples of people who I suppose have have turned around from a previously held position and become quite influential in this movement?

SPEAKER_01

Yes. Elon Musk. Elon Musk is a prime example for an elite because who is more elite than the richest man of the world who has changed his opinion politically because I think he was kind of more normally leftist a decade ago. I don't know when this process started, and then by also being exposed to metapolitical activism by to podcasts, to blogs, to memes, especially memes, he slowly and steadily started to think become more and more political. And now definitely, I think, is somebody who's more on the right and the more the patriotic, the freedom of speech side. So I don't think this is happening just on one big day. It's a steady process where societal elites in dark academia, but also in business, slowly and steadily also become politicized themselves. And then at some point you have people like Donald Trump, who was also part of the former elite, who then becomes um Caesarist populist leader. And this is something that will and might happen in the future in Europe as well. Businessmen, former generals, other charismatic people, boxers like um Conor McGregor in Ireland, those people could then change. But in order for them to change, to switch over, to become politicized, you already need a movement to begin with, you need ideas to begin with, you need demands to begin with. And as for the old elites, I propose two possible scenarios in my book. The first is the social change. So if we metapolitically get so strong and they adapt, they stop the censorship, they open a free debate, really free and fair elections. In Germany, they're not thinking about banning the AFD, the strongest party from elections. Then from one electoral victory to the other, from one retiring professor to the next new one coming in, there will be a cultural change. And this is something that has happened all the time in society that one ideology died and then another ideology replaced it. One example is Hungary, that also brings up in the book, where with Orban you had a patriotic conservative revolution without any shot being fired, without any anti-democratic thing happening. But if the elites decide, okay, against this organic change, we amp up repression and censorship. We ban not only ideas in Germany to try now to criminalize the idea of re migration, we also ban political parties, not small parties with 0.5%, big parties who are leading the polls right now. And then I think our systems will become so totally totalitarian that the change would more have the similarity of a color revolution. And that's the title of the book, writing regime change from the right. That's just one scenario. If our countries become totalitarian, multiculturalist, totally totalitarian death camps of diversity, like in South Park, if this happens, then obviously we need democratic and peaceful mass protests in the style of Gandhi, of uh the color revolutions, to bring them back to democracy, to force them to give us free, fair, and open elections and freedom of speech. And this then will also lead to Reconquista and re migration. So these are the two scenarios, these two possible ways. At the moment, it's quite unclear how the elites will react. The older elites, I think, to be honest, I count on their opportunism and on their cowardness. I think they will adapt when they see that this change is inevitable. And some of them are already smart enough and understand it's a very good time to speak in economic terms to dump your multiculturalism stocks and buy into the re-migration ETF. And that's why I also see the change in tone of Keostar and many others. They are not stupid, you know, they're very smart when it's about their own wealth and power. In my opinion, in five years, we're gonna have a very, very different Europe. And it's my task, my responsibility, the responsibility of movements like Generation Identity or initiatives like Remigration Summit, that we hold these politicians accountable and that we um also try to remind them of their promises.

SPEAKER_00

Well, let's do a quick uh crystal ball moment where we predict what's going to happen. So um remigration. Let's say we get to the point where hearts and minds have changed and it is now accepted that this needs to happen. Um what does it look like? And what are the potential things that could go badly wrong with remigration?

SPEAKER_01

Um well, what does it look like? I think obviously you can have an ideal scenario, you never really know um about all the little details, but the Roth process is very clear. You start by securing the European border, you have a no-way policy, no illegal can enter Europe anymore. You create facilities, charter cities in Africa and Northern Africa, where people who come into Europe after being pushed back are being brought. They can live in safety and security there, can uh provide uh possibilities for education, sports, hospitals there, but they cannot go to Europe. Step by step, also within about what's three to five years, you bring all the illegal people who came to Europe illegally to these facilities because they officer have no right, even if they have an asylum uh request going on to stay in Europe. That's the famous British Rwanda plan. You crack down on legal immigration as well. And legal immigrants, people who live in this country who are non-citizens, first of all, you stop the mass naturalization. It must be um very, very hard to become citizen again. And not only economic considerations but also cultural uh considerations should play a role here. Uh any kind of migration from countries that already are causing problems with uh assimilation, with crime, culture in this country is completely stopped. You only have a re-migration quota there, and then you create a system of what we call in Germany light cultural, guiding culture, economic pressures, social pressures against parallel societies, just like you have it in Denmark with the famous ghetto laws, which are um already quite successful in Denmark. And at the same time, you create huge incentives for people to go voluntarily. You give them financial bonuses, you create a possibility to self-deport for illegals. And this, I don't think within two, three years, five years, ten years, but in a 20, 30 year time frame will make these groups of non-assilated non-assimilated people shrink. Will just shrink because they're no new people coming in, some assimilate, some people choose to go home. Illegals are being deported on a massive scale. And um, I would say in like 20 or 30 years, the cities will have changed totally. You will be safe and secure anymore, the parallel societies will be non-existent or would have shrunken to a very small and ongoing shrinking group, which is not um a big annoyance or a big problem or uh security risk for any nation anymore. And you have a restoration of European nations. All the Europeans have been driven out by this policy return. You have many, many young Germans, indigenous Germans, who leave the country on a daily basis. Many young Germans and Austrians, I know, just want to leave this country due to taxes and Islamization and immigration. They all would come back because they see a future again. This is population growth, and then people would have children again, would have families again, because obviously it would give them more money, more prestige, more incentives. But also, many people don't have children anymore because of mass migration and Islamization, because it's impossible in a city to find a school where your own child is not in a minority. So this will happen. We will solve our demographic problem by increasing our own demography, um, our own children, rate of children. We'll create a welcome culture for our own children and not for foreigners. And this would be the end result of re migration. Obviously, there are many pitfalls, problems, and issues, but I think with political willpower it will work because it also worked that millions came here illegally. So it will also work that millions go home legally.

SPEAKER_00

Well, Martin, uh just about to ask the penultimate question before you I posed you a question I ask all of my guests, and you can answer it uh as much or as or as little as you like. Um, quick thought on what you've just said there is I just interviewed um a professor called David Betts. He's a war scholar, and he has become quite famous, I suppose, um, in recent months because he's done lots of work on civil war, likelihood of civil war in European nations. He's been advising governments to take different courses because all the right ingredients are now there for civil conflict in some way, whether that's a Balkan style civil conflict, South Africanization, where you've got people retreating into their own camps in a dysfunctional country, or civil war coming out of a dirty war. And so uh for those people who think that what Martin's proposing seems uh radical and could be um not particularly um uh a nice period to live through, it it appears that other people are suggesting we're about to live through a pretty bad period uh anyhow. So choices are are coming which which will need to be made. And whether you decide you're getting on the nation building camp, the civic nationalism and betting your horse on that, whether you think Martin's got the right idea, um, or you want to do none of those things and head towards a South Africanized country, then um they're the choices that that seem to be available to you. Um, one thing that I think is worthwhile unpacking, you've used the word reconquista a couple of times, and I suppose um a couple of people might go, hang on, I thought this was a non-violent movement, but uh a reconquista sounds a little bit like a conquering of something. So maybe for the avoidance of doubt, you could define that term.

SPEAKER_01

Yeah, in the in the continental European context, the term has been used by many new right people for this cultural reconquista, reconquering of your nation against this ideology of Islamo-communism and cultural Marxism. The most prominent example, obviously, is the party Reconquête of Eric Zamur, uh, who unfortunately uh didn't make too well in the French elections, but he's a great intellectual and uh one of the greatest fighters for remigration in France, and that's the idea of the Reconquista. And I agree with you, obviously, remigration uh would be not too easy. It's uh it's something which is definitely hard, but it's worth it and it's absolutely necessary. Because if you have a set um stepping down from one kind lie to another, it's very hard to go back to the inconvenient truth. And the inconvenient truth is that we are being replaced in our own countries, that all the socioeconomic and uh abstract debates amount to nothing if the demographic replacement goes on, and that only remigration can stop this demographic replacement. In the long term, uh that's my positive message. I also think remigration is more humane and better for migrants, because I think this whole system of demographic vampirism, of importing millions of people into our dying nation, is also not good for the periphery of the world system. So, what we should actually do if we want to help them and like them is to help them create perspectives in their own country. And I also invite all the leftists, all the people who say no border, all the people who want to help migrants, go to their nations, go to the countries, create perspectives there, and start massive migration the first place at the source.

SPEAKER_00

And actually, one more thing I think worth clearing up before you go, uh, because as I mentioned before, people on the show and indeed me have um have links to other ethnicities through our own our own families. And um, I suppose it's probably important to clear up for the average listener when we're talking about mass immigration, when we're talking about remigrating people back to homelands where they would be more settled and all the rest of it, um, is what we're saying effectively, that what we've been living through in recent decades is unprecedented, and that now we have just whole different peoples existing, and the chance of a kind of assimilation of marrying into the group and becoming over time a part of it has now slipped away from us because the numbers are too big. Or are we just making a broader point, which I don't think you are because you've already said it's not really about that. We're making a broad uh are you making a broader point that we just shouldn't be importing different peoples or or there shouldn't be different peoples within our nations in the West.

SPEAKER_01

No, I think there always have been a certain amount of uh immigration, you know. You can you can argue about how large it should be, um uh if it's beneficial for a for a nation, there's always have obviously been a certain amount of assimilation. So that's that's has been just part of the nature of human life. Um, I think the most important thing is that you always ask yourself, is this beneficial or good to a people? Because that's the right for every people. Saudi Arabia, Japan, any nation can decide how much immigration, what kind of immigration, um, they want to have. And I think that's the most important thing that we can freely and openly talk about. But I personally also think that uh people who really have assimilated and want to assimilate also have a huge interest in remigration because that's the only thing that can save this civilization, this culture that they obviously also like, otherwise they they wouldn't try to become part of it. Because if this doesn't work, then the whole culture, this whole civilization civilizational threat crumbles. And that's I think an understanding that a lot of people um yeah can wrap their head around. And um I I always bring up an example. So if I would go to Japan, you know, and try to become part of Japanese society and then um marry Japanese and would try to assimilate. Obviously, people will still see me as a guy Jin, but maybe not my children. So that's assimilation is always always a generational process. I would also be against mass Austrian immigration to Japan because I wouldn't like Japan to become Austrianized. And that's how I see the world as an ethnopluralist. I think it's great that there's a British people and a British nation, and um I think it's equally great that there's a Sudanese people in Sudan or um Afghanistan people in Afghan society. Obviously, it's always the question, like you say uh in German, you say the doses gift. So the the the dose, the amount is what is was making something poisonous or beneficial, and what's happening right now definitely is something that is uh too much in all um senses and all perspectives, and that's why there has to be um an absolute halt and a reversal. So that's my my position on that.

SPEAKER_00

Well, Martin, thank you. Uh you've given a full and frank discussion today, and people can judge those things on their own terms, which I think, in the spirit of a free, open society, free debate, is what they should absolutely be allowed to do. And my final question to you is one I ask all of my guests, and it is what have you changed your mind on during the course of your life? Perhaps you thought it was set in stone, concrete, never going to change your mind on it. Maybe it was something small, and what was it that made you think differently?

SPEAKER_01

That's a great question. That's a great question. Um, many things, many things I've changed my mind on in terms of politics, culture, even taste, you know. Um I would say, like uh just to bring one thing up is where uh when it's about religion, I was brought up religious, then at a phase which was where I was very anti religious, rebelling against this, and um I now in the end uh came to Term of that again, and I really strongly believe in my religion, in religion, in uh this this part of life and this duty you have in life which goes beyond everything just material and just political. It's it's in the end about following um a higher law, a sacred law, being able to look yourself in the mirror, keeping your honor. So these are the these uh um very important points, and this was a very important change for myself once I understood this, and I tried to follow this principle. I I think it aligns with my uh political ideas, but also apart from politics, that's also very important for me in defining me. But it's a very good question and actually a question you could think about longer.

SPEAKER_00

Well, Martin, uh it's uh an honor to have you share that with us. And the reason why I say that is because the matters of faith are deeply personal, and uh I've been fortunate enough that there have been several guests on the show who have been willing to share. They're either returning to a faith or they're coming to a faith. So thank you. Not everyone would want to do that or be comfortable. Um, Martin, before I let you go, where can people find you on the internet where you haven't been banned? And uh what what can they expect from you next? Uh, I think specifically for the English-speaking world.

SPEAKER_01

So, well, uh on X. They can find me on X and on Telegram. Uh I have also a Rumble account, but unfortunately nobody watches Rumble in Europe, uh, which is a pity. And uh so on X, on Telegram, people can find me. And uh I think X would be the best place because I also uh tweet in English quite often. I'm banned from the UK, which is a pity. I've been imprisoned and deported even in 2018 from the island, but my book will come out soon in English, and this would be a very good um occasion to try to maybe come to the UK again. I definitely also try to get to America again. My Esther Visa was also revoked there. So once my English book is out, I will definitely do some kind of reading tour and also try to get more often to conversation with people from the Anglosphere because I think the issues and the problems are the same, and that's why we can only profit from this international debate. Um, I think re-migration is also something might be strange for people to hear that can unite nations and can unite people over the borders. Um, that's what I'm going to do. And obviously, we will also focus on the Remigration Summit 26, the next big convention and meeting of all influencers, politicians, journalists who are interested in that subject.

SPEAKER_00

Well, Martin, thank you. I'm sure some people at least will be looking forward to those things. For those of you who are less convinced, I think it sounds like this stuff isn't going away. It is very much on the agenda. And if you want to understand more about why it has become so central to certain parts of political thought, then you would do much worse than to follow Martin to read about it, both in theory and practice, because uh we have mainstream politicians here in Britain, members of Parliament, Rupert Lowe being one of them, that is talking about this stuff, that is bringing motions about this stuff. So uh I don't think you can put your head in the sand any longer. And here's another here's another option on the smorgasboard of political choices. Um it's going to remain there. So, Martin, thank you very much for coming on the show. I really appreciate it, and good luck with your book launches in English.

SPEAKER_01

Thank you very much for the invitation. I really appreciate it. And uh um to all the listeners will be happy if you follow me and my work on X. Thank you. Thank you, Martin. Take care.

Head Shot

John Gillam

Host