Mark Collett – A Response to History Debunked (Simon Webb) – May 6, 2022 – Transcript


[Mark Collett, leader of the pro-White British movement, Patriotic Alternative, critiques a video on Patriotic Alternative at Simon Webb’s History Debunked Youtube channel.

Webb says:

From time to time since the end of the Second World War, political parties have sprung up in Britain which are resolutely opposed to immigration. The first of these was Oswald Mosely’s Union Movement and the most recent, the Patriotic Alternative. All are doomed to failure.

KATANA]

 

 

Mark Collett

 

A Response to History Debunked

 

(Simon Webb)

 

 

May 6, 2022

 

 

 

Click here for the video (Odysee):

 

https://odysee.com/@MarkCollett:6/A-Response-to-History-Debunked:a

 

Published on May 6, 2022

 

Odysee Description

A Response to History Debunked (Simon Webb)

May 6th, 2022

2,064 views

305

3

Support

Save

2 Reposts

Share

Mark Collett

@MarkCollett

9,372 Followers

Following

A response to History Debunked’s (Simon Webb) recent video on Patriotic Alternative.

Simon’s original video:

Robin Tilbrook’s Blog on Conservative Policy

http://robintilbrook.blogspot.com/2022/04/nick-timothy-theresa-mays-chief-of.html

Ways you can help contribute to my work:

BitCoin: bc1qzgjz953f4gznway0hvz6lx360yd2autdkwf6nu

Etherium: 0xb44739a8f2c57Cad38F96Aab8F2a0cA18258A7bA

BitCoin Cash: qpaaukrttfvq0j99gfl43hhs5q0tmhzfevkhp3r2c9

Monero: 42qypZQGMzNfFa5yXBxkqxL4iDw5cmzbtCC81dKcQbMrhLrsJUYAFSsLs9Um4hG32R5GfaqfgGj7oR6ZJ7pGyaY3FFu9HKD

You can also donate to my work via Entropy:

https://entropystream.live/app/markcollett

My book, The Fall of Western Man is now available. It is available as a FREE eBook and also in hardback and paperback editions.

The Official Website:

HOME

FREE eBook download:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B3cctZ95PDYZTnRjSUd5VUtRR2c/view

Hardback Edition:

https://www.lulu.com/shop/mark-collett/the-fall-of-western-man/hardcover/product-23388841.html

Paperback Edition:

http://amzn.eu/9LaS7HN

PLEASE NOTE: If you wish to debate with me in the comments about anything I have said, I welcome that. However please listen to the complete podcast and ensure you argue with the points I have made. Arguments that simply consist of nonsense such as “what gives you the right to judge” or “I’m a [insert religious affiliation] and you should be ashamed of yourself” or other such vacuous non-arguments will simply be ridiculed.

URL

lbry://@MarkCollett#6/A-Response-to-History-Debunked#a

Claim ID

a7e1efc59b18f68117aa750f5e50050059deafc2

738.47 MB

More

142.7

87 comments

_____________

 

NOTE: Users can help improve the quality of this transcript by putting corrections, however minor, in the Comment section. Don’t just be a passive user, be a contributor. Thanks.

 

TRANSCRIPT

(32:53 mins)

 

 

[00:00]

 

Mark Collett: Hello everyone. This is a bit different this week. I am not doing my usual pre-recorded video. Instead I’m doing a little bit of a response video. And I don’t really think I’ve done a response video quite like this before. Because this is just a response to a short video that was released by a gentleman called Simon Webb, who runs a YouTube channel called History Debunked.

 

Now, I’ve been made aware of this channel for some time. I’ve watched a number of Simon’s videos. I hadn’t actually watched many recently. And quite a few people have messaged me saying that Simon made a video about Patriotic Alternative. And the video is titled, “Why the Patriotic Alternative is Destined to Fade into Oblivion”.

 

So a lot of people sent me this video. Some people were upset by it. Some people were annoyed by it. People said I should view it.

 

Now, first and foremost, I don’t really think this video is an attack on Patriotic Alternative. The title might lead you to believe that, but the video is more a critique of the electoral system here in the UK, of the two-party system. And might even be seen as a critique of voting habits. So a critique of the British public, a critique of people who keep voting for the same two parties regardless of what happens.

 

And by his logic Simon concludes that, because of this electoral system, and, because of voting patterns, and, because of people’s almost sheep-like nature, we will never have a chance of victory, or a nationalist party, or a nationalist organization, would never have a chance of electoral victory.

 

 

Now saying all of that, I am actually going to play Simon’s video. I’m going to stop it at different parts. And I will make commentary on Simon’s video. Because Simon’s piece is possibly an opinion piece, you could say it’s an opinion piece. But it also contains some facts and some evidence that Simon uses to back up his assertion.

 

However Simon’s evidence is in some cases completely wrong! It’s a complete misstatement, or it is misleading in some way, because Simon makes a number of factual errors during this video. And I intend to point out those factual errors.

 

And I also intend to point out where Simon’s analysis of this situation is wholly erroneous! And this leads him to forming disingenuous conclusions that could lead the average viewer into believing that there was no way a nationalist party would ever, ever, achieve victory in the UK! Or there’s no way that the indigenous Britons could ever take their destiny back into their own hands. And I think that’s a pretty big black pill!

 

And I think that’s the kind of analysis that leads people to believe that there is no hope, all hope is lost. And we have to basically roll over and die, and accept our fate as a hated minority. And I don’t believe that for a second. I believe there’s everything to fight for. And I believe there’s numerous ways to carry out this fight. The electoral route is one of them.

 

But there are also other means such as community building which we have Patriotic Alternative favour. And there’s also advocacy. Legal rights, there are home schooling groups, there are fitness groups. There are all kinds of pro-White groups that advocate for the Rights, or well-being of the indigenous people of these islands. And they don’t necessarily have to go down the electoral route.

 

So, let’s see what Simon has to say. And as we watch this, what we will do is stop the video from time to time when there are things that Simon said that are either incorrect, or that I have a different take on that I feel he needs pulling up on. So here goes let’s hear what Simon has to say:

 

 

Simon Webb: Hello again. Some comments on this channel have been urging us to support a political group called the Patriotic Alternative, which is determined firstly to draw attention to the fact that if current trends continue White people will be a minority in Britain within 40 years. And secondly to take firm action immediately to prevent this state of affairs from arising.

This is, of course not the first time that a political party in Britain has been dedicated to halting immigration. Oswald Mosley Union Movement fought for a seat in London on this issue in the 1959 general election. They gained eight percent of the vote, which is about the best that any anti-immigration candidate has managed to get since the end of the Second World War.

 

[5:20]

 

Mark Collett: Now this is the first correction, or this is the first correction I have for Simon. This is wholly incorrect. The Union Movement did get about eight percent, post Second World War. But this was eclipsed quite comprehensively by the British National Party. Now I was part of the British National Party. I actually designed the leaflets that were used in this campaign. The candidate was Richard Barnbrook. The constituency was Barking. And the British National Party took 16.9 percent in that constituency. That’s more than double what Oswald Mosley’s Union Movement took post Second World War. And that is a big difference.

 

And you’ll see here that Simon makes a number of other factual errors about the history of nationalist politics in the UK. But we shall let him continue:

 

Simon Webb: It was just about matched by the National Front in the two elections, general relations held in 1974, when candidates got about eight percent. Both at Tottenham and Wood Green, in the London borough of Harrington. The National Front fought many seats that year on an explicitly anti-immigration platform. And overall they got about five percent of the vote. If we had proportional representation in this country at that time, this might have equated to 30 National Front MPs! There’s a thought!

 

Mark Collett: Now that is a good thought. And it’s a good point. And this leads into something we’re talking about later. The electoral system is designed to be a two-party system, which is dominated by two parties that are basically the same! So this is as much a critique of the electoral system itself. And I can see from Simon’s demeanor that his thought of maybe 30 National Front MPs would be a good thing!

 

So, as I said, this isn’t, you know, an attack on Simon. And I’m sure this video isn’t necessarily an attack on Patriotic Alternative. As I said earlier, I think we could all agree that had the National Front had 30 MPs elected in the late 1970s, Britain could be very different today. And it could be in a far better position when it comes to demographics:

 

Simon Webb: The British National Party did fairly well at times in local elections, getting a few councillors around in places like Epping Forest. But they didn’t last.

 

Mark Collett: Now he is 100% correct me said the British National Party didn’t last. But to write off the British National Party’s electoral success as just a few local councillors, is wholly erroneous, and very, very misleading. Now the British National Party at its peak had 56 elected councillors, one elected county councillor, one member of the greater London assembly, and also two elected members of the European Parliament. So it won elections at a local level, at regional level, and had two seats that were won in a major national European election. So to say the British National Party just had a smattering of local councillors, is completely incorrect.

 

What’s more in Burnley Stoke and Barking and Dagenham, the British National Party at one point was, in fact, the official opposition on that council. So if you looked at Burnley stoke, or Barking Dagenham, at one point, and you reduced things down to a two-party system, the British National Party had become one of those two parties. It was the official opposition. So I think Simon there is presenting evidence which is completely incorrect. And is, in fact, misleading his audience to a degree. Now, I’m not saying he misled his audience intentionally. But nevertheless that is a very misleading statement based on wholly incorrect evidence:

 

Simon Webb: Since then we’ve seen the English Defense League, and English Democrats. And now the Patriotic Alliance. The truth is people in Britain do not like maverick political parties, of any hue! Whether Left, or Right. They will not vote for communists or those who are vociferous in their opposition to immigration. What they prefer is a simple choice between two political parties, neither of whom offer radical differences in their policies from each.

 

[10:05]

 

Mark Collett: Now again this is all a little misleading! Now what Simon is saying here is that people just prefer two main parties. Yet, in the last, 20 years we have seen a third party, the United Kingdom Independence Party actually outright win a major national election. They won a European election. They were the biggest party to walk away from that European election. We then saw following that, the Brexit Party do the same. And this tells you that people are willing to vote outside of the two-party system.

 

And we have also seen the two-party system completely collapse in certain parts of the United Kingdom. So, for example, in Scotland you have seen the rise of the Scottish National Party, which has completely taken over Scottish politics and smashed the old Labour-Conservative, you know, left-right dichotomy that existed there between those two parties. And we have also seen, not quite on the same level, but a similar, albeit lesser, rise to power in Wales of Plaid Cymru, which is obviously a supposed Welsh nationalist party.

 

Now I understand – now’s not the time for this debate – but I do understand the Scottish National Party and Plaid Cymru are not nationalists as we know it. But there has been a breakdown of the traditional two-party system in parts of the United Kingdom:

 

Simon Webb: I was looking lately at this book which, believe it, or not, when it was published, was a school book. It’s got masses of information inside it. Including the detailed results of every election held in Britain between 1832 and 1979. And this confirms what I’ve always thought. In the 19th century the British like to choose between the Tories and the Liberals. And today they only want either the Labour Party, or the Conservatives. In Scotland and Wales, of course, the position is a little different. But in England, we’ve never wanted any third party.

Mark Collett: Now here Simon admits that the situation in Wales and Scotland is a little different. And he goes on to say it’s different in England. But it kind of undermines his own point here, because what he says was originally the political divide was between the Liberal Party and the Conservative Party. Well the Liberal Party doesn’t really even exist today. The Liberal Democrats is a different party to the original Liberal Party. And this actually goes to show that there can be massive shifts in the political landscape in the UK, including in England. Because the Liberal Party at one point held vast amounts of power within the UK including in England, and now doesn’t even exist.

 

So this does go to show that parties that hold power, they can fracture, they can dissolve. And they can reform as other parties, changing the political landscape. And obviously if you look into the rise of the Labour Party, or the Labour movement here in the UK, that became the modern day Labour Party, and that eclipsed the liberals. So we’ll let Simon continue a little further:

 

Simon Webb: Only five communists have ever been elected in Britain in the course of the last century. And no fascist at all. It’s a long while since we’ve had a communist MP, by the way. 70 years or. So when the Social Democrats appeared in the early 1980s, everybody talked to breaking the mould of British politics. But that came to nothing. The Liberal revival in 2010 went the same way.

There is something very reassuring to most people about the present political setup! There are not going to be any unpleasant surprises, or dramatic changes, no matter who they vote for, or what.

 

Mark Collett: Now here I think Simon is going really off-piece. And this is where I think he obviously presented facts that were incorrect earlier. But this is where I think his opinions, his analysis, is completely wrong! He’s basically saying that the British people don’t want change, they want to be reassured by the same two parties, endlessly winning elections and passing the baton between the two of them.

 

But I would argue two things. I would actually argue first that evidence suggests Simon’s assertion is completely false. And secondly, I would actually argue that the reason people do bounce between the two major parties is because the people are being deliberately misinformed by the mainstream media. The mainstream media tell the British public that, in fact, these two parties are different, there are discernible differences between those parties. And if you vote for one you will get something different than if you voted for the other. When, in fact, they’re nearly identical.

 

[15:15]

 

I’ll give you an example of this media manipulation. And I’ll give you some examples of the British public showing they actually do want change. Now the example of media manipulation can be seen quite clearly at the last general election. You had Jeremy Corbyn standing as leader of the Labour Party trying to win a Labour victory. And you had Boris Johnson, who obviously we know is the leader of the Conservative Party. He’s now the Prime Minister. And he won, by a landslide, a massive Conservative victory.

 

So let’s look at their discussion on mass immigration. Now Jeremy Corbyn, whether you like him, or whether you hate him – and I said this at the time – is an honest man. He said he wanted open borders. He wanted completely open borders. And he wanted to flood Britain with migrants. He wanted to open the doors. And welcome everybody in!

 

Now the British public didn’t like that. And he was painted by the media as this sort of crazy guy who had this egalitarian dream of inviting everyone in. It would swamp Britain and there would be these huge negative repercussions, because we would have record rates of immigration.

 

Now Boris Johnson, on the other hand, he said:

 

“He wanted a points based immigration system.”

 

He said he wanted to get tough on immigration. But he said:

 

“We don’t need an upper limit we don’t need to set this silly upper limit on immigration.”

 

We’ll come back to that. He said that he wanted a “points-based system”. Now he used the words “point-based system” for a reason. It’s, because he went to focus groups and he found out that normal people responded positively to those words. Because the average man, or woman on the street is anti-immigration. And this is called a “populist positioning strategy”. I made a video about this the other week when I discussed the refugees to Rwanda nonsense, which clearly isn’t going to happen, and it’s clearly just a smoke screen to make people believe that the Conservatives are, in fact, anti-immigration, which they’re not!

 

So you look at what Boris Johnson was saying and you analyze it. What he’s saying is there’s going to be a point-based system with no upper limit. So essentially what he’s saying is he’s going to invite everyone in, because he’s going to set a really, really, low bar, and everyone is going to get the points necessary and Britain is going to be completely swamped! That’s what he’s actually saying! But he said it in such a way that ticks all the boxes for the public to think he’s going to be tough on immigration. At the time I said:

 

“Johnson and Corbyn want the same thing when it comes to immigration. Whoever you vote for you’re going to be swamped by migrants!”

 

Now we are over a year down the road from Boris Johnson being elected with that stunning majority. And what have we seen? We’ve seen record immigration! We’ve seen millions of Hong Kong residents offered passports. We’ve seen tens of thousands of Afghans given passports. We’ve seen Boris Johnson visiting India, a week, or so, ago and offering several hundred thousand Indian tech workers visas and passports to come here and work.

 

We have seen hundreds of thousands of workers from abroad being offered visas since the end of the Covid restrictions, during the Covid restrictions. We saw tens of thousands of workers being offered visas for work on farms despite British workers being denied those jobs. And we’ve seen masses of migrants crossing the channel illegally! And this is all under Boris Johnson.

 

So that means essentially whether you voted Labour, or whether you voted Tory, you got exactly the same end! You got exactly the same number of migrants. You were swamped! But and we know this.

 

And I’ll give you another example of this, because you don’t need to take my word on it. Recently Robin Tilbrook, the chairman of the English Democrats, he raised an excellent blog post – which I’ll link in the description below – which is based on a piece by Theresa May’s former Chief of Staff, where he nakedly, and openly, admits that this is the case! He openly admits that Boris Johnson uses this populist positioning strategy. He uses focus groups testing words and phrases to con the public. But that article was only in the Daily Telegraph.

 

And this is how the media manipulates people. You see the media we’re telling people throughout this election that Boris Johnson was going to be tough on immigration. He was going to have a tough stance! He was going to reduce migration numbers, whereas Corbyn was going to be a complete madman. He was going to let them all in. There was going to be floods of migrants, it was going to be uncontrollable. The British people would be paying the price for his insane policies.

 

[20:14]

 

But ultimately both Johnson and Corbyn have the same policy. It’s just Johnson is a very, very good liar. But he’s not just a good liar. You see the media is there to inform the public when politicians are lying. But the media are in on the game. So the media tell the public that Boris Johnson’s lies are, in fact, the truth! That, in fact, Boris Johnson is going to crack down on immigration. So they all vote Boris Johnson.

 

So it’s not a matter of the public necessarily favouring the two-party system. It’s a fact that the public are misinformed deliberately! They’re lied to by the media! And that keeps them in this two-party system.

 

Now Simon also asserted that the public don’t like change. Well this again is demonstratively untrue! The British public voted to leave the European Union by majority in the Brexit referendum. That was a vote for change.

 

When polled the British public repeatedly says that they want fewer immigrants coming to Britain. They want an end to mass immigration. But then they’re lied to you by people like Boris Johnson, so they vote for a party they think they’re going to change something. But nothing gets changed. Nothing ever [chuckling] gets changed! Because both parties are in on the immigration scam. They’re in on bringing millions of people here.

 

And if you look at the immigration statistics from migration watch UK what you’ll actually see is that mass immigration under the Conservatives is actually at an all-time high. So under this Conservative government, which was initially elected in 2010, which has repeatedly made pledges on cutting down on mass immigration, they have repeatedly raised the bar when it comes to mass immigration.

 

So you can actually see here this isn’t a case of the public voting for “comfortable parties” that make them feel more at ease. This is a case of the public voting for parties based on lies. Lies that are reinforced by a media that is in on the scam!

 

What’s more, you can actually see that when the public does get a chance to vote for big changes they will actually vote en mass for those big changes.

 

But let’s carry on with what Simon has to say:

 

Simon Webb: The outcome of a general election is both parties wanted to stay in Europe, both are committed to large-scale immigration, both are determined to keep taxes high, neither wants to reform the NHS. Both sang from the same song sheet during the Covid business, although both leaders knew it was nonsense. Which is why they attended social gatherings without any fear. Whichever way you vote at a general election things are going to carry on much as before!

[23:03]

 

Mark Collett: Now I agree with everything Simon says there. Both parties are identical. Simon is on the money! They both supported the Covid madness, they both knew the Covid madness was garbage, because as Simon correctly said, both party leaders attended large social gatherings, or parties whether at Downing Street, or whether at political events in Durham. They knew it was rubbish! Simon is talking complete sense there.

 

But I think what Simon is missing here is the level of media misinformation that traps people within that two-party system. And I think Simon also has a misunderstanding over who controls the media. And what the aims, or what the primary aim of the media is!

 

Simon Webb: Which does rather seem to be the way that the British, and particularly the English, like it. Neither of the two main parties wants to see proportional representation, because that would upset the Apple cart. Which, of course, is why when there was a referendum a few years ago [chuckling] about ditching the first past the post voting system, the proposed alternative was made so complicated that most people couldn’t understand it. And so they voted to stick with what they did understand.

 

Mark Collett: This is another good point by Simon! People didn’t vote for proportional representation. But he makes the point again, and this dovetails with what I’m actually saying, is that the people are being lied to, or being conned in some way!

 

So when you see something like a referendum on proportional representation, what you actually have is a system proposed to the public which is so convoluted, sounds so crazy, that ultimately they won’t back it. However, going back to my point earlier, when they are given a simple and straight forward referendum, such as:

 

“Do you want to leave the European Union? Yes. Do you want to stay within the European Union?”

 

People vote accordingly. And people actually do vote for change. When it’s a simple yes-no referendum that people understand, they will vote for change.

 

[25:15]

 

But you can put people off voting for change when the proposal, or the proposed change, is explained in such a strange way that the people think the new system will actually be less fair. And obviously the people draughting this referendum on proportional representation, or PR, they draughted it in that way to ensure they got the results that they wanted. But that wasn’t possible with the Brexit referendum, because David Cameron offered a simple yes no, in out, referendum.

 

And again it shows that when things aren’t passed through that filter, through that fog, that smoke screen, people will vote for change:

 

Simon Webb: I’m saying nothing about the possible merits of the Patriotic Alternative you understand. And neither am I criticizing it. Rather I’m explaining why it will not come to anything in the long run.

Mark Collett: Well, here again Simon isn’t attacking us as people. And I don’t want anyone who watches my videos to go over to Simon’s channel – and I’ll link Simon’s channel in the description beneath this video. I don’t want anyone going there and abusing Simon. I don’t want anyone throwing any shade on his work. He does some excellent videos. I’m not saying I agree with him on everything, or that he agrees with me on everything. But I’d say me and Simon would probably agree with each other on 90 to 95% of what we talk about.

 

However, I think what Simon is doing here is miss characterizing Patriotic Alternative. We do want to be a registered political party. Patriotic Alternative does want to fight local elections. And we do want to participate in the democratic process. Because we want to oppose demographic change through the democratic process.

 

However a Patriotic Alternative is fundamentally a community-based group that advocates for the rights of indigenous Britons, and attempts to raise awareness about demographic change. That’s why we spent the month of April putting out nearly 140,000 leaflets on demographic change, to raise awareness.

 

Now, I don’t think anyone should put all their eggs in the electoral basket. And I think Simon would agree with that. I think we have a lot of common ground on that point. We shouldn’t be putting all our eggs in that basket. There is far more that we can do with community building, advocacy, and standing up for the rights of indigenous Britons in a legal sense.

 

And, because of those things, I think we have more strings to our bow than the British National Party had. I think we have there’s more dimensions to Patriotic Alternative. And that’s why we continue to achieve such great rates of growth and such great success on such a limited budget:

 

Simon Webb: Ordinary people don’t want change! They just want society to muddle along in the same way that it has done all their lives. And they don’t want to see the boat rocked! This may, or may not, be a good thing. But it is certainly how the vast majority of people feel as they demonstrate each election.

Mark Collett: Okay. And that is the end of what Simon has to say. And he says:

 

“People don’t want change they want to muddle along.”

 

That’s his conclusion. But again. Now, I don’t have data from Britain for this. But I do have data from the recent French presidential election. I did a lengthy breakdown an analysis of the French presidential election results. And interestingly the demographic group that voted for change the least were those aged over 70. Those 70 plus voters, voted overwhelmingly for Macron. Those over the age of 70 rejected Marine Le Pen in the largest numbers.

 

Now you might think that’s odd. And I said this on the analysis. You might think that’s odd. You might think those people are the ones who would have seen all the changes in France and would be most willing to see everything be changed back, to be taken back to how things used to be.

 

But you tend to find that people of a certain age group are resistant to change. And I used to find this on the doors when I would speak to people when I was canvassing for the British National Party. And people of a certain age group will always vote for the establishment parties. Because that’s what their parents did, that’s what their grandparents did. And they view politics in a very different way to how younger people view politics.

 

[30:11]

 

So you saw younger White French people in the presidential election embracing Marine Le Pen. Whereas you saw older White French people rejecting her, because she wasn’t a safe part of the establishment, because she was anti-establishment. And I think that might be something that Simon identifies with, because of his age. Simon’s a little bit older than me, that’s not a bad thing. But I think he might see things through a different lens, because of his age.

 

But what I do urge of Simon is that Simon should come and talk to me. I would invite Simon on a show with me. One-on-one. We could have a discussion one evening, live. We could field questions from our audience. And I would welcome dialogue. As I said, the last thing I want is people going over to Simon’s channel and saying anything untoward to him. As I said, most of Simon’s videos are really good. And I urge people to subscribe to him. He is one of the biggest surviving patriotic, or anti-immigration channels on YouTube. Channels that talk sense. Channels that I think would appeal to the vast majority of normal British people. So go and subscribe to him.

 

But I do urge him to come and talk to us. Because I think we would have a lot in common. And I think the things that I’ve said today are worthy of discussion. They’re worthy of discussion because we are not a minority yet! There is still time. There is still 40 years to change things. But it is still four decades to turn things around. And I’m certainly not losing hope.

 

I’m not losing hope because I think that when you give up on hope, you give up on a chance of victory. Only he is lost, who gives himself up for lost! And we as a people certainly aren’t lost yet. We have everything to fight for.

 

And we shouldn’t just write off our future based on the fact that our people are trapped in an illusory system of democracy. A fake system of democracy which has been fashioned to keep people voting for two parties that present exactly the same outcome.

 

Our people are trapped in a lie! And our goal should be to set our people free, so that they can take their destiny back, into their own hands.

 

Simon I hope you will come and speak to me.

 

Thank you so much. I hope you have a lovely weekend, and I’ll see you all again soon.

 

[32:53]

 

END

 

top

 

 

============================================

 

 

ODYSEE COMMENTS

top

 

87 comments

 

@BritishGammon
18 hours ago
100
This style of reaction video is very useful and informative. I hope you do more.
Reply
56

@EarthlingCarl
17 hours ago
9:57
– The public would probably be very interested in an explicit anti-immigration party if not for the 24/7 propaganda from the BBC/Sky News/ITV etc.
Reply
47
0
Hide replies

@HennyPenny
15 hours ago
Exactly. It’s only the relentless propagandising of British people by the MSM that to object to their racial replacement means you’re evil, bad, and wicked which deters them from voting for and supporting political parties who would stop and reverse the racial eradication which is going on. The only response that Simon Webb deems acceptable or realistic is for the British to quiely grumble to themselves, whilst watching his bland YouTube videos, as they’re gradually ‘disappeared’.
Reply
5

@RossdeB
13 hours ago
You bet that they would!!
Reply
1

@LadyofShalott
16 hours ago
Immigration has been an unmitigated disaster for the British. Simon makes countless videos pointing this out but he offers no solutions. I do wonder about his motivations in commenting on PA in this way…
Reply
37
0
Hide replies

@ImperialDissent
15 hours ago
Are you saying he is an emotional vampire who leads you to a dead-end while acknowledging your concerns?
Reply
14

@HennyPenny
15 hours ago
He’s trying to demoralise those who might consider joining PA. “There is no hope”, he cries. “Just watch my YouTube videos complaining about these problems. Don’t actually organise and campaign to achieve something.”
Reply
21
0
Hide replies

@togreiseren
13 hours ago
He did mention the constitutional party or something as an alternative to the two established ones
Reply
0
1

@LostinThyme
18 hours ago
It was strange that out of the blue he’s talking about PA.
Reply
34
0
Hide replies

@Guy-Fawkes
17 hours ago
Oy vey!
Reply
16

@HennyPenny
15 hours ago
Not so strange. Simon Webb is just misery porn: he identifies symptoms and problems, but offers no solutions. He’s like The Daily Mail: cries about the the problems but denigrates and dismisses those who offer real solutions to those problems. He’s just tiresome and moribund.
Reply
25
0
Hide replies

@Milu_the_black_dog
10 hours ago
Mate..although I agree with you…Do you realize that most of the people who call themselves dissident right can be judged for that? Starting from Sargoy and PJW…all the way down to the Golden One, RPG, AA (sometimes) and even the Jolly Heretic (sometimes)…In fact, there is only a handful of people who actually have the courage to call them out explicitly…much less look for solutions, as PA tries…But yeah…hopefully we can move the overton window because NOTHING will be fixed if we don’t address the Jew problem..
Reply
3

@Stan1
15 hours ago
25
Thanks Mark. Great vid.
I do hope Simon takes up your invitation, however somehow I think he will decline your offer.
Reply
29
0
Hide replies

@BritishGammon
15 hours ago
I think so too. Strange how Laura’s comment mysteriously got deleted-but not by him. 😂
Reply
11

@oakwood
14 hours ago
The guy does nothing but complain about black people, yet somehow any criticism of the tribe is ‘preposterous’ and ‘stupid’.
Reply
27
1
Hide replies

@NiceCat
13 hours ago
He often plays a guess the ethnicity game in his videos, but never when it come to his beloved Chosen People.
Reply
8

@countrybumpkin
10 hours ago
This comment was slimed to death.
Reply
0
6

@Milu_the_black_dog
10 hours ago
He looks like the kind of guy who thinks its okay to sacrifice millions of Europeans for the sake of fighting “evil nazis”, or fight against those “evil terrorists” in the middle East..and of course, the classic “help our greatest ally”…But when people notice the absurdities and call his bullshit, he just dismiss those criticism as “misinformation or conspiracies”…Fuck those guys..They are literal cancer for the movement..
Reply
6

@GusinLanzarote
17 hours ago
The Boomers have let us down, cucked & sold out TIME & AGAIN. Look at the Tory Party; people who backed section 28 in the 80s like Theresa May now abasing themselves at the LGBT awards standing on stage & saying: “trannies are real women & a child can have 2 dads”; the evil witch only found the guts to be hostile speaking to the Police Federation. Its the same with immigration/ multiculturalism after some token resistance back in the day they have now cucked totally; wanting to hide in some 90s illusion that its a side issue & the only ethnic is your friendly corner shop owner or the Pretty women movie charming black chauffeur. Peregrine Worsthorne demonstrated this he did a TV show to “debate” the issue with Darkus Howe then cucked writing a Daily Mail article “the lesson Im proud to have learned”. Its the same with non famous boomers. This Derek I know, been here 15 years; seems to sit most days drinking vodka tonics staring vacantly at the sea, I raised the issue of Moroccans being responsible for most of the crime on the island & said perhaps they should stop immigration from there: “We were brought up to treat all races the same”, he said then changed the subject. We CANNOT RELY ON BOOMERS; they had benefits in terms of career opportunities, secure jobs, free University & home ownership we can only dream of which they FAILED to preserve for their children. WE now have to repair what THEY allowed to break.
Less
Reply
26

@Blankeon
15 hours ago
He sounds like one of those delusional “conservative” boomers that worship Winston Churchill and do their best to never sound racist. It is also a completely blackpilled argument that because it is difficult to achieve votes to support anti-immigration, we should not even try. We should always fight for what is right even if we do not succeed.
Reply
16
0
Hide replies

@r.madden
14 hours ago
Reality catches up with them eventually. Look at the near wipeout of the Tories in London. They are now down to four or five councils out of 32. They tell themselves its rich leftists who are out of touch but really it’s non-Whites that have replaced the native White population. Non-White vote Labour with a 3-1 ratio.
Reply
3
0
Hide replies

@Blankeon
13 hours ago
True. Mr. Webb used Sir Oswald Mosley as an example of someone who “failed” to achieve more votes, but I would argue it was Britain that failed him. If Mosley had been voted into power, Britain would have looked like a paradise compared to what the inner cities look like today. He never compromised on his ideals because his ideals were correct.
Reply
4

@togreiseren
13 hours ago
He does worship Churchill, that is for sure
Reply

@MilosM.
6 minutes ago
at least Churchill was genuine racist and not against white people. Love Churchill.
Reply

@LadyofShalott
16 hours ago
Boomers – the most disgusting generation to have ever walked this earth.
Reply
16
1
Hide replies

@Iagree
14 hours ago
Agreed. Either them or their parents.
Reply
1
1

@Milu_the_black_dog
10 hours ago
I would normally agree..but I have to admit that those borne from pro-jabs parents will literally want to burn the whole world down for what their previous generations did…But yeah, fuck boomers!
Reply

@Michael
10 minutes ago
I think Gen-X is actually worse
Reply

@ChainReaction
16 hours ago
Simon is a typical jew with zero shame, our people will never reason with his kind.
Reply
20
7
Hide replies

@NationalistContent
16 hours ago
He’s not a Jew:

Reply
4
3
Hide replies

@Blankeon
14 hours ago
@NationalistContent
Probably not, but he is acting like a Jew. Very nihilistic and offering no solutions.
Reply
5
1
Hide replies

@NationalistContent
14 hours ago
Plenty of right wingers offer no solutions because outrage porn sells. We shouldn’t accuse people of being Jews when they are not because it makes us look dumb and it’s also demoralizing. Jews are only a tiny percent of the population but if you were to listen to the dissident right you’d think Jews are everywhere. I’ve heard people claim Lana Lokteff, Robert Sepehr, Adam Green are Jews when they are obviously not. It’s really dumb especially when people have released DNA tests and don’t have a Jewish surname.
Less
2
1

@Blankeon
13 hours ago
@NationalistContent
The reason why the Jewish Question is important is because they are the the root cause of all the degeneracy and anti-whiteness we see in the West. That does not mean they are literally everywhere and that everyone pushing anti-whiteness is Jewish. I would use the example that Julius Evola uses, an Aryan/White man can also have a Jewish Spirit/Worldview and a Jew can also have an Aryan Spirit/Worldview.
Trump is a prime example of a shabbos goy, i.e. an Aryan with a Jewish spirit who does everything the Jews want.
Today all the degenerate anti-white worldviews, practices and ideas that are mainstream are Jewish in origin. For example: Marxism (Karl Marx, Trotsky & Lenin), Usury (Ancient Jewish Tradition from the Torah and Talmud), Federal Reserve (founded by Warburgs, Rothschilds, Schiffs etc.), Cultural Marxism/New Left (Frankfurt School Jews like Marcuse, Adorno & Horkheimer), Transgenderism (Magnus Hirschfeld & Arthur Kronfeldt), Race denialism (Richard Lewontin & Franz Boas), Nuclear weapons (Oppenheimer & Szilard), The sexual revolution/hippie movement (Richard Reich, Abbie Hoffman), modern Feminism (Judith Butler) … I can go on forever but I guess you see the point.
Less
2

@ChainReaction
11 hours ago
Yes, because I’ll believe a jew with a hebrew necklace over my decades of experience and instincts.
Even if not, shabbos-goys are an even worse cancer and the actual traitors, complaining about the rape of our women and children and murder of our men, while deflecting from the root cause.
1

@NiceCat
13 hours ago
He did a DNA test video to show he is not Jewish, despite having the nose for it.
More to the point, he is very pro-Zionist.
Reply
13
1

@Milu_the_black_dog
10 hours ago
Not all those pro-zionism are jews, mate…But that doesn’t change the fact that he should be punished together with some other nasty jews…
Reply
2
0
Hide replies

@ChainReaction
4 hours ago
I addressed this in another reply in this thread.
Reply

@MrVans
11 hours ago
whats interesting is that he just endorsed the english constitutional party. reminds me of a certain other someone saying in one breath “there is no electoral solution” and in the next endorses the british freedom party…
Reply
12
0
Hide replies

@r.madden
14 hours ago
Yes Nick Griffin and Jim Dowson spring to mind.
Reply

@mikey2363
15 hours ago
Excellent summarisation Mark. Always finish on a positive.
Reply
12

@PatrickBurns
18 hours ago
4×2
Reply
11

@JamesL
14 hours ago
A most appropriate, considered response,
@MarkCollett
and which leaves the door open for Mr Webb to take you up on your offer of a chat
Reply
1

@Eichhe2
15 hours ago
Enjoyed this. Good breakdown.
Reply
1

@Dumnonia
15 hours ago
This is the correct response. Mr Webb’s video was nowhere near as bad as I was led to believe. His views
are likely held in common with a lot of British people, so a dialogue could be worthwhile.
Reply
11
1
Hide replies

@HennyPenny
15 hours ago
If Simon Webb were ever to enter a dialogue with real truth tellers, his YouTube channel would disappear faster than snow in the sun of the Sahara Desert at midday. He’s in it for the money. Solutions to the problems he highlights would remove that (as he’d have less to complain about).
Reply
8
0
Hide replies

@Dumnonia
15 hours ago
Not everyone on YT is a grifter, even now. My impression is that he is genuine.
Reply
4
3
Hide replies

@HennyPenny
15 hours ago
My impression is that he knows where he cannot tread (i.e. where it might make a difference) and so avoids those areas completely or denies that there is any validity to observations advanced by others. The JQ being a very obvious example (he completely denies any ‘patterns’ of behaviour by (((them))).
4

@Lajnis
12 hours ago
Is he on the same Tier as ziocucks like pat condell, Nigel garage etc?

@r.madden
15 hours ago
((He)) knows what he can and can’t say.
Reply
6

@r.madden
17 hours ago
Simon Webb is a retard and boomer cuck.
Reply
14
6

@NATIONAL-SAXONIST
13 hours ago
Webbs point ultimately boils down to the classic detestable and cowardly conservative position of “it’s hard so don’t bother”.
The motto of every conservative minded person like this Simon Webb is put simply, “don’t try, just die”.
Reply
9

@EscapeVelocity
17 hours ago
One of the biggest changes has been the emergence of Sinn Fein as the major nationalist party in NI (and more dramatically in their rapid growth from electoral inconsequence to becoming a major player in the 26 counties). Of course, they have completely betrayed their principles and have become effectively an advocacy group for geeks, freaks, quasimodos and whatever slop washes up on the beach.
Reply
9
0
Hide replies

@Fugitive
10 hours ago
IRA/Sinn Fein are not nationlists they are fully on board with mass immigration globohomo agenda, IRA/Sinn Fein proclaim to be National Solicialists so people assume they are genuine Nationalists in reality they are Communist Marxists Scum, they believe anybody can be Irish and demographics don’t matter in fact they love mass immigration as a multiracial culture will make it easier to implement Communism
Reply
1
0
Hide replies

@EscapeVelocity
6 hours ago
Yes, I’m quite well aware of that
Reply

@MilosM.
5 minutes ago
they are civnat nationalists and socialists, nuff said.
Reply

@Baxter_MacTavish
15 hours ago
who is this old man simon webb and why does anyone care about him?
Reply
8
0
Hide replies

@HennyPenny
15 hours ago
Trouble is that he is another ‘gatekeeper’ with quite a large following on YouTube. He acknowledges what’s happening and that it’s bad, but diverts attention from the source of the problems and denigrates those who seek to provide real opposition. He is about achieving demoralisation of potential PA members whilst appearing to be ‘reasonable’ at the same time. He does it well.
Reply
9

@oakwood
14 hours ago
a 100k subscriber youtube gatekeeper
Reply
5
0
Hide replies

@Articulus
12 hours ago
No offense but what use are 100K boomers who I guess make up the majority of his audience? Especially boomers who are inactive and just want to moan. We need to get out of this faux popularity contest as we know the numbers are rigged anyway.
Reply
1
0
Hide replies

@NationalistContent
12 hours ago
Dismissing the majority of his audience as “boomers” sounds like a cope and we should try to red pill as many as possible regardless of how old they are. PA has supporters who are boomers. If he makes a video about PA then of course we should respond and correct any mistakes rather than ignoring it and dismissing his audience.
3
2

@Michael57DE
13 hours ago
I’m sure Simon means well but, he’s a deracinated (I don’t see or Color doesn’t matter) CivNat. That said, his conclusions lean Anti-White.
Reply
6

@Mintberrycrunch
14 hours ago
Very cogent arguments as always, Mark. Well done. I do hope Simon corrects his factual inaccuracies and misinterpretations and gathers some courage to do something about the problem, but then that would jeopardise his channel, wouldn’t it.
Reply
6

@PopcornPower
15 hours ago
Political parties have been replaced before. In the US it started out as Federalists vs the Democratic-Republicans. Then it became Whigs vs. Democrats. Then the Whigs were replaced making it Republicans vs. Democrats. That was back in 1870. Now you can try to argue that this isn’t possible in this day and age for various reasons. Of course I bet you can find many countries where one of the parties have been replaced in a 2 party system.
The only reason why a political party cannot be replaced is if people are convinced it can’t be done and don’t even try.
Less
Reply
5

@Argyrodes
11 hours ago
Simon is an autistic liberal that cares more about himself, and his holdings then his race, or nation.
Reply
3

@RossdeB
13 hours ago
I think Simon is a member of the awkward squad; he has good intentions and has a healthy lack of trust in government, all power structures and committees.
He is a committed zionist, but seems to fail to see the distinct difference in Israel in the 60s, with ideas of the kibbutz, and the subsequent monstrosities of the Likud party, with the preaching of Begin, Shamir, Sharon and Netanyahu et al.
Need one say more?
Reply
3

@SociallyAwareNationalism
13 hours ago
the only real thing Simon had to say is that it’s not going to succeed because mark can’t stop riding the grifting drug addict degenerate pretending to be “right wing” gunt
Reply
2
1

@r.madden
16 hours ago
The Alternative Voting system isn’t proportional representation. It retains the current constituencies but voters get to rank the candidates in order of preference. A voter just wanting to vote for, say the Liberal Democrats but nobody else, would write a 1 alongside the Liberal Democrat candidate and leave all the other boxes blank.
Reply
3

@Weltenesche
4 hours ago
The Boomers are, for the most part, a lost generation.
You cannot teach an old dog new tricks, and they’ve been completely blinded by WW2 and post-war propaganda.
They didn’t have access to the internet, where truths are finally starting to re-emerge, and now they’re too set in their ways.
The future lies with the youth.
Reply
2

@WhiteRoan
5 hours ago
A great approach. Polite but robust.
Reply
2

@elodiesheraton
6 hours ago
Excellent response. Do more of these please Mark. I’m looking forward to your response to CH4’s hit piece on PA !
Reply
2

@GrahamOnGames
7 hours ago
I like Simon and I understand where he is coming from regarding the hopelessness it seems the established political system is. I think he is saying what you were essentially saying at the end of the video. I really hope PA can breakthrough and uproot this system.
Reply
2

@303LeeMetford
8 hours ago
Good response Mark.
Reply
2

@Ste
9 hours ago
A much welcome positive & mature response. I hope Simon accepts your invitation as he does create excellent videos and would make for interesting conversation.
Reply
2

@JohnPalmer
11 hours ago
FANTASTIC video, Sir!
Reply
2

@Dyingcockneys
13 hours ago
politics will not save us
Reply
2
0
Hide replies

@Outtolive
11 hours ago
Agree. Our people think they are smart. Plain and simple; if your brainwashed by info from the system that glorifies hate of yourself then the credibility goes to the one who have resisted the hate the longest.
Reply
2

@Iagree
14 hours ago
this is why it’s imperative to hammer home to people about the true conservative immigration policy.
it’s harder to do than with labour because people believe words of politicians despite their deeds.
Reply
2

@ericmoss
18 hours ago
it’s not “designed” as a two-party system, that’s how electorates have always emerged throughout history. it’s because there are only two answers to every decision: yes or no. “designed” – hah!
Reply
3
9

@MilosM.
38 seconds ago
great response. modest and eloquent. I don’t think Simon is bad guy or zionist here, but he is misguided.
Reply

@James_Smith
5 hours ago
Two Party Jew Party.
Reply

@Englishbullterrier
7 hours ago
Good vid. i hope his followers listen and find it helpful. i often lurk on Simons vids gotta try to give these people the final nudge! . im sure ive mentioned numerous times that his followers need to be listening to you, Mark Simon, churns out many vids, about this anti white narrative. However, unlike you, he offers no insight ,education or solutions.. i’ve seen him incorrectly pull someone on their use of the English language/ spelling which was also wrong. and total cringe. I hope his followers take the leap, listen to the likes of Mark and end up in the PA camp, where we all end up once educated . its where we all belong
Reply

@Beavis-N-Butthurt
7 hours ago
Proportional representation will be bought in after whites become a minority and the reigns of power are handed over to non-whites and thus triggering the planned race wars.
Reply
0
0
@whitewood
9 hours ago
I like the deliberate coughing in your video Mark. Really mimicking Simons video with that distinct cough haha.
Reply

@Outtolive
11 hours ago
Simon has been influenced by anti white British propaganda all his life typically. Need to be free of brain washing hate of whites about 20 or 30 years to talk clearly and sane. PA members and nationalists typically have been resisting brainwashing to hating themselves decades. Our racial identity is more mature as it was from the 1990s and earlier. Being older is not always a measure to be a good racialist.
Reply

@simplistic_irony
13 hours ago
Go on, Mark!
Reply
0
0
============================================

 

 

xx UNFINISHED TRANSCRIPTS — Volunteers Needed

 

============================================

 

See Also

top

 

 

 

Mark Collett — It’s Okay To Be White — TRANSCRIPT

Mark Collett — Christmas Adverts – Multicultural Propaganda — TRANSCRIPT

Mark Collett — What We Must Do To Win — TRANSCRIPT

Mark Collett — Assad Didn’t Do It – Faked Syrian Gas Attack — TRANSCRIPT


 

 

============================================

 

 

PDF Download

top

 

  • Transcript Total words = 5,075
  • Blog Post Total words = 8,757
  • Total images = 6
  • Total A4 pages = xxx

Click to download a PDF of this post (x.x MB):

(Available later)

 

Version History

top

 

Version 5:

 

Version 4:

 

Version 3:

 

Version 2: May 8, 2022 — Added 2 images.

 

Version 1: May 7, 2022 — Published post. Includes Odysee comments (87).

This entry was posted in BNP, Boris Johnson, Conservative Party, History Debunked channel, Jeremy Corbyn, Labour Party - UK, Mark Collett, Patriotic Alternative, Public opinion - Manipulation, Rwanda, Simon Webb, Traitors - Journalists, Traitors - Politicians, Transcript, UK, White genocide, White Nationalism. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.