Joel Davis: Should be live. Welcome to The Joel and Blair Show, going out live on YouTube for the first time. Hopefully we’ll last a while on here. Who knows how long it’ll last, but here we are. And we got a good show for you tonight. It’s been an interesting news week and we’ve got a lot to cover. A lot of One Nation news. We got some One Nation cucking, which is why I put Brown Nation in the title. But also, interesting story today with Mark Latham letting it rip on Twitter. Pauline Hanson’s freaking out because some of his remarks. We will cover that.

 

We’ll also cover some of the fallout from the New South Wales election. Real repudiation of democracy. You have a gay rapist, a literal gay rapist who was elected. You have the Dude Weed Party getting a Senator from the stoner vote. We have a transsexual terrorist, straight up terrorist, killing Christians in the United States. And there’s been a lot of fallout to that online. Amazing to witness, obviously, the double standard between how they’ve been treated versus so-called, quote, unquote:

 

“White supremacists.”

 

Or quote, unquote:

 

“White nationalist terrorism.”

 

Trans terrorism is fine. Just make sure you don’t misgender the terrorists, apparently.

 

So we’re going to get into that.

 

Also, we had a news report a couple of days ago telling us basically that we’re going to take 650,000 migrants over the next two year period. And it’s kind of in line with what we’ve been getting lately. No surprises there. But it’s something also that needs to be covered, as well as how the political process is reacting to it.

 

I spent a bit of time this week watching proceedings in Parliament, Parliament Question Time, their interactions in the Senate, to get a vibe for how the politicians are reacting and how they frame the issue. So I wanted to get into a discussion on that as well.

 

Also, the news is coming out that they’re still reeling from the protest down in Melbourne the other day. They are going to ban, the swastika in Queensland, I believe. I think even if you post anything with like, quote, unquote:

 

“Nazi iconography.”

 

On social media, that there’ll be jail terms.

 

So that’s apparently the priority.

 

Yeah, bear with Blair. He was held up at the fish and chip shop trying to get a burger and there were a bunch of Uber Eats drivers seemingly holding him up in the line while he was waiting for his burger.

 

Blair Cottrell: Hey, I want a burger. And they’re like, yeah, no problem, that’ll be 45 minutes. And I’m like, what? You wonder, why is it going to take that long? And while you’re waiting, like, 20 Indians come in and take Uber Eats orders and leave. And I’m like:

 

“Oh, my God, that’s why.”

 

But I’m going to be eating my burger at the start of the stream.

 

[03:15]

 

Apologies, I just walked in the door, had a big day at work. Went straight to the gym from work, trained myself and this is my only chance to eat. I’ve also been feeling a little bit off today. I won’t harp on too long about my personal dilemmas.

 

But last night I had some of that NAC. Do, you know what NAC is, Joel? It’s like a precursor supplement to glutathione. So glutathione is supposed to be one of the most powerful antioxidants for the body, great for the immune system, blah, blah, blah. And the idea is that if you have some NAC powder before you go to bed, then while you’re sleeping, it stimulates your body’s own glutathione production, thereby just healing you better while you sleep.

 

Now, the tub that I got didn’t have a measuring scoop inside it.

 

So I just got a whole tablespoon and put it in a glass of water and drank it. But it tasted really strong. And I’m like, I wonder if that was too much? And I looked at the back and it said, like, you only need, like, one fifth of a metric teaspoon. And I’m like:

 

“Well, I had a lot more than that.”

 

And then I started reading up on what happens if you have too much. And I have experienced everything that is consistent with having too much. Very upset gut, nausea, lethargy, weakness, just feeling like shit all day!

 

So it’s been a trying day, and I’m going to try my best to give you guys my attention, but just giving you all the facts so you understand why I might be dragging my feet tonight.

 

Joel Davis: You were going to be the guy that I called up to say:

 

“Look, Blair, I want to start taking more supplements. I want to improve my health. I’ll get some advice from you.”

 

You seem like you’re into that kind of shit, and now you’re telling me that you’re poisoning yourself! I don’t know if I’m going to call you! [chuckling]

 

Blair Cottrell: That’s why I’m the guy. I have trialed and error, pretty much everything. I am the guy who has tried it all, at all the doses. So you want to know what happens if you take this much of this drug? Ask me, bro. I’ve probably tried it!

 

Joel Davis: Yeah, that’s a good point. So maybe I will still call you up and get some advice because, …

 

Blair Cottrell: I’ll be right back. I’m just going to get some cutlery.

 

Joel Davis: Yeah, no worries. Yeah, I take zinc pills because I find that when I take zinc regularly, in addition to keeping my vitamin C levels up, I don’t get sick. And whenever I have just gotten lazy and stopped taking zinc on a regular basis for a few months, that’s the only time in which I ever get, like, a cold or something. So I maintain my zinc regiment for that reason. There’s apparently a lot of other benefits to zinc in addition to that. That is one recommendation.

 

If you don’t want to get sick, drink orange juice regularly or get your vitamin C some other way and take a zinc pill. It’s really easy just to pop a zinc pill one a day. Even if you forget it a couple of days a week, you take it five out of the seven days a week at the minimum. Keeps your zinc level at a reasonable level and you won’t get sick. At least in my experience.

 

[06:26]

 

Maybe that’s also a genetic thing. Maybe if you’re really predisposed to getting sick, you’ll still get sick. But I find whenever I tell people, whenever I notice someone is sick, I ask them, do you take zinc pills? Invariably they say no. I advise them to do so. And then I check in with them six months later or whatever, and they say, yeah, I haven’t gotten sick in six months since I started taking those zinc pills. That’s happened to me about five or six times with different people.

 

So obviously that’s not a scientific study. That’s just my personal kind of testimony.

 

But in my personal experience, it’s very good for you.

 

But yeah, I guess we should start getting into some of the news here. And before we get into Latham’s tweet today, I don’t know if you saw it, Blair, I did send it to you. I will pull it up on stream in a bit. But before that, I wanted to discuss, …

 

Blair Cottrell: Sorry is that a real tweet? Latham’s tweet?

 

Joel Davis: That was a real tweet.

 

Blair Cottrell: Wow!

 

Joel Davis: That was a real tweet. [chuckling] I’ll actually rig it up and I’ll pull it up on screen because we’re on YouTube. I don’t know if I could even repeat it.

 

But yeah, it’s funny because Mark Latham, we’re not a fan. I’ve been wringing him out on this show, actually, for I mean, this that’s why I put “Brown Nation” in the title because they’re running Indians in Western Sydney, I found very personally offensive. And we’ll get into that.

 

But this tweet is kind of funny.

 

So yeah, I’ll pull it up on screen now. But yeah, it’s good to see that Mark Latham at least still has some masculinity. Unlike most Australian politicians.

 

Blair Cottrell: I don’t know if I would call it masculinity. What I see behind the eyes of Mark Latham, is a brooding bitterness! There’s an anger to Mark Latham that is not often or effectively expressed.

 

And I think that’s why sometimes he rips out stuff like this. Are you bringing the tweet up on the screen? Can you do that?

 

Joel Davis: Yeah, I am. I am. Just 1 second.

 

Blair Cottrell: Is it different for YouTube or something? It shouldn’t be.

 

Joel Davis: No. I should have prepared more before stream. Sorry, boys, but here we go. I got it now.

 

[Mark Latham’s tweet:

 

“Disgusting? How does it compare with sticking your dick up a bloke’s arse and covering it in shit?”

 

[09:00]

 

Blair Cottrell: Yeah, Mark Latham’s got one of those “it’s also tiresome” kind of demeanors. But there’s like an aggression behind his external persona.

 

Joel Davis: Yeah, no, I see what you mean. He is an intense guy, that’s for sure.

 

He was actually at the conference I was at the other day. He was telling a friend of ours, actually, I won’t mention who, but he was having a conversation with a friend of ours and he was going on about how Julia Gillard is a lesbian and how that guy that he was married to was a homosexual and it was just all for optics. They got married for political optics.

 

And I think they’ve actually divorced now. That was kind of funny hearing him rant about that.

 

Blair Cottrell: But is he wrong about that?

 

Joel Davis: No, someone called him because the other day I think we talked about it on the show there was a kind of anti-trans Christian kind of event basically in Bellfield in Sydney, at St. Michael’s Church. Which is a church in Sydney where there’s a traditional Latin mass and a lot of the Christian Lives Matter. People like, the Lebos [Lebanese] that run that and some other people, they were there, some other Catholic people were there and they got a pretty good turnout. There were hundreds of people there.

 

And Mark Latham showed up to speak, because it was just before the election and he wanted to talk about how One Nation’s policies for trying to keep the trans stuff out of schools and things like that.

 

Anyway, so he was doing a speech there and Antifa types came and tried to counter protest. They basically got bashed, and run out of the show, which is good to see. And he gave his speech. And then someone was calling him disgusting for basically being complicit in this, and his attitude towards the LGBT community or something. And then so he kind of clapped back on Twitter with this earlier today. Which quite funny, then he deleted it.

 

But I think about 6,000 people saw it or so before he deleted it.

 

And then apparently Pauline [Hanson, leader of One Nation] put out a video that she’d been calling him all day. He wasn’t answering the phone. And so she came out and condemned the remarks as “deplorable” or whatever. And the One Nation party doesn’t condone it.

 

Blair Cottrell: If you’re going to delete a tweet because you’re thinking, if I delete this, Twitter won’t suspend me or I’m going to save some grace or somehow by deleting the tweet, it doesn’t work that way. I tweeted something on Twitter once and it was only up for like 60 seconds, but I realized it was probably a bit much. I deleted it and then I got suspended for it like hours after it was deleted, even though it was up for a minute.

 

So there’s no point in deleting tweets once they’re up, really. Has he made any apology for it or has he just not said anything?

 

[12:00]

 

Joel Davis: He said nothing. He’s not even picking up the phone of Pauline. Pauline shouldn’t have said anything. But she’s got that what is that James Ashby guy who’s her right hand man, who is a homosexual. So again “Cuck Nation” yet again, another classic cucking from Cuck Nation.

 

Blair Cottrell: Speaking of cuckings, did you see that redhead chick who interviewed Nick Fuentes? She did like a big apology video, apparently.

 

Joel Davis: Yeah, I saw that. She has a lot of black people who are involved in the show and that are on the show. That kind of whole manosphere thing, there’s a lot of blacks involved for some reason.

 

Anyway, because of that, I think she started to get pressured. Because during that I don’t know if you watched the whole interview with Nick, but during the interview she made some remarks about slavery, saying basically downplaying how inhumane slavery was and that it’s kind of overblown and made into a bigger tragedy than it actually was. And that a lot of the slaves, after they were freed, went back to their previous owners and seek conventional employment and so on.

 

Anyway, so she got dragged over hot coals, and she is a coal burner, by the way. Like she’s had black boyfriends in the past and surrounds herself with black men.

 

So I don’t particularly like her. I thought she did a good job in interviewing Nick in that one interview and it was good to get those ideas for them to have some exposure because she’s got a big YouTube channel with over like a million subscribers.

 

Blair Cottrell: I’m could of told her:

 

“In politics, never apologize! Never!”

 

Joel Davis: Yeah, because now it’ll never be enough. Once you do something that offends them and you get, quote, unquote:

 

“Cancelled.”

 

It doesn’t matter how many times you apologize, they’ll never forgive you, because they kind of perceive you as having the wrong thoughts. And I didn’t really watch the video of her apologizing, but obviously it was a pathetic display.

 

But from what someone told me about it, apparently there were people that were also calling into this stream. Because she did an apology video and then there was a stream where there were a whole bunch of black people were like:

 

“You’re a White woman, you shouldn’t say that!”

 

Blah, blah, blah.

 

Anyway, so then some people called into the stream and were defending her saying:

 

“You’re entitled to your own opinion. Whether you’re right or wrong, this is getting blown out of proportion.”

 

And she wouldn’t even accept the people defending her. She just would say things like:

 

“Well, I shouldn’t have said anything and I don’t want to say anything now. I’m already in enough trouble.”

 

Kind of thing.

 

So obviously, obviously quite cucked. But I mean, she’s a woman who dates black guys, so I mean, how much can you really expect from her? I don’t really view it as a betrayal. She was never one of us anyway. So who cares?

 

But as you said, it’s another good case in point. That’s apologising gets you nowhere.

 

[15:25]

 

Blair Cottrell: Malcolm Roberts Tweet. Look at the diversity. Compare the pair. One Nation vs the Greens, New South Wales, who look like it look like a Klan meeting. That’s the thing, when you’re representing all of these hard Left viewpoints, you can be all White, because you don’t have to try to prove that you’re not racist. Because you’re like campaigning, you’re the “anti-racists”, right? You’ll notice most anti-racists are White, or made up of majority White people.

 

Most people who aren’t White, so-called “victims of racism”, they’re not really interested in that kind of politics, generally speaking. That’s the way I see it.

 

The Greens don’t need as many people of colour, Members of Parliament, members of their party, because they don’t need to constantly feel the need to prove that they’re not racist, because no one’s accusing them of being racist, right? They’re the ones accusing everybody else.

 

Joel Davis: Well, what’s funny about this is I actually posted this photo to Malcolm Roberts, who, by the way, for those who don’t know, Malcolm Roberts is a Senator from Queensland for the One Nation party. He used to be Senator for New South Wales.

 

I remember because way back in the day, I actually flicked him a vote because he used to say some decent stuff. He’d talk about how Australia is an Anglo Celtic nation. He was a boomer conservative, but he was one of the better boomer Conservatives. He’s progressively cucked over time. He used to talk about Cultural Marxism and stuff, I believe. He had some more talking points back in 2015.

 

Blair Cottrell: Like any politician, though, he’ll talk about what’s cool at the time. He’ll talk about, … Because a few years ago, being openly critical of so-called Cultural Marxism, that was kind of like mainstream Alt-Right theory and philosophy. It’s what was being talked about. It’s what was cool. And he was trying to get in on it, right?

 

But now that that’s not really, like, permitted anymore, all of that’s kind of censored and cancelled. Well, now he’s steered away from that it’s just mainstream political bullshit. It’s what they all do.

 

Joel Davis: Yeah.

 

Basically, the whole trajectory of the One Nation Party, because you got to remember back in 2016, that was when UPF was active. When you were active, you were a public figure in Australian political life, that you were making headlines, you were holding huge rallies.

 

And so then they pulled the One Nation Party was basically dormant for some time in the early 2000s. Pauline Hanson was booted out of the party, left the party. There was controversy. I can’t remember all the details.

 

[18:02]

 

As I promised in an earlier stream, I will get into the deep dive research on One Nation, and we’ll do a deep dive on One Nation’s history as an episode at some point in the future, not today.

 

But she was basically retired from politics for some time, and then they wheel her back out of retirement because you guys are making waves. I think a lot of people thought that at the time, as a containment on this budding nationalist energy, the Alt-Right is this thing sweeping the English speaking world, et cetera.

 

And so they wheel One Nation back out, and they did very well in that election as well. By their standards as a minor party. In the time since, they’ve progressively cucked more and more and more. And we’re going to get into some of that here.

 

But this image that Malcolm Roberts posted with the Greens and One Nation together. I actually posted this on Telegram two days before he posted this. So I wonder if someone saw my post of it on Telegram and it somehow filtered its way up.

 

But yeah, you can see here One Nation, all these mystery meats. The Greens pure Anglo Celtic stock right there to a man! But this from Malcolm Roberts, you already mentioned it. But this idea of like, the Left are the real racist star, the Greens, they’re like a Klan rally. This is incredibly cucked.

 

This is a party that’s supposed to be a party which stands against multiculturalism. And they never talk about that anymore. That’s what the word “one nation” means.

 

The whole name of the party is that we are One Nation, not many nations. And Pauline Hanson’s maiden speech to Parliament:

 

“We are being swamped by Asians.”

 

Well, now the One Nation party has been swamped by Asians. And it really is incredible sight to behold them openly celebrating this.

 

And as I said on Telegram, I think if you have a party that’s ostensible purpose is to provide opposition to the policy of multiculturalism, and now they basically embrace multiculturalism, that party needs to be destroyed! I mean, it fundamentally shouldn’t exist. It’s fundamentally counterproductive!

 

I think if the One Nation party just disappeared tomorrow, it would be good for the nationalist cause in Australia. If all of it just disappeared it would be great for the nationalist cause in Australia because then it’d have to reorganise some kind of coherent opposition to multiculturalism again.

 

And when people vote for One Nation, they’re casting a vote against multiculturalism. Generally speaking, that’s what the base of the party. That’s where their loyalty comes from.

 

Blair Cottrell: And then they are getting more multiculturalism!

 

Joel Davis: Yeah, they aren’t observing, … A lot of the average Aussie battler. They’re busy at work. Who votes for One Nation? Or would maybe vote for One Nation at some elections. They’re busy with family, job, et cetera. They don’t have time to be political animals like you and I, who are constantly kind of keeping up to date with everything that’s going on.

 

And so they don’t see all of this. They just remember the general vibe of what the party means and cast their vote.

 

[21:18]

 

And so it’s a betrayal to them. And they need to be seen as an enemy, not as “naive boomers who don’t get it”. They’re just a straight up enemy! The new policy of One Nation is to embrace multiculturalism. That’s the new policy.

 

We saw, that, we discussed on the show before with Mark Latham running Indians in Western Sydney, saying that:

 

“The Indian community and it’s values of nationalism are One Nation values.”

 

I mean, this is just totally ridiculous. This statement by this statement by Mark Latham. And this statement by Malcolm Roberts, really. It shows that it’s not just Latham, it’s the whole party has succumbed to this.

 

And I was watching earlier today, Pauline Hanson was questioning Penny Wong in the Senate. Penny Wong as the kind of leader of Labour in the Senate. And she was basically talking about this new plan, or this announcement that the government projects 650,000 migrants over a two year period of intake.

 

And she was saying basically:

 

“Well, during that same time period, there’s only about 30,000 homes that are being planned to be built.”

 

We already have a housing shortage as it is. This is the worst housing shortage in Australian history. Even during the Great Depression it wasn’t as bad as this, according to some studies that I’ve seen.

 

And they’re just going to keep bringing in more and more people, but they’re only committing to build about, as I said, 30,000 houses in that same time period.

 

And so this is going to cause homelessness. It’s going to jack up everyone’s rents.

 

Blair Cottrell: What is going to cause homelessness? Is it a rental crisis? Is it a housing shortage? It’s a combination of both. What causes that? If you have to encapsulate that and blame, …

 

Joel Davis: Well, it’s very simple. There’s only a certain amount of houses which exist.

 

So if you bring in more people, they need to live somewhere.

 

And so there’s more people trying to live in the same amount of houses that previously existed, which means there’s more demand for housing, which means the price of it all goes up.

 

Because, like, for example, the other day, my step uncle, he sold a property. And he said they wanted about 2 million. That’s what they wanted for the family home. They wanted about 2 million as their asking price, minimum. And they would have been happy to take any offer over 2 million. They put it to auction. They got 2.5.

 

I’ve seen lots of other reports of people, they’re putting more and more houses to auction now because there is so much demand for housing that, you know, in Sydney and Melbourne in particular, that basically house prices are getting bit up to crazy levels.

 

[24:15]

 

So anyway, basically the long and short of it is more people, same amount of houses. If you don’t build the equivalent amount of housing as the people that you bring in, you’re going to get a housing shortage. People aren’t going to be able to afford the kind of working class, lower level income earners aren’t going to be able to afford housing at the level that they used to be able to get it, and it’s going to cause a housing shortage.

 

But my problem with this is this is the only angle under which Hanson was even attacking the government’s policy. The housing shortage. It is a legitimate reason to attack the policy.

 

But she said nothing about multiculturalism. She said nothing about how bringing in hundreds and hundreds of thousands of new non-White migrants every year is going to fundamentally transform, or is already fundamentally transforming, Australia’s culture, the average Australian’s way of life, the character of the nation, that it’s creating ethnic enclaves, that it’s creating division in the society, a lack of loyalty to the Australian nation. She didn’t talk about any of these things like she used to!

 

And so it just shows that the party has completely capitulated to multiculturalism.

 

Blair Cottrell: It’s a very different Pauline Hanson than the one I suppose people who grew up with Pauline Hanson, would be used to.

 

But, you know, times change and people change. And I suppose when it comes to mainstream politics, have you ever seen someone go into Parliament and make any sort of progress in re-nationalizing industry or in re-nationalizing a people and a nation? Has that ever happened? And will that ever happen? As the result of enduring Parliamentary process and party politics? I don’t think it has. And I don’t think it will!

 

I think in order to produce radical change, the politics used to initiate that change needs to be radical. And going through the motions of Parliamentary process is kind of like kind of preventing any sort of radical change from ever taking place.

 

And I don’t think anyone great, or anyone capable of bringing about the sort of change this country needs to see is going to be able to do it through Parliament. I think that’s a dead industry, it’s a dead institution! I think it’s a rotten institution!

 

And I think even well meaning men who go into Parliament with good intentions, I think as a result of being in a rotten institution, then those men become rotten too, eventually themselves. That’s probably what happened with Pauline Hanson.

 

Joel Davis: Yeah. I think she has to be looked at as controlled opposition at this point. But yeah, she’s also doesn’t strike me as a very intelligent woman, as a very educated woman. And so not a strong foundation.

 

[27:22]

 

Blair Cottrell: To succeed in politics as a people’s representative, it’s being demonstrated time and time again by most Parliamentarians today. You don’t need to be intelligent! You don’t really need to have much of a plan, you don’t need to know what you’re doing. You just need to either be popular with the people or you need to have the right sponsors, one or the other.

 

And Pauline was one of those people who came from the working class and was popular amongst the people and the rest of them will just have the right sponsors, I suppose. Like I said, it’s a corrupt institution. But any great, … I don’t want to get too prophetic, so I’ll finish my thought there.

 

But basically the fundamental take I have on Parliament is that it’s just a rotten institution and I struggle to really pay attention to what’s going on in there these days. It’s a bit farcical. I think it was referred to by the Malaysian Prime Minister, Australian Parliament specifically, as “marvellous theatre”. And that’s exactly what it is.

 

Joel Davis: No, I agree with you. I mean, Parliamentarianism is a joke, and nothing really shows it better than some of the results in this recent New South Wales election.

 

So this guy here, Ward, Gareth Ward, this dude, I’ll try and find a picture of him in this article because his physiognomy is he looks like a gay rapist.

 

Anyway, so he’s an alleged gay rapist. It’s this guy here.

 

Blair Cottrell: Anyway, one of the reasons I love streaming with you “physi-ognomy”, not “physio-onomy”. I’ve been saying it wrong all my life.

 

Joel Davis: Yeah, well, I don’t know, maybe it’s the accent thing.

 

Anyway, this guy, Gareth Ward, he is an alleged gay rapist. So he hasn’t been convicted of being gay rapist, obviously, because otherwise he’d he’d go to jail. But he has been charged with the rape, I think, of a 17 year old male. And I don’t know if he was charged as well with the rape, allegedly, of another 27 year old male, or sexual assault.

 

I didn’t look too deeply into it, but I know that he was charged with the rape of 17 year old male. And he was a member of the Liberal Party, seat of Kiama on the south coast of New South Wales.

 

He definitely is a homo because there’s another story that I saw in his Wikipedia page from five or so years ago when he was in New York, I believe. And apparently he ordered some erotic massage service. And these two boys came to his room, and when he realized they were underage, he tried to tell them to leave, allegedly, that’s what he claims. And they refused because they wanted the money.

 

And so they got into a fight, and eventually the hotel staff had to kind of call the security to get rid of these homosexual prostitute, masseuse people or whatever. So who knows exactly what went down there. It sounds like a messed up situation, but it sounds like the only the situation that he was in is only a situation to get into if you were a homosexual.

 

[30:46]

 

And now he’s being accused of he’s being formally charged as a gay rapist. When this happened, I think last year when he was charged, he was suspended from Parliament, kicked out of the Liberal Party. But he claims that he’s innocent, and he ran anyway, as an independent. Liberals ran, another candidate in his seat, Labour ran in his seat, a bunch of other candidates ran his seat, and he still won!

 

So, I mean, that’s incredible. I don’t know if the people of that community really have really looked into the case of him being a gay rapist or not, and they convinced that he’s innocent, or if they’re just ignorant. But I would suspect it is because they’re just ignorant.

 

Blair Cottrell: Because haven’t you heard, though, if you’re a rapist, it doesn’t matter if you’re gay. Remember Kevin Spacey when he was accused of, like was he accused of sexually assaulting a child or something? I can’t remember. Maybe possessing child sex material. He got accused of something like that. I don’t know what the details were, but then he just turned around and said:

 

“I’m gay.”

 

And everyone just dropped the subject. And I don’t even know what happened.

 

Everyone just left it alone. That was it. [chuckling]

 

Joel Davis: Yeah, [chuckling] I don’t know either, but I mean yeah, but that’s a literal literal paedophile, right? Kevin Spacey wasn’t it like the kid was like, 14 or something? I don’t know.

 

Blair Cottrell: Yeah, I don’t know what the details were, but the point is he was accused of that, whatever he was doing with an underage person, but then he came out as gay and then everyone just dropped the accusation.

 

I don’t know if the accusation was dropped, but the media stopped reporting on it and I don’t know what happened. Was he found guilty? Were the accusations founded or not? I don’t know.

 

Everyone just shut up about it after he said he was gay, indicating that you can rape underage boys, apparently, so long as you’re gay, it’s okay!

 

Joel Davis: Yeah, I think it’s just incredible, though.

 

Blair Cottrell: Remember, we’re on YouTube. I’ll try to keep it tame.

 

Joel Davis: Well, I don’t think you said anything that was outside of TOS [Terms Of Service] there.

 

But I think when it comes to the procedure of liberal democracy, this really is an indictment of the entire process that a gay rapist or alleged gay rapist can still win because of name recognition or something.

 

Also, the Legalized Cannabis Party in New South Wales, I believe, got about 4% of the Upper House vote, which means they’ll probably have a Senator.

 

And obviously the vote just comes entirely from stoners.

 

[33:33]

 

I think after the Liberal, National coalition, Labour, the Greens and One Nation, they were the next most popular party in New South Wales.

 

So the stoner vote is able to win us a Senator under our election system, which, again, is another indictment of just how stupid the liberal Democratic system is and how illegitimate it’s results are.

 

Because it really kind of the whole point of the process is supposed to be that you have informed voters who understand the issues and make informed decisions about who they’re going to vote for.

 

And in this country, we have compulsory voting, which means you’re getting people, we’re asking the opinion of people who don’t even want to show up. But the kinds of people who would only vote to avoid a $55 fine but wouldn’t vote anyway, their opinion about who should run our government. I mean, surely those people shouldn’t. We should be actively discouraging them from showing up, if anything.

 

But, yeah, the entire procedure is fundamentally illegitimate because the average person has no means for actually understanding what is in the interest of the nation, what is in the interest of the state. In this particular instance in the New South Wales election because they’re low agency. They get their opinions from news media or social media in a low effort capacity.

 

Most people don’t have the capacity to critically think about the information that they receive, and most people don’t actually have a good value set in the first place. Even people don’t vote with the national interest in mind.

 

Like if you’re voting for the Dude Weed Party, you clearly don’t really care about what’s in Australia’s national interest. You just care about you have this vice of smoking marijuana and you want any restrictions to that vice to be removed. That’s really all you care about.

 

Blair Cottrell: Politics is the art of the possible, especially Parliamentary politics. It’s the art of the possible. It adjusts itself to the state that people are in. I don’t think it’s necessarily responsible for contributing to the state that people are in. I think the state that people get themselves into is probably the result of combination of ruthless marketing and capitalism exploiting their weaker nature to try to sell them junk they don’t need. Junk food, make them gamble, drink alcohol, take drugs, that kind of thing. Just that low impulse control. Society or community that has no religion, has no purpose, people have no purpose. Just go to work, spend your money on drugs, that kind of thing.

 

But then politics comes along and observes the situation and then adjusts itself to that situation. It’s the art of the possible, as I said. So politics is kind of just like Parliamentary party politics. It’s kind of taking on the form it needs to take on in order to appeal to these low quality people.

 

So I think politics, Parliamentarianism wouldn’t necessarily be the problem in and of itself. It’s just a symptom of cultural decay. The current state of Parliamentarianism anyway.

 

[36:37]

 

Joel Davis: I’m muted. Yeah. No, I agree.

 

When people discuss the concept of democracy, the concept of democracy is supposed to mean, you know, ruled by the people, by the demos, the ancient Greek term where we derive democracy from, which basically means “the people”.

 

And this is fundamentally incompatible with the notion of multiculturalism. Because on the one hand, you’re saying people should rule, and on the other hand, just saying the people don’t exist, that we should have a society of different peoples, which have different values, different races, and that our “Diversity is Our Strength”. So diversity and democracy are kind of like fundamentally opposed to another, if you think about it, in one sense.

 

So, like, a true expression of a democracy would be a state like China, where in China they do have voting, but there’s only one party. They do have sub parties for local elections and so on. But it’s basically a one party state, though, at the top.

 

Blair Cottrell: How is that a true democracy, though, if you don’t have any other option?

 

Joel Davis: Well, because in China they actually know, they actually recognize that the party which is in control, that the Chinese people exist, and that the Chinese state is a representation of the Chinese people. So they say, well, China is, … If you listen to press releases from President Xi Jinping, he literally uses a term which translates to “the Chinese race”.

 

And actually the word in Chinese that means “race”, the word for “nation” and “race” is actually the same. I can’t pronounce it because I don’t speak Chinese.

 

Blair Cottrell: Well, “nation” doesn’t mean “race”, even in our language. It’s just being conflated. The word “nation” has been conflated with “country”.

 

So a lot of people these days, when they think of “nation’, they think of the Australian country or the European continent or some country within the European continent. But “nation” means “nationality”, which means “race”. It refers to a specific ethnic group. It doesn’t refer to a territorial space of land.

 

That’s why I always say when Napoleon was in power, French Emperor, after French Revolution, he used to refer to the “jewish nation” even though there was no Israel, because he’s talking about the jewish people, he’s talking about the jews, referring to them as the race that they are, you see?

 

And people need to get that in their head. They need to understand that the Australian nation isn’t a “place”, it’s a people. And that people is being denied it’s existence. It’s a nation deracinated that’s been under attack for quite some time.

 

But why is it under attack specifically? Is the Australian nation, is it being attacked deliberately by one person, one enemy? Or is it just the result of a group of a conglomerate of corporate greedy capitalists that just don’t want the nation to exist because it gets in the way of their profits? Or is it kind of a combination of deliberate hostile forces and greed? What do you think?

 

[40:01]

 

Joel Davis: It’s definitely a combination.

 

I mean, if you look into the history of multiculturalism in Australia and how the White Australia policy was undermined, it was undermined by a coalition of ethnic groups, or who basically weren’t Anglo Celts.

 

So you have guys with Spanish ancestry, you have jews, you have other kind of more recent migrant groups that also contributed to the kind of forces within the Labour Party to undermine it’s pro-White Australia policies, forces within the immigration department as well. And it’s a very obvious strategy.

 

Like if you’re a jew, and you’re the odd man out, basically, because you live in a country that is 99% White, and you’re even less than 1% of the population. Like today, they’re only 0.4%, I think, of Australia’s population. That’s intimidating because you are an alien in this nation that has a strong identity, that knows who it is and you’re excluded from its sense of self.

 

And so what’s going to make you more comfortable is bringing in a bunch of other groups. So that you dilute any kind of unity in the body politic which could potentially exclude you. And then if you introduce enough other groups then new ways of forming political unity will have to occur which will bring in coalitions of different groups, or that will say:

 

“Group identities don’t matter. We have this other kind of civic nationalist identity.”

 

Or whatever the case may be. It creates a different political paradigm that you fit into better.

 

And so there’s a strong incentive for you to support that kind of thing. And we see it played out in the actual particular actors who are involved historically.

 

And then in addition to this, also from a capitalist standpoint, I mean, it’s very simple. You want to bring in cheap labour, like right now, immigration, what are the main forces driving it in Australia? The business lobby, the property lobby and so on. They’re pursuing their economic interests.

 

We discussed this, I think, in the first episode that we did. You bring in more migrant labour that increases the supply of labour to businesses and so then that brings down the cost of labour, that depresses wages.

 

And we have empirical studies that show that migration depresses wages. Because if it’s hard, if you advertise for a job, if you’re a business, and you need to get new workers in, and you put out ads and not many people call up, not many people come in to do interviews, then you start considering paying more to incentivize people to come in. Because maybe if you advertise the job at $30 an hour, no one comes for an interview.

 

But if you advertise it at $35 an hour people start actually responding to the advertisement. Basic economic incentive structures.

 

[43:04]

 

There is a strong incentive, therefore, in the business community and so on, or in the property lobby. If you want the value of property to go up, we discussed this already. You bring in more migrants, there’s only a certain amount of houses now. More people are trying to live in those particular houses. And so if you put up a house for rent, people snap it up. People are willing to pay more.

 

Whereas if there’s a lot of houses for rent and you think one house looks a little too expensive to rent or buy, you pass on it and you go for another option. So it’s just basics of demand. You got to take that economic aspect into consideration. But that’s the thing. That economic aspect is unleashed in a nation when it’s identity is already undermined.

 

So Australian business leaders, 50, 60, 70 years ago when we were a homogeneous nation, they still had these same incentives. But a lot of them probably would have supported maintaining the White Australia policy anyway because they recognized who they were:

 

“I’m a White Australian and White Australia is good for me.”

 

Even if my particular business interest would be served by undermining it, they still have some kind of loyalty.

 

But now White Australia is so undermined and obliterated you can’t defend it in polite society. You can’t talk about what’s in White Australia’s interests in polite society.

 

In conventional politics, there’s no representation for it. And so people don’t even think in those terms. They just think purely in terms of their economic interests because they’re deracinated, kind of cosmopolitan individuals who that’s all they see themselves. As they don’t see themselves as a member of a national community like they once did.

 

So, yeah, the two forces definitely are interlinking here to create this.

 

Blair Cottrell: What’s next on the agenda?

 

Joel Davis: Well, yeah, obviously, a lot of people, everyone would have seen the mass shooting in the United States. It was a female to male transition, so to speak.

 

Blair Cottrell: Let me just say before we continue on that point, female to male transition, it doesn’t surprise me that a woman being injected with testosterone, the primary male androgen or primary male sex hormone, is going to lose her mind and open fire on children at a public school.

 

I mean, I’m sure there’s a range of different factors that pertain to this individual’s mental health, personal experiences, personal trauma, that kind of thing. I think we just lost Joel briefly, but I’m sure he’ll be back.

 

As I said, there’s probably a number of things that pertain to that individual.

 

However, you’re much more likely to get a psycho if you inject a woman with testosterone, than if you inject a man with estrogen. You inject a man with estrogen, what are you going to get? You’re going to get him to be more emotional, more passive, more agreeable, less likely to lash out, less likely to go against the grain, less likely to take risks.

 

[46:12]

 

Basically, you’re producing the perfect proletariat peasant in the modern day. Which is probably why there’s estrogen in the tap water. And possibly in processed foods, microplastics. Haven’t seen all the data, but I’ve seen bits and pieces, and it’s pretty alarming.

 

So you put the prime male androgen into the body of a woman, what are you going to get? You’re going to get a woman who’s going to be behaving more like a man. But not like a man who has been raised to be a gentleman, who has been raised to understand and restrain himself, right.

 

Because as a man, that’s something that you learn when you’re a boy. You aren’t so restrained, and you tend to discover more often than not the hard way was like that for me, anyway. It’s important to restrain yourself and to not give in to your compulsives, compulsive nature. So it frightens me to think of what that could produce injecting testosterone into a woman, that’s frightening stuff.

 

But I don’t know what Joel is doing. Joel drives these streams, as you guys know, and I kind of just provide backup commentary. And I’ve been abandoned, so now I’m running this thing on my own. But we’ll get into that school shooting, which happened in Nashville, America, and I posted about it because I saw the police footage and I posted it to my public Telegram channel. I was surprised that the police released body cam footage of them shooting the character responsible for this atrocity. And it is an atrocious thing to murder children. This is children that weren’t even known to this person.

 

And I’m not usually the person, the sort of guy who gets into:

 

“Oh, this is so horrible. Good, goy, gosh. Let’s all feel sorry for someone.”

 

But kid killing really doesn’t sit well with me. It shouldn’t really sit well with anybody, right? Obviously. But I am surprised that the police release this footage, and I don’t know what to think of that.

 

As always, whenever something like this happens and the footage of the shooting or the incident is made public, someone out there is going to say:

 

“It’s fake, it’s not real.”

 

Seems real to me, but it could be fake. I don’t know. And that’s a good way to go into everything like this. When you see stuff like this, it’s good to believe nothing. It’s good to entertain the possibility, any possibility. This could be real, this could be fake, but not actually to invest in either of those possibilities.

 

But my general take on this was that transgenders don’t exist. And that the people that we present as transgenders, the people who are constantly exposed these days as transgenders, and this lifestyle of transgenderism, it’s false!

 

[49:24]

 

All transgenders are are transvestites. And a transvestite was traditionally understood as somebody who enjoyed dressing up like a member of the other sex. I’m not going to get into the reasons why they might do that. I personally don’t understand. Some sort of fetish, I suppose.

 

So when you look at what transgenders are actually doing, that’s all they’re doing. At the end of the day, they’re just transvestites! They are not members of the other gender or sex. They’re just acting like they are, and dressing up as though they are. And a lot of the time they’re encouraged by modern Medicine, psychologists and modern culture to actually believe that they’re a member of the other sex. And that is delusional! Not only is it delusional, but it’s dangerous.

 

And it’s about time it’s understood by ordinary person that these people aren’t just delusional, they are dangerous. And this shooting in Nashville should demonstrate that more clearly than anything I can say to you.

 

One of the reasons these people are so dangerous is because they’re generally addicted to a plethora of drugs. The first thing that happens when you go through this gender transition lifestyle, especially if it happens to you young, if you’ve got the kind of parents that are going to, or parent – usually a single lesbian mother – that’s going to put you through that kind of stuff as a child, then the first thing you’re going to be exposed to is some sort of hormone replacement therapy, usually hormone blockers. They block you from your natural puberty process.

 

I know this because there’s young kids in my family, teenagers in my family, and some of them have friends, and a couple of their friends have actually been through this and are currently going through this. It’s more common than you might think.

 

Surprisingly common. I don’t want to say it’s very common, like, it’s not something that’s happening frequently enough in order to justify the amount of exposure this so-called transgenderism gets these days, but it’s still happening more often than it used to.

 

And I think that’s because it is more widely facilitated and encouraged by popular culture. And those single lesbian mums that probably would have had their children taken off them 30 or 40 years ago are now legitimized, encouraged. Their theories about their children being a different gender are legitimized by the state and by the culture at large.

 

So first you start off on those puby blockers, and then you’ve got depression and bipolar and ADHD and probably something else as well.

 

And so then you got medication for all those different things. And those medications don’t work, so then they flip them over and try to give you different medications. And those medications are causing you mood problems, so then they also prescribe you mood stabilizers. But then you’re also depressed, so then you’ve got antidepressants, but then the antidepressants kill your sex drive and you can’t really feel aroused by anything anymore. You feel like an empty shell of a human being.

 

So they have to give you a different drug to try to stimulate your sexual desire. This is normal, common practice, not just for transgenders, but for most children these days. Not most children, but a lot of children. A lot of children that go down the path of I’m bipolar or I’m abd. You’re really just opening yourself up to a range of different prescription medications, which are extremely addictive and destructive.

 

[52:47]

 

And the reason these transgenders, as I said, they’re not really transgender, they’re transvestites. But the reason they’re so dangerous is, from what I’m explaining right now, they’re drug addicts! And they’ve been drug addicts since they were kids, a lot of them. They’ve been through a great deal of trauma and they’ve had their minds twisted, mostly as a result of their daily prescription drug habit! And it’s mostly prescription drugs.

 

They’ll usually experiment with narcotics as well. And by narcotics, I mean street drugs, actually, ice or crystal methamphetamine came from the gay community in Melbourne. That’s how it first started in Melbourne.

 

Anyway, I don’t know where it came from in the rest of the world, but the first people to be cooking it, using it, were members of the gay community because it made them hypersexual and they could stay awake for days at a time having sex with each other.

 

It was a big problem around the year 1995. From there to about 2005, there was a ten year block there where the government made some sort of initiative to try to get these homosexuals, these gay people, to stop using Ice because it was that bad. They would drive around in vans, pick each other up, drop each other off, spread around AIDS and smoke crystal meth and have sex with each other for days on end.

 

But anyway, there’s a similar story which can validate or further verify the point that I’m making, that not only are these people deranged, but they’re dangerous! Not only that, but pushing this sort of lifestyle or accepting this kind of lifestyle of drugs and sex obsession and transvestite or transgenderism, pushing that onto people not just onto people, but onto children, I think that’s a crime against humanity! I think that’s a repulsive crime against humanity!

 

And you can’t have a culture that’s trying to normalize and promote the acceptance of that kind of thing without having the hard extreme, which I’m going to represent now.

 

And the hard extreme is that shit is a repulsive crime against humanity! I’m not shifting on that. I’m not budging on that! It’s sick, it’s twisted, and it needs to be called out! It needs to be rejected at large, in public, in the workplace, on the street, in the public gyms, all the time by everyone! It needs to be called out for the sick and twisted lifestyle that it is.

 

[55:04]

 

But my colleague here, Tim, he reminded me to bring this up. Because in Australia, and I’m going to send this to you, Joel. Maybe you might be able to bring this up on the screen for me, if that’s not too much to ask. I once brought this up in a stream with Mark Collett on this subject as well, because this happened in Australia. I just sent you the link on Telegram, Joel.

 

This was a former government employee. I think it was a male to female transgender woman, Evie Amati [sp]. Okay, this article is from 2019, but I’m not sure if that’s when it happened. No, it happened before 2019, but something else has happened. I think this person’s, like, re-transition inside prison now or something.

 

But the story goes:

 

“Former government employee decides they’re going to be transgender. Goes to Thailand, gets the sex change surgery. It goes horribly wrong.”

 

And by horribly wrong, I mean when they’re removing this guy’s penis and trying to dig a makeshift vagina, they dig into the anal cavity by mistake. They try to stitch it up, but they don’t do a good enough job. So that when this person tries to go to the bathroom, they’re literally excreting feces into their makeshift, medically dug vagina, producing infection, producing rot and death of the flesh inside this person’s would be genitals. Excruciating pain. Right? More drugs, more trauma for this individual. Can’t handle it. Can’t handle the fact that this transgender surgery, this person wanted so bad, this former government employee from Sydney, local government, I think worked for local council.

 

So what does he or she or it do? Goes down to a local 7/11 with an axe and a knife in its back pocket. Hits a man in the face, a random man they don’t know, in the face with an axe. Hits another woman who was just another bystander with the axe as well, before disappearing into the night. Okay.

 

And this is Australia. Did you hear about this? If you’re in Australia, did, you know, about this? Maybe not. It was kind of something that just got slipped under the rug and nobody really asked questions about how a normal child, or a normal human being ends up doing this. What’s the trajectory? What’s the lifestyle? A series of lifestyle choices that get made in order to bring a person to this extreme?

 

I’m going to tell you, it’s transitioning or believing one can transition into another gender and then taking all the drugs that are given to you by psychologists, psychiatrists, and doctors promising you that you can transition. You can’t transition! You’re just a transvestite! You’re into weird shit such as dressing up like member of the other sex. And that’s where you have to draw the line. You’re not actually a member of the other sex, and no amount of drugs or surgery is going to get you there. That’s just reality. You’re born as you are, and you deal with it.

 

[58:01]

 

This person couldn’t deal with it, and so they became an axe murderer. The person over in Nashville couldn’t deal with it, so they became a child killer, shooting children they didn’t know in a public Christian school.

 

Obviously, I’m appalled. I’ll just wrap it up. I’m appalled by the fact that no one’s connecting the dots. That little old me, a working class guy down in the suburbs with a YouTube account and a shitty camera and laptop, has got to try to point this out to people, because no one on that television has their guts to tell the truth that I’m telling you right now! Not Andrew Bolt, not all those so-called Conservatives. Not Pauline Hanson. No one will say it because it’ll all be cancelled and they’ll lose their comfortable Minister’s chair or place on what do they call it? Position on Sky News, comfortably sponsored by Qantas.

 

These people, all they care about is maintaining their salary, keeping the money flowing in, keeping their fifth car in the shed and not making waves. It’s a joke, man! It’s sick. It’s twisted. It’s a selfish culture! But I suppose that’s why we run this show, to do the best to get the truth out there to people.

 

Joel Davis: The response to this was really interesting. Because apparently the original news reporting of the mass shooting referred to the individual, the shooter, as a transgender man, or a transgender woman, or just said the wrong particular terminology. So then there was this big uproar that they “misgendered the killer”, and so they had to issue an apology for misgendering this murderer.

 

Blair Cottrell: What, misgendering a kid killer? They didn’t call the kid killer what the kid killer wanted to be called, so they had to apologize!

 

Joel Davis: Yeah.

 

And then there were all these calls saying:

 

“Oh, we can’t be using this. This is just a lone, crazy person. This has nothing to do with transgenderism. They’re just they’re just acting out!”

 

Now, if they were a White person, if they were, like, a White nationalist or something, and they engaged in a heinous act like this, then it would be all about their ideology. Right? Let’s say the person did the act, and it didn’t actually have anything to do with the ideology, but they grabbed their computer and saw that they used to post on 4Chan or something, that would make it all about White nationalist terrorism!

 

Blair Cottrell: You can use a recent example in Australia. Look at the Train family incident, where those police officers were shot by a couple of people out in the Woods who were into conspiracies and thought the police were coming there to murder them. It took a couple of months, but that got declared a “Christian terror attack”. How the hell is that a Christian terror attack? And who came to that conclusion and as a result of what?

 

[1:00:54]

 

A couple of people out in the bush get a bit paranoid and open fire on cops? That’s a “Christian terror attack”. But you got transvestites killing people at random. It doesn’t just happen once. As I just explained, there’s other cases around the world, but it’s all hushed up and struck under the rug, but no dots are ever connected, and no one ever says:

 

“Oh, hang on, there’s a problem here. There’s a problem with this community. There’s a problem with the kind of drugs these people are on. We need to look into this.”

 

You’re right. There’s plenty of examples, and it’s pretty much impossible to deny.

 

Joel Davis: Yeah, that was the wrong this one. Yeah.

 

So this tweet here I thought was really encapsulates it. I don’t know who this Chris Murphy guy is. Some US Senator from Connecticut:

 

“Some of the things being said about trans people on this platform tonight are so vile.”

 

And so this guy Lefty Crypto:

 

“Rest in peace, Norm McDonald.”

 

I don’t know if, you know, who Norm McDonald is, Blair, but he was a comedian, a really good one, probably one of the greatest comedians of all time, in my opinion. He died, I think, in 2021. It was a couple of years back that he passed away. But he’s a legend, and he was kind of a conservative, Right-wing kind of guy doing comedy. So great comedian. Love his stuff. If you don’t know about Norm McDonald, you got to go do some research and watch some of the classic Norm McDonald videos on YouTube.

 

But anyway, this classic tweet from Norm McDonald back during the, you know, when ISIS was terrorizing and, you know, Muslim terrorism was the the biggest deal. This is, I don’t know, 2016, 2015 or something. He tweeted this:

 

“What terrifies me is if ISIS were to detonate a nuclear device and kill 50 million Americans, imagine the backlash against peaceful Muslims?”

 

And that’s basically the same situation as the Left today about this. It’s like:

 

“Don’t worry about the the Christian children who were murdered by this deranged transsexual. Worry about the poor trans people and how people are going to be more transphobic now because their kids have been murdered by one of these freaks!”

 

And there’s been so many. I’ve seen, like, people posting screenshots of Instagram posts, tweets, et cetera, from trans accounts celebrating the attack and saying, basically praising it, threatening to do more. That basically the transgender movement. There’s a radicalized portion of it that basically sees it’s existence as predicated upon the destruction of Christianity because it creates a value set that runs contrary to their ideology or whatever. And that rationalizes this kind of terrorism.

 

There’s going to be, I predict, unfortunately, there’s going to be more of this kind of thing. This is only the beginning.

 

Blair Cottrell: I hope not.

 

Joel Davis: This is downstream from the rhetoric. I saw the rhetoric start to pop up online about six months ago of describing trans-gendocide, because you have Conservatives in the United States, like Matt Walsh is one, and a few others, who are starting to push back kind of hard on the trans thing.

 

Matt Walsh cucks on Zionism because he gets paid by Ben Shapiro and won’t touch the Jewish question, but he goes hard on the trans thing because that’s within the Overton Window and a few others.

 

And so they started pushing hard.

 

And then the kind of trans defenders, they started describing it as a trans-genocide because they said:

 

“Oh, because you guys want to get rid of all trans people.”

 

Basically, people like Matt Walsh want them to transition back into what they actually are, want them to accept their real gender. But basically they say:

 

“This is a genocide because you want to wipe out an entire group of people.”

 

And so when they start using this kind of rhetoric like genocide, then it then creates a kind of radical response, which is people say:

 

“Well, I’m being genocided. I’ve got to go and kill the people genociding me! It’s a fight to the death, either us or them!”

 

And so this is a product of Left wing ideological kind of radicalization.

 

And so the media, the Left, all of them have blood on their hands for what’s happened in the situation based upon how they’ve been framing this issue for years.

 

[1:05:28]

 

Blair Cottrell: I don’t think they care. It’s Christian children and Christian people being shot, so they don’t care. They’re probably secretly happy about it.

 

Joel Davis: Of course. But it’s important to point this out because there’s a striking parallel with how they try to frame White nationalism. When they do it, it’s fine when we have an ideology. Our ideology isn’t anti-nature. Our ideology isn’t predicated upon mental illness. Our ideology is predicated upon we want to have our own country k. I mean, it’s such a basic demand. But apparently we are genocidal terrorists. While they genocide us. A real genocide, which is the destruction of the White race. But trying to treat the mental illness of trans people. This is the real genocide and this is totally justified. It’s crazy! It’s crazy. But it’s important to engage in the kind of wider discourse around this issue.

 

Another thing that I wanted to bring up, I saw people pushing like these conspiracy boomer conservative types trying to say this was a false flag. And the evidence that they put forward for this was on one of the CCTV Angles. Like the shoes look kind of different, but then when you kind of analyze it, it makes sense. It’s just like a highly pixelated camera and the light shining off the shoe in a certain way to look like it had a different design. But actually when you analyze the shoe, you can see that it’s the same shoe.

 

But anyway, this disinformation was all over Twitter. I saw millions and millions of hits on some of these conspiracy tweets. And it kind of raised, I think, an important analysis of sometimes the way that kind of pseudo conspiracy disinformation can be used to muddy the waters around issues like this. When a narrative is forming that the powers that be don’t like. Because it kind of just completely distracts you and it makes you go down dark alleys of like:

 

“Oh, was this a false flag?”

 

Like, no, it was just a crazy transgender person killing young Christian children because they were radicalized into an extreme Left wing ideology. That’s what it was. But they don’t want you to think that they want you to think it’s like a false flag attack by the government trying to, I don’t know, create a pretext for gun control or something.

 

And I think it’s a good example of how obviously some conspiracy theorized thing is legitimate. When you talk about 9/11, or various other issues which where there genuinely was a conspiracy. But even in those instances you see this with 9/11 conspiracy theories where the real evidence based kind of criticism of the official narrative is kind of conflated and muddied with all of these crazy ideas about how the planes were holograms.

 

[1:08:32]

 

Blair Cottrell: I’ve noticed that Hollywood does that in order to discredit a theory contradicting or claiming that there’s a conspiracy within government or the official narrative. They make fun of it by making it seem ridiculous. Like you’re talking about there. Like they’ll take something that probably is a conspiracy and probably is a cover up and they’ll put something into it, like:

 

“Oh, it’s the lizard people!”

 

Or it’s like the hollow Earth and stuff like that. And they’ll push it beyond the point where it’s believable for the average person or the average skeptic.

 

So then everyone kind of ends up or their aim is to get everyone to just disregard it as:

 

“Oh yeah, that’s just too crazy for me. That’s obviously not a conspiracy theory anymore.”

 

Right. I’ve noticed they do that in Hollywood. And they’ll do it with a popular Hollywood film, with Netflix movies and stuff. They’ll bring up something like, you and McGregor did it in Train Spotting 2. He was like giving a speech about all these different worldly affairs. And he said something like:

 

“And 9/11 never happened, and if it did, it was the jews!”

 

But he said it in such a way where it sounded so ridiculous. Who would possibly believe that, right?

 

So you’re supposed to listen to the him say that and roll your eyes and go:

 

“Oh yeah, just another conspiracy theory.”

 

There’s many examples of that with Hollywood flicks, I’ve noticed. The discrediting or downplaying legitimate theories and conspiracies by making them seem ridiculous.

 

[1:10:01]

 

Joel Davis: Yeah, no, I think that’s an important point. I think we saw this during Covid where there was like legitimately, there was a legitimate elite coordination for many elements of the overall Covid policy.

 

But then the zone of online discourse was flooded with some of the most insane stuff that was designed to kind of confuse people and get people arguing over silly, kind of going down these kind of side tracks into silly territories to get people away from dealing with the fundamental issue, to divide the people into opposing camps and so on.

 

And this is the thing, prior to the Internet kind of being the main way in which people receive their news, the powers of be were able to control the discourse through controlling the conventional mainstream media. They can’t do that anymore. So now to control the discourse, the easiest way to do it is to flood the information zone with so much disinformation that no uniform opposition narratives can emerge that’s coherent.

 

So something that you have to be kind of on watch for in general. And you see this, I think, with Alex Jones is a great example of this. He talks about the JFK assassination, he talks about 9/11, but he doesn’t talk about jewish involvement, he doesn’t talk about Israel. He talks about all this other stuff and just fills up the theory with all of this other nonsense to get you away from actually locking target upon the real culprits.

 

Blair Cottrell: A good way to navigate through that is to try not to get caught up in petty stuff and abstract sort of a theory, and always consider essentials fundamentals. Try to see the fundamental point that someone’s trying to make, and if what they’re doing kind of seems hearsay, or it’s based on a theory that’s just sprung out of their own brain and it’s taking you away from the fundamental point that you’re already trying to understand, that might be a good way to navigate that.

 

I tend to look for essential fundamental points. If I don’t see one, or I don’t see what someone’s saying ties back into an existing one that I’ve already kind of formed an understanding on, then I don’t really listen because it’s only going to conflate and confuse my understanding of what’s happening. So focus on fundamentals.

 

Joel Davis: Yeah, I think that’s important. And just be aware, because a lot of people who are in our thing, they think outside the box. So they don’t trust the government, they don’t trust the establishment for good reason.

 

And so they’re inclined to engage in speculation about there being nefarious and conspiratorial elements to the political process and to underlying key events. And that is legitimate. Obviously, it is legitimate to engage in this kind of speculation, theorizing, and so on, because there are conspiracies and the mainstream media does lie to you. But it’s important to take care, to think, well, just because someone appears to be anti-mainstream doesn’t mean that they’re necessarily my friend.

 

The intelligence services, there’s records that show this. They literally pose as conspiracy theorists to push disinfo, or they make memes and push disinfo online to undermine the kind of alternative viewpoint to make it seem crazy, make it seem ridiculous so that it alienates people who run up against establishment narratives.

 

But yeah.

 

Is there anything else you wanted to say about the trans issue?

 

[1:13:37]

 

Blair Cottrell: I had a good talk on that while you cut away for a bit there. I’m happy for you to keep streaming if you want, but is there any Superchats or comments that you want to hit? Because I’ve been pretty sick today, man, and I’m probably going to check out shortly because my guts still aren’t right. Need to sleep, recover. Is there any chats or anything to go through like that?

 

Joel Davis: Yeah, let me read. So I’ll look on Powerchat live. I believe there was one that I forgot to read out last week. So I’ll read that one out first. Just going to pull it up.

 

So this is from Dom S. He said:

 

“Are the occult practices of the global elites just larps brought on from boredom, or do they have access to information that normies don’t? Did Epstein really just have a temple to impress his pedo buddies, or is there something more at play here?”

 

What’s your take on this, Blair?

 

Blair Cottrell: I was just going through some comments of my own in my DM sorry, what was that one again? Just summarize that for me.

 

Joel Davis: I’ll read it again:

 

“Are the occult practices of the global elites just larps brought on from boredom? Or do they have access to information that normies, don’t? Did Epstein really have a temple just to impress his pedo buddies, or is there something more at play here?”

 

Blair Cottrell: Well, to me, the temple and that island, Epstein Island, it’s entirely possible.

 

But as I said previously, it’s important to approach these things with, or based on the presumption that you’re not sure of what the truth is so you entertain the possibility or any possibility that you come across, but you don’t necessarily believe or emotionally invest yourself into any of those possibilities, right? You need to be able to do that if you’re going to be someone of above average intelligence anyway, or able to just analyze things objectively.

 

But if you look at the Epstein Islander story, I’m not going to get into all the details because we’re on YouTube, but it serves a practical purpose, because if you can get these very influential, … What you want to do, right, if you’re a subversive, you’re looking to gain influence in a country that you don’t belong to. It’s not your country, it’s not your nation.

 

What you want to do is you want to engage people who are in that nation who are already very influential, people that make movies, people that host popular radio shows, people that work in banks, people that own schools and churches and stuff like that. And you want to look for those sorts of people who kind of have big egos. The kind of people where you tell them they’re really good and really smart and you can see it, they lap it up. Also, people who are a little bit naive, the sort of people who will kind of believe anything, believe in ideas of their own greatness ego and naivety, right?

 

[1:16:39]

 

So you identify those people and then you kind of rope them into your club or you help to bring them under your influence. And the Epstein Island thing, it serves practical purpose for someone trying to gain influence over members of specific nations, influential members of nations, actors, politicians, movie makers and so forth. Because once you get these people in some sort of sex club where they’re engaging in illegal sexual activities, when you’ve got them by blackmail, they basically have to stay true to your club and they have to bite their tongues about what’s really going on and what powers or influences they might really serve, because it can be made known to everybody what they’ve done on that island. Right?

 

So it’s a practical blackmail method. It’s a very ruthless one, but it’s effective! And it would be effective if it was true, right?

 

So that’s the way I look at it. I’m like, well, what practical purpose would that serve? Does it have a practical purpose? Usually if there’s some sort of conspiracy or theory or some sort of information like that going around, you got to ask yourself like:

 

“Well, is that practical? Who stands to benefit from that? Does someone stand to benefit and how do they stand to benefit? Is it in a big way?”

 

If it is, then the theory is probably true, or you have more reason to suspect that it might be true.

 

I went on a bit of a tangent there, but that’s my overall take. What do you think, Joel?

 

Joel Davis: I do believe that demonic possession and this kind of thing is real. Based upon my personal experiences. And just thinking about motivations for some of the most, like, dark and depraved and heinous things that people do. I think, that can only really be explained by nefarious forces within the unconscious mind, within the subconscious mind and so on, kind of impacting people.

 

Exactly what metaphysics you want to use to explain that? I’m not going to go into some speculative theory there. I don’t really understand. I don’t really have, like, a fully formed view of this type of stuff. And if I go into what I do think about it metaphysically, people are going to get bored and they’re going to log off because, …

 

[1:19:14]

 

Blair Cottrell: I’ll provide an example for what you’re talking about. You go to a suburban train station in Australia and what are you going to see? You’re going to see obnoxious people, semi-homeless, using a combination of drugs, and they might yell out to you, they might jump in front of you, they might try to get your attention. They might try to rattle you somehow when you walk past these people.

 

And why do they do that? Well, I’ve always seen these people as “imp spirits”. And what’s an imp spirit? An imp is kind of like a sprite, or a low level demon that just wants to cause trouble. They’ll harm you if they can, but that’s not really what they want. They mostly just want to get a rise out of you or they want to cause trouble. Because you got to ask yourself what would compel a human being to just try to annoy another human being they don’t even know or try to get a rise out of them or to try to anger them. Right. That’s kind of like it’s unnatural behaviour.

 

And these people who do a lot of drinking, take a lot of drugs and don’t really care about anything in life that sort of exposure to drugs and alcohol, it’s entirely possible that it opens up their spirit to being occupied by something, some other worldly force. And I think drugs can do that it’s entirely possible. Like I said, I don’t really believe in anything. This is just a passing thought and theory that’s occurred to me.

 

But when I’ve observed objectively the behaviour of these drug addicts at train stations, I can’t think of anything but little imp, sprite spirits jumping around trying to annoy and piss everybody off!

 

And obviously there’s different types of demons. Probably some are much more dangerous and twisted than others. The imps are probably less dangerous, and you don’t need to worry about them so much. They’re more just annoying. But that’s just one example of what you’re talking about, I guess.

 

Joel Davis: Yeah, but I think when thinking about the what could naturally compel someone to rape three year old children or whatever? It doesn’t really make sense to me without thinking in terms of like, demonic possession or these people who are getting their dicks chopped off and dressing up as women and so on. It’s just so hard to empathize with any kind of organic, physiological, conventional explanation for any of this stuff.

 

Additionally, if you study the occult, or if you study Talmudic Judaism, you will find they engage in all kinds of crazy and kooky rituals, sacrifices. They try to communicate with entities. Whether you believe those entities exist or not. These people believe that they exist, and they do rituals to try and interact with them in various ways. And this is actually a human universal. Like atheism is a very modern invention. Pretty much all cultures ever have notions of spirits of entities that they interact with through various rituals. That’s true. It’s a universal human truth, only kind of modern secular society doesn’t believe in that stuff. It’s a very new thing.

 

So the question is, why did human beings believe it for hundreds of thousands of years?

 

[1:22:21]

 

Blair Cottrell: Sorry, I wouldn’t say that most people don’t believe it. Most people just don’t understand it. And I myself don’t understand it. Because I don’t think if these things do exist, I don’t think they exist on our plane. They don’t exist in the way we exist, and therefore we don’t understand them. It’s difficult for us to understand them. It’s probably a more accurate way to explain it, but not necessarily. People don’t spend their days thinking about demons and otherworldly spirits. Right? But I don’t think it’s because they don’t believe it. It’s just that it’s not understandable to them.

 

Joel Davis: Yeah, I think there’s more to the temples and the occult practices and so on of elites than simply they’re just pedos. And it’s all a larp.

 

And also, I think people use the kind of ritual iconography and the ritual practices and so on to activate the sense of mystique in people, to manipulate them as well.

 

So I think that’s definitely an element think about. Like the Freemasons and so on, and how all the kind of, … If you research Freemasonry and all the rituals that you do to go through the phases and so on, it’s about creating mystique. It’s about creating this sense that there is some secret knowledge that they hold and some access to some secret force that they have, which you don’t. And you need to kind of essentially be psychologically manipulated and subordinated to these people in order to kind of gain access to that power and that knowledge.

 

And I think that’s a key kind of underlying component to elite organizations.

 

Blair Cottrell: They protect not knowledge itself, but interpretations of reality.

 

For example, the Freemason understanding of language is a method for conforming the external world to one’s inner will. What that means is when you speak words, you don’t speak words because those words express what you feel or because you’re trying to effectively communicate with somebody. Barter, trade. You’re speaking to reach an outcome that you desire. You’re trying to get produce a result in the other people around you and consequently, in the world around you. You’re trying to conform the external world to your inner will with the words you speak.

 

What I mean is, you have to understand that the Freemasons think of words as magic and as spells, and it’s woven into our culture, actually. And this is a subject I’ll talk about in great detail in one of my own streams, because it’s something that is extremely fascinating. Words have a magical effect on people because they change our perspective of reality and they can shape how we understand things.

 

[1:25:33]

 

Even the language that we understand has places certain limitations and boundaries on how well we can understand things. Which is why they say, control the language, control the people, right?

 

But to demonstrate how words might have magical effect. If you watching this now, just are in a quiet place and you’re clear of any distractions. And I was to say to you:

 

“Crystal clear lake, rippling like blue velvet, behind which green grassy hills, and on the lake in front of you, a white duck.”

 

Now, if you’re paying attention, images are appearing in your mind of a lake, green hills and a duck. But all I’m doing is spitting noise from behind my teeth. I’m just humming and aahing and spitting noise out. And that’s causing you to think of images in your head. And that, my friends, is an example of magic. And magic has many different expressions and forms.

 

But as I said, it’s woven into our culture. And an example of that is when you are summoned to appear before a magistrate, right? That’s how we a magistrate is low level of court in Australia, and a magistrate is a lower level judge. The magistrates wear their robes and they summon you to appear. And what they do, the way they see it from their perspective, is they mail out a piece of paper with some symbols and shapes on it. And that official little stamp of theirs. That goes to your letterbox, and it says that you must go to that location, that courthouse, on that date and time. You must appear before them on that date and time.

 

So all they do is wiggle that little series of symbols on the paper and whizz that paper away into the ether. And then on that date and time, as if by magic, you appear before them, right? Because you understand the language, you respect the power, whatever it is, you can explain it however you want. But the way they see it is as if by magic, you’ve appeared before them. That’s why we spell words with letters. Words are spelled, they are spells.

 

And that’s how it’s understood by certain classes of people like the Freemasons. That’s why you need to understand they don’t speak because they’re trying to explain something to you. They’re speaking to try to get you to think what they want you to think. They’re speaking to try to get you to see what they want you to see. That’s why they’re speaking. It’s for a purpose, to get what they want from you! That’s how they’re trained. That’s how they train each other.

 

I’ll get into other various forms of magic. Like in one of my own streams. Like I said, this fascinates me personally. We’ve taken that Superchat comment on a deep rabbit hole.

 

[1:28:34]

 

Joel Davis: But this gets into a lot of what we do is just looking at the news, looking at the way in which information is presented about politics with critical eyes and then analyzing, kind of like deconstructing it and imposing a new way of thinking about it. This is a good example here. Follow this account by the way, Patrick Basteman, a friend of mine from Twitter. He’s not an Australian, but I think he spent some time here because he seems to be sympathetic to Australian issues and posts about them frequently. I think he might be an American, though.

 

Anyway, he said:

 

“I love how they use two White nurses to illustrate this 650,000 Chinese and Indians..”

 

And so here’s the Daily Mail. Australia:

 

“Australia to be hit by record population explosion, blah, blah, blah.”

 

And then look at the images they use. These are two White nurses because:

 

“There’s a skill shortage!”

 

So we need to bring in White nurses like this. Now, if we’re bringing in White nurses from the UK, okay, this would be accurate. But we know that that’s not actually what this is about, whatsoever.

 

And so it’s another example of just kind of like subtle ways they present things to make ideas kind of seem different than what they really are. And so much of what we do is just simply calling out this bullshit and asserting a different narrative, a different framing and maintaining a critical and piercing stance towards these issues so that a consciousness can be maintained in the community, in our society which can stand against these forces that are constantly trying to reframe words.

 

We talked about the word “nation” earlier and then we got distracted. But we were talking about the word “nation” earlier and how the word nation traditionally meant the same thing essentially as race. People would talk of the “British race” and the “British nation” in one and the same with one kind of one in the same sense as one another. I talked about how in Chinese the word is the same. I think “minzu”, I don’t know if I’m pronouncing it correctly is the word that I think refers to nation and race in the Chinese language.

 

But how in English “nation” now nation basically means a bunch of people in a territory that are citizens to the same government. It doesn’t mean “a people”.

 

And this is completely contrary to what nation traditionally meant because it traditionally meant came from the Latin term “natio”, meaning of the same birth, similar root word to a word like “natal” or the word “natural”.

 

And you can see this in Herodotus. Herodotus was an ancient Greek historian and he covered the wars with the Persians.

 

And so in ancient Greece, there wasn’t like one Greek empire. You had the Athenians, you had the Spartans and various other city states that had their own militaries. And when they they had rivalries, like, they would go to war with each other all the time. But when they had to kind of unite to fight the Spartans. Herodotus talks about this, about what was rationale uniting against the Spartans. And you can find directly in Herodotus an explanation that we are all of the Greek nation. They said:

 

“We all have the same religion, we are of the same birth, we are brothers and cousins. And so our people, our way of life, we must unite to defend against these foreigners, the Persians.”

 

[1:32:18]

 

And so you see this ancient form of nationalism that has nothing to do with the form that the state takes, which shows that the nation exists independently of the state. You can have many states to one nation, or you can have one state with many nations within it.

 

And so, yeah, the way that this word is perverted. We talked about the way that the word “democracy” is perverted. How? Now, democracy, when people talk about our democracy, particularly, you hear this in American political discourse, what they usually mean by “our democracy” is diversity, basically, gay marriage, anti-racism everyone human rights, so to speak. Diversity and inclusion. This is what our democracy apparently means.

 

But that’s not what democracy actually means at all. You can go back to the ancients, to Aristotle, to St. Thomas Aquinas and so on.

 

They all understood that when you have foreigners in your country, they don’t have loyalty to your nation, and so they shouldn’t be included in the political process. So diversity and inclusion are anti-democratic, including people who aren’t of you, prevents the capacity for your people to rule themselves.

 

And that’s why the elites, whoever they may be, import them. Because it dilutes our power. And now that’s why they describe, quote, unquote:

 

“Populism”

I talked about this before, but why they described quote, unquote:

 

“populism”

 

as a threat to “democracy”. What is populism? It’s just the people exercising their will, basically being appealed to directly by elites, by political leaders, without basically adhering to the ideology of elite institutions.

 

So when someone stands up there and goes against the consensus on immigration, on gay rights, on climate change, blah, blah, blah, that’s called “populism”, because they aren’t doing what the universities and the media, they don’t say what the universities and the media and so on want them to say. But isn’t that democracy? Isn’t appealing to isn’t populism what democracy would really be?

 

So, you know, in light of this, like looking at things like, as I mentioned, the Chinese, which are called the anti-democratic authoritarian regime, they’re more Democratic than us. They’re not perfect. I’m not endorsing everything about Chinese system, but it’s more Democratic than our system, because at least they. Have a concept of who the Chinese people are the Third Reich is way more Democratic. That’s a real expression of democracy. This idea of the volk and their interests, their struggle being definitive of the state and what the state is supposed to stand for, that’s Democratic.

 

That’s real democracy, as opposed to everyone gets to vote. And we’re going to get a bunch of gives votes to stoners who are only voting because they’re going to get fined $100 if they don’t show up, and then they cast a vote for the Dude Weed Party. That’s not democracy, that’s retarded!

 

[1:35:30]

 

So, yeah, anyway, I see Blair had to kind of duck off, so I might as well also kind of bring the stream to a close. No one sent any Superchats, so there’s nothing really to read out. I hope you enjoyed the show.

 

If you aren’t subscribed, subscribe, hit the subscribe button right now, please, because we want to build this channel up. It will really help us out if you subscribe. If you share the link around, particularly when we go live next week and so on, to help us build up this YouTube, because obviously we’re just starting out on YouTube and it’d be nice to be able to make the most of this. Because if we’re on this platform, we can reach new audiences. That being on Odyssey and Cozy and so on, we’re kind of preaching to the choir. You’re only on there if you already kind of know us.

 

And also, by the way, I’m going to stream on my YouTube channel, joeldavis is one word, is in my YouTube channel on Monday, Australian time, probably in the afternoon, early afternoon perhaps. So watch out for that. I’ll be streaming live and obviously we’re back here Thursday night next week.

 

So, yeah, I’ll check just in case anyone sent a late Superchat. I don’t want to miss anyone. We read earlier was actually from last week. So it says here from Cody’s Cigar:

 

“Blair, you get me all fired up talking about transsexual degenerates. People need to be angry about this.

 

So thank you. And Joel also, thank you..”

 

Cheers. I will say about the trans issue, it is obviously 100% legitimate to go hard on the trans issue. It is a serious issue. But I do feel as though we have to also point out that it’s one issue where Conservatives feel safe to go hard. They go hard on the trans issue because it’s still within the Overton window to go hard on the trans issue for now.

 

But they won’t touch gay marriage, they won’t touch immigration, they won’t touch Zionists occupy our government. They won’t touch these things. Because number one, they’re getting paid by Zionists and they don’t want the media to attack them, getting paid by business lobby groups that want more immigration.

 

All these Right-wing parties are filled with homosexuals, so they won’t touch those issues. But they’ll touch the trans issue. And we deserve more. Like, Latham earlier, he said this one base thing in response to someone that was, quote, unquote:

 

“Homophobic.”

 

Or whatever, but it’s like, okay, but you’re still filling your party with brown people. You’re still basically signing on to filling our country with brown people. It’s not good enough!

 

[1:38:21]

 

So we have to make sure that we maintain that framing and recognize what issues are safe, what issues aren’t safe, and hold the feet to the fire on the stuff they won’t talk about. And yeah, criticizing, I think criticizing One Nation, if you’re a nationalist movement in Australia, is I think, … That’s why I always post about them on Telegram, and we cover stuff they do on the show all the time whenever they say anything that I don’t like. Because criticizing One Nation is vital to a nationalist in Australia, because One Nation is supposed to be the kind of conventional mainstream representation of:

 

“If you’re a nationalist, this is what you have to support.”

 

Obviously, it’s complete bullshit! Right? It’s not real nationalism by any stretch of the imagination. That’s why it needs to be attacked. Because the people who do feel sympathetic towards One Nation in the community, those are the people that could be on our side. And so providing a Right-wing critique of One Nation is so important to present to the One Nation’s base, to kind of bring them into a more radical position.

 

So that’s why, even though it might get a bit boring for some of you, that’s why we have to keep hammering One Nation, week in, week out and turn the pressure up to the maximum.

 

But yeah, anyway, hope you guys enjoyed the show. Thanks for tuning in and we’ll see you next week.

 

[1:39:44]

 

END

top

 

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

 

YouTube Comments

top

(Comments as of Sat, Apr 29, 2023 = 52)

@whatda7705
3 weeks ago
How can you not love these guys. Great show. Greetings from Germany
45

@anniew4105
3 weeks ago
Great stream Joel & Blair! Have you ever done a deep dive into the compulsory voting? To me, it seems very obvious that it’s a way to keep our people out of power.
13

1 reply

@proudone2480
3 weeks ago
Hi lads thanks for the show tonight
Hero’s 🇦🇺
19

@mitch6528
3 weeks ago
Epic show lads…..as always!! Much respect from England. Keep up the good work boys. 👌
7

@angelahinagates2971
3 weeks ago
You guys are really intelligent , it’s so refreshing ….feel your good hearts too and the heart has lots of cerebral cells. The brain grows out of the heart in utero
6

@AdvancetheflagofDixie
3 weeks ago
Great show boys 👌🏼
14

@thomassinclair731
3 weeks ago
Great and focused discussion! Here’s to the new YouTube channel. Greetings from America 👍👍👍
2

@traddad9172
3 weeks ago
Glad to see you on YouTube- Many new eyes & minds could gain a fresh perspective💪✅️
4

@JonSnowofWinterfell21
3 weeks ago
Love the show guys keep it up!
7

@pqtpat7734
3 weeks ago
Hell yah boys. Love to see it 🤝
8

@biarkey
3 weeks ago
Cheers lads, thank you very much!
3

@bellissimo999
2 weeks ago (edited)
Sucks that not enough shows on the far right as educational yet laid back and informal as this one. These streams are something special
1

@hamish4659
3 weeks ago
Great episode lads
4

@ThePoopyboy11
3 weeks ago
Just found this channel. Will follow you here, but you should repost these youtube videos to Odysee as well after they are done. More views
+ preserves them in case youtube deletes the channel.
3

@zackedwards6297
3 weeks ago
Let’s go!
9

@cheebamonger6742
2 weeks ago
Thank you lads. Very based.
2

@bennconner1195
3 weeks ago
I legitimately thought those conspiracies were a joke or a troll when I saw them on Twitter.
1

@scoso1313
3 weeks ago
Great show
3

@travv88
3 weeks ago
Good show.
6

@73donjohn
6 days ago
I tried NAC twice, both times my skin felt like it was severely sunburned and my face swelled up, It’s not good for everyone

@KipWatson-rl4xz
3 weeks ago
NAC is also a Zinc ionophore and helps the zinc get into your cells.

@user-jp4ci5ny3v
3 weeks ago
Heck yeah boys
7

@ausniannative3055
3 weeks ago
Lol. My boomer friend is down with Latham but not so much Hanson, will be interesting what they think
1

@celineferdinand6944
3 weeks ago
I wonder how long this YouTube channel is going to last?
1

@drewperrot2515
3 weeks ago
Hahah Blair mungin’ his dinner on the show
4

1 reply

@anniew4105
3 weeks ago
Burger ❤
1

@ZazzlesTheGubernator
3 weeks ago
Power couple.
2

@baileywebb1
3 weeks ago
You can upload to your Odysee accounts automatically from youtube too guys
2

@richard3470
3 weeks ago
We will not be replaced lads

@BrahUAware
3 weeks ago
What up boyos
2

@trickywoo5165
3 weeks ago
That’s not Blair HuWhite! 🤭

@dfueidj
3 weeks ago
Hello from a German zoomer
1

@athejbaka7084
3 weeks ago
W show

@am1296
2 weeks ago
soon move to rumble so you won’t be censored

@lornemalvo2286
2 weeks ago
How many days before that channel get suspended lol
1

@bobfred159
3 weeks ago
Based Latham
8

@brucebogtrotter3430
3 weeks ago
Great show

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

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

Mark Collett — The Plot to Flood Europe with 200 Million Africans — TRANSCRIPT

Mark Collett — The jewish Question Explained in Four Minutes — TRANSCRIPT

 

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

PDF Download

top

 

• Total words in post = 16,947
• Total words in transcript = 16.303
• Total images = xx
• 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:

Version 1: Sat, Apr 29, 2023 — Published post. Includes YouTube comments (52).