James Costello: Now for the up and coming star of the pro-White cause, specializing in political philosophy, he’s made waves on YouTube, Substack, Twitter and Cozy TV. The YouTube channel The Joel and Blair Show has been a big success until it was recently nuked by “jewTube”, whatever that means!

 

Known for his insightful, thought provoking, no nonsense takes, an identitarian commentator and activist with a focus on White advocacy and political strategy, he’s a leading voice in the Australian White nationalist movement. Here to discuss the distinction between activist and electoralist politics and why this distinction is so important for White Identity Politics, please welcome, all the way from Australia, the amazing Joel Davis!

 

[applause]

 

Joel Davis: Just want to say thanks for inviting me out. It’s great to be here. Obviously, I’m an Australian, but this is my ancestral homeland, so the struggle here means a lot to me. It means more than anywhere else in the world except Australia, frankly, for obvious reasons.

 

So it’s great to be here, it’s great to meet all of you. I’ve met some of you before, but it’s just great to have a whole bunch of “racist” Anglos in a room together.

 

[applause]

 

But yeah, today it’s going to be preaching to the choir. You pretty much already kind of get it, otherwise you wouldn’t be here.

 

But nevertheless, all the speeches have basically been saying stuff we already believe, so mine will as well. It’s just a good excuse, I guess, to get everyone in a room. But there’s, I don’t know, maybe some ideas here that might be useful to people.

 

So basically, what I’m just going to discuss is a basic collection of few ideas around political strategy that have evolved for me in my time, the last past few years. Engaging a lot with White nationalist leaders from around the world, kind of analyzing problems in different countries, discussing ideas with leaders. So hopefully you get something out of this.

 

The basic idea is that I think there’s two core modes that you could really break mass politics down into. You could say there’s “activism” and “electoralism”. And activism is fundamentally about changing what’s popular, whereas electoralism is about leveraging what’s popular, I would say. And by popularity, I mean it’s not just opinion polls. We had a recent opinion poll, I think from Germany that said something like 70% to 80% of Germans are against mass immigration.

 

But if you look at the parties these people vote for, I mean, this is including people who vote for Leftist parties, who vote for centrist parties. If you’re against mass immigration, why aren’t you at least voting for the Alternative für Deutschland [AfD], the only party that’s actually against it in Germany?

 

So it’s like, yes, people will tick boxes on opinion polls that they’re against something, but they aren’t actually, politically, conscious of even a very basic step of voting for the correct party to align with your belief. Or perhaps they care about mass immigration, but they care more about, I don’t know, getting their taxes down or I don’t even know what goes through people’s heads.

 

The masses are frankly, whilst often sympathetic to our talking points, politically retarded! [audience stirs] So popularity is really, … You don’t have to clap that, it’s horrifying! [laughter] But popularity you should really conceive of it more in terms of a kind of psycho-social pressure system.

 

[04:16]

 

So if you are operating in professional politics, that pressure system is upon you. It isn’t just what opinion polls say. In Australia, they do opinion polls all the time about, does Australia need more people? And 70%, 80% say:

 

“No, we don’t need more people!”

 

But all the major parties keep bringing in more people. Why? Because there is a pressure system. The mass media, all the interest groups behind the mass media, the lobby groups, they represent, the word “racist” and so on, that creates a condition whereby you can get away with going against public opinion. And it’s very difficult to stand with positive public opinion.

 

Like if you stand against mass immigration, you’re an “extremist”, even though three quarters of the country agree with you according to every opinion poll.

 

So activism is not just about changing how opinion polls occur, but changing how that pressure system functions, I would say.

 

And an organisation like Patriotic Alternative, obviously there’s aspirations to engage in electoral politics. I’m not saying engaging in electoral politics is bad. But fundamentally what you guys are doing, from what I can see, is you’re an activist organisation that has aspirations to change hearts and minds, to change the way people talk about these issues, the way people think about these issues, not just win an election.

 

There was a recent book that was written by an Italian guy, Guido Taietti. I didn’t read the book because it hasn’t been translated into English, it’s only in Italian. There was a few reviews and a podcast that was done. There was a review in the Unz Review, I think, and in Counter-Currents, and there was a podcast that was done by someone with him where they were speaking English that Counter-Currents put out. And had some interesting ideas, a lot of ideas that I share.

 

A guy from CasaPound, if you guys have heard of that organisation. And he identified, … There’s kind of two main fundamental relationships in contemporary political communication. And this kind of corresponds to my activist-electoralist distinction. One is you’ve got the kind of activist-sympathizer relationship and then you’ve got the kind of political professional voter relationship.

 

Now, voters are a low attention span, low information, low agency market, essentially that’s easily manipulated by the kind of institutionalised forces of professional politics, obviously through the media. But there’s this kind of subterranean architecture, obviously, of NGOs, think tanks, foundations and so on, that feed into the media, that condition their talking points and align them with policy agendas and so on, that you can’t really mobilise voters against this very successfully because it’s too complex, basically, just as I mentioned before about these German opinion polls.

 

[07:00]

 

And even when you can mobilise voters against it, when you have a, quote, unquote, “populist movement” we’ve seen this with Trumpism in the United States. It’s so ideologically vapid because it becomes this kind of personalised attachment:

 

“I just like Trump because I’ve got these vague sentiments basically that he’s standing up for Americans!”

 

But then that kind of ideological vapidity can be just filled in by these conservative establishments, fake opposition groups, to corral the agenda into safe avenues, and so on. And it doesn’t really materialise in any kind of meaningful change.

 

And so working within this professional politician-voter relationship is just very difficult unless you have billions of dollars. We just simply don’t have those resources.

 

The activist-sympathizer relationship, however, is something that we can get a lot more traction with. And in the activist-sympathizer relationship, it’s not about trying to win elections. It’s about trying to change the terms under which the political discourse within which elections are even conducted are set. So we can look at models for this.

 

Like, for example, feminism. There’s no feminist party that’s running any of our countries that won 51% of the vote and formed a government.

 

But obviously feminism has won! It’s pretty much dominating the institutions of every major Western country, all the major political parties. That’s an activist movement. It didn’t try to go out and win elections and form a feminist political movement that would contest for local council districts or something. It formed an organised activist pressure movement that was able to kind of plug itself into the political establishment and change the discourse around women’s rights or whatever. And we’ve seen the results. And the same model you can see with environmentalism, with gay rights, et cetera.

 

And I think this is the kind of model that we should look to more when thinking about who we are and what we’re doing as White advocates.

 

So I think as well, another idea that I think is quite useful for kind of understanding what we’re doing here and how to kind of stay the course is what I call “having a one dimensional framing”, or a “one dimensional politics”, which in a nutshell is reducing politics to a “pro-White, anti-White polarity”. Trying to analyze every issue through the lens of race. A kind of race reductionism. Marxists talk about class reductionism. Everything is really about proletariat versus bourgeoisie or whatever. We should not obviously not be like Marxists, but we should do the same thing, but with race, I believe, break every issue down.

 

[09:47]

 

So the gentleman earlier was speaking about climate change and about how climate change is basically just a way to transfer resources from White countries to non-White countries, frankly. That’s what the policies actually are. Whatever your position is on climate change, we should talk about it like that rather than simply talking about climate change is fake and you got all these boomer conservatives railing against it, but no one kind of points out the elephant in the room, which is that it’s very clearly an anti-White agenda!

 

[applause]

 

And this is clear. I think also this polarity, we need to map it on to the Left-Right distinction. A lot of people, myself included, would describe themselves at one point or another as a Third Positionist. We got to transcend the Left-Right distinction and so on.

 

I think this kind of thinking, what I call “ideological hipsterism”, which I’ve been as guilty of as anyone in the past, is a waste of energy and a waste of time! And it just confuses people. We know voters are that stupid, the masses are that stupid that the majority of Germans are against mass immigration, yet, as I said, they can’t even select the right party to vote for!

 

Going on about Third Positionism and bickering about what’s real “fascism” or something. It might be intellectually edifying, but it’s not actually going to get anywhere! We need to have an approach that cuts through the bullshit – in an intellectually defensible way, nevertheless – that can map onto the real polarisation that people feel every day, which is a Left-Right polarisation. Particularly, I think, in the United States and the Anglo-sphere because we have these two party systems. I’ve noticed this in Australia especially since Covid this kind of social mapping of Leftists and Right-wingers that didn’t really exist ten years ago, where social groups are getting split apart because people that are more conservative, whatever that means, can’t handle being around Leftists anymore and vice versa.

 

And this is a good thing, because it’s clear that the Left’s number one priority is the anti-White agenda. There’s literally no concern that they have that they won’t immediately toss or compromise if it conflicts with their anti-White goals. You saw this with Covid in the United States:

 

“Covid’s this big problem! We’ve got a lockdown! Everyone don’t go in public, but, you know, Black Lives Matter want to do marches now because George Floyd had a drug overdose. So now, fuck that! Everyone in the streets! The real public health crisis is racism!”

 

We see this on so many issues:

 

“Environmentalism is really bad! Global warming, we’ve got too many emissions. Let’s just import another million Pakistanis that are going to burn as much coal as possible when they get here because their carbon footprint doesn’t matter because if you think it does, you’re a racist!”

 

Feminism:

 

“There’s a rape culture! Let’s import a bunch of Pakistani rape gangs!”

 

And you guys get the message. So that polarity already exists.

 

[12:46]

 

And another hot take that I want to give you is that the Left are the real racists! But not in the way that Dinesh D’Souza describes it, in the sense that the Left hate White people, obviously, right, they are actually racist. Where conservatives they’re not racist. That’s the problem! I wish the Right were the real racists! That’s our job is to make that happen!

 

[applause]

 

And that’s key because we’re not really going to be able to convert Leftists. Leftists are already aware of race. They’re fully aware of race and they’ve chosen the other side. Whereas conservatives are sleepwalking through reality! Literally, they are colour-blind. And they can’t perceive reality as a result of it because there’s these mental blocks put in the heads of so many people through the way that people have been conditioned by our culture.

 

Our job is to open their eyes to race. Once you see it, you see it everywhere then all of a sudden the political landscape makes sense. And if someone is already identifying on the Right, unless it’s because they have an Asian girlfriend or wife or something or whatever, that’s really holding them back from embracing racial identitarianism.

 

If it’s a normal White person who sees themselves as Right-wing and they’re sick of the tranny nonsense and all the immigrants and so on, once they see it, they can’t un-see it. And then they’re on our side. And that’s the activist-sympathizer relationship. Our job is developing a larger and larger cadre of sympathizers that will then permeate social institutions.

 

And that’s how you get real change, because that’s what the Left did. The Left didn’t win opinion polls. They didn’t get one data:

 

“51% of the population now thinks that transgenderism is real and not a mental illness. Now we can do the trans agenda!”

 

No! They knew that their ideas were unpopular but they built a cadre of sympathizers with a focused and direct ideology. And look where that’s got them.

 

So I think that needs to be the central focus of what we’re doing, and I think it already is for the people in this room, largely from what I can tell. But I think it’s an important thing to maintain in our minds and to talk about clearly to defend what we’re doing here.

 

So the other component of this is I think our message to the broadly self identified Right is that we are the only real, true foundational opposition to the Leftist paradigm and Leftists in general, Leftist power. And they make it clear Leftists do our job for us. They identify us as their main enemy. And they make it very clear what they stand for.

 

And so someone’s already agreeing that:

 

“Well man! These Lefties and their agenda it’s horrible what they’re doing!”

 

It’s not that much of a leap to say:

 

“Okay, well, we are the only real opposition so what do you want? Do you want total victory over them!”

 

Well, that’s only going to occur if we are elevated. Teaching the Right-wing to stop canceling people for being too Right-wing basically is a large portion of our job.

 

[15:46]

 

And you can already see this process starting to gradually occur, I think across the Anglo-sphere in conservative media world, where there’s more and more acquiescence to a lot of racial talking points and shifting tides in the discourse because of the work that’s been done since 2015, the emergence of the Alt-Right to today.

 

I think we need to humanise a lot of these people in the conservative movement. Some people get this kind of mentality that everybody in the entire conservative movement is some kind of agent that’s getting paid off by these networks of intelligence agencies. And, or, Mossad has a video of them, like raping a three year old! And they’ll never come around at any talking point or never make any adjustments to their position. And whilst we should hate them and we should call them out as fake opposition, I think this is a strategic misstep. Our pressure actually does tell, there’s a lot of people in the conservative movement who actually their minds can be changed and they can become more radical over time.

 

We should have, I think, faith in our capacity to transform the culture, not support the conservative Party, obviously. We’re in the kind of realm of activism here. More about changing attitudes, changing the Overton Window, so to speak, where it lands in the kind of Right-wing cultural space. I think that’s an area where we’re going to win regardless. Even if we do a bad job, we have so much momentum there it’s already happening, as Tony mentioned “our idea, its time has come”, and it’s somewhat inevitable.

 

But I think so much of our work is about accelerating that kind of transformation of the Right, the racializing of the Right.

 

Now, another few points to make is that focus and prioritisation, not mere agreement, really has to be the aim of the activists.

 

As I said, we can do opinion polls on the key issues that we care about and the people are with us, but they’re not focused! They don’t put it as the number one priority in their politics. They aren’t kind of convicted like the people in this room are around these issues.

 

And so, so much of what we’re doing is not just like winning them over to agreeing with us, but it is about radicalising them! About making them more angry! Making them more focused, making them more racist!

 

That’s really like the essence of what the activist is doing. Because what’s happening to our people, what’s happening to our race is really a “crisis of the will”.

 

[18:15]

 

The majority of our race is demoralised. It’s not as if it’s an intellectual thing and everyone has been ideologically convinced in this abstract way. They’ve heard all the arguments from Ben Shapiro, and they’re not interested in our movement. No, it’s based in these kind of more primal emotional states of fear, of, as I said, demoralisation, self hatred and so on. These mental blocks that are placed in this kind of pre rational state. And so much of what we’re doing is about energizing the will in our people to stand up!

 

And that’s why it’s so important to have, even if you guys might get demoralised sometimes when you do a demonstration and there’s 50 of you and there’s 200 Antifa – I’m not saying that’s happened, but I don’t know all the details. But I’ve been in experiences like that where I’ve gone to protest, like, a Drag Queen Story Hour and there’s ten of us and, like, 200 communists! And it feels like shit! It’s horrible. It’s horrifying! And it creates this impression that they have the people behind them and we’re these crazy lunatics!

 

Whereas the average person would agree with us that’s walking past on the street. But they’re walking past on the street doing nothing! They don’t give a fuck! That’s the problem.

 

And so much of what we’re doing is about turning on that “will”. And when people see a real opposition movement putting their bodies in the street, taking the blows from the enemy, vocalizing and modeling our belief system, that’s powerful! And it might take a while to fully transform things in the unconscious of a lot of people’s thought processes, but it really does make a difference.

 

The majority of people are not free thinkers. They’re not first movers, they’re not creative, they’re not strong willed. Most people are conformists. They need to see other people modeling a way of thinking, modeling a way of behaving before they’ll even conceive of it as a possibility for themselves. And so don’t ever be demoralised.

 

Whenever you guys do demonstrations and it feels like maybe it was a bad one or you’re outnumbered or it didn’t quite have the effect that it had on the day, because if you’re just relentless and consistent and keep showing up and keep showing the people that there’s a real opposition to what’s happening to our people, it will take an effect! And in ways that you might not actually realise, it might take many years.

 

I know in my personal life, I’ve been annoying everyone that I know, all the normies, my whole family or whatever, about racial issues for years, and it was irritating to most of them for many years. And now there’s media articles written about me about how I’m a neo-Nazi, and they all think it’s great and they’re so proud of what I’m doing.

 

[applause]

 

It’s cool! It’s nice to see on a personal level. But more importantly, it shows that because they’ve had me in their life being like this hardcore, ideological racist, year after year, after year, after year, after year, it becomes normal to them to think like that.

 

[21:06]

 

And then when they encounter some act of diversity enrichment that is irritating, they perceive it differently as a result. So, yeah, that’s so important.

 

Also, another thing that I also think I’ve also done wrong in the past is putting too much focus., … And this goes to the ideological hipsterism point again, on other issues. A lot of the movement focused, I think too much on Covid, or I got too fixated on the war in Ukraine for a while. And these issues are important, but at the end of the day it’s overcomplicating things in a way. We just end up in these internal disputes within people that are already racist about what other add-ons we want to put on to our racism.

 

And this really dilutes in many ways the power of the message. Because our job isn’t to work out all the problems of the government and come up with a complete policy stack about what our foreign policy and tax policy and all of these things need to be. Our job is to represent the pro-White viewpoint!

 

And the activists, the advantage of the activists, going back to the feminist movement as an example, they didn’t have to come to the government. They didn’t see themselves necessarily coming to the State with a full set of:

 

“This is how the government should run and we should be in charge of the government!”

 

They just go:

 

“This is the feminist core issues. This is what we believe, this is what our complaints are!”

 

And they hammer those points!

 

And I think in many ways our movement would be well served by adopting some of those tactics in our messaging because all the other issues are represented except the racial issue. That’s the one issue that always gets jettisoned by conservatives and they want to focus on anything else that they possibly can, because that’s the one issue that you get targeted for the most, obviously.

 

And so my stance more recently has been to really just try to avoid talking about almost anything else but White advocacy, whenever I do anything.

 

Basically just be like a 100% spurg about it, twenty four seven! And just not even allow myself to think outside that box. Almost to constrain myself to maximize the amount of output that I have on this one issue. Because it’s the glaring obvious central issue at the core of everything that’s more important than anything else, frankly, in the entire political process right now, and in society, is securing a future for our people!

 

So something to consider. Not that no one should ever talk about anything else or what have you, but I think it’s something to consider.

 

[24:00]

 

And also simplicity is key to a winning message. Piling on too much excess can kind of drown out the position. I remember there was a lot of discussion at one point, I would say like 2018, 2019 in the broad online scene debating:

 

“Should we be Nazbols? Should we be racist liberals? Do White people want to be free market or do White people want to have socialism?”

 

And it’s like, I don’t really give a fuck! I just want to win! We can figure that out later. A lot of these things actually are quite counterproductive, I would say probably more on the socialist side.

 

But if we can win, I don’t give a shit about the economic policy. I don’t give a shit about the foreign policy. I just care about White people winning!

 

[applause]

 

So, yeah, so that’s basically the main stuff that I wanted to say here. But I hope that provoked some thoughts. And again, thank you for having me. It’s been fantastic!

 

And hail victory!

 

[loud applause]

 

[25:08]

 

 

END

top

 

 

 

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

 

Odysee Comments

top

(Comments as of 10/28/2023 = 52)

renunciate
8 days ago
Bless this Aussie for making such a long journey to speak at PA. 👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻
Reply
31

DOLO
8 days ago
Good speech.
Reply
28

Welsh Nationalist
8 days ago
Top speech
Reply
23

Lampshade Denier
8 days ago
Joel is an incredible speaker!
Reply
18
0
Hide replies

@eddiesdreaming
5 days ago
isnt he just
incredible was the first word i used to.
Reply
2

Avid Fan
8 days ago
Engrossing analysis.
Reply
18

The Belting Balaclava
8 days ago
Joel’s approach to strategy is top notch.
Reply
14

renunciate
8 days ago
The masses vote for the group that can win. It’s driven by fear that if the use their vote on a party that has no chance, then the “horrible” party will win.
Reply
14
0

@TwentyFourHours
8 days ago
Joel has an incredibly incisive approach and he’s done some excellent work.
Reply
13
0

@Stan1
8 days ago
Wow, that was a storming speech, and some very poignant takes.
I totally agree about the simplicity message, and driving the whole narrative around the main concerns we face – preserving a future for our people.
Reply
12

MasterOfStf
7 days ago
Good speech, Joel Davis is awesome. Follow him on social media for hot takes.
Reply
10
0

@PureNomad
8 days ago
I really like Joel (so wish I’d have gone to this conference tbh). Yes he has a slightly subdued delivery style, but the message still came through strong.
I totally agree a key battle with most people isn’t getting them to agree with nationalist issues (most know we’ve been flooded with too many ppl that don’t accept our values/way of life), but the fact people are naturally conformists, and have been brainwashed to believe they shouldn’t openly think that way.
Hail Victory Joel
Reply
7
0

@larkascending
8 days ago(edited)
I don’t like his use of the term racist. Like he said, people are dumb and they may just see soundbites, select quotes, etc. to judge PA and Joel Davis. I don’t think the term is useful. It is too amorphous, ideologically motivated and with too many cultural connotations to really describe anything of value. It conflates anything to do with race relations, racial hatred, biology/(divergent) human evolution/human taxonomy in often nonsensical & contradictory ways. When someone uses the term racist I just think they are too ideologically motivated to have a good-faith, factual & honest conversation about race.
Reply
9
2
Hide replies

@PureNomad
8 days ago
Tad harsh. I think you are reading slightly more into it, than was intended. For me he used it as an ice breaker. Don’t forget Australians are still very masculine, compared to our far too feminised Europeans.
Reply
2
3
Hide replies

The Belting Balaclava
8 days ago
Being intentional with the language you use in a formal political setting has nothing to do with masculinity.
Reply
5
0
Hide replies

Wight Kang
7 days ago(edited)
It is a strategy of not allowing enemy language to control us. We’re not going to go on the defensive when called racist since racist just means White person who does not cuck.
The answer to “are you racist?” should be “yes” and then you move on to pro-White advocacy. Saying “no” means they follow it up with an endless series of qualifiers which always end up with you supporting diversity and anti-White agendas.
Reply
0
2
Hide replies

@larkascending
7 days ago
I would never say “no” I am not a racist. I would articulate that the term does not have a consistent, clear, or useful definition. By saying “yes” I am a racist, I argue you are playing into their framing and “allowing enemy language to control us” and define us. Your opponent and audience will know where to put you and ignore you, because you have just placed yourself as the enemy. We should be influencing people, not just antagonising them or playing into enemy stereotypes.
Terms like anti-Semite, transphobe, xenophobe, etc. are all like that, they are nonsense words which are designed to frame the debate in the enemy’s favour. They frame any and all criticism of topics like migration as solely motivated by irrational fear or hatred. They should not be part of our vocabulary, at least unironically.
Less
Reply
3

The Belting Balaclava
7 days ago
The best response to “are you a racist” is to 1) Not engage, as it only further legitimizes them (this is something leftist postmodernists understand fairly well) or 2) Ask them to define the term “racist”. If they answer “it means you hate other races” then I would answer “no” as I truthfully do not hate other races. If they say “it means you don’t believe that all races are equal” then I would answer “yes” and further explain with IQ statistics, crime, or whatever else is relevant to your given context. Make them respond to you. Make them justify their beliefs. Remember, the truth is on our side, there is no need to play the comical villain.
Reply
2

Avid Fan
7 days ago
Yes, I think it was said tongue in cheek but also agree with not liking the word “racist” as it is an anti-white slur word. We’ve got to introduce our lexicon slowly to ‘normies’ – “racist”, “anti-white racism/ist”, then “anti-white”.
Reply
2
0

@larkascending
7 days ago
I understand there is a cultural difference but I think you’re conflating the crass, sort-of douchey bravado of Australians with masculinity. I don’t think being respectful and using more thoughtful, intentional language is inherently feminine, he is public speaking after all. Australia has many of the same problems as other countries with immigration, transgenderism, etc., so if it is indeed “still very masculine”, it’s not helping.
Reply
4
0
Hide replies

@GLiTCH
7 days ago
Your comment was ‘I don’t like his use of the term racist.’ Not that it was tactically mistaken, but that your feelings disagreed with it. You are kowtowing to the enemy’s use of word magic. If someone is a well spoken and presented person and describes themselves as ‘racist’ it breaks with the connotation of racists as dirty lowlife scum that has been created.
Reply
2
0
Hide replies

Avid Fan
7 days ago
Yes, ‘demystifying’ the word?
Reply
0
0

@larkascending
7 days ago(edited)
What even is a racist? It does not have a consistent, clear, useful definition. The dictionary definitions are all over the place and incoherent. How people use it is not consistent with the definitions either. My comment did articulate that it was tactically mistaken, as most people are dumb and will just take soundbites or clips out of context. I don’t think the use of the word was well thought out.
Reply
0

Evo
7 days ago
Are you not racist?
Being truthful is better than trying to play pretend with floury language to not offend the “normie”.
Reply
5
3
Hide replies

@larkascending
7 days ago(edited)
What is a racist? I like to be clear and coherent. The term doesn’t describe anything consistent or coherent. It’s just a term of abuse used by our enemies or anti-intellectuals.
Reply
3

Native Albion
7 days ago
I can see both sides of the argument. But if someone asks me in real life if I’m racist, I simply say yes to cut through the BS. Then I explain the history of the word racist and its anti-white meaning. I dont think you do yourself any favours by being defensive, you have to hold the ground and then be offensive, in the right way.
Reply
8
0
Hide replies

@Aus1788
7 days ago
Exactly! You just tell them that the suffix “ist’ in race is to show concern like; Pianist, Scientist. That you do have a priority of ingroup preference for your people, like one would for their own family and children.
Reply
2
0
Hide replies

@Aus1788
7 days ago
Family is your first priority, then neighborhood/community, then state, then nation, then the west. If everyone does their best to create a strong family for themselves then the rest will follow suit real fast! It’s a domino effect.
Reply
1
0

@larkascending
7 days ago
My argument is not to say “no”. My argument is the term, and others like it, isn’t coherent, accurate or useful. I don’t give any power or meaning to words that are solely designed to frame the debate in an anti-intellectual, immoral direction. The dictionaries can’t even agree on a definition for racist and people use the term in such wildly divergent ways.
Reply
1

The Belting Balaclava
7 days ago
I think the best strategy is to ask them to define it (which puts them on the defensive). Then answer truthfully. Most people who would explicitly ask you if you’re a racist are doing so in bad faith. Of course, when among friends, we call each other racist as a term of endearment. Context is everything.
Reply
3
0

@eddiesdreaming
5 days ago
but most people arent as intelligent as your good self, when talking to yhe masses usr words they think they understand and give those words new meaning new attachments , trust Joel on this .
Reply
1
0

@eddiesdreaming
5 days ago
the other tactic is to ask them to define the word , then when they have finished stumbling over their words and logic you can pick them apart.
Reply
0
0

@eddiesdreaming
5 days ago
just as enoch did in an interview when the interviewer usrd the word
Reply
0
1

Show 2 replies
\~^~/
2 days ago
Precisely. It’s a self sabotaging terminology if voluntarily used on yourself. It’s been designed as a shaming and silencing tool that doesn’t even require any logic.
Reply
0
0
very cool
7 days ago

Great speech and ideas. God bless.
Reply
4
0

Dawn Browning
7 days ago
He’s a good egg
Reply
4
0

Lampshade Denier
7 days ago
There once was a chad from down under,
Whose allegiance was never for wonder.
His speech was uplifting,
So the audience was gifting,
Applause that rolled out like thunder.
Reply
5
1

Avalon
7 days ago
Useful perspective
Reply
3
0

@LnD
7 days ago
Great as always, Joel.
Reply
3
0

@SmithJones
7 days ago
‘Once you see it you can’t un-see it’ This is 100% true. If it wasn’t i’d still be a Libertarian.
Reply
2
0

@TheAussieANZAC
5 days ago
Nice Stuff
Reply
1
0

@noreplacement
7 days ago
Yes, stop fretting about fine detail.
Reply
1
0
Western Critique
7 days ago

@Esau
good one
Reply
1
0

@popovacianen
7 days ago
i just cant get over the fact that hes in with fuentes and groyper fags
Reply
3
4
Hide replies

@jacobverbrugh
7 days ago
What are you doing for the movement?
Reply
7
0
Hide replies

@popovacianen
7 days ago
talking shit to retards on internet 🙂
Reply
0
1

@Aus1788
7 days ago
There’s a good pool of people we can syphon from in that group! They’re young and have a lot of growing to do, so don’t be disheartened. There’s potential and if anyone can initiate that, its us
Reply
9
0

@jacobverbrugh
7 days ago
Okay so you’re a bit of a groyper fag yourself? 😂
Reply
0
0
Hide replies

@popovacianen
7 days ago
nah im not gay dude i dont defend brown pedofiles work with kikes or feds like fuentes and those fags lol
Reply
0
0

@eddiesdreaming
5 days ago
incredible speech it hard to say much more than that because Joel nailed it.
i wish we had him here permanently.
tbh though it feels like a large number of our people are already defeated , they will need to see many leaders and not just one at thr head of an organisation.
Reply

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

See Also

top

 

 

Joel Davis – On Activist Politics and White Advocacy – PA Conference Speech – Oct 7, 2023 – Transcript

Mark Collett – The Eternal Struggle – PA Conference Speech 2023 – Oct 7, 2023 – Transcript

Laura Towler – This is Not a Game – PA Conference Speech – Oct 7, 2023 – Transcript

 

Joel Davis – Mark Collett vs Greg Johnson – The Ukraine Debate – Oct 17, 2022 – Transcript

The Joel & Blair Show – Brown Nation, Gay Rapist Dudeweed Democracy, Trans-terrorism!? – Mar 30, 2023 – Transcript

Mark Collett – Patriotic Weekly Review – with Joel Davis – Apr 27, 2023 – Transcript

The Joel & Blair Show – Thought-Terminating Racism and Immigration Lies – Aug 17, 2023 – Transcript

Australian Prime Minister Sir Robert Menzies on the ‘White Australia Policy’ – 1955 – Transcript

 

 

 

 

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

Mark Collett at The Scandza Forum, Copenhagen – Oct 12, 2019 — Transcript

Patriotic Weekly Review – with Blair Cottrell – Dec 4, 2019 — TRANSCRIPT

Dangerfield – Talking Tough with Mark Collett – Mar 28, 2020 — Transcript

 

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

PDF Download

top

Total words in transcript = 4,195

• Total words in post = 6,259
• 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, Oct 28, 2023 — Published post. Includes Odysee comments (52).