Newsreader: Good evening. First tonight, violent scuffles have broken out on the streets of Melbourne this afternoon with two sets of rival protesters clashing in ugly scenes. A far-Right wing group had gathered to protest what they see is an increasing influence of Islam here in Australia. But those voices were drowned out by a vocal anti-racist group. Matthew Sattler [sp] has the story.

Reporter (male): Two sides with two very different views quickly clashed. Protesters jostled with each other as mounted police were moved in.

Authorities were made aware of the protest by several social media campaigns.

A previously unknown group called the United Patriots Front assembled to take on what they say is the spread of Islamic.

Blair Cottrell: These Left-wingers, the people that are lost and confused over there, they are more concerned about the feelings and the rights of foreigners than they are about their own countrymen!

Reporter (male): A nearby motorist stood up to the group.

Female: You have the right to say everything, but don’t generalise Islam, okay?

Reporter (male): Her opinion received an angry response. But the Front was outnumbered by hundreds of anti-racism protesters.

Reporter 2 (male): Protesters from each side are yelling and chanting slogans at each other and the many police who are here are doing their best to keep them apart.

Female: (Alison Thorne) History shows that they want to stamp out all of [word unclear] human race, right? We cannot let that happen. We must learn from history and we need to stop them while they’re small.

Reporter (male): After a seemingly endless stand-off, the patriot group marched away, leaving the anti-racism protesters to claim victory on the town hall steps. Matthew Sattler, Eyewitness News.

[End of clip]

Blair Cottrell: Well, what was that, 10 years ago now?

Thomas Sewell: That was 10 years ago, almost to the day.

Blair Cottrell: Wow! It’s been 10 years since then already. I saw some footage of you at the beginning there. I remember when you were on the steps at that particular protest. This was the first ever protest we posted as United Patriots Front in 2015. I think it was in May of 2015. Is that right?

Thomas Sewell: That was the May 31 protest. Which was our second. It was the first ever as UPF and it was the second one we attended.

Blair Cottrell: And I used to have some really cool footage of that one, but I’ve lost most of my footage. But wow, that was a throwback, man! That was a real throwback. And I found myself looking back recently and I didn’t really realise at the time, just a few days ago I didn’t realise, but it’s actually been 10 years. It’s been a decade since the beginning of our political activity. I first met you I think on April 4th, 2015. I met you at the first rally we ever went to.

Thomas Sewell: Yeah.

Blair Cottrell: And ever since then, I remember how different we were treated by police back then, or just how different the police were generally. It’s like we were a new phenomenon back then. The police didn’t really know how to handle us or what was going on, or they were learning as we continued to demonstrate.

I mean, one of the main motivations for United Patriots Front was to be an aggressive and consistent public protest group. Because after observing Left-wing protest activity, I began to understand that the only way you get your voice heard is to be aggressive and persistently loud in the streets. That was my perspective anyway. But that had never really happened, or no Right-wing group had formed in recent Australian history and started actually doing that and generating a lot of support by doing it like we did.

So initially the cops were kind of like, they didn’t really send a lot of numbers. They didn’t know how to handle it. But they learnt gradually and something happened. They used to be kind of fair to us, I remember, they used to be kind of fair.

But then something happened and the situation flipped and then suddenly we were the villains and the Leftists were the noble, you know, defenders of democracy or something like that.

So I’m not really sure what happened there, but it was all a learning curve and we were pretty young at the time. We were basically just kids getting into politics and throwing ourselves out there to see what happened.

Thomas Sewell: Yeah, I think I just turned 22 in that footage of me you see at the start of that video. And I think you were like 26, so.

Blair Cottrell: 25. Yeah, I would have been 25. But I was a young. I was a young 25. [chuckling]

Thomas Sewell: Wow! I remember observing those first two rallies. Not that the police were necessarily fair to us, but it’s the first time I observed what you could call “democracy in action” or “mob rule in action”. And I saw the police not care who was breaking the law or not breaking the law, who was attacking old ladies in the street, who wasn’t attacking old ladies in the street.

What I observed was which group is bigger and which group is smaller. And the one that’s bigger will let them do whatever they want. And the one that’s smaller will attack them. Or we’ll tell them what to do, and if they don’t do what we say, we’ll attack them, we’ll attack the smaller group.

And that’s what I observed. That’s my first impression of democracy manifest in the street. And it was a great experience.

[05:42]

I mean, that April 4th rally, which was at Fed Square, which I hope we’ve got the video of that as well. I’m sure you’re working hard in the back room to get these videos up. I’m sure we’ll get them up as we go through the stream today. But at Federation Square, there was a Reclaim Australia rally, which is where Blair and I first met. And the sort of the idea of UPF formed out of just the violence that we saw on that day, where we were blocked from entering the rally by these communist groups.

And the police. I think the police were helping the communist groups, even if they were a bit fair on us, and they weren’t as violent and aggressive, they certainly weren’t doing their job, which again, was actually eye opening for me. I was a bit of a system believer back then. I was definitely very moderate in my political and philosophical takes, and I was a system believer. I didn’t have an issue with the police. I had a huge respect for the police. Back when I was 21, 22, I’d only just left the army and I assumed the police and the army were basically the same institution. One for fighting foreign enemies and one for, I guess, like domestic rabble. And yeah, I was a system believer.

And seeing firsthand the police just allowing that kind of violence because it was being done by a communist mob radicalised me beyond belief! I think that was my most radicalising moment! If you would have pointed that meme, like, who radicalised you? It’s like watching the police stand there and let old ladies get pushed down stairs. And then I guess, like eight years later going to jail for confronting people, stalking and harassing us.

I mean, it’s just crazy to think the time I’ve gone, like, what I’ve done, which has resulted in going to jail is so absolutely minimal. It’s so minuscule compared to the violence I saw on that day that just went without punishment, just nothing! And that radicalised me. That made me go:

“I’m doing this for the rest of my life!”

I already figured I would, but in that moment. And that’s, I think, why street protests are so important. It’s so important for people to voice their opinions in real life and see what comes of it! Comes of the system, comes of the enemies of the system on either side.

Blair Cottrell: What’s the main thing or the main difference between those days and now, like, when you protest these days? Because you’re still very active in the field of public protests.

But I know that you’re experiencing very different treatment. Similar treatment but different in very important ways. So how have things changed do you think? Fundamentally, or the most observable change you see in protesting now versus protesting 10 years ago. Any comments on that?

Thomas Sewell: The police now are arresting us for pre-crime!

So that’s the most significant change now is the police organise before a rally and they plan how to stop us from having democratic rights before the rally even begins. I don’t think that happened back in the day. I think they were just reacting in the moment. I think a lot of the police were trying to allow both sides to demonstrate in public. And then over the course of the day the police would make a decision on the ground:

“Oh, one group’s bigger than the other. You know there’s going to be punch ons if we don’t move this other group on. And we’re not necessarily doing it for anyone’s individual safety but for I guess just the cohesion of society as a whole.”

They would make that decision.

But now it’s not like that at all! Now it is 100% state mandated brown faggotry! And 100% state suppressed White power! So back then it was a bit vaguer. The police weren’t really on anyone’s side. They were just inept! They were just inept and inexperienced and unsure.

But now it is very clear that it’s not just police ineptitude, it’s not just:

“Oh, we’re just doing our job bro!”

Now it’s very clear the police are being radicalised by Commissars within the state police force. And at a federal level they are being politically educated by political Commissars that are radicalising the police into being violent thugs. And that’s the major difference.

I mean the police will allow the Burn Australia, Hate Australia, Fuck Australia, Destroy Australia crowd to rally. And they’re “the most loving, peaceful, kind people on earth”, the Hate Australia crowd, according to the police.

But then the pro-Australia crowd are:

“Evil terrorists that need to be fucking shot and they need to be stomped. And we got to get rid of these people from society. They’re not allowed to express their views!”

So that’s a major difference.

What do you think? What have you noticed?

[10:58]

Blair Cottrell: The culture is much more sensitive now.

Thomas Sewell: Polarised?

Blair Cottrell: I mean definitely more polarised but also what people are saying on the Internet and what is regarded as unacceptable speech, you know, dangerous opinion, the kind of stuff that gets you put on blacklist as extremists, potential terror threat. It was the stuff that basically every Boomer was posting 10 years ago. And so like now things are so much more sensitive. What you can and can’t say, what you shouldn’t say. You’re not really sure if certain opinions can be construed as potentially threatening to somebody.

And I think obviously the point of having speech laws like that is to have people self censors, so people don’t talk about things and people are too afraid of potential consequences to have open discussion. But 10 years ago, I remember some of the content I was putting out there. You know, it was quite contentious. And I was never vulgar in the way I used to present my videos. You would agree, or anyone would agree who knew me back then. But I still was one of the first Australians to be nuked off Facebook and censored from all social media, then had my bank accounts closed.

In addition to that, while I was trying to fight a hate speech charge, in addition to two of my colleagues, I’ll bring up when I work out how to do it here, I’ll bring up a picture of the original United Patriots Front gang. It’s like the original Boys in the Hood. This was the first ever group that we had, the sort of inner circle leadership team you might want to call it. But this is when we were still generating a following.

We probably had like a few hundred followers on the Internet at this point, or maybe a few thousand. We started off like we hit the ground running after our first demonstration in May [2015]. And this was after a little flash. Demonstration and speech at the front of April. Sorry, not at the front of April, at the front of the ABC building just after the April rally or after the May rally, one of those.

But yeah, some old faces in there and that’s like a picture from 2015. And this was before we were really on the map. Like I said, this is when we were really putting in the work. Hard to believe this was 10 years ago now already.

But yeah, thanks for joining, guys. If you’re just watching the show, hello to our friends, friends of the show, hello to enemies who might be tuning in, people who don’t like us very much, hello to members of police department, whatever state you may be watching this from, and also intelligence personnel. It’s probably your job to review these little episodes that we make. So hello to everybody and I hope you enjoy our illustrious weekly show. I’m going to be beginning tonight with Thomas Sewell, leader of the biggest nationalist group in Australia right now.

And later on as the show progresses, we’re going to get Joel on. Tom’s going to jump off and Joel’s going to jump on. And the reason we’re doing that is because there are still anti-association laws or conditions as part of your bail conditions for charges related to “loitering and displaying a Nazi symbol in public after you marched on Australia Day in Adelaide”, is that right?

Thomas Sewell: Yeah, correct. I can go into some detail about. We had a court case, I think only two days ago was either yesterday or the day before. I think it was yesterday, actually. A lot happens. Yeah, it was yesterday morning. And we were doing a bail amendment to try and get those things dropped. And in the process, our lawyer, a guy called Matthew Hopkins, put forward that the Bail act suggests that only people that are serious organised crime figures, people that are doing five or 10 years in jail, these are serious offences like drug trafficking and rape and murder and serious violent firearms offences, that these are the only people that get non-Association orders, as per the Bail Act. And that it’s an overreach. And that was his main argument.

The other arguments were just that it’s unconstitutional. That these charges are all going to get dropped because it’s political policing, it’s policing their constitutional rights or trying to stop them from having their constitutional rights. It’s all going to get dropped, and that the process is the punishment, and they shouldn’t have these draconian bail conditions that prohibit their political speech with one another.

Now, what was interesting, I mean, there’s so much to go over, there’s so much to cover and I’m sure Joel will cover a lot of it as well. But what is fascinating is that the judge said that we would pursue the charge of, … The prosecution wasn’t prepared to drop the charge of loitering.

So what I want to update the audience on, is on Australia Day this year, there was about 80 of us prepared to march through the streets of Adelaide. They arrested about 17 or 16 of us, I think, before the rally even happened.

And then they arrested another 16 at the start of the rally, and they turned away almost another 20 on top of that, like gave the move on orders and threatened to arrest them for being in the CBD with an Australian flag, basically.

And so I think ultimately about 40 guys or so marched on the day that weren’t arrested. And the guys that were arrested were charged with “wearing an article of disguise”, which was hat and sunglasses. They were charged with “loitering”, which means standing around without police permission. It means standing around without a legal reason. It’s a law that implies you’re going to break into, enter somebody’s house or car. It’s like loitering is like you’re standing out the front of a joint, casing it, and you’re about to break into it. And the police can’t charge you with robbery because you haven’t done the robbery yet, but they can charge you with loitering. That’s what that charge is designed for. That’s basically all the criminal pretence for that charge.

So they charge us with loitering, which is standing around without a reason. And they charged us with wearing a Nazi symbol, which implies in the law a swastika. But we weren’t wearing swastikas. We were wearing our trademarked symbol for our own organisation, the Jacob Hersant NSN Arrow Cross symbol and a Union Jack. And they declared that one of the two of these symbols was some Hungarian fascist Nazi party symbol during World War II. And therefore it was under the legislation. Which it is not. But that’s the argument that they were making.

[17:43]

And during the court hearing for the bailout, the magistrate, who was very politically charged, said that:

“It’s obvious that we were standing around in order to perform a political demonstration to hurt people’s feelings and cause distress.”

And he said this within about a five minute period of saying that we’re going to go forward on the loitering charge. But this already contradicts himself. How can we be loitering if we’re standing around for the purpose of performing a political demonstration? So it’s beyond all reasonable doubt! It’s a fact, it’s a statement of fact. And it’s in the judge’s own record that we were standing around for a political purpose. He just didn’t like that political purpose. That political purpose was distressing to people in the Aboriginal community and other protected communities.

And then he stated that he was a victim. He said:

“That we’re all victims, that we caused distress to everyone and that everyone is a victim of this distress!”

And that myself am pretending to be innocent. He actually used the term “fake innocent”. He said I was:

“Fake innocent of the crime of causing distress to the public.”

But I wasn’t charged with causing distress to the public, and causing distress isn’t actually a crime. So he agreed that we weren’t loitering but decided to pursue the loitering charge. And he agreed that the reason why the charges are being pursued is because we’re:

“Fake innocent of the crime of causing distress in other communities and in himself. That he was personally distressed and personally affected.”

So these judges aren’t very intelligent, they’re just very corrupt and they’re very evil! And that’s basically the court update. And Joel received more or less the same treatment.

Blair Cottrell: What was the name of that magistrate, do you remember?

Thomas Sewell: [chuckling] Unfortunately, it was Magistrate Davis.

Blair Cottrell: Davis, like isn’t spelled the same way as Joel Davis?

Thomas Sewell: Yes.

Blair Cottrell: Wow!

Thomas Sewell: And also one thing I forgot to mention was about two hours earlier, one of our members had court that morning in the Adelaide Magistrates Court. The guy had a Polish name, the magistrate. It wasn’t Magistrate Davis, it was Magistrate Smolix or something like that. And he was also charged with loitering. And the charges were dropped because there is absolutely no case to answer for.

So one of our members of our organisation that was arrested at the exact same time that I was arrested in the exact same place, who was also charged with loitering as myself was charged with loitering, the charges were dropped two hours prior, in the exact same court, not the same room, but in the same court by a different magistrate, Magistrate Smolix, because there’s no case to answer for, because he wasn’t loitering, because he was there for a political reason.

Blair Cottrell: Did your lawyer make it clear that the chances of a conviction were very low, …

Thomas Sewell: Yes.

Blair Cottrell: Therefore the bail conditions weren’t necessary? And he still didn’t accept the variation in the conditions.

Thomas Sewell: Correct. He said I was a threat to the community because I’m:

“Capable of marshaling many men together to form these political rallies and that that would be distressing if it was to happen again. And that the purpose of these bail conditions are to stop me from doing that again. And that seems to be working.”

Blair Cottrell: Stop you from engaging in legal public protest?

Thomas Sewell: Correct.

Blair Cottrell: That is illegal to do that, though. It sounds like this magistrate was turning the matter into a good versus evil debacle rather than a legal consideration. Considering you guys as evil and himself as representing this arbitrary good in the name of the community. It’s my understanding too that if a magistrate declares himself a victim of a crime or an accused set of crimes in a legal matter, then that’s conflict of interest. He should excuse himself from overseeing the matter immediately.

Thomas Sewell: Correct.

Blair Cottrell: Yet he declared himself a victim and continued to hear the matter, is that right?

Thomas Sewell: Yes.

Blair Cottrell: Who is this guy? What kind of judge is this guy? I’ve never heard of anything like it!

Thomas Sewell: Well, what’s the average person listening needs to know if they don’t have much experience. Sorry, I think you cut out. What I was going to say is that magistrates are political appointees. They are assigned by the State government, like a police commissioner.

So the police commissioner was the one that said before the rally, a day before the rally, he went on TV to do a press conference to try to spook us from performing the rally, saying that they were going to use extra special powers to stop us from demonstrating. And this is a political appointee. This is the same police commissioner that also recently did that ad saying that they are hiring non-citizens for South Australian police because they’ve got a police shortage. They’re hiring non-citizens, non-Australians, and that will fast track your family’s Visa if you join the South Australian police force. Did you see that video? It’s him in his board shorts. He’s wearing his cop uniform on the top and his board shorts on the bottom, and he’s at the beach in Adelaide and it like, zooms out. Yeah, same commissioner.

[23:18]

Blair Cottrell: I did actually see that video. And sorry, guys, I was just kind of shorting out. I don’t know. I never usually have problems with my Internet connection like that, but it was just kind of dropping in and out. But I think I’m okay now.

So, yeah, look, in summary, you guys are hosting a march for Australia Day in Adelaide. You’re marching down the street. Adelaide police tackle you, arrest you. They charge you with loitering and displaying symbols that you weren’t actually displaying. Then they whack these bail conditions on you, saying you’re not allowed to talk to each other, you’re not allowed to go to other protests together. Then you go back to court, what, two months later? Because you’ve got to wait two months. Because that’s the way the court system works. It’s banked up with all of these other matters. You wait your turn, you go back to court and you say:

“Hey, these bail conditions aren’t just unnecessary, they’re unlawful and they need to be struck out.”

But the magistrate turns around and says:

“No, what you represent, Mr. Sewell, is a political evil! And I’m going to protect the good of the community from your evil. And I’m also a victim of your evil. So these conditions will remain in place. You’re not to associate with your colleagues or politically protest further.”

That’s essentially what just happened to you guys.

Thomas Sewell: Correct.

Blair Cottrell: What do you even say? That there must be some process you can go through to complain or something. Like, what do you do? You just, well, you go through appeal, right? You appeal to a higher court. Is that what you’re doing next?

Thomas Sewell: Well, that’s one of our options, and it’s a very expensive option. We’ve been quoted upwards of $20,000 to get a King’s Counsel to properly contest this at the Supreme Court, which is absolutely no point in spending that money for the sake of myself and other members of the organisation associating with each other. The purpose of the bail application was not as much, the bail amendment, was not so much about me being allowed to talk to my friends, as much as it was about setting the precedence that Stephen Wells can be freed without a politically motivated Bail Act.

So Stephen Wells is in jail at the moment. He can get out of jail. All he has to do is sign away his political rights. And Stephen Wells at the moment is deciding that he hasn’t done anything wrong, he hasn’t committed any crime, and that the process is the punishment. And he’s not consenting to signing away his political rights so that he can be free. That if they want to hold him as a hostage and threaten him with:

“Hey, we’re going to lock you in a box if you don’t sign away your political rights.”

He’s made the decision:

“Well you’re going to have to lock me in a box!”

Which is very admirable and honourable, and he’s a very strong man.

Now, the only reason why I would be willing to spend $20,000 to have the bail amended would be so that Stephen Wells could be free.

Now, we are going to win these court cases, and we are going to get justice for how Stephen Wells, and all of us, have been treated by this government. But we’re certainly not going to get that justice at the magistrate’s court. It is definitely a corrupt kangaroo court by these political appointees that are no better than a Soviet Union magistrate. That two plus two is five if you’re part of the party. And they don’t care about the law, they don’t care about jurisprudence, they don’t care at all about any sort of ethics.

He admitted. He admitted in court that he had predicted what the outcome was. He admitted his premeditated decision. He admitted, … I’ve got the whole notes on it. And he admitted his own prejudice against our case. Which should excuse him from being able to hear the case. You can’t join a jury if you admit any prejudice against one of the parties. You can’t be on a jury. You can’t make an informed decision. You can’t make an ethical decision if you have prejudice.

And so this judge is, again, it’s just absolute corruption. He incriminated himself in court. At this stage, there’s no way of getting justice for it. We have to actually take the whole country back and get rid of these political appointees in the Magistrates Court, as well as everything else we need to fix with this country. But it is very interesting how the Liberal Party and Labor Party treat their opposition, and how they weaponise the courts and they weaponise the media and they weaponise the education system and they weaponise everything against the White Australian that wishes to be free and left alone, which is how we all started this.

And now it’s well, now we’re in for a fight, aren’t we?

So those are our options.

Blair Cottrell: I wonder if there’s a process through which your legal representative can call the judge out next time something like this happens. There must be some sort of process by which your lawyer can identify a political or preconceived bias in the judge, point it out, and demand he step down based on that law or process.

And I think they need to get really bold. The problem with lawyers, I’ve noticed. I’m not saying your lawyers aren’t good or something like that, but I’ve noticed that lawyers can be very, …

Thomas Sewell: Timid.

Blair Cottrell: Tedious. Is that the right word for it? They tiptoe around the judges. Yeah, they don’t want to upset the judge because they want to get a good ruling from the judge. I think they need to get pretty aggressive, man! I think they need to indicate that there’s some sort of consequence for any judge with a preconceived bias. Because consequence is the only thing these people care about. Their own bureaucracy. And some sort of consequence as a result of violating the bureaucracy is what the judges fear. It’s what the police officers fear, I found. And unless they feel like there’ll be consequence, they’ll do whatever they want.

[29:18]

Thomas Sewell: I would say that this is the first time that we’ve had a lawyer that has actually understood the politics of the matter. We’ve had a lot of good lawyers over the years, and all of them want to tiptoe and timidly enter the subjects at hand. They will make these concessions, moral concessions, to the court, or I should say not the court, but the temple, because they’re all part of the guild, they’re all part of the temple! And they will make these moral concessions to the temple as some sort of pennance to then argue the case.

So they admit this moral guilt of the accused, and then:

“Okay, that’s done. That’s sorted. Yes. Evil, horrible views! Rah, rah, rah. Now let’s argue the facts of the case. The facts are he hasn’t done it, or the facts are this isn’t a crime or whatever.”

And then they try to go to the rational. But they already lost the legal battle by conceding the moral ground.

And this is the first lawyer we have ever had that hasn’t done that! That hasn’t gone into the court and grovelled! He hasn’t gone into the court and said:

“My learnt colleagues of the Temple that I belong to, I submit to you that I am also a learnt colleague of the Temple. But these gentlemen are certainly not! And they are what they are. But let’s argue the facts here, my friends.”

He didn’t do that. He said:

“What these men are doing is right! They have the Constitutional right to do it. You don’t have the legal power to do what you’re doing to them. What they’ve done is morally right! And it is in line with the greater constitution. And these laws do need to be struck out. And this is a clear case of political policing, and I can prove it!”

And then when dealing with the media, he more or less did the same thing. He didn’t concede the moral argument to the media. When the media asked him, you know:

“Would you consider these people’s views extreme?”

He said:

“That to the Left-wing, the Right are extreme. And to the Right-wing, the Left are extreme. We live in this polarised society, and part of democracy is that we can argue these things.”

Instead of conceding being like:

“Oh, yes these are quite abnormal views or quite extreme views.”

He actually backed us on the moral argument. So I think he did a very good job because he understood the politics! Not just the law. And that’s hard to do.

Blair Cottrell: Yeah. I’ve got here the Channel 7 report, I believe, of this particular situation that you’re talking about now. So we can check this out and react to it if you are keen.

Newsreader: A prominent neo-Nazi boss arrested in Adelaide’s CBD on Australia Day has declared he wants to enter politics. Thomas Sewell’s Lawyer told a magistrate it’s his constitutional right and any attempt to stop him would be an abomination.

Reporter: (Deanna Williams) Neo-Nazi activists in full voice on Australia Day.

(NSN members marching and singing) Waltzing Matilda! Waltzing Matilda!

Their leader, Thomas Sewell, taken into custody. Today, a stunning admission. He and his National Socialist Network co accused Joel Davis, intend to form a political party.

Lawyer: (Matthew Hopkins) It would seem to be a political organisation and it’s an abomination in this country that we are seeking to ban or criminalise a legitimate political ideology.

Reporter: The pair appeared via telephone link in a failed bid to have removed what they say are “draconian” bail conditions, preventing them from associating with their members.

Lawyer: We do have a constitutional issue here. Their right to political communication is clearly being infringed.

Reporter: (Deanna Williams) The prosecutor said the non-Association order was sought for good reason, to stop mass gatherings like the one on Australia Day. And there were serious concerns about disruptions to the upcoming Anzac Day events.

The magistrate agreed:

“I do have a real fear of a risk of re-offending by Mr. Sewell. He is a leader of a White supremacist group. I fear for victims.”

Both men intend to contest the charges. A trial date will be set at the next hearing in May.

Deanna Williams, Seven News.

Blair Cottrell: They seem to have drawn a parallel, both the magistrate, through his comments, and the Channel 7 journalists. They’ve drawn a parallel between offending, criminal activity, criminal offence, and your protests. But they’re two very different things. Marching around with some Australian flags and singing Waltzing Matilda is not an offence, but it’s being held as though it’s an offensive or criminal activity. Right? And that I thought I found that to be interesting. So, obviously, maybe these bail conditions are about stopping you guys from demonstrating on Anzac Day [this coming April 25]. What do you think about?

Thomas Sewell: Well, that is word for word what they said. That is word for word what the magistrate said. That his purpose for placing these strict conditions on is to “stop further mass gatherings”. It’s literally to stop democracy. They have charged us with laws that are not real! Well, the law itself is real, but not applied in a real sense. We’re then “fake innocent”. We can’t claim innocent. We’re pseudo guilty of the crime of hurting people’s feelings, and therefore we’re no longer allowed to perform mass gatherings.

But performing a mass gathering is not illegal in Australia. But the bail, he said, interestingly so they’ve worked out this very clever way to shut down democracy. When you do a demonstration they don’t like, they arrest you and charge you with something that isn’t a crime, something that you haven’t done, and then they slap bail conditions on you that stop you from demonstrating. So it’s a very clever way to shut down free discussion.

Furthermore, he admitted himself that that’s the purpose. So this is not like a theory that me and you are coming up with. These are his words.

[35:52]

Blair Cottrell: It seems like ever since that Covid fiasco the idea of democracy just never recovered. It didn’t recover in the minds of judges or police officers, certainly not statesmen and public officials, and it never recovered in the minds of ordinary people either. But I suppose the human right or principle of freedom to protest, some of us have held onto that. You’ve held onto that and you’re being punished for it.

But what does “fake innocent” mean? I find that a really curious term. How can someone be determined “fake innocent”? Exactly! Is that because you are innocent of the crime they’ve charged you with? Obviously. But you’re not innocent because of what you believe politically. And that’s considered abhorrence by the social culture. And therefore, even though you’re innocent of the crime you’re accused of, you’re still guilty of being a Nazi, and that’s worse. So you’re treated as though you’re a criminal. Am I getting that right? That’s how it feels.

Thomas Sewell: Correct.

Blair Cottrell: [chuckling] What do you even say to this? What kind of option? You see, what you guys are doing right now is you’re still playing the game. You guys are still doing your utmost to abide by the law and operate within the bounds of the law. You’re going to court, you’re showing up when you’re supposed to show up. You’re playing their game still.

But what option are they going to give you guys if this is the way they treat you? If they just find you guilty on the grounds of being morally abhorrent and you’re basically not given the same rights as any other person in court would have because of the ideology you subscribe to, which is non-violent, by the way, it’s totally legal. What option are you going to be left with at the end of the day? Like, how much longer can you keep playing this game?

Thomas Sewell: Yeah, well, they just want to break our spirit. They want to break our spirit.

Blair Cottrell: But if they can’t break your spirit like, they expect that that will happen. Because Australians have demonstrated, unfortunately, in recent history that with enough pressure they will break. And I hate to say it, but that’s what the Covid fiasco demonstrated. It demonstrated that if you take things away from Australians and you keep taking them away, you hold them for long enough under a boot, then eventually they’re going to cave, they’re going to give way and they’re going to do what they’re told.

And it feels like that’s what the government is waiting for you guys to do. They’re waiting for you to just roll over and go:

“Okay, we’re sick of this, we’ll just go back to our wage jobs and shut the fuck up!”

It’s like that’s what they want you to do, they want you to feel like there’s no hope.

But obviously that’s not going to happen.

Thomas Sewell: It’s fascinating that the two most contentious dates that they’ve discussed in that news article is the “evil protests” on Australia Day and the fact that there could be more demonstrations at Anzac Day. And these are both things that they’re trying to ban.

If you look at the Race Discrimination minister or commissioner just today put out a post, it was in the news today, the Racial Discrimination commissioner, whatever the fuck that is, some Indian piece of shit that’s come to our country and is trying to tell us how to think and what to do. He put out today that:

“Celebrating Australia Day is racist and we got to put it behind us. We’ve got to stop doing it.”

[See: Australia’s Indian-born Race Discrimination Commissioner declares Australia Day racist]

So this piece of shit bureaucrat that’s not even Australian, it’s being paid [$398, 450 a year plus $50,000 in accommodation and travel assistance] by the government to tell Australians they can’t celebrate their own national holiday.

And so then it puts into context the charges against us on Australia Day. We were the only people in Adelaide publicly celebrating Australia Day! I’m sure lots of people were celebrating Australia Day in the privacy of their own homes at the park, although that’s technically public, they weren’t demonstrating it. They weren’t showing their national pride on display. They were doing it at the park, at the beach, you know, under a little umbrella with their friends. We were in the city marching, showing that we still love Australia, we still care about Australia, and this is how we’re treated by the police.

So it’s very obvious that what they’re trying to do is ban Australia Day and they’re trying to ban Australia Day because they’re trying to ban Australia. How do you destroy a people? You have to take away their holy days. You have to take away their significant cultural events and days and deracinate them, de-route them to destroy their history and their legacy and their identity.

And then they’re just mindless consumers of the [goy] slop. And likewise Anzac Day. They’re not as overt about their hatred of Anzac Day, but what they do instead is corrupt it and they distort it and they try to defund it. You’ll notice that there was that debacle which Tim Lutze and Jim Roberts, both of whom have grandfathers that were, and great grandfathers that were Anzacs. I think, Jim, on both sides And Tim on one side, hence he’s got a German name. He had a grandfather, I believe, in the SS and a grandfather as an Anzac, which is an interesting life story, but here we are. And you know, he had grandfathers that fought on both sides, and Jim had grandfathers that fought for both, for Australia and the British Empire. And these are guys that have been banned from attending the Anzac Day ceremony because they attempted to attend the shrine in general.

[See: Nationalists banned from Melbourne’s Shrine of Remembrance on Anzac Day ]

I mean, their charge is something about “attempting to attend the shrine”. They didn’t commit any crime, they didn’t do anything illegal. They tried to go to the shrine to pay their respects. They were attacked by about 150 police officers and then they were arrested because they wouldn’t move on when they weren’t causing any disturbance. They just wanted to go in and hear The Last Post*.

[* The Last Post is a bugle call played before the period of silence at a commemorative service. In military tradition, the Last Post is the bugle call that signifies the end of the day’s activities. It is also sounded at military funerals to indicate that the soldier has gone to his final rest and at commemorative services such as Anzac Day and Remembrance Day. The Last Post is one of a number of bugle calls in military tradition that mark the phases of the day. While Reveille signals the start of a soldier’s day, the Last Post signals its end. The call is believed to have originally been part of a more elaborate routine, known in the British Army as “tattoo”, that began in the 17th century.]

And the reason why the guys were going to hear The Last Post was because the, as you would know, the police have said they’re going to defund The Last Post, that they’re not going to play the bugle on the Sunday afternoon. And so just like they’re trying to shut down Australia Day, they’re also trying to defund and shut down and distort Anzac Day, and distort the shrine.

[42:16]

Blair Cottrell: Do you think that’s how they kind of tear strips off it gradually, little bit by little bit, they remove traditional services until it’s kind of got nothing left. Right?

Thomas Sewell: Exactly, exactly! That’s what I’m trying to say. Yeah.

Blair Cottrell: What about, Are you guys, is it legal for you guys to demonstrate or publicly observe Anzac Day this year? Is that now legal for you to do? And if you do do it, is there a certain distance you have to be apart from each other? What’s the law say? Are you actually allowed to observe Anzac Day publicly as a group?

Thomas Sewell: There’s no law that says you can’t go as a group to celebrate or recognise Anzac Day, or any day, within the Australian veneration calendar, whether that’s Remembrance Day, Australia Day, Anzac Day, we have a veneration calendar. It’s basically the religion of White Australia, is Anzac Day, Anzac Day and Remembrance Day, and I’m sure there’s some smaller ones in between all that. But there is no law. It doesn’t exist. You can’t get drunk and have sex on the lawn out the front of the shrine. That would be a disturbance of the shrine. You couldn’t do that. I don’t think the Anzacs would actually mind too much.

But obviously all the old bitties [women] would probably be a bit upset. But I mean, the dead diggers* would be like:

“All right, well, we did worse!”

You know, they were larrikins*. But it certainly would be a disturbance and there would be laws against that. But they certainly weren’t against partying, that’s for sure.

[* Digger is a military slang term for primarily infantry soldiers from Australia and New Zealand. Evidence of its use has been found in those countries as early as the 1850s, but its current usage in a military context did not become prominent until World War I, when Australian and New Zealand troops began using it on the Western Front around 1916–17. Evolving out of its usage during the war, the term has been linked to the concept of the Anzac legend, but within a wider social context, it is linked to the concept of “egalitarian mateship”. Wikipedia]

[* Larrikin is an Australian English term meaning “a mischievous young person, an uncultivated, rowdy but good-hearted person”, or “a person who acts with apparent disregard for social or political conventions”.]

But it is a place of veneration. It is a place of solemn veneration. And that’s a big part of how we culturally recognise the fallen. But that’s not what the guys were doing. They just rocked up as a group, as you’re allowed to. You can rock up with your friends, you can rock up with your family, you can rock up by yourself. “Welcome to democracy!” But the police swarmed. Apparently the police didn’t have 75 grand to pay the bugler this year. Why that cost 75 grand, I don’t know. It’s obviously know, money laundering, but, …

Blair Cottrell: I’m sure someone would do it cheaper.

Thomas Sewell: Yeah, but they didn’t have 75 grand to play the bugler for the bugler for this year. But they had the money to put 150 cops on a Sunday to go tackle Tim Lutz and Jim Roberts.

I mean, there was hundreds of them!

Blair Cottrell: That would have cost more than 75 grand. Right.

Thomas Sewell: I did the maths and it was about 100 grand. Yeah. For one day, let alone the bugler for the whole year.

Blair Cottrell: So I can imagine there’s probably a few cops watching this. Right? Because that’s their job. And there’s people from various different walks of life and departments that are viewing the stream, will view this stream. And a lot of them would be thinking:

“You talk about veneration of the ancestors, Sewell, but you represent the same ideology they fought against. You represent National Socialism or Nazism.”

That’s what they’re going to think. Right.

But what do you say to those people, to people who believe that or have that perspective of you? How do you respond?

Thomas Sewell: There’s a lot of different ways to answer it. Most of them, you end up getting caught in the weeds. But a parable, or an example, would be, are they Christian or do they recognise Christianity as a part of the foundation of Western civilisation, or a component of it? Well, didn’t the Romans kill, didn’t they crucify Jesus? So how can we respect Roman law like the Magna Carta and Roman law and Jesus at the same time? Didn’t the Romans kill Jesus or vice versa? How could you be Christian and become a lawyer?

So we can hold two mutually exclusive structures. We can venerate the ancestors, and we can acknowledge that what the Germans fought for in the Second World War was righteous. I’ve always answered the question and said:

“My uncle and my father fought. Although I honour my father, my uncle was right!”

And what do you do in a scenario where your uncle fights your father? Obviously, you’re on your father’s side. Of course I’m on the side of the British Empire. Of course I’m on the side of Australia. We fought the Germans and we won.

But why did we brutalise our cousins like that? Why did we brutalise Hitler like that? These were honourable men. These were good men, and we destroyed their country, we incinerated them! We genocided them! And for what? So what, that communism could spread further in Europe and the jews could take control of our economy?

So that’s one way of answering it. That’s one of the crucial ways of answering it. Yeah.

[47:06]

And also there’s the semantics of it, which is Gallipoli wasn’t against the Nazis. Kokoda wasn’t against the Nazis. White Australians fought for White Australia. The only reason why they killed Germans was because they were even more racist than the Germans were. The only reason why they killed Germans was on behalf of the British Empire. They were like:

“Well, we don’t want to speak German! Even though we’re speaking German. We’re speaking, you know, we’re speaking English.”

We’re speaking modified German. We’re Anglo Saxons, primarily. It’s probably 60% of our DNA is Germanic. The rest is probably Celtic.

And so we, you know, we’re speaking German. We are a Germanic people. They’re our cousins. And most of the wars that we fought were against the Turks, were against the Japanese, were against the Chinese, were against the North Koreans, were against the Vietnamese. We primarily fought against Asian yellow expansionism and communism. And only a very small amount, like in the early days, obviously, was against., … Well, it’s not a small amount, but obviously we had the First World War where I think something like 110,000 Australian soldiers died, wounded or casualties. But again, that wasn’t against the Nazis. They didn’t exist yet. That was against the Germans in a “civil war”, in a brother’s war.

So I think, in summary, you can still venerate your father, even if he was technically wrong. I still love my father even though he’s wrong. And as the cliche David Irving saying is that if those boys that went and fought against in Tobruk and Alamein that went and fought against Rommel, against Hitler’s soldiers in North Africa, if those Australian soldiers knew what Australia would turn into now, they wouldn’t want anything to do with fighting the Germans. You know, they would have come home and would have fought against the Japanese.

So I think it’s very easy to be able to venerate both. I know that was a long answer, but I think it’s important for the patriots and for the people that maybe don’t understand the Hitler stuff or the German stuff so much.

Yeah, I mean, we’ve had lots of civil wars. For example, there’s the English Civil War between the Catholics and Protestants. Now, if you’re Catholic, how can you be proud of the British Empire? If you’re Catholic, I mean, you’re ultimately serving a Protestant construct that genocided basically the Catholics.

So you can make these kind of yeah, it’s just a cheap little jewish trick that is effective. It is effective. I will admit it is a very effective propaganda technique to try to turn fair dinkum [true, real, genuine] Aussies against people that have a little bit more political understanding of how the 20th century actually played out.

Blair Cottrell: It sounds like for you, veneration of your ancestors is always right, regardless of ideology.

Thomas Sewell: Correct.

Blair Cottrell: And National Socialism is much more nuanced than what major academics and influential powers have led us to believe it is. And there’s actually a lot of carryover between real National Socialist principles and common sense nationalism, even sort of Australian nationalism that we might employ or feel like we lean towards today.

You know, for me, I’m really proud to be Australian because of how good the Australians were at fighting. Australians had an international reputation for being really good soldiers and no one wanted to fight them. Anyone with experience fighting Australians did whatever they could to get out of fighting them again. Even Rommel, one of the most famous Nazi generals, had a lot of respect for Australian soldiers and he wrote about in his personal diary.

So for that matter alone, I’m really proud to be Australian and I want to honour the men who fought for my country, just because they were so good at it and they had the reputation that they had. I’m proud of that, obviously.

But look, 10 years ago, we started off this stream by talking about a decade ago when we first got involved in political activity. Before we were censored and the whole thing got cancelled by government intervention we were setting up a political party. We were in the process of building A political party after the popular protest movement became so popular that we realised we had to do something with all that manpower, something that would have real measurable political impacts on the culture and our country.

But as a result of intervention, censorship, hate speech, strife, and me being in court for about four or five years trying to clear my name of it, bank account closures, it kind of got swept under the rug, or at least put on the shelf. It’s been collecting dust ever since.

But I heard through some major media reports and through the channels the boys have that you’re in the process of putting together a party again. What’s the story with that? Tell me about it.

Thomas Sewell: Well, first of all, I’d like to clarify that we are building an organisation called “White Australia”.

And the first step before registering a political party is to build a supporter class for White Australia [https://whiteAustralia.org]. And we have recently just developed a website, a placeholder website. It’s not the final form. It’s certainly not what we want to put forward to the public as a hard launch of our organisation, but it’s certainly something that you can just check out quickly to get a rough idea of what we’re doing. An unfinished product at this stage.

[See: White Australia]

[52:43]

So that’s why we’re not doing any sort of big announcements. But I will discuss on stream that we are building a supporter class for this greater community group that we’re building. And we’re getting people’s details in compliance with the Australian Electoral Commission so that when we are ready to make a political party, we can send everyone those forms and you can register straight away.

So signing up, I want to make it clear, I want to clarify to everyone, because I have had a lot of questions about this. You’re not signing up to a political party called “White Australia” at this stage. What you’re signing up to is being a supporter of the organisation. And when we reach critical mass, say 2,000 people or two and a half thousand people, because you need 1500, and we know that there’s going to be auditing issues. So we want to maybe wait till we’re at 2,000 or 2500 before we then have the party platform finished. All the Constitution done, all the art styles done, the logos, everything else, maybe win a few court battles in the process. Because at this stage, they’re basically making it illegal for us to exist. We’re going to have to win these court battles probably before registering.

And then when that’s all done, everyone that signed up as a supporter will get either an email or if you’ve given your address which will come later. We haven’t asked for addresses at this stage. We will send out the paperwork. We will send out two bits of paperwork to you, either electronically or physically.

The first will be a form to sign up to our party registered through the AEC. The second will be a form for you to register with the AEC as a “silent voter”. And the importance of registering as a silent voter is so that people cannot look your name up on the electoral roll and then firebomb your house. It basically takes you off the electoral roll. It takes your details, your personal details.

We’ve had a lot of people reach out to us and say that they would be worried if there was a breach of security, like if ASIO or Mossad or political enemies within the AEC had leaked the information of the names of people that are signed up to the party.

And we’ve had, I mean, there was a threat recently by someone from the Victorian Libertarian Party that made a threat about being happy that we’re going to register so that he can personally go through the AEC roll and look for names and addresses. I mean, that’s a very serious threat from the Libertarian Party.

So the second piece of paper we’re going to give you when we give you the sign up paperwork for the AEC is how to register as a silent voter so that the Antifa, so that these libertarians that have got some ax to grind with us, they can’t do any harm to you. And it’s just for your safety. Everyone should do that regardless of signing up to our party or not.

So I just wanted to clarify that, Blair, that’s what we’re doing. That’s where we’re at. We’re probably 12 months away. The next election cycle after the one that’s going to happen in a month’s time is obviously in three years time, 2028.

So we have three years to get this up and running properly! So we’ve got about 12 months and then we’ve got two years to look at, well, what are we trying to achieve with this? What are our goals and how are we going to legitimize so that we can continue operating legally despite all this pressure.

Blair Cottrell: Great! Well, thanks for clarifying that. I was under the impression there was a party getting started up and I keenly signed up to it as a supporter. But I’m glad you explained that because if I thought that there was a party happening, then other people probably thought there was too. And it’s good to know that it’s in the works and I’m excited for it to come to the forefront in the near future.

But what is in the immediate future for Thomas Sewell and the group? Are we focused on the legal battles? Are we focused on getting that done first? Is there something else that we can look forward to? What are you focused on at the moment? Where’s your energy going to primarily?

Thomas Sewell: We always have our calendar of affairs, our calendar of special days. So we perform four major events a year, at minimum, and then we’ve got minor events in between those major events. So that always happens no matter what, regardless of anything. That will happen with me or without me. We always have our monthly meetups, we always have our weekly training and you know, we’re building, building Mannerbunds* all across the country, you know, constant recruitment. So all of those things are constantly in motion. That’s like a homeostasis.

[* The Männerbund, or warrior band/union/association, in ancient times was a prominent social institution among the Germanic tribes during the Iron Age (presumably even before that during the Proto-Germanic era) and afterwards. This institution was characterized by the formation of small groups of Men typically Nordic warriors, who formed a close Bond of brotherhood based on shared experiences, hardship, and spiritual beliefs and other determining factors.]

What is a big focus of this year is fighting these legal battles. And going hand in hand with the legal battles is registering our community group as a legal institution, as a legal organisation, which is, as I said, co-current with fighting the legal battles. We have a series of court cases that all rest on constitutional judgements. So we haven’t committed any crimes. No one in this organisation has been charged with any criminal offences from a criminal offence perspective. Like there’s been no bashings of security guards. There’s been no, you know, intimidating people while they’re pissing their pants out in, …

Blair Cottrell: Hang on. Didn’t you beat up a security guard though? Is it everyone except you or?

Thomas Sewell: No, that was in 2021 and that was a rightful self defense, Blair, as you’re aware.

But what I’m saying is that there’s been no incidences of such, this year. But there is about 30 pending court cases. And all of them are political court cases. None of them are criminal charges. Well, they’re criminal charges for political action. So basically every single court case we have is a constitutional matter.

So we need to go to the High Court, which is very, very expensive. And we’ve got three different methods of going to the High Court. And we’re deliberating between those three methods and deliberating with the three different teams of lawyers on these three different methods.

[59:09]

And ultimately the purpose of going to the High Court is to secure freedom of speech and freedom of political communication again, because it’s already in the Constitution. But to put it in there again, for ourselves and for everyone! We’re fighting for everyone’s right in Australia to have a political opinion. And they’re going to do everything they can to stop us from doing that. And the High Court will have to decide whether Australia has freedom of speech or not.

And that would mean, if we win, what it would mean is the striking out of the swastika ban, the striking out of the Roman salute ban, the striking out of all these loitering charges, and also the striking out of the “offensive behaviour” charges, because that’s the other method of lawfare that the police use. They say that:

“We don’t like your political opinions. We’re going to say that they’re not political opinions, they’re in fact offensive behaviour.”

And when you look at the precedent cases for offensive behaviour, it’s usually someone mooning the police, pulling their pants down and showing their bum to the police. It’s usually not a political statement like “Australia for the White man”.

So all of these things will be struck out if we win at the High Court. None of them will be struck out if we don’t win at the High Court. They will do exactly what they did to you, where they say:

“Well, you hurt people’s feelings! And your argument that it’s political speech is wrong because you actually hurt these people’s political speech by you existing!”

And they do the UNO reverse card*, and that’s what they’ll try to do to us.

[* The Uno Reverse Card is a special card in the Uno game that, when played, reverses the direction of play. It can be used strategically to change the order of turns among players.]

Blair Cottrell: Yeah. And what you’re talking about there, just so the audience understands, when I was charged with “intent to incite ridicule” on Facebook of a specific class of people, namely Muslims, that was the exact wording of the charge. Not “inciting ridicule”, “intent to incite ridicule”. The prosecution, the Department of Public Prosecutions in Victoria, Australia, they understand how sensitive the courts are about infringing on someone’s political communication rights. Well, at least the courts were sensitive about it back then. Apparently, Adelaide Magistrates Court isn’t so sensitive about it at the moment. But they were so aware of that being a sensitive topic. Part of their argument for having me convicted of that particular crime was that convicting me of the intent to incite ridicule charge would enhance political communication for everybody else. Because removing divisive, offensive me and my offensive opinions, by removing me from political discourse, everybody else would feel safer to engage in free and open discussion.

And so it was “enhancing free speech by canceling my speech”. And the judge went for it! The Chief Judge of the County Court of Victoria went for it. He accepted that submission. And that was a while ago now. That was what, seven or eight years ago? So that set a very unfortunate precedent. And I would have worked to overturn that precedent if I hadn’t have been censored from all social media and had my bank accounts closed and been unable to continue to fund my lawyer as a result. So you got to love that democracy, right, guys?

But good on you, man! I think out of everyone who’s currently engaged in any kind of politics, no one’s got it harder than you guys. You guys are riding the tiger. You guys are at the forefront of a very important struggle, and you’re not going to give up. That’s an admirable thing. Despite all the flak you’ve copped, despite all the nonsense that just seems to continue to escalate, you’re remaining calm and focused on your goal, which is to legally and rightfully defeat these people, this evil, that’s creeping into our institutions and just destroying our country. And so I really admire you guys for that!

Now, is there this year, tell me, is there going to be like, I hope that everything’s legally sort of cleaned up by this point. Is there going to be a weightlifting competition?

Thomas Sewell: Yes.

Blair Cottrell: Good. Because the last two years I’ve injured myself going to the weightlifting competitions, but this year I’m preparing myself. This year I’m conditioning my body to actually do the movements. So I’m not going to go home with a torn quad, or a completely ruptured pec tendon like the last two years. So I’m excited for that. And I hopefully see some guys down there. It’s good to catch everyone at those competitions.

And I got to tell you, I’ve got to tell you this is the honest truth, too, because I’m 35 now, right? And I’ve been very competitive in my life up until now, but I thought to myself, there’s some really good and strong younger guys that I’m keen to compete against. And you know what? I would like to come third! I want to see two of the guys beat me. I want to see two of the guys beat me. It’ll mean a lot to them, I think. And I just want them to win! I want them to be able to win!

So that’s the challenge. I want two guys. And I’ve got two guys in mind, actually. I got two guys in mind. One of them was the winner last year. I reckon he could have it again. But, yeah, I’m excited. I’m just excited about the weightlifting competition. I’ll throw it out there.

But, yeah, man, thanks for the chat. And it’s great to have you on because, … Sorry, I was reading the chat before too. People were saying I ruined the joke about the security guard. Sometimes I take things too literally. I don’t know what that is about me. So sorry if I ruined that joke. I didn’t intend to.

[1:04:33]

Thomas Sewell: What was the joke?

Blair Cottrell: When you said that there’s been no beating up of security guards, obviously you were insinuating that that had happened in the past, but I have to spell it out so I kind of ruined it. Sorry for my autism.

But we’re gonna get Joel on next. I know we haven’t had you on for a while, Tom, and there’s a lot more I’d like to talk about, but maybe you and I can do our own stream in the next few days and we can get a bit more into some interesting topics and I can pick your brain on a few more things, if you’re willing. What do you reckon?

Thomas Sewell: Yeah, absolutely! There’s a lot to cover. What I wanted to finish with is to encourage everyone, even though we’re not registering a party yet, to trust the plan, so to speak. If you’ve been around for a while, you’ll know that we’re not going anywhere. That, you know, 10 years, as of last week, Blair and I have been engaging in street protest movements and in real life politics and trying to shape Australia’s future in the right direction.

And I think that’s a pretty strong legacy. There’s not many politicians that you can say have been in the public spotlight and under the same scrutiny and stress that we have for 10 years. And we’re still here! We’re still doing it. You know, barely any politicians receive any flack. They don’t get their bank account shut down, they don’t get raided by the police, they don’t get attacked and intimidated. You know, they’re just left to just advocate for global finance and the housing market whenever they want!

Whereas we advocate actually for the Australian people, the real Australian people. And we’re not going to ever turn and run from this struggle. And if 10 years of doing this and we’re doing it now, smarter, wiser. We’ve been around the block a few times now. We’ve been through the courts, we’ve been through hate speech trials and criminal cases and that might, for a certain period of time, I think your time might be over by now. I think for me, I still got maybe another three years before I could even run for office. Is it five years or is it 10 years, the exclusion period? Because your time would be up, wouldn’t it?

Blair Cottrell: As a result of jail time?

Thomas Sewell: Yeah, because I don’t think you can go for office if you’ve, … I can’t remember, 12 months?

Blair Cottrell: It may be permanent, but I know that it doesn’t apply to Senate candidates, so I think he can still be a Senator, however, check my laws.

Thomas Sewell: Maybe someone in the chat would know?

Blair Cottrell: Well, I was under the impression that after 10 years had elapsed, your convictions prior to that 10 years, so long as there had been no reoffending of a serious nature or similar nature, your convictions were regarded as spent, and they didn’t even show up on your criminal record. But that’s not true! Because I got the police or I requested the police to send me a copy of my criminal record and some of my convictions, most of them, in fact 90% of them, are from over 10 years ago, so they have been technically spent, but they still show up on your record. So, I don’t know, you might need to go through some court process to get them removed. I don’t know.

Thomas Sewell: Yeah, I remember there’s a “fit and proper person” thing, which I don’t know if they’d give it to us, but certainly we have shown through our efforts and shown through our hard work and consistency that we’re not in this for cheap thrills. We’re not in this to just simply stir the pot, although we enjoy doing it. We are in this to change the country. And we’re doing it for our whole lives. So if that doesn’t guarantee a sense of legitimacy and public support, then maybe another 10 years will. But we’re not going anywhere! We’re doing it again, but we’re doing it better this time. We did attempt to make a political party after a couple years of street activism back when we were in our early 20s, and we’re doing it again.

And as much as Blair acts a bit aloof, he is actually, I think, looking forward to running for office. And he certainly would be the first person I would recommend to run for office for White Australians. I think he’s the ideal candidate for a Senator for White Australians.

Blair Cottrell: I am but a humble patriot. Oh, well, I’m a curious humble patriot. Just like seeing what’s going on here, that’s all I’m doing here man.

Thomas Sewell: I know, I know, but, yeah, I think that for this election, there’s really only one man that stands out for this election, the 2025 election, and that’s Rennick. He’s definitely a statesman. The Australian people don’t deserve him at this stage. Like, I don’t think that he’s going to get very far politically because of where politics is at the moment. But he is, I think even if he’s not a White nationalist, even if he’s not a racist like me, I think that he does genuinely care about Australia and Australia’s future. I think he’s probably one of the only honest men in Parliament.

And you can’t support us this year. You can’t support us for this election. You can join as a supporter and help us build our community and help engage in the process of building a party and building a community group and building a legal lobby and all the other things that we need to do, because it’s a multifaceted effort.

But what you can do this year, if you are thinking purely politics, party politics, you need to get behind Senator Rennick. He is the only honest. Well, he’s not the only honest man, but he is the most honest man in Parliament. He is the most honest man in Parliament. He’s the only man in the Senate that actually has a fucking plan! He’s the only one with a plan of how to fix Australia, even if he’s not focused so much on the racial aspect. And this isn’t me being a moderate. This is me being genuine and sincere. Like, I started this journey as a moderate. I did. I’ve become a radical political entity now after 10 years of being tortured by the government, and everything else, like set up, entrapped, arrested.

[1:10:52]

Blair Cottrell: Our first idea for a party was the “National Democratic Party”. We started off as, like, believing in democracy, believing in the rights you know that are enshrined by democracy.

Thomas Sewell: We still do. We’re just contesting a whole bunch of things.

But, yeah, I’ll finish with that. Get behind Rennick if you can. He is an honest man. He has an honest plan. And I hope that the Australian people recognise that. I hope that they see what kind of statesman and gem they have. Because Parliamentarians, I think Adolf Hitler said in Mein Kampf that:

“Sooner will a camel pass through the eye of a needle before an honest man is found in Parliament.”

And Rennick is that camel in the eye of the needle. He is honestly, I don’t care what his policies are, on race, I know he doesn’t have any because he’s playing careful, but he’s an honest man. And you can’t vote for us. You can support us, but if you’re going to vote, work out how to vote for him.

If you can’t vote for him because you’re not in his state or however the ballot box works, make sure you put the Liberal Party and Labor Party last. And I do mean that. Vote for the Greens before you vote for Liberal Party and Labor Party. Vote for the Greens. Our political strategy is to take power away from the centre. Do not vote Liberal or Labor under any circumstance! Put Liberal and Labor last. Whether you put labour last or Liberal last doesn’t matter. One or the other. But make sure you put the Greens third last. Do not put the Greens last. You need to put the Greens even though a lot of their votes just go to Labor, we need to smash the Liberal Party and Labor Party.

It needs to be a fight between the communists and us. And the Greens are communists. They are openly communists. It’s obvious they’re communists. And we need politics to polarise to the polls. We need it to be far-Left versus far-Right. We have to smash the centre!

So, yeah, that’s my advice.

Blair Cottrell: One more question for you. And if you don’t know for certain, that’s okay. But I was seeing Trumpet of Patriots billboards from Clive Palmer. Do you know where those votes will go? Is that just a trick? Should people vote for that?

Thomas Sewell: Put them., … Yeah, just their votes will go to the Liberal Party. That is just how the conservative Right works. They think that if they just become a satellite party of the Liberal Party, they’ll eventually get what they want. And they’re not really playing long term going well, actually, we have to destroy the Liberal Party if the centre Right is going to get anywhere. Because the Liberal Party is just a parasite. It’s very, very important.

So the short answer. Yeah, okay. Yeah. Vote for the majors first. Vote for all the majors of first. Don’t vote for the Teals, vote for the minor parties first. Sorry, did I make a mistake there? Vote for the minor parties first! Put the major parties last. Simple as!

Blair Cottrell: Right. Well, you’ve got a five dollar Superchat here. And before we transition, before I bring Joel on, I’ll give this to you so you can answer it now. Jake, 1219 sends through $5. Thanks, mate. He says:

“Tom, what would you say?”

Because you just said vote for the Greens. Right. But he asks:

“What would you say about the Greens’ South Australia Senator Sarah Hanson Young, who’s urged the government to consider designating the National Socialist Network as a terrorist entity?”

Thomas Sewell: What would I say to her?

[See: Far-left senator says nationalist group should be listed as terrorists for celebrating Australia Day]

Blair Cottrell: Well, you’ve, like, you basically told people to vote for the Greens. Sarah Hanson Young is a Greens leader or member, and they reckon you should be terrorists. Would that just maybe make it easier for them to designate you? Would that accelerate the process? I don’t think it would, because certain intelligence agencies would need to agree that that’s what you are. And legally, technically, you’re not doing anything violent that could actually designate you in that, into that category.

So I don’t think it’s an issue. But do you have any thoughts on Sarah Hansen Young? I guess that’s the question.

[1:15:01]

Thomas Sewell: So obviously she’s a Communist and she wants to eliminate her opponents. That’s why she’s like, this is obvious, this is a Schmittian* politics. It’s a “friend-enemy” distinction. They are the enemy. We are therefore their enemy, and they want to eliminate the enemy.

[* The Concept of the Political is a 1932 book by the German philosopher and jurist Carl Schmitt, in which the author examines the fundamental nature of the “political” and its place in the modern world. The Concept of the Political was published in the last days of Weimar Germany. Schmitt joined the NS Party in 1933, the year after its publication. The most famous line of the work is that “the specific political distinction to which political actions and motives can be reduced is that between friend and enemy.”]

And so what can be said about that? What you will find is politics is accelerating in a polarizing direction. Obama came out recently and complained that the things Donald Trump is doing:

“We never even considered while we were in office!”

And the reason why they’re upset about that is because they did consider it, but they knew that they didn’t have the pretence to do it, to do these kind of extreme things, extreme things that Trump is doing. And what will happen is when it swings back the other way, the other side will do things that the conservatives and the Trump administration wouldn’t have even considered doing!

And this just goes back and forth and back and forth until eventually we’re actually in a real political fight. And it’s no longer “we’re all just friends, let’s all get along!” Now, it’s like there’s two opposing sides. Now the Australian people really have to engage in politics and decide are we going to let communists or basically fascists take power? And we will never succeed in any scenario where the communists are weak. We will only succeed in a scenario where liberalism is weak, where the Liberal Party and Labor Party are weak. We can never succeed in a scenario where the Greens are this weak little faction on the side and the Liberal Party and Labor Party maintain the Uni-Party.

The only version of reality where we can solve this problem through cultural and political methods is through either polarisation within Parliament, which leads to one or the other taking control and outlawing the other. Either we take control and outlaw the Greens, or the Greens take control and outlaw us. The Liberal Party and Labor Party do not have the balls to engage in the friend-enemy distinction. They can’t actually do it. They’ll tear on it, but they won’t ever be able to do it.

So it’s a risk! You’re right. Supporting the Greens could mean that we get shut down. Well, we need to organise then, don’t we? We need to build a polar opposite faction to the Greens to make sure that we have as much sway within the Parliament as the Greens do. If the Greens are 10%, that we need to be 10%. If they’re 15, we need to be 15.

So instead of being like:

“Don’t do that! It’ll strengthen the Left!”

Good! Let’s smash the centre and then we can have the actual discussion which is:

“Do you hate Australia or do you love it?”

Because at the moment, the centre can pretend to love Australia. And that’s what, that’s the problem. Minns came out recently. Chris Minns, New South Wales premier, came out recently and said that:

“That the Race Discrimination minister is bonkers. It’s not racist to celebrate Australia Day!”

Now, Chris Minns is probably a boy fucker. He’s a faggot in the Liberal Party because they’re all homosexuals, in New South Wales. And you know, like the Labor Party, Liberal Party, they’re all paedophiles, they’re all homosexuals, they’re all freaks and they hate Australia and they hate Australia Day! But the Liberal Party have to pretend to like Australia Day in order to win the election.

So let’s remove them from the ballot box. That’s what we got to do. They’re the most serious threat.

But, yeah, you get the point.

Blair Cottrell: I do. What you’re saying is an amplified anti-national enemy to our country is a means for empowering real national resistance, in contrast.

Thomas Sewell: Heighten the contradictions! That’s what I’ve always been saying.

Blair Cottrell: I like it. It’s very succinct. It’s well said.

Thomas Sewell: Well, I’ll leave it there.

Blair Cottrell: Thanks for joining us, mate.

Thomas Sewell: Thanks for having me. It’s been a pleasure. See you later.

Blair Cottrell: See you later, mate. Thanks for being on.

[1:19:08]

So next up, guys, we’re going to bring on the illustrious Joel Davis and enjoy some superior intellect. We’re going to go through some similar topics and we’ll get our perspective, Joel’s perspective on things, especially the court matter, which was just yesterday because it involved Joel as well. I believe Joel was part of the tele telephone link in the courtroom because Joel’s being charged with similar offences to Tom, I believe. Is that right Joel? Have you guys got similar charges or are they different in some way?

Joel Davis: The difference is that Thomas has been charged with one count “Nazi symbol”, one count “fail to cease loiter”, which is obviously ridiculous! Both of them are ridiculous! The distinction is that he was arrested on the day I was arrested going to pick them up from jail two days later. They slapped the Nazi symbol charge on me when they arrested me.

And then when they arrested me two days later I was in a suit because I anticipated we’d be going to a courtroom. So I was in my suit and I had a belt buckle with an eagle on it and they decided that that also was a Nazi symbol apparently. So I have two counts of Nazi symbol. One for the NSN patch on Australia Day and one for the belt I was wearing two days later when picking up the boys, or attempting to pick them up from jail and then getting thrown in jail myself. Which I guess is quite funny. I’m sure everyone has seen the video.

But Tom and I have the same lawyer and our lawyer was in Adelaide. So our cases were heard at the same time and they were fundamentally the same arguments. So it was all basically one session. I believe Tom went before me. I didn’t hear his case because I’m not legally allowed to call into his case. I called into mine. I guess Tom made the same decision as I did which was that later in the proceeding we’re going to have to go to Adelaide and front up to the court in the flesh. And so because it will be so many different court dates, traveling to Adelaide every single time is going to become quite labourious.

[1:21:22]

So we just kind of calling in for these early hearings. But our lawyer was there. The lawyer was basically, it wasn’t even about the charges, it was simply about the bail conditions. So we both have conditions, as do everybody else who is was charged from Australia Day. We have a condition in our bail agreement that says we’re not allowed to associate with other members of the organisation. And you know, it’s a ridiculous condition.

Number one, it’s ridiculous because in the Bail act of South Australia, the provision in the Bail act which determines that a non-Association clause should be applied is connected in the act to the condition that the charge itself be an offence that is serious, defined as having a maximum penalty of five or more years. So it’s quite ridiculous! We’re charged with very minor offences. The maximum penalty is one year for Nazi symbol. The maximum penalty for cease loiter, I believe is like three months or something. So these are minor offences. They’re summary offences, to use the correct language.

And the whole purpose of these bail conditions exist for basically biker gangs or other organised crime gangs if they get them on something to prevent them from associating with their criminal gangs, basically. So being treated like as if we’re a criminal gang, even though we’re a political organisation, which is unconstitutional and the charges are ridiculous!

Number one, the Nazi Symbol law, in my opinion is itself unconstitutional, then also to interpret it to include the NSN logo or the eagle on my belt is ridiculous! When the public think of Nazi symbol, they think of a swastika. They might think maybe of SS bolts. And it’s actually defined as that, for example, in the Victorian laws, in the Federal laws, it’s defined as these specific symbols.

We have had NSN rallies in Adelaide before where the boys have had the Patch on their arm, the NSN patch. No arrests were made. And the Police Commissioner of South Australia has basically been interviewed and grilled by the media afterwards in a press conference where they’ve said:

“Why didn’t you arrest any of them, the Nazis?”

And they said:

“Because no crimes were committed.”

So we were under the reasonable belief that the patch was legal in South Australia because we have literally on record the Police Commissioner of South Australia saying no crimes were committed while we were wearing these patches.

So anyway, it’s something that they’ve invented. They’ve invented this interpretation, this ridiculous interpretation by equivocating the NSN symbol with some obscure Hungarian fascist Arrow Cross symbol. It’s a completely different symbol. It doesn’t say, “resemble” a Nazi symbol. It says Nazi symbol. And also, Hungarian fascists aren’t Nazis, they’re Hungarian fascists. Fascist symbols. It’s Nazi symbols. So for multiple reasons, it’s ridiculous!

But anyway, these charges have been slapped on us. We will end up prevailing in court. But in the meantime, they can hold these bail conditions over us.

Now, what the prosecution said is they want these bail conditions held over us because they’re afraid that:

“We’re going to conspire to come back to Adelaide and host another rally in Adelaide on Anzac Day.”

We have no intentions to do that. I don’t want to go back to Adelaide anytime soon, to be honest. We kind of have a rotating schedule with our national meets and we hadn’t been to Adelaide for one of them. And so we decided to go to Adelaide for one and then it was going to be put back in the rotation and we weren’t going to return to Adelaide probably for some time. Like we went and did our job in Adelaide and now we’ll probably go to other places. So we had no intention really to go back anytime soon.

Also, on Anzac Day, we don’t protest Anzac Day. We didn’t protest Australia Day, by the way, either. It was a celebration! It was not a protest.

But we don’t even do that kind of thing on Anzac Day. We generally just participate like normal members of the public in Anzac Day events. We’ll go to the Dawn Service and other services and we’ll just stand there as members of the public. Like, we don’t have banners, we don’t make noise. We don’t see that as respectful to the ancestors on that day.

On Australia Day, it’s a bit more appropriate. So that’s why we did it. It’s not so appropriate on Anzac Day. We have no precedent for doing it on Anzac Day. So it’s just ridiculous!

But even still say they’re worried about that and it’s legitimate, which it isn’t. We’re Australian citizens. We have the right to go wherever the hell we want on Anzac Day and to engage in peaceful political activity however the hell we want. That’s our constitutional right. That’s what it means to live in a representative democracy, and that’s what the High Court has interpreted it means to live in a representative democracy. It’s not illegal to demonstrate, it’s not illegal to march around. It’s not illegal to be a National Socialist.

Nevertheless, let’s say that’s a legitimate concern for argument’s sake, which it isn’t. Why then do we need to have bail conditions that restrict what we’re doing in Victoria or in New South Wales, places where the Nazi symbol laws are specific and the NSN symbol is legal or having a belt with an eagle on it is legal. It’s actually impossible for us to reoffend against these laws in Victoria or New South Wales, or anywhere else in the country. It’s only possible with a contrived interpretation of the South Australian law because it’s more ambiguous. It just says Nazi symbol in the statute with no further elaboration.

[1:27:14]

So the bail condition shouldn’t apply outside of the state of South Australia. If we’re trying to form a political party and organise the foundation of a political party in the rest of Australia and that is being impaired so that the South Australian police can “feel safe” that we aren’t going to march through the street. I mean, think about how ridiculous that is! So there’s so many levels under which this is ridiculous!

Our lawyer argued against it. I listened obviously to my court case. The magistrate literally said:

“Well, they (referring to Tom and I) have not reoffended since they were arrested. Therefore the bail conditions are working*. So I don’t want to change them.”

So what is that implying? That we should have committed a crime between Australia Day and now to prove the bail conditions are invalid and he would revoke them? So basically we’re being punished for abiding by the law, by being law abiding citizens. That means that we don’t get to have political rights.

[* Having complied with the bail conditions is a nonsensical, Alice in Wonderland, logic for continuing to maintain them, but rather, if anything, should be reason to ease the bail conditions! – Kat]

Blair Cottrell: I mean theoretically, you theoretically never broke the law in the first place. Right?

Joel Davis: Well, exactly!

Blair Cottrell: So how are they working? They’re working to. That’s going to be my next question. How has your political and personal life been affected by these conditions? And I suppose that’s what the magistrate meant by “they’re working”. They’re preventing you from freely communicating with people who you’re engaged in for political purposes. Is that a legal or ethical reason for a bail condition?

Joel Davis: In Australia we have a constitutional right to political communication. The High Court has determined across multiple decisions, many, many decisions. It is affirmed again and again and again that the clause in the Australian constitution that says “Australia is a representative democracy” implies that Australians have a right to politically communicate. Because how can you be represented by in the democratic process if you can’t even communicate what your political views are, or if basically society isn’t able to communicate with each other, then the process of actually creating representation for the people is impossible!

There are Australians, millions of Australians with White nationalist or quasi White nationalist views, and very substantial amount of Australians with National Socialist views. They need representation. We are their representation. We represent them. If we aren’t able to communicate, if we unable to do demonstrations, form political parties, etc, then we don’t have representative democracy! Because these people are legally barred from being represented. So it’s unconstitutional! And it’s fundamentally against the principles of liberal democracy. So it’s completely wrong!

And it’s basically this magistrate is just arbitrarily deciding because of his own personal political bias. And he basically defined himself as a “victim”. He said that:

“We’re intimidating and distressing the community of South Australia.”

And he referred to the community of South Australia as “us and we”. He used pronouns that included himself, which means he should have recused himself immediately from the case because he’s now defined himself as a victim, which is fundamentally illegitimate within the practice of law.

Blair Cottrell: How can a victim preside over a legal matter? They can’t.

Joel Davis: Exactly! It means he can’t be impartial. He accused Sewell of having “a fake innocence”. A basic principle of criminal law is that you are presumed innocent until proven guilty. The process of going to court is the onus is under prosecution to prove that you have committed a crime! The onus is on them to prove beyond a reasonable doubt you have committed a crime. Until that has been proven, we are not guilty. But the judge has decided, …

Blair Cottrell: No, no, you’re not innocent though. You’re “fake innocent”.

Joel Davis: It’s what he said. And he said “fake innocence”, whatever the fuck that means! And he didn’t say it on the basis of anything to do specifically with:

“Is it a Nazi symbol? Is it not a Nazi symbol?”

He didn’t even engage in these kinds of discussions. He said because:

“We distressed and intimidated the community.”

We didn’t get charged with distressing or intimidating the community. That’s not what we’re going to court about. We’re going to court about is:

“Is the symbol on our clothing a Nazi symbol or not?”

That’s what we’re actually going to court about. And is that even constitutional for that to be illegal? No one has been convicted in the state of South Australia under this law. It’s a brand new law, and it’s an unconstitutional law. And we’re determining is it constitutional? And if, let’s say it is constitutional, which it isn’t, is the NSN logo banned by this particular law? This is all up for debate!

So while we’re having this debate and probably having to go through an appeals process because this magistrate is a fuckwit! We’re going to have to go to a higher court where you’re going to get a better judge that’s more reasonable. That’s how it works in the Australian legal system. We basically are now politically disempowered. I can’t talk to Tom. I can’t associate with him. I can’t associate with anyone in the organisation. Right in the middle of us trying to get together and organise a political party, which has also been upheld by the High Court of Australia.

In the 1950s, the Liberal government, under Menzies, tried to ban the Communist Party. The High Court said that’s unconstitutional. The Australian constitution gives Australians the right to form political parties according to the provisions in the Electoral Act. You know, you have to abide by certain rules, but it can’t be unreasonably impaired, except to like facilitate elections in a reasonable and orderly fashion.

[1:32:55]

Then the Liberal government held a referendum to try and change the Constitution to allow them to ban the Communist party. This is in the 1950s. Everyone hated communism. This is the height of the Cold War. Conservative government. The Australian people voted no. We don’t want to change the Constitution to ban the Communist Party. The Australian people wanted to protect the Constitutional protection for anyone with any ideology to form political parties. Then two explicitly National Socialist political parties were formed in the 70s and contested elections as National Socialists explicitly in this country. They were not banned, they were allowed to participate.

So there’s precedent. National Socialists have participated in Australian democracy before and the High Court and the Constitution prevents you from banning political parties.

So what is happening right now is this magistrate is unconstitutionally in collusion with the pro, the prosecution, which is the South Australia Police, under the orders obviously of not just the South Australian government, but probably even higher, probably people in the federal government are coordinating this to prevent us from forming a political party. And also to prevent us from doing activism together during a federal election cycle. We’re not contesting this election, but we have something to say about it. We can’t participate in the collective conversation without impairment.

And so therefore it isn’t just our rights that are being violated. Me as an individual, Tom as an individual, other members of our organisation as individuals. The rights of all Australians are actually being impaired to have a fully open electoral process, a fully open democratic process. And every single Australian who feels represented by us, which is many! You can see the support that we have online. You can see the popularity and the notoriety of the things that we do. Love us or hate us, we are part of the conversation! We are some of the most interesting people in Australian politics, probably the most interesting people in Australian politics. And we represent the views of many, many Australians. There’s a lot of racists in this country and the Left will agree with me on that. There’s a lot of racists in this country. We are their representatives!

In fact, Australia was built on racism. Australia was founded as a White nationalist country by White nationalists! You know, you guys were talking before. I was listening. You guys were talking before about the Anzacs. Well, what did our Prime Minister Billy Hughes say in World War I when he sent the Anzacs over to go and fight for the British Empire in France? He didn’t say:

“I bid thee to go fight for the British Empire in France.”

He said:

“I bid thee to go fight for White Australia in France.”

White Australia! Why did he say that? He said that because he was afraid, as were many of our founding fathers, and he was in the Parliament from the beginning. They were afraid of the threat of the Japanese Empire and of the Asian powers in general, the Chinese and so on, becoming so powerful that ultimately that they could basically threaten Australia’s national sovereignty. And they saw the guarantee of Australia’s national sovereignty as the power of the British Empire. At that time, the British Empire was the world’s pre-eminent naval power. They had, they were forward deployed in Hong Kong, in Singapore, they were all over Asia. They dominated the waters of Asia. And so that secured Australia.

And so we thought, well, if Australia loses World War I to Germany, then the British Empire, sorry, if, sorry, Britain loses World War I to Germany, the British Empire will cease to exist in the Asia Pacific region and Australia will be left isolated. And that was why we went to go fight for the British. We didn’t go fight for the British just because we were loyal to the Empire and some kind of sentimental attachment to the Monarchy or something. We were fighting for Australia’s interests, at least as that’s what everyone perceived them as at that time.

So that’s what the Anzacs fought for. That’s what they died for. 60,000, 65,000 Australians died in World War I. Those were the Anzacs. They died for White Australia! Then they came back to Australia. They created the, what was the precursor organisation of the Return Services League, the RSL. It used to have a longer name, I can’t remember the exact acronym*. All of the leaders of the RSL were staunch, staunch advocates, not just of the White Australia Policy, but of defending Australia as an outpost, a citadel of the British race! They said this explicitly. And our prime ministers again and again and again affirmed the White Australia Policy, the racial principle and so on.

[*The Returned and Services League of Australia, also known as RSL, RSL Australia and the RSLA, is an independent support organisation for people who have served or are serving in the Australian Defence Force. The League was formed in 1916 in response to the lack of a unified approach with Australian repatriation facilities and medical services for those returning from World War I. On 6 June 1916, a meeting of representatives from New South Wales, Queensland, South Australia and Victoria resolved to form The Returned Sailors and Soldiers Imperial League of Australia (RSSILA). Their intention was to lobby for better benefits, treatment and welfare of veterans and serving members of the Defence Force and to preserve the health, well-being and security of Australia and the Australian way of life. Before then, state Returned Service Associations had lobbied for better conditions for returned service people in their respective states. The League soon became, and remains, the nation’s largest ex-service organisation. In 1940, the name of the League changed to the Returned Sailors’, Soldiers’ and Airmen’s Imperial League of Australia (RSSAILA). It changed in 1965 to the Returned Services League of Australia (RSL) and in 1990 to the Returned & Services League of Australia. [citation needed] Before that time, those who defended Darwin from Japanese bombing in World War II were not eligible to join, as they had never left Australia and thus could not be “returned.” Wikipedia]

The only thing that everyone could agree upon in Australian Parliament for the first half of our nation’s existence was that Australia would be for the White man! They disagreed on all other kinds of policies around economic policy and other policies. They agreed Australia would be for the White man.

Blair Cottrell: That was actually some disagreement or opposition to the Immigration Restriction Act, which would later be dubbed the “White Australia Policy”. There was disagreement about whether or not that policy should be passed or put in place, but not on the grounds that it was racist, only on the grounds that it wouldn’t be enough to keep Australia White. Which ended up being true. Everyone supported it! Every one of our original statesmen supported the White Australia Policy. That’s a fact!

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

Joel Davis: Yep, that’s exactly the case. And the reality of the situation is this. We represent, in today’s Australian society, in today’s Australian political process, we represent the White nationalism of our founders.

In fact, that was the whole reason why Australia was federated [1901] in the first place, was to create a coherent immigration policy to secure Australia for the White man. When we say “Australia for the White man,” we didn’t make that up. That’s our slogan. But that slogan has been around since before Australia’s federation. That’s, that was the slogan of the Australian nationalist movement in the 1880s, the 1890s. That’s where we got it from.

[1:39:02]

So that’s what needs to be understood here. We are the representatives, yeah, we are National Socialists and that is distinct. But we are fundamentally the representatives of the White Australian nation in the 21st century in Australian politics. The people who wrote the fucking constitution in the first place.

[See: Joel Davis – The White Australia Policy with Matthew Grant – Jul 27, 2023 – Transcript]

And the people that are trying to ban us from participating have absolutely no regard for the Constitution, for the founding of this country, for any of the principles or values upon which this nation was built. And they showed that contempt in the way that we were treated for celebrating our national holiday and contrasting that with the way that the anti-Australian, anti-Australia Day protest was being held at the same time. And basically the red carpet was rolled out for them.

So anyway, the point is this, the point is that this whole thing is a joke! I look forward to going to the High Court, but it’s going to be a process. When we get to the High Court we have an opportunity for a serious victory. We are the vanguard of political freedom in this country. If they can ban us, if they can prevent us from legally organising, that means liberal democracy is over. That means Australia is no longer a free nation. That’s the conclusion of Australia as a liberal, democratic country.

Now they can just ban you because they decide that your political ideology offends their feelings. They have total contempt for the law, total contempt for the Constitution, total contempt for all the values upon which this nation was built and which it pretends even to this day to aspire to, but actually doesn’t. That’s what this is. We are the test!

But anyway, we wouldn’t get into that legal debate, this was basically just a bail hearing. We haven’t even entered into a plea yet. So it’s going to be a long process. And we’ll probably lose in the magistrate’s court based upon the attitude that this ridiculous person calling himself a magistrate had. But we’ll just appeal it. We’ll appeal.

The question is, are we going to go to the Supreme Court, Are we going to go to the High Court or we go Supreme Court first and then maybe we need to go onto the High Court from there. There’s all these different legal strategies that have been proposed to us. It’s going to be very expensive.

But ultimately we’ve been given a potential great opportunity here, because if we can win, it doesn’t just mean, oh, we beat the charges and we walk free. It’s not about that if we win, we set a precedent. We set a precedent that will limit the state, will limit the state from its overreach, permanently! And we will secure the room to move for, not just for National Socialists or even not just for White nationalists, but for any non-conforming political tendency in this country to organise and manifest itself.

So this is a vital importance. And the entire Australian Right and everyone who has liberal, democratic, libertarian sensibilities should coalesce around us and support us. And we want to participate in the political system. We want to form a party and we will. And we have enough, we have the numbers. Like we’ve barely even started trying to collect signatures. We just did a little signature drive on Telegram and we’re already a long way of the way there to where we need to be able to register a political party. We have a lot of supporters.

Blair Cottrell: I noticed that Channel 7 news in Australia already can’t help themselves. They’re already talking about the formation of your political party long before it’s even actually happening. It’s only being mentioned and the media is already, you know, legacy media, TV news are already demonstrating that they’re going to be a major vehicle in driving your party into the subconscious of the masses. So even me saying this isn’t going to stop them from doing it. Obviously they won’t be able to help themselves. So that’s a bonus.

Joel Davis: Yeah. When we register a political party, we are going to be the most interesting thing in Australian politics, even as a small, brand new party, everyone’s going to want to have something to say about us. Everyone’s going to know about us. We’re going to establish a powerful brand. And I’ve been talking to a lot of people. I know a lot of people. I know a lot more people than people realise perhaps across the Australian Right. And the mood is very positive.

A lot of people in politics believe that we can get people elected, that we can get someone like you elected. We can get someone like me elected. I think you’re easier to elect than me, but we can get people like Tom elected. We’d be the most interesting candidates on the bill.

And someone said before, if you have a criminal conviction, does that mean that you are constitutionally that you’re barred from running for office? I need to fact check that. Article 44 of the Constitution is interpreted to only apply if you are basically either sentenced or haven’t completed your sentence when you are trying to run for office.

So if you served, like, if you went to jail like 10 years ago, served your sentence and they’re out, it’s irrelevant. Like you can run for office. It doesn’t, it doesn’t impact you in any way. So that’s not a concern.

It could be a concern if we start trying to run for office and they try to put us in prison and mess with us, and then I believe it has to be a sentence of one year or more. Even so, if they get you for like a little petty offence, it still isn’t enough to like disqualify you from office or running for office.

But anyway, we will register a political party. There are very strong constitutional protections, legal protections for registering political parties in this country.

[1:45:05]

Blair Cottrell: Hang on. Sorry to interrupt, but something just occurred to me. Didn’t they just change the punishment for displaying a Nazi symbol or gesture to minimum one year?

Joel Davis: That’s the new federal law. But they changed that after we were charged.

And also the federal law doesn’t apply to us because the federal law is only the swastika and the SS Sig-rune bolts*. That’s the only two symbols that are prohibited.

[* The Sig-Rune (“Victory rune”) or Siegrune symbolised victory (Sieg). The names of the ᛋ-rune (on which the Siegrune was based) translate as “sun” (see Sowilo), however, von List reinterpreted it as a victory sign when he compiled his list of “Armanen runes”. The Siegrune was adapted into the emblem of the SS in 1933 by Walter Heck, an SS-Sturmhauptführer who worked as a graphic designer for Ferdinand Hoffstatter, a producer of emblems and insignia in Bonn. Heck’s device consisted of two sig runes drawn side by side like lightning bolts, and was soon adopted by all branches of the SS – though Heck himself received only a token payment of 2.5 Reichsmarks for his work. The device had a double meaning; as well as standing for the initials of the SS, it could be read as a rallying cry of “Victory, Victory!”. The symbol became so ubiquitous that it was frequently typeset using runes rather than letters; during the NS period, an extra key was added to German typewriters to enable them to type the double-sig logo with a single keystroke. Wikipedia]

Blair Cottrell: It just occurred to me, maybe they change it to a minimum sentence of one year in order to, by default, disqualify anyone convicted of it from participating in politics later.

Joel Davis: No. Well, if once you serve the one year, then you can.

But it’s like if you’re trying to run and then you get sentenced or you haven’t completed the time served, you can’t. You become disqualified. But like, say I went out tomorrow and I waved a swastika flag on Parliament steps and got arrested and charged under the federal laws and thrown in prison for a year. Once I get out and I’ve served my time now I can go and run for office. Right? Yeah, it’s not something to be too worried about.

Blair Cottrell: But I think you’re right though, the feeling amongst the general community, the Australian nationalist community, the far-Right, whatever you want to call it, is positive and it’s ready for high controversy. Ethnic nationalism entering into official politics. I do sense that as well.

Joel Davis: Yeah. And that’s the thing. Like Australia, if you understand Australian political history, it’s literally the whole purpose of this country’s existence was White nationalism. Like that’s in the soul of the country. Like the same way that Americans care about their rights. Like what rights are to Americans, racism is to Australians.

Blair Cottrell: Like, yeah, man, yeah. Truth.

Joel Davis: Yeah. So anyway, I wanna branch to talk about the upcoming election.y.

Blair Cottrell: Before you do, you said something there and I wanted to pick your brain on it. It’s going to be a little segue, but I think we can sort of keep it within a five to ten minute answer. You said that National Socialism is distinct and that’s what makes you guys distinct. And then we went on to talk about the original statesman and the White Australia Policy.

Now, how is National Socialism distinct from the political position of our original statesman who established the White Australia Policy? Is it that much different? And if so, how?

Joel Davis: Sorry, I zoned out. What were you saying?

Blair Cottrell: [chuckling] I was asking because when you said that National Socialism is distinct and that’s what makes you and your guys distinct in particular from our original statesman who established the White Australia Policy. How? How are you guys different? How is National Socialism distinct from the political position of our original statesman?

Joel Davis: Well, the distinction is that in the origin of Australia’s history, they were willing to have a politics of compromise. And that’s what liberal democracy is. Liberal democracy is a politics of compromise. Now it exists. So people say:

“Oh, Joel, if you don’t agree with liberal democracy in fundamental principle, why do you demand liberal democracy recognise you?”

Well, at the end of the day, it’s what liberal democracy is. What a constitution is a contract, a contract of compromise between diverging political factions. And the government justifies itself on the basis that it is guaranteed by the contract of liberal democracy. The government couldn’t say:

“Hey, we’re going to have a dictatorship where we impose all the values of multiculturalism and diversity, …”

And all this bullshit that they’re imposing on us, if they said:

“We’re going to do it as a dictatorship!”

It’s not, people aren’t going to like that it’s not going to be popular, it’s not going to be respected. It’s going to be seen as a horrible tyranny. The way in which they’re able to get away with it, insofar as they can, is by saying:

“But if you don’t like it, you can vote for something different and you have the freedom of speech to dissent against it. And you can organise a political opposition movement as long as you do it peacefully and within the contractual rules of the democracy. And then you can, if you can change it under those means, you’re able to change it.”

So that’s the so-called deal that we have.

So insofar as they’re giving us that deal, I say that we try and actually enforce that contract and use it to limit them and use it to make space for ourselves to operate. Right.

But the principle underneath the contract is itself the problem. We should not be in a position that we’re in now where jews and non-Whites and all these other special capitalist interest groups and special interest groups are able to have so much power over us. And they were empowered to get into this position because of the compromises made back at the beginning, at the founding of the country.

If, at the founding of the country racial exclusion was in the Constitution, there was a much higher bar for citizenship. It was basically, if it was a lot more exclusionary, the jews were kept out, the Freemasons were broken up, the communists were never allowed to get established. If the capitalists, investor interests were held in check and not able to take over the political system through political campaign donations and buying up the media and all these other various methods, then we could have prevented what has transpired from transpiring.

And that’s basically what National Socialism is. National Socialism is okay, we need to go a step further. Liberal democracy isn’t enough. It gives too much leeway to our enemies. And so we need to seize control of the state, completely remove jews, Freemasons, Marxists, et cetera, from political life to guarantee the survival of our nation and of our race.

[1:51:18]

Blair Cottrell: Do you think if our original prime ministers, original statesmen, if they could see where liberal democracy went, like if they could, for example, see into the future, would they have probably embraced National Socialism or something of the like?

Joel Davis: Absolutely! They would have embraced something more authoritarian and more exclusionary. If you read the arguments that were taking place at the earliest sessions of Australian Parliament. The argument was primarily between people that were, as you said earlier, more radical on the White Australia Policy and those who are more compromising. Everyone agreed that it was a good policy and that we should maintain a homogenous White Australian nation. But the British Empire at the time we relied upon for our national security, as I mentioned earlier, because they had the world’s strongest empire. We were a member of, we were part of the British Empire. We are an Anglo Saxon people, a British people. And so we enjoyed that protection.

But at the same time, the British were forging and ultimately did forge an alliance with the Japanese that was ultimately signed in 1904. We did not approve of that so much, because we saw the Japanese as a threat. The British saw the Japanese as important allies, because the British were trying to maintain stability in Asia, because they saw rising tensions in Europe. There was an ascendant Germany. There were other European powers that trying to colonise different parts of the world and compete with the British.

And so they saw the alliance with the Japanese as ultimately in their commercial and geopolitical interests. And the Japanese were offended by the White Australia Policy because they were like:

“Oh, we don’t want to be classified as on the same level as like negroes and Arabs. We’re the Japanese. Like, we’re a great people. Like, we’re worthy. Our people shouldn’t be barred from immigrating to Australia because we’re a noble people with a great empire and you should respect us as equals.”

And the response by people like Alfred Deacon, who was our second prime minister, he was our Attorney general originally. So he draughted the Immigration Restriction Act himself. He was one of our founding fathers. He became our second prime minister. His argument was:

“Well, we are excluding you because we respect you, actually! Because the Japanese are a very industrious people. We don’t want to let them in to our country because we fear Japanese are numerous, industrious and powerful people, and we don’t want you guys taking over our country.”

Blair Cottrell: One of your arguments. The more sophisticated and industrious immigrants are actually the most dangerous. You’ve made that argument several times.

Joel Davis: Yeah, well, Alfred Deacon* made that argument many, many times, actually. So I’m just copying one of the founding fathers of my country when I make that argument. You know, I’ve made that argument. And people have criticised me:

“Joel Davis, he’s ridiculous! He wants the country flooded with Muslims and blacks!”

Obviously I don’t, I’m a fucking Nazi! But idiots will say that to misrepresent me.

[* Alfred Deakin was an Australian politician who served as the second prime minister of Australia from 1903 to 1904, 1905 to 1908, and 1909 to 1910. He held office as the leader of the Protectionist Party, and in his final term as that of the Liberal Party. He is notable for being one of the founding fathers of Federation and for his influence in early Australian politics. Deakin was born in Melbourne to middle-class parents. He was elected to the Victorian Legislative Assembly in 1879, aged 23, additionally working as a barrister and journalist. Wikipedia]

But what I’m saying is not that that’s good, obviously, but that actually bringing like Chinese and jews and so on is more dangerous than Arabs or blacks, like on a political level.

But there were other people in the Parliament that were saying:

“Alfred Deacon is a cuck! That even if the British Empire are upset about it, we should just ram through a explicitly racist constitution, explicitly racist legislation. And who cares if the Japanese don’t like it and who cares if the British government don’t like it? We’ll demand it. And ultimately they will have to bend to our will.”

And people like Deakin and others were like:

“Well, we don’t want to upset the British and we want to be good members of the Empire and maintain the diplomatic relations. And so we’ll still ban non-Whites from the country, but we’ll do it through indirect means. We’ll do it through a dictation test, we’ll do it through bureaucratic mechanisms and so on.”

So basically there was no explicit law saying non-Whites can’t immigrate to Australia. But if they tried to, basically an immigration officer, because all the immigration officers in the immigration bureaucracy were all super racist and employed to be racist. They were told not only if someone was non-White, but if someone looked a little sus, they would literally do a physionomy check and be like:

“Does that guy look kind of jewish? Does that guy look kind of Asiatic?”

And if they thought that he didn’t look up to scratch, or he or she didn’t look up to scratch, they’d make them sit the test in a language they knew that they couldn’t speak so that they would fail. They would just pick a language they couldn’t speak and make them sit the test in that language.

Blair Cottrell: What were the initial languages that they could choose from? I think it was English, French and German. Is that right?

Joel Davis: There were others, I think Italian. It was a bunch of European languages they had.

[1:56:12]

Blair Cottrell: And apparently I think there was only three in the beginning, but then they changed it to include some others.

Joel Davis: Yeah, they expanded it. Yeah. But the point is that it worked. They were like:

“Oh, if we do this, it’ll work. It’ll keep Australia White.”

And so then that people were like, okay, we’re not happy about it. But they managed to agree to it.

But ultimately it was wrong. Because ultimately it laid a foundation that was too weak, that ultimately was then disassembled over a period of time.

Blair Cottrell: What is that race? What is that race that speaks all the languages or the most languages?

Joel Davis: Well, I mean they still kept jews out. You got to understand like these guys were, these guys were anti-semitic. There’s fuck all jews that came to Australia really until, … There was a few that got in. They got in before Federation. Some jews came with the British Empire. But from Federation till the end of World War II, barely any jews got in. So it more or less worked.

But then after World War II, jews then started coming in and in a big way and radically changed, …

Blair Cottrell: Do you think that was a consequence of post World War II propaganda, the racist terminology having a impact on the psychology of Australian statesmen?

Joel Davis: No, they, I mean the RSL {Returned and Services League (of Australia) ] for example were very against any jews being allowed into Australia. And many Australian politicians were very against jews being allowed to into Australia. Jews pretended to be Greeks or Italians and snuck in that way. Jewish immigrant ships were funded by American jews to help get them into the country.

But ultimately it wasn’t that people weren’t anti-semitic or weren’t racist. The problem was that they weren’t willing to go far enough politically to create impervious boundaries. Because liberal democracy is ultimately a system of compromise and that compromise created weakness and that weakness was ultimately exploited.

Blair Cottrell: What would be an impervious boundary?

Joel Davis: Well, if you had explicit racial testing and there was no room to move.

Blair Cottrell: Would that involve like measurement of facial characteristics, blood tests, what would that involved?

Joel Davis: Today it would be more simple because you could do DNA tests. So it’d be a lot more simple and straightforward today.

But anyway, the point is that there was a lack of political will to go ultimately far enough and to create explicit, difficult to change laws and even constitutional amendments. If they had a referendum and they put to the Australian people:

“Do you want to put the White Australia Policy into the Australian constitution so that no politician can change it and it can only be changed by a referendum?”

The people would have voted for it and it would be in the Constitution. Like it would be literally unconstitutional for a non-White person to immigrate to Australia. So even if the government tried to bring them in, you could just like literally go to the court and be like:

“They have to be deported!”

So that’s what the most radical people wanted. And they should have been listened to, but they ultimately weren’t listened to. Not because people disagreed on the principles of racism, but because they believed in compromise. They wanted to compromise with the British Empire. They wanted to compromise with certain powers that be. And that’s where this has got us.

[words unclear] is uncompromising nationalism, zero compromise! And that’s what we represent. That’s why we embrace National Socialism rather than just simply reproducing the same White nationalism of our Founding Fathers. We agree with them on White nationalism. We don’t agree with them with the methodology. We think that we need to go further this time. We have to be more radical, more totalizing, more absolutizing in order to ensure that:

“Oh, we’ve got a lot to do, we’ve got a lot of people to deport and a lot of in domestic enemies to deal with!”

So that needs to be dealt with. And radical politics needed for that. A radical political programme once you take power.

And then you also need to have a more robust system that has greater safeguards against it being wound back and relaxed for the jews and the Communists and the Freemasons and whatever other groups to get a foothold again and unravel the whole thing again a second time.

So that’s why we’re National Socialists, rather than just being White nationalists.

Blair Cottrell: Right. And it’s a logical position, considering where we were versus where we are now. Obviously where we were initially wasn’t good enough. Logically, you can’t really dispute that.

But tell us about the upcoming election. You wanted to segue onto that. Tell me something I don’t know about it. Explain to me who am I voting for, Joel? Who should the Australian people vote for in the upcoming election?

Joel Davis: Well, maybe we should have. So we talked about it last year. We were considering trying to get a party going for this election and to run you for the Senate in Victoria. And we decided it was too early. We wanted to spend more time building up the organisation and we would target the election after and we would take our time building the party.

[2:01:20]

And I think that was the right choice. I think that’s the prudent choice and it will end up paying off. But if we did try to slap a party together quickly over the last year and we ran you, I reckon you would have a bit of a chance because there’s literally no one interesting to vote for in the Victorian Senate, because obviously you vote for the Senate by state.

So the only interesting Senator or Senate candidate that’s Right of the Liberal Party in Victoria is Ralph Babet*. But Ralph Babet isn’t even up for election this time. And obviously I wouldn’t endorse voting for him because he’s brown. Although he probably is the most Right-wing Senator in Australia. Like he posts about White genocide, he’s going at the jews, he’s pushing anti-semitic conspiracy theories, he follows Nick Fuentes and Andrew Tate on Twitter, he even defended Nathan Bull the other day on Twitter.

[* Ralph Emmanuel Didier “Deej” Babet is an Australian far-Right populist and conservative politician. He has been a Senator for Victoria in the Australian Parliament since 2022, representing the United Australia Party. He is the party’s only current federal elected representative. Prior to entering politics he was a real estate agent. Born: June 29, 1983, Rodrigues, Mauritius. Nationality: Mauritian, Australian. Wikipedia]

So that’s [chuckling] kind of funny. The Senate terms are double terms. He got elected at the last election, so he’s not up for re-election this election, he’ll be up for re-election the following election.

So there’s no one good to vote for in the Senate in Victoria. Now in the lower house. In the lower house, like your local electorate, I mean most electorates are not that interesting to vote in because it’s either going to be Liberal or Labor that win or maybe Teal or maybe Green, and who fucking gives a fuck between those options! Like there really is barely any electorates that you can live in where someone more interesting than those four options exists to vote for.

But insofar as you have to vote, I would say put the Liberals last, I’d say put all the Right-wing minor parties, you know, first. Put Liberals last. Punish the fucking Liberals! Because the Liberals are the main obstacle to good politics in Australia. Because the Liberals create a fake opposition.

And if you look at their campaign, they deserve to be punished. Because they’re supposedly conservative, they’re supposedly Right-wing, they’re going up against a ridiculously unpopular government that has made so many mistakes and has pissed the whole country off. All they would need to do is say:

“We’re going to shut down the borders for a few years while we get the housing crisis under control.”

And they’d win this election in a landslide. That’s all they would have to do! They can’t do that. They’re completely owned by the property lobby and the migration lobby and all these other lobby groups that financially benefit from mass immigration, and they cuck out to them.

And they also have a political strategy where, I talked to a couple people who are in Liberal Party world, and what they said is that what Liberal Party strategists are doing is they’re targeting a certain set of electorates that they think they can win that have a large portion of Indian and other migrant populations and they think if they go too hard on immigration they’ll lose their votes. So they don’t give a shit about the White vote!

The fact that 90% of the votes for the Liberal Party come from White Australians. They don’t value you as a White Australian and your vote. They care about winning over the votes of foreigners that shouldn’t even be in our country by putting forward a policy that’ll bring even more of them into our country to replace you.

So fuck the Liberal Party! And then anyone in the Liberal Party that gets too Right-wing, they kick them out. So there’s Gerard Rennick, who’s running, … This is what I would also say. If you live in Queensland, I would put Gerard Rennick number one in the Senate. Gerard Rennick is not a White nationalist, but he is an immigration restrictionist and he’s an economic nationalist and he’s probably the smartest guy in politics. And he’s an honest man. Like, he’s an honest politician. I spoke to him on a Twitter space just before I got banned from Twitter. I said:

“Listen, …”

And this is just after Jerome Roberts had spent 10 minutes arguing with him about the White Australia Policy. Gerard Rennick was willing to spend 10 minutes arguing with Jimbo about the White Australia Policy. Fair play! Then I came onto the Twitter space and I was like:

“This fucking caravan. It’s obviously an Israel con job. It’s obviously Mossad conducting a psyop to take away free speech in New South Wales!”

And he said:

“Yeah, I agree.”

He went into the Senate the next day and called it out. And then he started posting all these tweets about how the Mossad, accusing the Mossad of basically conducting psyops in Australia to attack our freedom of speech. And that the Mossad have been guilty of many, many psyops and false flag attacks [USS Liberty, 9/11] and so on against British-Americans and so on throughout history and that they’re a big problem.

So he won me over with that! He went up against the Israel Lobby, he went up against the jews in an optical way. He listened to the concerns of like literal Nazis and spoke to us reasonably and fairly. And I think his policies are pretty good. Like particularly his economic policies. I think of he’s an economic nationalist and he calls out a lot of, … He’s just a good man.

And I’d much rather him be in the Senate than any of the other candidates, I think. And he got kicked out of Liberal Party for being too nationalistic, too conservative. He should be rewarded.

And that’s the other thing I’ll say. One Nation, I think One Nation are basically a Liberal Party front. Pauline Hanson, the election was called. She goes on Sky News and says she wants Peter Dutton to be prime minister. And is campaigning for the Liberals and all of the One Nation campaign, insofar as it exists, they barely have a campaign. But insofar as it exists, all their messaging is just directed against Labor. They should be attacking the Liberals and competing for the Right-wing vote, but they don’t. They’re fucking weak! And I don’t think they’re weak just because they have bad strategy. I think they literally are a Liberal Party op. Pauline Hanson is a fad-hag.

[2:07:28]

In other words, she has a homosexual guy called James Ashby whose claim to fame was that he got sexually assaulted by Peter Slipper when he was in the Liberal Party. He’s a fucking homosexual bum boy! He left, leaves the Liberal Party after accusing some old Liberal Party faggot of raping him. And he probably did or trying to rape him. He goes to work for Pauline Hanson. And One Nation has been totally defanged ever since that happened. One Nation has become a totally weak, ineffectual party that just campaigns against Labor and is basically an extension of the Liberal Party. So fuck One Nation!

Fuck Malcolm Roberts as well, who is directly competing with Rennick for the Right-wing vote in the Senate in Queensland. Malcolm Roberts cucks to the jews. Gerard Rennick doesn’t. I’ve seen it time and time again. Jared Rennick is a nobler man and I think a more genuine guy on every level. And he’s a smarter man as well. And he has better policies. He’s just better in every way. So I would endorse Rennick. I would say fuck One Nation.

In New South Wales, I would say vote for Craig Kelly for in the Senate. Craig Kelly is not as intelligent as Gerard Rennick, but Craig Kelly has pretty good instincts and he has nationalistic views. He kind of tones it down to try and play to, not be too controversial. But he’s running for the Libertarian Party and I don’t like the Libertarian Party in most other states. In New South Wales, Libertarian Party has more, … Look, there’s a lot of people I know in Libertarian Party, they’ve got a lot of our guys in there. And in New South Wales, that is. And they still have cucked policies.

What I like about Craig Kelly is he goes on Twitter and he doesn’t even give a shit about the policies of the Libertarian Party. He just makes up his own policies that are better [chuckling] than the Libertarian Party’s policies! His immigration policy, he said on Twitter the other day, was Net Zero immigrants coming in, and special visas for White South African farmers, and British citizens trying to escape the political tyranny that has become the UK. That’s the best immigration policy anyone has put forward this election.

So I would say in New South Wales, I would vote for Craig Kelly and Libertarians and the People’s First Gerard Rennick Party are on a joint Australia First Alliance Senate ticket. They just specifically in New South Wales. So it’s simpatico. Like if you support the Rennick thing, you would. If you vote 1 for on the Australia First Alliance, I think the, whoever the Gerard Rennick endorsed candidate New South Wales is will become your second preference or something.

So I’d say in those two states you actually have an all right Senate candidate to vote for. And it would be much better if those two guys were in the Senate than if they weren’t. And if we end up getting in there, like, if you get in there in future elections. If I get in there in future elections, though, if those guys are in there as well, like, we’re probably going to end up voting the same way that they do on like quite a lot of stuff. Because they’re quasi-nationalists. We’re going to be basically a little crew, you know, we’re going to be there like more radical like Nazi bros or whatever in there against all the fucking filth, the Uni-Party filth and communists and everything else that’s in there.

So I would say that if you don’t live in New South Wales or Queensland to be honest, there isn’t really much else worth voting for. Like, if I’m really honest. I would just say put the Liberals last, punish them. I don’t at this point. I’d rather the Liberals lose because they, their campaign is sucked so bad. It seems like all they care about are fucking jews! And they’ll sell us out and everything. Their campaign is giving the jews everything they want. Abolishing free speech. Yeah! Money for synagogues, sucking off Israel at the UN! Just anything Israel want or the jews want, they give it to them. Jewish property developers say:

“We want to flood the country with migrants. Who cares what the voters want? Who cares that it’s destroying the country? Who cares that Australians are. That homelessness is going through the roof and no one can afford to pay the rent or the mortgage. Just keep flooding us with Indians!”

So fuck them! Peter Dutton is the most ugly bastard I’ve ever seen!

Blair Cottrell: I noticed Peter Dutton in a recent speech was kissing Zelensky’s arse and talking about saving Ukrainian lives, even criticising Trump’s treatment of Zelensky. What was that about? What’s the motivation behind that, do you think?

Joel Davis: I mean, that’s just kind of standard, like, every Western politician other than like, the new Trump administration is obviously going to be pro-Ukraine because that’s like the Liberal international consensus. And if the Australian political elite turned on Ukraine after supporting them, they would get a backlash from the media. And then if they went to go and sit down with European governments to try and hammer out a deal that would really piss them off. It’d piss off the British and the French and everything. And it doesn’t really, from their perspective, like, they don’t really gain anything from having a different opinion because Australia isn’t really, like, doing much, doesn’t have much to do with what’s going on in Ukraine.

So I think they’re just playing ball because they hope that Europe would do the same thing in return if it was to do with China or something that we cared about more. So I don’t think there’s much to really care about when it comes to that. I mean, you can have your opinions, but I think the, I don’t know, it just, …

[2:13:21]

Blair Cottrell: To me, it felt like he wanted money. He wanted to attract more money from someone maybe he, …

Joel Davis: Well, yeah, yeah, there’s obviously the US State Department funds, puts a lot of money into Australian politics and the Australian political process. And all these elite interests are all interconnected and cliqued up with each other. And I know that Trump has taken over and American policy is shifting, but I don’t think it has seeped through into the US State Department yet, or a lot of the Liberal internationalist establishment in America. It’s going to be like you’re going to take a few years for the change, the sea change in America to bleed down into Australia. It will eventually happen, but it’s like a slow process.

But anyway, the point. I think the message to the people is very simple this election. Fuck the UNIP Party, Liberal labour, same shit! Same fucking smell! More curry immigrants! It literally doesn’t matter which one wins. They basically have the same policies and they have very slight differences.

And I thought maybe if the Liberals won, it would be slightly better because then we could attack them from the Right. But now the view that I have is just like, they deserve to lose. Like, they were going to win all they had to do was throw a few bones. They couldn’t even throw a few bones to like the Right. So they deserve to lose, they deserve to be punished. They don’t deserve to be rewarded for being total traitors and like giving nothing!

And I think maybe having another like three years of like Albanese Labor, like insanity will only like radicalise the population more, perhaps. So and that may be better for us when we try to get our political party going at the next election cycle.

And also we got to train people as well, like fuck the Liberals! Like we want to, we want to create a culture on the Australian Right-wing where everyone hates the Liberal Party and views the Liberals as the enemy, rather than our guys. So that’s the message that we’ve got to teach people and people are starting to get it. I see the online right, and I’m not just talking about Nazis, like the online Australian Right in general, they seem to be more like the Liberals. We’re going to vote for one of the minor parties. That seems to be the prevailing attitude, like fuck the Uni-Party, that kind of thing. And that’ll bleed down into the general population more and more in the next few years. Because like there’s like the political nerds who go on Twitter and then there’s like the average person. And the average person is very disconnected from political nerds. But slowly the political nerd ideas do seep back out into the population. It just takes a while to like slowly progress. So by the time we get to 2028, I see the Liberal Party vote tanking.

So I think we should just really just like push them over. Because if the Liberal Party fall apart, that just creates a lot of space for people like us. And the Greens are gaining. Like if you look at like voters under the age of 30, the Greens have like a quarter of the vote. Like they only poll it like 13%. But then their youth vote is like double that. Young Whites, they’re not going to Liberal or Labor. Young Whites are going to the Greens or they’re Right-wing and they’re looking, probably looking for something like what we want to create, or a more soft core version of that maybe. And that’s what we want.

We want basically everyone to defect from Liberal and Labor. And Liberal and Labor to get pushed together like at one point in the future. It would be funny if Liberal and Labor have to form a coalition government with each other against all the radical parties outside of them. That would totally de-legitimize them as a fake opposition. And like you see that in some European countries where like this happened in Austria recently. Austria has like a nationalist, like almost ethno-nationalist party called the Freedom Party. Then they have the conservative Party, which is their equivalent of Liberal Party, their equivalent of the Labor Party and like some more radical Leftist parties or whatever other random niche parties. And traditionally in Austria it was between their version of Liberal and their version of Labor.

But in recent years, the Nationalist Party grew bigger and bigger and bigger to the point that the conservative Party had to make an alliance with the basically imagine, imagine the Greens and like our future party got so big that Liberal and Labor had to form a government. That’s what happened. And what has happened since is the Nationalist Party has become more and more and more popular to the point where they could now maybe win the entire election outright without even needing to form like a coalition with the conservatives. And the conservatives are bleeding voters because all their voters are like:

“Hey, wait a second, you’re allying with the Left-wing against a Right-wing party. Like you guys are fucked!”

And you’re seeing a situation perhaps emerge in Germany where something similar is occurring as well, and in other European countries. I would like to see that in Australia. Like that would be like moving us towards like the polarisation necessary for like real political change to start occurring.

So yeah, I think this is basically the “fuck the Libs” paradigm, like is what really we should be focusing upon.

[2:18:44]

Blair Cottrell: But there’s this weird, there’s this strange Clive Palmer aberration that seems to pop up with every election now. There’s this yellow billboard popping up left, right and centre and it’s always like a new party name, or a new group name. And this time it’s called Trumpet of Patriots. And the slogan I think is “Common sense economic policies to lower the cost of living”. What’s going on there? What’s Clive Palmer doing if you vote for the Trumpet of Patriots? I don’t know who came up with that name, but if you vote for them, what happens to your vote? What’s going on there? I asked Tom the same question, but what information do you have?

Joel Davis: They seem just to be like a gimmick. There’s no substance. And Clive Palmer creates this pop up party just before an election and then immediately dissolves it after the election and like then like pops it back up like three years later. And it’s a joke! Like there’s no substance, …

Blair Cottrell: Obviously that’s to funnel votes into the Uni-Party, into the Liberal Party. Is it?

Joel Davis: Well, through preferential voting it will funnel votes into the Liberals. But like, I just don’t think it should be taken seriously. Like I’d rather people vote for that than One Nation because one nation’s actually more. One Nation might have slightly better policies, but One Nation is like more dangerous because they have an established brand that people respect.

And I think One Nation will still get like a decent amount of votes this time just because they haven’t, … Even though they don’t deserve it. They’ve done No campaigning to deserve it and they barely say or do anything of value.

Blair Cottrell: Yeah, but a lot of people will be like:

“Oh, One Nation they’re the Right-wing group, let’s vote for them.”

Joel Davis: Exactly! And they have an anti-immigration brand and people are very dissatisfied with immigration more than ever before at the moment. So they’ll just get votes based upon like legacy brand recognition. But One Nation is like the party that we want to kill. Like we want to replace them with our party. Like that would be like objective one. So like fuck the Libs, fuck One Nation!

I don’t endorse the Trumpet of Patriots thing. They don’t seem to even have coherent., … They’ve got this woman running it. Clive Palmer isn’t even the chairman. It’s like this Suellen, I can’t remember her name, she’s dumb. Like, she can’t even explain like their policies, how they work. Clive Palmer he just puts up billboards of a picture of him with Tucker Carlson and just hopes if you like Tucker Carlson, you’ll vote for him. And then the idea is like:

“Do you like Donald Trump? Well, we’re going to do Trump style stuff.”

And it’s like, what does that even mean? Like, it’s pure vibes. Like there’s no substance and yeah, so it shouldn’t be, …

Blair Cottrell: The reason I bring it up is because it’s bound to hoodwink some fraction of the public. People will vote for that sort of stuff because they will associate it with stuff that they think they like, which is like Trump style patriotism or an alternative to the Uni-Party. They might see it as that. They’re not really going to look further into it than that.

And so they’re going to be like:

“Oh, there’s a picture of this guy with Tucker Carlson. I like Tucker Carlson. He’s cool. So I’m going to vote for them!”

And like, stupidity is no handicap in politics. We know that you don’t need to have a super intelligent structured plan for the country. You just need to look a certain way and convince people that you represent what they think they want.

Joel Davis: Yeah, but I don’t think they look good. I think their logo was like made with AI. The name is stupid. They’ve got a woman that doesn’t know what she’s doing, running it. Like the thing is a joke, the campaign is not interesting or dynamic. They don’t deserve anyone’s vote. I’d rather people vote for them than Liberals. But like, I think you should preference the parties because we have a preferential system. So you kind of order things in like an order of preference. You don’t just vote for one thing. That’s how Australian voting works.

So I would say, like, you should put like Rennick’s party people first, whatever it’s called, the Libertarians, but not in Victoria. Like fuck the Victorian Libertarians.

But if you’re in New South Wales or Queensland or somewhere like that, there’s a party called Sustainable Australia. They also support Net zero immigration. But they don’t indulge in too much of like the populist rhetoric or whatever. They just go:

“Oh, like immigration is bad for the environment and like it’s putting strain on infrastructure.”

But they’re obviously like kind of racially motivated, but they just have incredible optics. Give them a vote. They’re a serious party with a lot of good policies. Vote for, I would say vote for these more serious parties that actually have good immigration policies and other policies before you vote for the Clive Palmer wanker project or whatever.

But yeah, like people are realizing in this election is that it’s all fucking trash! It’s all bullshit! And they just need to vote for White Australia. They want to vote for us. That’s the message.

[2:24:04]

Blair Cottrell: I’ll be glad when it’s all over, when it’s all said and done, this particular round. I’m looking forward to when we’ve got our stuff organised and we’re in the fight. For now, I’ll be glad to see less of the Labor Party propaganda and candidate pamphlets littering my street and just left all over park benches and so forth. I’ll be happy to stop seeing all these stupid smiling faces that I don’t care about, not even saying anything or it’s like:

“I’m ready to represent my local community, so vote for me.”

And then that’s it. It’s like, what the do you even represent? Who are you? I’ve never seen you in my life before. Who are these fucking people? You know, it’s like, how does this stuff work? Exactly? But I suppose that’s what we’re going to figure out. We’ll figure out how it works and we’ll get into it.

We’ve already got a lot of experience, though. We’ve done it once before. We’ve tried to put a party together once before government intervention prevented us from doing. So tom and I spoke about that earlier in the stream. But it’s particularly egregious, I was going to say, how the bail conditions, and I don’t mean to swing back to a subject that we already passed over, but I wanted to actually make this clear. It’s egregious how restrictive they are in your political communication because you guys don’t even know if the conditions apply outside of South Australia. And the reason we’re structuring this particular stream in the way that we are, that is me starting the stream with Tom, Tom leaving, then me bringing you on, is because I’m not under any bail conditions. I haven’t been charged. But you guys have, and you’re not actually sure whether streaming together is legal or not. Perhaps you guys getting on a stream together and talking about politics, it has been made illegal as a result of these bail conditions, which is a serious violation of your right to political communication. So I would very much like to see this taken all the way to the High Court, man!

Because if you guys consider precedent to protect yourselves in the future, and let’s be honest, everything in politics needs to be spoken in legalese. You know, you need to be lawyered up. You need to be ready to sue people for violating your basic human rights to engage in political discourse. So, like, that’s, I suppose, the lesson that we’re all learning and that you guys are going through right now.

Joel Davis: This is what people can do. Go to White Australia.org, White Australia.org and there’s a section there. Maybe you don’t want to join us, you don’t want to come to training. You don’t want to do street activism, but you like the political party idea. Put your name down as a supporter. And I know Tom mentioned it before, but before I came on, but you should really go through the process. Look up, go Google how do I register as a silent elector? And register yourself as a silent elector so that your name and address is taken off the electoral role. Go and do that now. Regardless of whether you’re going to sign up to the political party or not, just to protect your identity, go do that now.

Then when eventually the party, you can sign up to it, then you will be a silent elector. There will be privacy policies and you know, legal protections basically to prevent you from being doxed. I know some people are afraid about that, but like there’s protections in place to prevent that from happen.

The political party is going to be a process we’re going to build up to. We’re going to build up our supporter class. We’re going to build up the organisation of White Australia. Then we’re going to register at some point in the future. The aim is that is to build up branches around the country and to build up a campaign staff all around the country and to do it properly in like three years time. And maybe in 2027 there’s a few state elections, maybe we might have a crack at a few, a few of those to like practice before the federal election. But that’s kind of like the time scale that we’re looking at. So like it’s not going to happen this election, it is not going to happen tomorrow. But we are organising it. So be part of it. Put your name down.

But like politics is fucking gay! Like what you were just describing, like every candidate is fucking gay! Even the candidates that I kind of praise somewhat are fucking gay! Like it’s all fake, it’s all contrived, and no one’s really fighting for anything much, except for like maybe the Greens. Like, the Greens, they got a bunch of and like just freaks! And they really are fighting for their ideology and they’re really serious and extreme. Everyone else is basically either a retarded Boomer or someone who just wants to be something and they’ve never been anything. And then they think that they can build a political career and they can make some money and make some connections and be someone that’s relevant. They were like some nerd no one cared about all through school. They’re not smart, they’re not interesting, they’ve got nothing really going for them and they get sucked into politics. These people suck! They have no business making laws. They have no business ruling over us.

And the reason why they’re able to do so, why you have all these faggots in the Liberal Party and the Labor Party run our country, is because Australians largely don’t care about politics and don’t participate in politics. Why is that? Well, for most of Australian history, you didn’t need to because Australia was basically a quasi utopia. We’re rich, we’re full of, like eugenic White people. Everyone was making money, everyone was doing well, and we live in a beautiful country. And so why would you care about politics? Things seem to be more or less all right.

[2:29:54]

Well, in recent years, things have gotten a lot worse very quickly. And all of a sudden our country is being stolen from us and our major cities are fucking completely unrecognizable and everything’s going to shit! So now’s the time where the Australian population need to politicise and they will.

And what you have is you have a general population whose attitudes and whose mentality is way more radical and way more down to earth and real than the actual political process, which is the most contrived, fake and cucked thing imaginable! We have the political process of some gay country, like New Zealand, but we have the population, like, we have a far more radical population, a far more racist, a far more virile population of people who are just apolitical. When those people become politicised and look and actually get engaged with the political process and feel like they have someone they can identify with, someone who represents them, someone who they like who’s sticking it to the man, they will rally behind that. And it is possible in this country to build a very radical brand of politics, probably unlike most other Western countries that’ll actually have mass appeal.

So there’s an opportunity here to go from basically a completely boring and AIDS form of politics to having one of the more fun and interesting political systems in the world, where it’s actually this really fun contest, if we can get ourselves established and get involved, like, everyone will love it!

So I think we have a really good chance at doing something interesting if we all pull together. And it doesn’t I don’t think we can get it, like, it’s probably unlikely that we can win government. But if we just get, like, one guy elected that would be insane! Like, that would be massive! And we could just troll the Government from the inside. If you get into the Senate, that’s six years. And we can completely transform the political culture of this country just with like one guy being a elected. We can completely change the conversation, we can completely change the attitudes of the population, we can inspire young people to engage with politics in a totally new way. And we can completely change the direction of our country. I think it’s a realistic goal to be aiming towards.

Blair Cottrell: I’m going to take just a two minute break and feel free to jump onto either Superchats or another subject you wanted to raise. I’ll be right back.

Joel Davis: Yeah, he’s done well to go two and a half hours. Usually, you know you get burnt out over the two hour mark a little bit. So obviously had some caffeine tonight.

I’m just going to go through some of these Superchats and we’ll end the stream. Someone called Civil Negro sent me a bunch of Superchats. He said that:

“The jew destroyed his homeland of Ethiopia and their communism slaughtered the only African country with history. Australia is next. Many don’t fully grasp the gravity of the situation.”

Anyway, he also said:

“The Right has no idea how to use propaganda. The jew, the Left creates entertainment and propaganda for all IQ levels.”

I think that’s been the case for a while, but I think that’s changing. I think the Right is becoming culturally ascendant I think in a lot of domains in the last couple years, particularly comedy, the Right is completely destroying the Left. I think the Left is incapable of good comedy at this point. And you know, Hollywood sucks! They’re not putting out any really good movies anymore. Wokeness is kind of played out like it’s not interesting, it’s not fun. And the Left used to. I mean the music industry, the Left claims to dominate but then you actually break it down and a lot of the top musicians and bands actually are like Right leaning or far-Right leaning actually, but just kind of conceal their politics a bit more where like the Left-wing musicians really shove their politics down your throat for obvious reasons.

But you know that there isn’t really much like good new music either. Like the music industry has kind of lost its centrality to the culture at this point.

So I don’t think the Left has been very effective with its propaganda in recent years at all! I think the tide is turning. He also asked me for my thoughts on World Ice Theory, but I’m not going to Discuss World Ice Theory with a fucking nigger!

Nick Bod said:

“Hail victory!”

What else do we have here? PHRC said:

“Was great meeting you last week. White Power!”

Not sure who that is. Actually, in the last couple weeks, I’ve had so many people come up to me in public and be like:

“Joel Davis, I follow you on Telegram, or I’ve seen you on the news or somewhere on this podcast or whatever.”

That has been happening a reasonably decent amount. But the last two weeks, it’s happened fucking heaps, like, way more than ever before.

So I don’t know what that’s all about, but it felt good. It feels like the messages getting out there amongst the community.

So if you do see me out and about, come say, hi. Like, you don’t have to feel intimidated. I don’t mind. It just makes me feel good to feel like there’s people out there that are hearing the message. Does that happen to you much lately, Blair? Because the last couple weeks, I’ve been approached, I’d say 15 times, and that’s heaps! Like, it happens maybe like. One. It was happening like, maybe like once a month before, but the last couple weeks, of some reason, everyone’s bumping into me in public and being like:

“Joel, nice to meet you!”

[2:25:46]

Blair Cottrell: It could be fate just.

Joel Davis: Yeah.

Blair Cottrell: Putting you in these situations to remind you that you’re a representative of the Australian people, the real people. And that’s the way I used to take it when it would happen to me all the time. It would remind me how much appreciation there was for both the message I represented and the fight I was engaged in. And it sometimes still does happen. Yeah. But did I hear you say that someone might be intimidated? Why would anyone be intimidated by Joel Davis? This is one of the nicest guys you’ll ever meet. I know it doesn’t seem like it through the screen, but this is a nice guy, believe me.

So, yeah, no, it does happen. And it’s something that kind of builds a little faith or helps to reinvigorate the faith in me that reminds me that what I’m doing is right.

Joel Davis: Yeah. It feels good.

So, yeah, I don’t mind it. Maybe I don’t act like I care that much because I don’t really act like I care about much most of the time. That’s just my personality, but it does. It is nice.

Home of the Brave said:

“I missed you guys last week. You have the best commentary in the White national space. I wake up crazy early here in America, every Friday for this show. Any plans for more frequent streams in the future? Hail, Anderson.”

Well, of course we’ll continue to be streaming. We were in discussions in private about how to format things going forward and when we make changes, of course you’ll find out because you’ll be watching the new formats. But in the meantime, we’re just going to keep doing the show once a week. We didn’t do a show last week because there’s a lot going on a personal level for a bunch of us, and it is what it is. But that was a rare aberration.

Blair Cottrell: I’s rare that we miss a week. We try to do it on the Thursday night. It doesn’t always work because most of us still work for a living or we’re busy doing the things we need to do. So we usually do a stream each week and it’s unusual for us to miss a week, isn’t it?

Joel Davis: Yeah, we did miss last week, but that was a rare aberration.

But yeah, we usually stream Thursdays, but sometimes we stream Fridays and sometimes other days. It is what it is. And then sometimes you’ll get a situation where you get like, me showing up on like two or three other podcasts in the same week and you get a whole bunch of Joel Davis content and then you go dry for a couple weeks. And that’s just the way the cookie crumbles.

Blair Cottrell: I’ve come to realise it doesn’t even matter so much when we stream. The streams all seem to get relatively, you know, good amount of views. My initial reason for streaming on Thursday night is because that’s the evenings Hitler used to host his beer hall meetings in Germany leading up to the process through which he took power. And the reason Thursday evenings were so favourable a time to speak to the German people back then is because that’s when everyone was leaving the factories and everyone would go to the beer halls or the pubs and they’d talk about politics. And because it was nearing the end of the week, it was Thursday afternoon. People only had one working day left, but they still had to get up the next morning and go to work so they couldn’t get too drunk. Therefore, they would be able to engage in reasonably sensible conversation. They’d, you know, retain memories onto the next day. Thursday evening, everyone was feeling pretty good. Everyone was open to new ideas. It was the end of the week. That was the reason they used to host meetings during that time.

And so that’s why we went with the Thursday afternoon. But I suppose it doesn’t really make sense for the time we’re living in. And that’s the conclusion I’ve come to realizing that we get the same amount of views regardless of when we stream. But that means we can be flexible. So that’s good.

Joel Davis: Yeah. Jake 12:19 said:

“There’s a reason why the term “kangaroo court” spawned from the judicial system within Australia and why it was popularised throughout the world for crooked court dealings.”

I actually don’t think it spawned from within Australia. I believe that the term “kangaroo court”* actually came from Britain because when they were sentencing convicts to be sent to Australia, when it was a penal colony, that was referred to as, basically I’ve been charged by a kangaroo court. I think it was sometimes referred to as, you’re sentenced to a kangaroo jump in the other words.

[* The term kangaroo court may have originated in Britain. In the late 1700s, British courts began sentencing people convicted of various crimes to penal transportation to Australia. In the 1800s, this was sometimes referred to as the “Kangaroo Jump”. It is possible that those sentenced to transportation protested that they had been convicted and sentenced by a kangaroo court. Some sources suggest that the term may have been popularised during the California Gold Rush of 1849 to which many thousands of Australians flocked. In consequence of the Australian miners’ presence, it may have come about as a description of the hastily carried-out proceedings used to deal with the issue of claim-jumping miners. Wikipedia]

Blair Cottrell: Yeah. Does that mean the word kangaroo meant absurd? And so then when they came to Australia and saw this absurd animal, they were like:

“Oh, look at that, kangaroo, you know!”

So the word kangaroo actually predated the animal perhaps?

Joel Davis: No, no, like they already had discovered the animal at that point. But then like, it was like, definitive of being like, sentenced to go be sent on the kangaroo jump to Australia.

Blair Cottrell: Where there really is kangaroos.

Thomas Sewell: Yeah.

[2:40:49]

Joel Davis: And they’re like:

“I stole a loaf of bread and now I’m being fucking, this kangaroo court is shipping me away, like forever or whatever.”

So I believe that’s where it came from. Obviously, I don’t know, like, I’m not an expert, but yeah, it was really fucking infuriating the other day after the court procedure because the whole fabric of our society is supposed to be built around the idea of reasonableness and rationality and fairness. That’s kind of like the premise of Anglo society is that authority isn’t totally arbitrary. Everything is subject to a fair rational argument, whether it be in the court, whether it be in a Parliament, whether it be in science, that you can’t just tell people how it is. You actually have to defend rationally and correctly, like why you have a position of leadership. And our society used to respect these values. It no longer does.

And it doesn’t just not respect these things because of contempt for reason. But a lot of it is that the so many people are incapable of rational discourse. So many people are led by their emotions. And part of it is due to the fact that we let women participate equally with men in a lot of these disciplines.

Blair Cottrell: That’s true.

Joel Davis: But another reason for it is that a lot of men are basically women. Like they’re fucking pussies! That are fundamentally emotionally driven and we don’t have standards of calm rationality in our society anymore. Like it is now considered to be strange or bizarre or kind of idealistic to expect a calm, rational procedure. If you don’t have that, you’ve got nothing.

Blair Cottrell: Not only that Joel, when the calm rational one does present himself, he’s savaged by the others because he’s considered unusual or threatening. So anyone who does present himself as that reasonable option gets chased out of the institutions by all the crazed emotive feminists. So through that process, even a good Apple that goes into the bucket of rotten Apples to try to clean things up either becomes rotten himself or he gets thrown out.

Joel Davis: Yeah, we live in basically a hysterical society. And I mean this magistrate Luke Davis. It’s unfortunate that he’s of my name.

Blair Cottrell: House Davis on suicide watch! It is a common name, really common. Name though like that. When you go to England for example, and you look in the records of soldiers that died for the Crown in various wars, there’s so many. Davis’. It’s obviously a pretty common.

Joel Davis: It’s actually more common in Australia than it is in Britain. I believe it’s the 21st most common surname in Australia. In Britain, I think it’s the 45th most common surname. In America it’s the seventh most common surname. So Davis’ seem to be an imperial people. We seem to want to leave the old isles and go and conquer new lands.

Blair Cottrell: All the best families did, man! I mean I think in order to want to stay in England under the certain conditions that the Crown was imposing on the people for generations you’d probably have to be pretty cynical or small minded. That’s not to say the people that remain there are that way. It’s probably some, still some great families in the motherland.

But yeah, it seems to be generally true that a lot of the, at least in Australia, a lot of the bigger families, like literally physically bigger families ended up leaving the mainlands to explore new possibilities and go on new ventures, because everyone seems to be like Americans and Australians seem bigger than the people still remaining on the British Isles.

Joel Davis: Yeah. Well, Nick Bod said with you hail victory!”

And I appreciate that. And maybe that’s a good place to end the stream this evening. We’ve been going for three hours, including the Tom and Blair segment.

So it’s been a good stream for everyone and I hope you enjoyed it. And well done Blair for going back to back, putting in a real shift. And we’ll be back again next week with another show and yeah, I want to troll this election. There’s going to be some shenanigans. I want to fuck with the Liberals in particular and, …

Blair Cottrell: What do you mean? Like on social media or?

Joel Davis: I just want to fuck with them!

Blair Cottrell: All right, we’ll keep it obscure. [chuckling] Yeah, I don’t know what this guy’s talking about, I swear.

Joel Davis: But like, look, this is the time where people care about politics the most. So everyone should be making the most of it. Like the next couple weeks. The next three weeks. There’s three weeks till the election, basically.

Next three weeks are going to be politically charged times in Australia, which is rare. It doesn’t get politically charged. We’re not like America, where it’s just like this hyper political society. It comes in waves and then people get exhausted with it and don’t want to talk about politics for a bit and it kind of ebbs and flows. So make the most of it. Like now’s the time to kind of be pushing your political messaging, your agenda and yeah, troll this fucking election.

I’ve noticed there’s been some trolling of the election so far. There’s been some stunts. I want to see more of that. I want to see. I want to see some stunts. I want to see because this whole thing is a joke. And we need to show, I think, collectively as a society, contempt for these frauds that seek to rule all over us because they’re all a fucking joke! And the real Australia has to come back. We need to have a kind of righteous indignation to kind of crop back up.

But also with that larrikin spirit. That’s the way Australians do it. Australians are that kind of larrikin convict energy. I think that’s what we need to bring back into Australian politics. Doesn’t exist anymore, really. And that’s the energy that will end up like upending this fucking fraud of a system. Redneck said:

“Keep fighting the good fight.”

And thanks for that. We appreciate that. What were you gonna say?

[2:47:29]

Blair Cottrell: What you’re saying there means to have fun with it. Right? If you’re going to take the initiative and you’re going to engage in some sort of stunt protests, have fun with it, Keep it legal.

Joel Davis: Yes, of course.

Blair Cottrell: You can voice your protest to it legally, but have fun with it! Make it funny. Have fun like politics, there’s no reason why you can’t have fun with it. It doesn’t have to be so serious all the time! And that’s one of the great things about the Australian spirit. I think that’s what you’re referring to, right?

Joel Davis: Yeah. And that’s what I mean. What we do is fun. Like no one else is really having fun except us. Like we’re the only ones having fun in Australian politics. We’re the ones suffering the most. But actually that’s the price you pay for having too much fun, I guess. But I love it! Like we’re having so much fun. We’re having too much fun. If anything. We probably need to get more serious.

But yeah, everyone else in politics is a fucking gay nerd faggot bitch and they all suck! So I think it’s very important.

But yeah, I think, as in closing remarks, this is the attitude for this election. Fuck the Liberals. Liberal Labor, same shit, different smell. That’s the attitude that you got to tell your friends. That’s the attitude we got to spread amongst the people, is fuck the Uni-Party, put the Libs last. Traitors need to be punished harder than enemies! Right? Like the Greens, Labor. These are Left-wingers, like Labor you could say are traitors because Labor Party was built by White nationalists in defense of the White Australia Policy.

So they’re traitors as well. The Greens aren’t really traitors. They’re just fucking enemies. Like they’re just full on political enemies. Like they don’t make any pretence to have any of our values in common, they’re just straight up enemies.

Whereas the Liberals try to pretend to be patriotic and conservative and so on. There was this guy, I think he was running in the seat of Illawarra in New South Wales, so near Wollongong. And he was on the Liberal Party. He was pre-selected for the Liberal Party. He went on that Joel Jamal guy’s podcast the other day and he said something about how he doesn’t think women should be in combat roles in the army, which was like the policy until like five years ago or something. And that’s what like pretty much everyone thinks. Like almost no one thinks women should be in combat roles. If you do think that, you’re a fucking idiot! Like that makes no sense.

Blair Cottrell: If you think that it, …

Joel Davis: He was immediately tossed from the party for saying that. Liberal Party goes:

“Whoa, whoa man! None of that crazy Nazi rhetoric about how women shouldn’t be thrown in with guns into war zones.”

Blair Cottrell: Why wouldn’t you want your sister or woman [words unclear] with an assault rifle?

Joel Davis: What women are voting to be put in a uniform with a gun and sent out into a war zone? Like, women aren’t voting. Like, you’re losing the woman vote because you’re not forcing them to fight wars? Like, that doesn’t make any fucking sense! People say:

“Oh, Joel, you know how are you guys going to win the woman vote? By telling them that you’re against feminism?”

I actually think we’ll get a lot of women voters by coming to the Australian people with a policy saying:

“We want women to be stay at home mothers.”

Blair Cottrell: Look at what feminism wants to do.

Joel Davis: We want to reward stay at home mothers. We’re going to build a society around helping and rewarding stay at home mothers. Paying women to stay home to raise their children, valuing that. Building a society where you can raise a family on a single income. Deporting all the nons, bringing house prices down, bringing the wages up of their husbands, putting them back in the home. Why would they want to go to work? Wouldn’t you want to stay home and like, bake cookies, like, and have someone else do the work?

Blair Cottrell: No, no, no, no! ! That’s not strong and independent enough! You have to get a wage job and you have to pay tax and you can finally be strong and independent! Obviously Joel.

Joel Davis: They don’t want to be strong and independent. Women want, …

Blair Cottrell: Yeah. What are you talking about man! The current year, …

You are so far behind, man! You’re so out of time. [chuckling]

Joel Davis: Yeah.

Blair Cottrell: If women have perspective of what feminism has actually done to them, of where it took them, like how it just destroyed feminine dignity and turned them into inferior men! If women have proper perspective on that, they would vote for anyone who was against feminism. Straight up.

Joel Davis: What do the feminists want to do to you women? They want to put you in camo, give you a fucking assault rifle and send you out to go and get shot or captured and raped! That’s what they want to do they want to import a bunch of fucking pajit Uber drivers to sexually assault you. They want to import a bunch of blacks and fucking Pacific Islanders to rape you in dark alleys.

Blair Cottrell: They want to turn you into a man!

[2:52:19]

Joel Davis: They want to make you go and work 45 hours a week! They want to make your ovaries shrivel up so that you don’t actually have any children. They don’t want you at home making cookies with hugging your babies. They don’t want that. Because they love you! I’m scum because I just want you to bake cookies. You know, I’m a fucking misogynist, apparently. I’m a piece of shit! I don’t want you to get shot in the head. I want you fucking growing flowers. You know, I’m a fucking scumbag! I hate women!

Blair Cottrell: You know, what do you want to do, girls? You want to grow flowers or do you want to roll around in the mud with assault rifles? I don’t know, man! You can do more than just grow flowers, though, obviously.

But you got to be careful of military propaganda out there. This is especially important for the ladies. And if you’re not a girl, but there’s a girl in your family, you should show them what I’m about to say.

Because military propaganda is currently aimed at women and it’s promising you things that it’s not going to deliver. It uses certain phrases and imagery suggesting that you’re going to explore the world and meet really interesting people and you’ll be able to get in really cool positions to take an Instagram selfie, like driving a submarine, or a helicopter. It’s going to be a really rare opportunity that no one else can get! You’ll get it if you join the army! Literally.

That’s what military recruitment propaganda in Australia is currently geared towards. You’re not going to get any of that. You’re going to get treated like shit! You’re probably going to end up in a situation where you’re making a rape allegation against another soldier and you’re going to leave humiliated! And you’re going to wish that you never joined! [chuckling] So, like, don’t get suckered in by that stuff.

And it really says something about the state of our culture and country where the army is trying to gear itself towards recruiting women because men have no sense of national identity that they don’t actually want to join and fight for their country in the first place. Like, maybe if we could have a country that we could be proud of again, men would join the army because they want to defend it, because they’re proud of it! And the army wouldn’t have to try to recruit women with promises of grand Instagram selfies and travel.

But straight up, don’t get sucked in by bullshit slogans. You’re not going to have a great time and see the world if you join the army. It’s going to be nothing but humiliation process.

Joel Davis: Yeah, these are the Nazi policies.

Bring house prices down! Bring wages up! Execute paedophiles! Put criminals in jail and then deport them if they don’t belong here! Deport all these freaks that don’t share your culture or speak your language. Get rid of the traffic on the roads because you’re not going to have a bunch of Indians and Chinese filling them up with their space. Nationalise the banking system and forgive your mortgage. Put your wife back in the home, pay you to have children.

Like, man, like what horrible policies! Like man, why would you want to vote for that? Wouldn’t you rather vote for the fucking scumbags that rule over you, that are impoverishing you and stealing your country from you and making you work harder and harder to get less and less far in life? Like, wouldn’t you much rather that? Then you wouldn’t be a racist!

Blair Cottrell: I’m sorry, I’d rather live in gay dildo land! Sorry, I can’t accept those policies. [chuckling] Oh man!

Joel Davis: Our policies are going to be so much better than anything else on offer. Like, it’s crazy! And these cunts, aren’t even going to be able to, they don’t have an argument beyond calling us fucking slurs! Like, they don’t really have an argument. They’re going to start by calling us slurs. Then they’re going to try and call us hypocrites and then they’re going to try and call us idealistic. Like irrational and idealistic. When they get to that point, that’s how you know we’re going to win! Because then they already conceded the argument.

But anyway, that’ll be the end of the stream. Now, I know we’re supposed to end it before we start yapping even more, but you’ve got three hours of the stream tonight.

Blair Cottrell: That’s a good thing about streaming, man! You can kind of just go as long as you want and do whatever you want.

Joel Davis: We had three and a half hour streams on here before. Whenever we had Jacob on, we went on for ages.

Blair Cottrell: Yeah, those are my favourite ones.

Joel Davis: Yeah, I can’t have Jacob on either because of these stupid bail conditions. Fucking bullshit!

Blair Cottrell: I might have to give Jacob a run in the next week or two. I’ll send him a message to see what he wants to do. But thanks for joining us, guys. It’s been a good one. I kind of liked the way it was set up too, but we’ll see how we want to do things moving forward. I hope everyone enjoys their Friday evening, afternoon or morning, if you’re from somewhere else in the world. We’re ahead of you down here in Australia, if you didn’t know that. We’re ahead of everyone! And I know it’s hard to believe for Americans who believe they’re at the centre of the world and America comes first, right?

I’ve said this before on stream. It’s funny because every time I’ve streamed with Americans or like, done something with someone from America, they find out that Australia is like, ahead of America in time and they can’t believe it. They’re like, what? Australia is ahead of us in time! What the fuck, man? How did this happen? [chuckling]

But, yeah, I’ve enjoyed tonight and I suppose I’ll see you guys next week. Thanks, Joel, for jumping on. And a big thanks to Tom as well.

[2:57:50]

[END]

top

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

Rumble Comments

top

(Comments as of 4/14/2025 = 26)

jvlake
20 minutes ago
“Nemo iudex in causa sua” –A person should not have decision-making power in a dispute where they have a personal interest or stake.
0 likes
Report

palacepony
Supporter
2 hours ago
7 did not want to show the Nth Tce ‘White man , fight back’ chant. It has nothing to do with ‘Waltzing Matilda’. Am I correct?
0 likes
Report

piscator57
6 hours ago
The Nuremberg Trial set the precedent in refusing the NSDAP a political status and instead gave it the status of an organized crime gang….
0 likes
Report

Blurpus
16 hours ago
Which libertarian pollie made that threat? That’s just deranged.
1 like
Report

Neqis
1 day ago
Am I the only one who likes listening to these while working out? Such a high T energy from these podcasts lol
4 likes
Report

freedomfighter356
1 day ago
love the stuff but u didn’t have to disrespect the ethiopian guy who gave u money
0 likes
Report

palacepony
Supporter
1 day ago
Really good to see both Tom & Joel bookending the stream. SA Premier Malinauskas- (golden boy India jet-set simp/shill) and his illegitimate crow-eater ‘law’ system.
4 likes
Report

bigbuttwhole
1 day ago
Lol, Blair calling his shot, “I want to come 3rd”, like he is the man to beat. Start by not twisting your ankle on the way in mate
1 like
Report

katana17
1 day ago
[Joel Davis – So Much Has Happened, But We’re Only Just Getting Started – Apr 11, 2025 – Transcript] https://katana17.com/2025/04/12/joel-davis-so-much-has-happened-but-were-only-just-getting-started-apr-11-2025-transcript/ [In this livestream video episode Aussie nationalist activists Tom Sewell and Blair Cottrell have a discussion, followed by a separate Blair Cottrell and Joel Davis discussion. The two separate discussion are a result of severe and unreasonable bail conditions imposed on Tom and Joel as a result of police and court harrassment. The following points were made: At the start, Blair and Tom discuss a protest from 10 years ago that marked the beginning of their political activism. Tom reflects on how police treatment of their protests has changed over the years, becoming more hostile. They discuss recent legal troubles stemming from an Australia Day [Jan 26, 2025] protest in Adelaide. Tom explains charges of “loitering” and displaying “Nazi symbols” against them. Describes bail conditions restricting association between group members as “draconian”. Tom argues the charges and restrictions violate constitutional rights to political communication. Discusses plans to form a political party called “White Australia”. “We are building a supporter class for White Australia” – Tom. Explains process of registering supporters before officially forming party. Tom advises supporters to register as “silent voters” for privacy. Discusses legal battles and plans to take cases to High Court. “We are the vanguard of political freedom in this country” – Tom. [Tom leaves the discussion (01:19:05)] Cont’d, …
3 likes

Delete
‹ Hide 1 reply
katana17
1 day ago
Joel joins with Blair and recaps his recent court appearance and bail conditions. Argues charges and restrictions are unconstitutional. “We represent the White nationalism of our founders” – Joel. Discusses history of White Australia Policy. Explains how National Socialism differs from original Australian nationalism. “National Socialism is okay, we need to go a step further” – Joel. Discusses upcoming Australian election. Advises putting major parties last when voting. Endorses Gerard Rennick and Craig Kelly as Senate candidates. Criticises One Nation party as ineffective. “The UNI Party, Liberal-Labour, same smell, more curry”-Joel Discusses Clive Palmer’s “Trumpet of Patriots” party. Advises voting for more serious minor parties with good immigration policies. Criticises current state of Australian politics and politicians. “Politics is gay. Like what you were just describing, like every candidate is gay.” – Joel. Argues Australia needs more radical politics. Discusses potential for their party to change political discourse. Responds to Superchat questions. Discusses recent public recognition from supporters. Explains origin of term “kangaroo court”. Criticises current state of rational discourse in society. “We live in basically a hysterical society” – Joel. Discusses plans to “troll” the upcoming election. Advises having fun with political activism. Criticises feminism and argues for traditional gender roles. Warns women against military recruitment propaganda. Outlines nationalist policy proposals. And more, … – KATANA] [TRANSCRIPT – Words: 30998 – Duration: 2:57:50 mins] … ———– Cont’d here (includes 10 comments): https://katana17.com/2025/04/12/joel-davis-so-much-has-happened-but-were-only-just-getting-started-apr-11-2025-transcript/ #BanThe ADL; Stop immigration. Eject the invaders. Hang the traitors.
1 like

Delete
JFurM
Verified
1 day ago
As a woman (wife and mother) listening to this… Joel and Blair were spot on at the end when Blair brought up what the experience will most likely be for a woman that joins the armed forces. I served in the US Air Force and that was exactly my experience. It didn’t matter how professional, hard working or kind I was I was treated terribly and the whole thing was a giant mess. After I served my 4 years AD, I realized what a mistake it is for women to be in combat, alongside men, and to be clear I believe it’s messed up for both the men and the women in that situation. That experience started me on my journey to disconnect from the feminist agenda and begin to reclaim my femininity. We as women have been so lied to by our modern western culture, it will take generations to erase the deception we’ve believed and to rebuild our families to be free from the sinister agendas at work against both the masculine and the feminine. Thankful there are men in the world who aren’t afraid to operate in true masculinity, we need more of it! Thank you Joel, Blair and Tom for what you’re doing, I pray for all you Aussies often! Love from the US
10 likes
Report

‹ Hide 1 reply
GhostDogMan
Supporter++
1 day ago
Beautifully said! Thank you for speaking up for young men and women to hear.
0 likes
Report

Ragnarok92
1 day ago
Very intelligent strategy to get rid of the center parties. Good luck lads.
4 likes
Report

WHITESUNITEWORLDWIDE
2 days ago
TEAM WHITE UNITE 0/
5 likes
Report

Nationlessnationalist
2 days ago
Is there anything gayer than an anti racist?
4 likes
Report

RedOak83
2 days ago
Good afternoon from the AngloCeltic diaspora abroad
3 likes
Report

mharrison52
2 days ago
communistic activist judges need desperately the Luigi treatment.. in minecraft of course
2 likes
Report

WinstonWolf88
2 days ago
Is Sam Elliott now doing Rumble ad reads?
0 likes
Report

fastnail
2 days ago
The Davis named “magistrate” is an activist not a judge. Fire it.
2 likes
Report

ThexHopefulXDoomed
2 days ago
Google told me the Australian constitution said we have freedom of political expression. I guess it was wrong.
4 likes
Report

‹ Hide 1 reply
Ragnarok92
1 day ago
No it’s true! You have total and complete right to any political expression that you would like to do! As long as it doesn’t: – Talk about immigration – Talk about race – Talk about crime – Talk about birthrates – Talk about the % of Israelis in government – Try to put healthier food in stores & schools – Try to improve the quality of education – Try to gain power in any political fashion while talking about any of the aforementioned topics But besides that, you have total freedom!
4 likes
Report

eclipseNF
2 days ago
rip Australia and the entire Western world
7 likes
Report

‹ Hide 1 reply
GhostDogMan
Supporter++
1 day ago
No! Who in the fook are you?
3 likes
Report

ThigASteach
Supporter
2 days ago
Good morning from Nova Scotia (new Scotland) Canada. Appreciate you folks. As you are aware the same tyrannical tactics are being used on actual Canadians here. The browns get preferential treatment across the board. WASP’s must rise up en mass. Thank you for the education you are providing same. #PeaceAndRespect #GodBless
17 likes
Report

bobbytimms
2 days ago
hi all! o/
10 likes

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

See Also

top

The World’s First Anti-Holocaust Convention — Instauration Dec, 1979

An Open Letter to New Jersey’s Governor

Historians or Hoaxers?

House of Orwell

Misha: Surviving with Wolves or …

Bradley Smith’s Smith Report # 1

The Liberation of the Camps: Facts vs. Lies

The Plum Cake

Auschwitz: Myths and Facts

Powers and Principalities XI – Ewen Cameron, MK-Ultra, Holocaust Revisionism — TRANSCRIPT

Tales of the Holohoax – A Historian’s Assessment – Part 1

The Holocaust Lie — Made in America

Probing the Holocaust: The Horror Explained — TRANSCRIPT

Jim Rizoli Interviews Prof Robert Faurisson, Oct 2015 — TRANSCRIPT

Holocaust Eyewitnesses: Is the Testimony Reliable?

Alain Soral – My Homage to Robert Faurisson, Oct 2018 — TRANSCRIPT

Inside Auschwitz – You’ve never seen THIS before! — TRANSCRIPT

Amazion Bans 100s of Holocaust Revisionist Books!

AUSCHWITZ – A Personal Account by Thies Christophersen

Jim Rizoli Interviews Bradley Smith — TRANSCRIPT

London Forum – Alfred Schaefer – Psychological Warfare – TRANSCRIPT

The Realist Report Interviews Eric Hunt — TRANSCRIPT

Red Ice Radio – Germar Rudolf – Persecution of Revisionists & Demographic Disaster – Part 1— TRANSCRIPT

Red Ice Radio: Nicholas Kollerstrom — TRANSCRIPT

Red Ice TV – Ingrid Carlqvist – Scandal in Sweden When Ingrid Questions the Unquestionable — TRANSCRIPT

The Realist Report with Carolyn Yeager on Johnson vs Anglin debate — TRANSCRIPT

Joel Davis – WWII Revisionism Re-enters the Mainstream – Sep 6, 2024 – Transcript