Anne Twomey: Welcome back to the Constitutional Clarion!

 

The Commonwealth Government has made a regulation that classifies White Australia, or the White Australia Party, as a prohibited hate group. The party has now commenced a constitutional challenge in the High Court to the validity of that law, which will be heard in September. In the meantime, there will also be a hearing in the first week of June which of an application to suspend the effects of its prohibition until the Constitutional case is determined. In this video, I’ll try to explain some of the arguments that will be run in the Constitutional challenge.

 

But first, a bit of a recap on what the law does.

 

Now, for those of you who want more detail, see my previous video, which was called How the New Federal Hate Laws Work.

 

The power to prohibit hate groups was enacted in the Combating Anti-semitism, Hate and Extremism Criminal and Migration Laws Act in January 2026. It inserts a new part 5.3B in the Commonwealth Criminal Code. It authorises the Governor General, acting on the advice of the Australian Federal Police Minister, to make a regulation designating a group as a “prohibited hate group”. The Minister must be satisfied on reasonable grounds that the group has engaged in conduct constituting a hate crime or been associated with a hate crime.

 

For example, by:

 

“Preparing, planning or assisting a hate crime, or advocating engaging in such conduct. The conduct of formal or informal members of the group can also be attributed to the group.”

 

So if rogue members of a group incite racial hatred or advocate violence based on race, that might well be sufficient.

 

Now, you might think that the term “hate crime” means that the group or its members actually have to have committed crimes! But that’s not so! The law says that:

 

“No crime needs to have been committed, no one needs to have been convicted by a court, and conduct can be a hate crime even though it happened in the past when it wasn’t a crime. It’s enough for the Minister to be satisfied on reasonable grounds that the group has engaged in or been associated with the conduct constituting a hate crime.”

 

This means that it’s the Minister, rather than a court, who assesses that the group has engaged in such conduct. There’s no independent assessment of whether that conduct occurred, whether it satisfied the terms of any offence, whether it could be attributed to the group or whether any defences apply. In some cases, the Minister would have to also be satisfied that the conduct would:

 

“Cause a reasonable member of the targeted group to be intimidated, to fear harassment, or violence or to fear for their safety.”

 

These matters are quite impressionistic in nature and ordinarily they are determined by a court after hearing relevant evidence.

 

But under part 5.3B, it’s just up to the Minister to be satisfied without evidence, without a hearing and without procedural fairness.

 

Moreover, it seems that the conduct in many cases could have occurred at any time in the past, no matter how long ago, and certainly before that conduct became an offence.

 

Given the past rhetoric of members of political parties about racial, immigration and refugee matters, it would not be hard to satisfy this criteria in order to ban any political party! Making this a very dangerous weapon for a future authoritarian government to use.

 

There are, however, some further hoops to go through before a grip can be banned:

 

“The Minister must be satisfied, on reasonable grounds, that banning the group is reasonably necessary to protect the Australian community, or a part of it from social, economic, psychological and physical harm.”

 

But “psychological harm” could mean almost anything. And its stated in the act to:

 

“Include harm caused by the continued presence in Australia of the group that has engaged in or been associated with hate crimes.”

 

So it’s actually a self fulfilling condition!

 

More significantly, the Minister must have received advice from the Director General of Security, who’s the head of ASIO [Australian Security Intelligence Organisation], recommending the group be banned because it has:

 

“Engaged in activities that are likely to increase the risk of politically motivated violence or communal violence, or has either itself advocated for or engaged in such violence, or there’s a risk that it might do so in the future.”

 

So it covers activities that do not themselves constitute or cause harm, but simply if there’s a risk of harm.

 

While one might trust ASIO to make that assessment fairly now, one cannot guarantee it for the future. If, for example, an authoritarian leader placed a crony in the Office of Director General of Security. It’s therefore some protection from the abuse of the power, but not great protection.

 

The Attorney General must also sign off on any ban and the Leader of the Opposition must be briefed, and that’s it! Once this process is completed, a group can be designated a “prohibited hate group”.

 

Now, to be clear, this does not involve convicting anyone of a hate crime. It’s an administrative act to ban a group. But the consequences of that ban are serious! Continuing as a member of a prohibited hate group, if you know that it is prohibited and you haven’t taken reasonable steps to end your membership, that’s an offence with a penalty of up to 7 years in jail! Directing the activities of a prohibited hate group can land you in prison for 15 years. There are other offences of recruiting for a prohibited hate group, training it or being trained by it, funding it or providing support for it, all with penalties ranging up to 10 or 15 years in prison. It’s also an offence to display any of the prohibited hate group symbols.

 

Now this brings us to the Criminal Code Prohibited Hate Group White Australia Regulations 2026. They state that White Australia, also known as WA, WAP or the White Australia Party, is a prohibited hate group. The regulations commenced on 16 May 2026.

 

The White Australia Party, of whose members were drawn from the since disbanded National Socialist Network, is an incorporated association registered in Victoria on 20th December 2025. Its registered purpose is:

 

“To advance the cultural, historical and ethnic interests of Australians of European heritage and advocate for immigration and population policies that serve the national interest and engage in lawful political advocacy, education and community activities to support candidates and policies aligned with its objectives.”

 

It claims to have 1, 779 members. It sought to become a registered political party at the Commonwealth level, but it’s not submitted the details of the names of its members as required. Presumably this is because it would provide evidence to the Commonwealth of its membership and of course membership, unless you take reasonable steps to get rid of your membership as soon as you find out that it’s a prohibited hate group, is a criminal offence! One would imagine that the number of party members is dropping rather quickly as a consequence.

 

On the 18th of May the White Australia Party lodged its constitutional challenge in the High Court. It’s arguing that Part 5.3B of the Criminal Code is invalid on three grounds.

 

One, the absence of a Head of Legislative Power to enact the law. Two, breach of the implied freedom of political communication. And three, breach of the separation of powers by vesting punitive powers in the Executive. Due to time constraints on doing these videos, I’m only going to discuss the first two.

 

The Commonwealth Parliament must have a Head of Legislative Power in order to enact a law. The White Australia Party claims that its position is similar to that of the Communist Party when it was dissolved by legislation. That legislation was found by the High Court to be invalid due to the absence of a Head of Power. In the Communist party case in 1951, it was claimed that the law dissolving the Communist Party was supported by the Defence Power and by what we now call the implied Nationhood Power, which includes protection of the nation.

 

The High Court disagreed, finding that neither power supported the law. The White Australia Party asserts that the current law is not supported by the Defence Power or the Nationhood Power. It adds that the corporation’s power is also not applicable to it because the party is an “incorporated association” and not a corporation. It claims there is no Head of Power to enact part 5.3B.

 

Now, three issues arise here. First, while the Defence Power was held in the Communist Party case not to support the relevant law, more recently in the case of Thomas and Mowbray in 2007, the High Court took a much broader view of the scope of the Defence Power, particularly in relation to terrorism and the protection of the people of the nation from violence.

 

The reasoning in the majority judgements is so poor that it’s actually quite difficult to pinpoint the rationale.

 

But it seems that the majority rejected the view taken of the scope of the defence power in the Communist Party case and that the Defence Power in section 51.6 of the Constitution now extends to matters concerning national security and the risk of internal violence within Australia. Whether it would extend further to the prohibition of a political party and whether such a law would satisfy a proportionality test would be a matter for argument.

 

Second, the scope of the Nationhood Power has also been expanded by the High Court, with a majority in the PAPE case regarding it as a power to deal with national emergencies. There might be scope for the Commonwealth to argue that the prohibition of hate groups is necessary to protect the Commonwealth against internal threats and that it’s a matter peculiarly adapted to the government of the nation that cannot otherwise be carried out for its benefit. Which is critical part of the test for the Nationhood Power. Again, however, a proportionality test may apply.

 

Reliance on either of these powers would prove difficult because it would be hard to satisfy a proportionality test in relation to either Head of Power, given the breadth and vagueness of the application of Part 5.3B, as explained earlier.

 

Third, we have the External Affairs Power. This is the power expressly relied upon in Part 5.3B of the Criminal Code. It states in section 114A.1 that:

 

“One of the objectives of the Part is to give effect to Australia’s obligations under articles 20 and, 26 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, known as the ICCPR, and Articles 4A and 4B of the Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Racial Discrimination, known as CERD.”

 

Articles 20 and, 26 require:

 

“The prohibition of incitement of racial hatred and the protection of people against racial discrimination.”

 

Part 5.3B, of course, goes much further than that! So they’re not terribly helpful.

 

The most relevant treaty provision, however, is Article 4B of CERD. It says that:

 

“State parties shall declare illegal and prohibit organisations which promote and incite racial hatred and shall recognise participation in such organisations as an offence punishable by law. Article 4A also requires parties to make an offence punishable by law the provision of any assistance to racist activities, including the financing thereof.”

 

A proportionality test also applies with respect to the implementation of treaties. The law must be:

 

“Reasonably capable of being considered appropriate and adapted to implementing the treaty obligations.”

 

In this case, Part 5.3B or at least most of it, would seem reasonably capable of being considered appropriate and adapted to implementing Article 4 of CERD.

 

So it’s likely that a Head of Power will be found to support it.

 

This is subject, however, to the key issue that arose in the Communist Party case. In that case, it was accepted that the Commonwealth Parliament could enact a law against subversion. But the Communist Party Dissolution Act did not itself prohibit subversion. It instead authorised the Governor General, acting on ministerial advice, to declare associations and individuals to be communists on the basis asserted in a recital in the preamble to the Act, that Communists engage in subversion. The connection between the law and the power was based on a decision of the Executive, the Governor General, on the advice of the Minister, not by a court!

 

Now, this led to the law being struck down as invalid. Part 5.3B of the Criminal Code sails perilously close to that same problem! It’s the Minister and the Governor General who determine that a body is a “hate group”, connecting the law to the power to enact it without there being any judicial determination that a hate crime has ever been committed.

 

But there are also differences. Part 5.3B, for example, applies generally, not just to a particular group. It doesn’t rely on recitals in a preamble. And there’s greater facility for administrative review of executive decisions than there was back at the time of the Communist Party case.

 

So it will be interesting to see what a court makes of those similarities and differences in the course of this challenge.

 

The next issue is the implied freedom of political communication. This is most likely where the Constitutional problems will arise. Would the designation of a group, including a political party, as a “prohibited hate group”, burden the implied freedom of political communication? Well, the answer to that must be, yes!

 

So we move on to the next part of the test. Does Part 5.3B have a legitimate purpose that is compatible with the Constitutional system of representative and responsible government? The High Court held in Farmer and the Minister for Home affairs in 2025 that:

 

“Prohibiting incitement of Discord in the Australian community was a legitimate purpose to the extent that this meant preventing harmful dissension or strife, including intimidation, vilification or victimisation on a large scale in the Australian community or within or amongst segments of the community. But it would not be sufficient if only the feelings or sensitivities of the Australian community, or a segment of the community would be hurt or adversely affected. Parliament cannot use its legislative power for the purpose of curbing political disagreement and debate inside Australia. The purpose must be directed at preventing material harm to the Australian community, or a segment of that community, rather than merely eroding social cohesion through disagreement and debate.”

 

The Objects clause in section 114A.1 of Part 5.3B, however, goes broader than that. It states that:

 

“The object is to protect the Australian community, or part of it, against social, economic, psychological and physical harm and from the promotion of violence by prohibiting organisations that engage in, prepare or plan to engage in or assist the engagement in, or advocate engaging in conduct constituting a hate crime and to give effect to those treaty obligations (that I mentioned).”

 

It will be a matter for argument in court about whether that actually is the purpose of Part 5.3B, and whether it’s a legitimate purpose, taking into account the qualifications given by the High Court in the Farmer case.

 

If the law has a legitimate purpose, the final question will be whether Part 5.3B is reasonably appropriate and adapted to serve the legitimate end, whatever that is, in a manner that is compatible with the Constitutionally prescribed system of representative and responsible government.

 

Now this is where all those problems that I raised at the beginning of this video about the breadth and the vagueness and the discretion in these provisions will become important. One could imagine that a far more narrowly tailored law could achieve any legitimate end without imposing such an extreme burden on political communication.

 

In short, there is a good argument that it is disproportionate in its application.

 

The outcome, of course, will depend upon how it is argued before the court, which none of us can dictate or predict. It will also require putting aside any personal objection to the plaintiff in this case and its ideology, and instead place the focus squarely on the long term application and the validity of this law.

 

Thank you once again for watching or listening to the Constitutional Clarion and I look forward to your company again next time. Goodbye.

 

[19:30]

 

 

END

top

 

 

 

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

 

Youtube Comments

top

(Comments as of 5/25/2026 = 174)

@husaberg650
2 hours ago
But we can have Communist Parties.
13

@holobiont3197
3 hours ago
Not convinced they fully thought through the acronym WAP.
8

@richyglitched
4 hours ago
The primary function of discrimination for the group is enough to have it outright banned. Lumped with the Bikies
4

@benhall8172
6 hours ago
If WAP can be declared a hate group and then have every member jailed, so can any political party or group the Govt of the day doesn’t like when the language is so vague and broad anything can be construed as illegal: Three Felonies a Day
16

@farright118
6 hours ago
These laws are so undemocratic.
I’ll be shocked if these laws aren’t thrown out
27

@andhewonders
7 hours ago
I’m curious that if these groups form themselves into a religious body, will hate laws still apply?
8

@constitutionalclarion1901
2 hours ago
Probably yes. Section 116 of the Constitution says the Commonwealth shall not make any law for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion – but that has been interpreted as subject to limits (eg if it is part of your religion to engage in human sacrifice, etc). You cannot use religion as an excuse for engaging in criminal conduct.
8

Hide replies

@malcolmfletcher7295
8 hours ago
I find it interesting that the Federal Government spontaneously decided that such a law was a good idea.
7

@hillstrong715
8 hours ago
The problem with this is that an administration change can take out any and every group that the government of the day finds objectionable. So any group that objects to any of the policies of the government of the day can be banned by simply defining the objection as hatred. Bad news for everyone in this nation, most particularly anyone who is a citizen.
11

@obliviouz
9 hours ago
Thank you for another informative video. Given the fact that the law almost expressly provides for punishment without (full) involvement of the Courts, I would be interested in the third issue referred to, the separation of powers point. That was a point taken and relevant to a recent determination in a visa/immigration detention/terrorism case if I remember correctly.
3

@constitutionalclarion1901
2 hours ago
Yes, it’s a far more complex issue and would require quite a bit more work on my end. I just haven’t had the time for it so far. But maybe in the future.
1

Hide replies

@Lucid-AUS
9 hours ago
Very informative thank you

@constitutionalclarion1901
2 hours ago
You’re welcome.

Hide replies

@caboose00f76
9 hours ago
Man these comments are wild. The creepers coming in from Pauline’s lot and the Trumpers. What a mess these people are.
5

@lukepaul7931
10 hours ago
I dont like them but i wish the government didnt block them. They are a pressure relief valve that has been blocked.
2

@__Max-oe6zm
10 hours ago
It’s an interesting situation for sure.
1

@steveliveshere
10 hours ago
Considering everything that’s going on in the world a White Australia Party is more concerning than a communist Party.
2

@mahcooharper9577
10 hours ago
I’m sure you could find someone who is genuinely distressed by the presence of ANY group in this country.
It’s a very poorly thought out piece of legislation, and as mentioned a terrifying weapon for an authoritarian to use.
Irrespective of who the group is who is currently proposed to be banned, I hope they can succeed in having the law overturned.
6

@JamesThomas-n3q
11 hours ago
Thanks Anne for the informative video. Always a helpful watch for those of us who want knowledge on the laws both current and upcoming.
11

@constitutionalclarion1901
2 hours ago
Thanks. I very much appreciate it, as it does take quite a bit of effort to do these videos.

Hide replies

@therig.88
11 hours ago
If we don’t have freedom of political opinion.. do we really have freedom? Or free ideas in a democracy?
32

@richyglitched
4 hours ago
We don’t put up with criminal organisations like the Mafia or Bikies..

Hide replies

@not.rumple.stiltskin
11 hours ago (edited)
They really threw the toys out of the cot with this one.
sooo being unpleasant to someone is unlawful seems to be the goal.
also how is the reasonableness of a person measured?
17

@sylviaelse5086
11 hours ago
Is there anything to prevent the president of the group from being arrested and charged with directing the activities of a prohibited group while the group is litigating?
9

@constitutionalclarion1901
2 hours ago
That was an issue raised the other day when they sought interlocutory relief (which will now be dealt with in the first week in June). As Justice Jagot mentioned, it is likely that any prosecution would be stayed until the constitutional issue was resolved.

Hide replies

@CaptainKremmen
11 hours ago
You say that it could be misused by a “future authoritarian government”. Surely simply creating such a law working totally outside the judicial system means we already have a current authoritarian government.
50

@Pastor-of-muppets1985
11 hours ago (edited)
How does it operate outside the judicial system? It’s currently being challenged in the HCA.
1

@mahcooharper9577
10 hours ago
​ @Pastor-of-muppets1985 if the HCA rules it is valid there is no further review, and no review is applicable to a Minister’s decision.

@constitutionalclarion1901
2 hours ago

@mahcooharper9577 – No, that’s not quite right. If the HCA rules it is valid, then that just means the law is valid. It may still be the case that the Minister did not have reasonable grounds to make a decision and that this may be challenged on an administrative law basis.
1

@yt.personal.identification
11 hours ago
Don’t attribute to malice, that which can easily be attributed to stupidity.
3

@hs-yr1zu
7 hours ago
@yt.personal.identification Doesn’t apply here. You don’t accidentally form a govt that delivers the 2nd worst record for secrecy and transparency of any govt since federation, and you don’t accidentally use a historic mandate to dismantle FOI laws as a first order priority. The authoritarian govt is well and truly here. If their contempt for democracy wasn’t clear enough, the latest budget should seal the deal, regardless of your view of the budget itself.
9

Hide replies

@mendaciousferret819
12 hours ago
Instead of focusing on how effective our security services have been we get this. They failed and are now blaming it on insufficient power.
19

@AGoodYear-q2v
12 hours ago
Very interesting clip by this lady. Protecting freedom of political expression is critical – such an important decision for the High Court coming up.
28

@constitutionalclarion1901
12 hours ago
Thanks.
8

Hide replies

@scottn2046
12 hours ago
I’m curious – how much freedom does a Federal Government have to sign a Treaty and then use the External Affairs Powers to claim a Head of Power that otherwise wouldn’t exist? Can it be used as a “Magic Head-Of-Power Tree” potentially initiating a treaty with co-operative countries with the intent of creating a Head Of Power that it doesn’t have, but would like??
6

@constitutionalclarion1901
12 hours ago
The High Court has said that it must be a ‘bona fide’ treaty (see Tasmanian Dam case). You can’t just go shopping for a treaty or bribe a small country to enter into a treaty to give you a head of power. But so far there has been no case where the validity of a law has been struck down because the treaty was not a bona fide one – probably because the Commonwealth has not been game to push its luck on this point.
5

@andrewjgrimm
11 hours ago
One of the past CC videos touched upon it. Sorry I can’t tell you which one.

Hide replies

@EAFSQ9
12 hours ago
I’m just here before the comments get locked due to the PHON types and White Australia Party members brigading this video
6

@therig.88
11 hours ago
You afraid of different opinions may the best man win in the land of ideas.
23

@Pastor-of-muppets1985
11 hours ago
So no opinion then? Just wanted to get a comment in?
16

@steveliveshere
10 hours ago
@Pastor-of-muppets1985 its not an opinion mate its fascim.

@mahcooharper9577
10 hours ago
If Trump was in charge here and was banning left wing activism groups I suspect you wouldn’t mind those groups objecting.
You need to step outside who it is and whether you personally support them and think about what this law actually means.
3

@homelander-enjoyer
12 hours ago
Better not let them have opinions in our brave little democracy!
34

@trunkage
11 hours ago
​ @homelander-enjoyer Unfortunately, their opinions is taking everyone else opinions away
Either way, someone is going to lose their opinion
1

@ricochet2977
10 hours ago
@trunkage
Who is taking your opinion away, didn’t you just state your opinion?
4

@constitutionalclarion1901
12 hours ago
Yes – shut down will happen soon, as I don’t have the time to keep monitoring the comments. I’m afraid I have other work I have to do.
9

Hide replies

@duncancargill6371
12 hours ago
As opposed to any and all forms of racism as I am I see this legislation as a draconian over reach open as it is too absurd levels of abuse. Also it is puzzling that the same government that enacts this legislation for, inpart, to protect social cohesion at the same time acts to destroy social cohesion with it’s immigration detention policy?
19

@CaptainKremmen
11 hours ago
It’s especially ludicrous to make arbitrary laws aimed against the White Australia Party, a tiny group of around 1500 members. The group is so small that it would be sensible to just ignore it, unless it commits any actual crimes. This kind of heavy-handed legislation is more likely to give them free publicity and possibly even support.
8

Hide replies

@SuperLloyd84
12 hours ago
Forcing people to give up their association seems like such a smart idea. I’m sure this won’t anger any radical elements and drive them underground, or give them a grievance they need to resolve.
24

@CheekyJebus
10 hours ago
giving people 15 years in prison for wrong-think strips them of having a peaceful route to seeking change in the country, that’s never a good idea.
4

Hide replies

@Margarinethebutterlover
12 hours ago
Great vid, thanks. Under these same circumstances, your own media may well be under attack.
6

@constitutionalclarion1901
11 hours ago
I try to weed out the comments that would breach existing laws, but it’s always possible I will miss some, or judge incorrectly which side of the law they fall. It is a real risk of running a channel like this – but I do try hard to ensure that the channel stays within the law.
5

@nationalistpolitics
9 hours ago
@constitutionalclarion1901 How could you possibly be held responsible for what other people post in the comments?

@constitutionalclarion1901
2 hours ago
Unfortunately, there are a number of cases in which the person who owns/runs the channel (or facebook page or blog) has been held responsible for the comments, as they did not take action to delete a comment (where that comment breaches an anti-hatred law) in a reasonable time. I didn’t make the law – but I do have to obey it.

Hide replies

@mathewritchie
12 hours ago
Under the rules outlined all the major parties could be defined as hate groups.
21

@Robert-xs2mv
12 hours ago
Besides I don’t “ hate” anything, I just disagree
10

@phwbooth
12 hours ago
Excellent analysis, ma’am. Thanks.
11

@constitutionalclarion1901
12 hours ago
Much appreciated.
2

Hide replies

@phwbooth
12 hours ago
Hate is a sin, and has not in the past been a crime ( Matthew 5:43–44 ) Only when it resulted in action was such an action punishable, and then (in England) by the Ecclesiastical Courts.
2

@dodecahedron-r7d
12 hours ago
They have redefined biblical principles and turned things into thought crimes and crimes of perception
Instead of 1:1 cause and effect, they have decided now that something is s crime when it’s one step removed from reality, thus if someone is offended now they have been harmed. The next stage will be pre-crime or being born into the wrong lineage
My biggest objection is that all these laws that keep proliferating at a rate society cannot ascertain the long term effects of, are not being agreed to by those who are expected to be governed by these laws, or ANY laws for that matter
It is part time laws were wound back and we reassess the very notion of law and it’s so called right to govern others, especially when 99% of laws are never agreed to by those placed under them and are asserted by nothing more than the violence of the state or by implied rights
5

@hs-yr1zu
7 hours ago
@dodecahedron-r7d The joys of postmodernism. The only objective truth is that truth is an oppressive social construct, so reality is as defined by any given individual. Now it’s enshrined in law and the ideology of our ‘democratic’ government. We might be cooked.

@DizzyButler
10 hours ago
Not sure if a biblical reference was made in the video that gave this comment more context and I just zoned out during that bit, but the Bible doesn’t say hate is a sin in it’s entirety. Romans 12:9 “hate what is evil, cling to what is good.” This ‘hate what is evil’ has been used as justification for actual hate crime historically and currently.
1

Hide replies

@pmafi_eng
13 hours ago
Given Pauline Hanson’s past comments and actions against minority groups such as Muslims, Chinese etc.
Do you think it would possible for One Nation to be a banned group?
9

@LuckyLocust
12 hours ago
The laws are so vague and retroactive that likely any party could be banned. Just needs the minister to have the will to do so. Any party that said negrative things about the germans, italians or japanese during WW2 could be banned under these laws.
13

@mahcooharper9577
10 hours ago
Pretty much every political or activist group in the country has said something that could be considered hateful, on both the left and the right. This (aside from the legal issues) is the problem – it’s too vague and it’s antithetical to democracy.
2

Hide replies

@peregrineh1620
13 hours ago
Seems a bit fishy that it’s left to the minister to determine – and after what we know about the lack of info sharing…seems dodgy….ministers are not capable! This is not a good idea.
7

@tomo9224
13 hours ago
As much as I hate speech being silenced, this is probably one of those videos where the comments section should be shut down, Professor
2

@nationalistpolitics
9 hours ago
“This legislation silencing free speech is bad”
“We will disable the comments so that people cannot discuss it freely”
???
4

@constitutionalclarion1901
2 hours ago
Unfortunately, the law requires me to do so – it’s not my choice. There have been several cases in which the person who runs a Facebook page, blog or channel has been held responsible under anti-hatred laws for failing to delete offending posts made by others.
1

@CheekyJebus
10 hours ago
nothing says democracy and education like not allowing open discussion.
3

@constitutionalclarion1901
12 hours ago
Yes, I’ll do so shortly.
2

Hide replies

@jackhanley293
13 hours ago
We already give ministers too much power. Is this an attack on free speach
15

@worker-wf2em
13 hours ago
The antidote to hate speech is not censorship, but more speech. This is a lesson mankind consistently fails to learn. As soon as you hand those in power the ability to determine what constitutes acceptable and unacceptable speech, there is only one outcome. I vehemently disagree with everything White Australia stands for, but it is foolish to cheer any system of power censoring it.
19

@somluck2813
13 hours ago
Singapore and Malaysia use laws made by British to quash opposition groups.
2

@MrTiddalik
13 hours ago
Never a dull moment
1

@lauchlanguddy1004
13 hours ago
I trust the courts. The law already allows an elected crony to make these decisions.

@somluck2813
13 hours ago
Given that act applies to historical statements made by the relevant party, the Australian Labor Party has from since Australia was established to at least the 1960s made racist statement, the ‘White Australia’ was part of its platform up to the 1970s, it would seem that questions can be raised in relation to the ALP.
17

@Imagineering100
13 hours ago
This will cause nothing but problems.
8

@dancarmody3789
13 hours ago
If the challenge is succesful and the law is found unconstitutional, it will affect all the other groups listed so far…. Hizb ut-Tahrir. What a crazy world we live in that white supremacists might end up helping Islamic extremists. One has to wonder if that they’ve even considered that outcome.
3

@Jordz97
13 hours ago
No one has even heard of Hizb ut-Tahrir, once White Australia gets in Hizb ut-Tahrir will be deported lmao.
17

@dancarmody3789
13 hours ago
@Jordz97 Lol, White Australia aren’t going to get in.
2

@JamesThomas-n3q
10 hours ago
@dancarmody3789 if that’s what the government thought then they wouldn’t have banned the WAP.
2

@TheKrispyfort
13 hours ago
Misogynists and xenophobes helping other misogynists and xenophobes.
3

Hide replies

@williamhay3029
13 hours ago (edited)
Wondering if their arguments will be a mix of the best cooker material, mixed with badly misquoted sections from your videos and involve red/ green constitution.
Also coincidentally this has come out on the afternoon that John Safran has a new show on free speech in Australia, focussing on free speech laws such as this and whether it’s healthy to have these. And of course he then discusse and meets with NSN and learns how to give a decent Nazi salute
3

@jimmy12347654
10 hours ago
Isn’t doing the NS salute a crime in a lot of states in Australia ?

Hide replies

@davidsullivan4449
13 hours ago
This was both awesome and very disturbing. I saw Rupert Lowe in the UK talking about similar trends in law whereby judgements that were usually made by juries are now being made purely by judges or a judge. I don’t really know the details but you know what I mean.
12

@TheKrispyfort
13 hours ago
You should read up on NSW legislation and laws around compulsory possession of proceedings of criminal activity.

Hide replies

@NelleBligh333
13 hours ago
It irks me as the granddaughter of a member of the Communist Party of Australia who only ceased to be a member when the party disbanded, to see this kind of legislation brought in to ban a political group when they tried to ban the CP twice and each time the ban was overturned by the High Court. You would think current members of Parliament would be aware of this history. Stop impinging on our right to political expression!
35

@PhilipGissing
10 hours ago
This former member of the Communist Party, who also was around when the party disbanded, couldn’t agree more!

Hide replies

@2paulstacey
13 hours ago
A Nazi party won’t get many votes but any votes for it would be damaging to Australia.
2

@TheKrispyfort
13 hours ago
Apparently, “Nazi” was initially a derogatory nickname for Hitler’s political party.
Kinda like calling the Liberal Party the “Libs”
6

@CheekyJebus
10 hours ago (edited)
If they won’t get any votes why do we have to go out of our way to frantically ban them? (let alone criminalize any association with up to 15 years in prison)
2

Hide replies

@stephenwellstriggers
13 hours ago
Too many numbskull’s in the comments who dont care about the tyranny inherrent in this law, as long as it stops “muh Nazis”. As President Kennedy said “thiose who make peaceful revolution impossible, make violent revolution inevitable”. The former leaders of the NSN and White Australia Party explicitly condemed terrorism and political violence to achieve their goals. What do you think all the young men who followed them are going to do if they think that strategy has failed? Ultimately the Government has shown it doesnt trust the Australian people to reject the White Australia Party at the ballot box.
46

@jimmy12347654
10 hours ago
It’s such a weak move that only pushes people underground, We have so little faith in our people and ideas that they need to swing the ban hammer so pathetic
2

Hide replies

@supernoveau
14 hours ago
Which party has the burden of proof?
2

@hevsa1507
14 hours ago
This is just a test as to whether we live in a completely corrupt system, or not.
None of this passes the pub test.
38

@JimmyCall
14 hours ago (edited)
I posted a comment on this subject in previous video, but deleted it due to mistakes/poor structure. The topic is some of the most complicated argument/dilemmas of Constitutional law.
1

@SH-3274
14 hours ago (edited)
Professor Twomey, I have a question about the “future authoritarian government” concerns you mentioned.
Suppose that a ruling party wanted to illegitimately classify a well-established political party (GRN, ALP, LIB, NAT, ONE, etc.) as a hate group. Assuming that their caucus and ministers were entirely on-board with this*, how many well-placed cronies would they require, and how difficult would it be to place them? By my guess they’d require five – the director of ASIO and four High Court judges – but my understanding of this is quite shaky. I certainly don’t understand how difficult it would be to place them.
*I say this because a leadership spill would undoubtedly make this difficult to pull off.
(Edited for clarity and typo correction)
3

@constitutionalclarion1901
11 hours ago
I agree that it would be difficult. In the past, one would have thought it unthinkable. But the unthinkable has been happening in a number of countries around the world in recent years. So it is no longer unthinkable. In my view, at least, it is something we should be alert to and defend against. In particular, we should not pass laws that could be abused in the future.
5

@SH-3274
8 hours ago
​ @constitutionalclarion1901 thanks for the insight. One follow up: with the laws as they currently exist, if the government wanted to seriously abuse them, what would the minimum required number of cronies be? Would the head of ASIO and four High Court judges be enough?

@constitutionalclarion1901
2 hours ago
Another factor is that the regulation declaring a group to be a prohibited hate group can be disallowed by either House. So an authoritarian government would need majority support in the upper House to prevent disallowance.
2

Hide replies

@mrx6682
14 hours ago
They have a right to form a political party, thats just common sense.
27

@79gengen
13 hours ago
Sure, but they won’t even give their names…. Go figure
1

@lioncross1849
12 hours ago
@79gengen because if they do, they risk going to jail under these new laws. That is the issue at hand. That’s why we are having this high court case.
Shouldn’t that not be obvious to you mate?
11

Hide replies

@richardjohnston-bell476
14 hours ago (edited)
Free speech is the foundational right that all other rights are built upon and is worth protecting. I also believe that not only is ‘hate speech’ free speech, but that free speech cannot exist without it. Free speech is not just about the right to express an opinion or an idea, free from violence or government intervention, its the right to be able to listen to those ideas and opinions. As an adult, I find it insulting that the government thinks so little of my ability to reason, that they get to decide what information is too dangerous for my poor little brain to handle.
This is why I am voting for One Nation. They are the only party that is serious about free speech
17

@C0wCakes
14 hours ago
Australia isn’t the United States. There’s nothing in the constitution that guarantees free speech or makes it a foundational right. We have a very long history of common-law and case history. That includes that speech that is harmful to society and its people isn’t permitted, backed by the prior mentioned case law. That’s actually far better than a few lines in a constitution that are exceedingly diffult to change.
2

@supernoveau
13 hours ago
There’s a very big difference between speech that is advocating for physical violence, and speech that some identity group doesn’t want to hear because it’s contrary to their political interest.
4

@richardjohnston-bell476
12 hours ago
@C0wCakes why do people always confuse the concept of free speech and what it is in law. The US didnt invent free speech, they have just taken the concept and placed it in the constitution. If you base your argument defining free speech by what the laws say, then if we put the same rules as the US into our constitution, then your argument no longer exists, Would you then agree that ‘hate speech’ does not exist becasue the law says it doesnt?
3

@79gengen
13 hours ago
Sure, have free speech, but be prepared to face the consequences that go with it.
1

@FairyBreadforbreakfast
13 hours ago
@79gengen The only consequence that is reasonable is that someone disagrees with you. Any other state sanctioned punishment is not reasonable and means you don’t have free speech.
4

@richardjohnston-bell476
12 hours ago (edited)
@79gengen I assume you mean consequences that are within the law?

@79gengen
8 hours ago
​ @richardjohnston-bell476 I assume you mean free speech that is within the law.

Hide replies

@nicholassteel5529
14 hours ago

@learningmore8047
14 hours ago
This is a great video, well done. It gets me thinking about how this law and how the Indigenous peoples see their positions especially as they have taken the brunt of hatred since the arrival of the first fleet, throw that into the context of what the Uluru Statement from the Heart stated about their unceded sovereignty and mix that with Australia’s obligations under the ICCPR for example and then the intentions of Australia when it supported UNDRIP in 2009. You have really triggered ones mind with this video. Please keep up the great wotk especially with these videos.
3

@AustralianGrandmasForDemocracy
14 hours ago
Thanks Anne. I think this and related issues will be hotly debated for some time to come. Time for a Bill of Rights to balance it out I think!
9

@Pab_1967
14 hours ago
We have a Bill of Rights 1688, which the GovCo is breaching, it’s attached to our Commonwealth Constitution of Australia, Imperial law

@AustralianGrandmasForDemocracy
12 hours ago
@Pab_1967 According to Google that one only covers parliamentary privilege. The (4 I think) rights mentioned in the constitution are totally inadequate. There are a hodge-podge of rights mentioned in different acts of legislation in different states but I still think we need a fully fledged Federal Bill of Rights. Perhaps Anne can clarify?
2

@Pab_1967
12 hours ago
​ @AustralianGrandmasForDemocracy the Commonwealth Constitution of Australia was never about rules for the people, it was designed to keep Corporations and Parliament in line. Ours are given with the blessing of Almighty God, ten commandments.

Hide replies

@kipwatson
14 hours ago
They sound like a nasty, stupid party; and it sounds like a stupid, extremely dangerous law.
12

@JayGuitars1
15 hours ago
Why can’t we all just get along?
4

@dancarmody3789
14 hours ago
Some folks aren’t good at just minding their own business. The internet has made it worse.

@aussiegodx8629
14 hours ago
Bcus we tried that and it’s not working and never will
7

Hide replies

@Hansel_and_Grettle
15 hours ago (edited)
I think the best way to legitimise a far right movement is to ban them.
If you believe their ideas to be horrid and wrong (which I do), then you should be able to debate and beat them with ease.
Silencing them only incentivises them to move away from democratic means of pushing their agenda, which is far more dangerous and scary imho. So far Australia has mostly avoided large scale right wing terrorism, I’d like to keep things that way.
17

@seanlander9321
14 hours ago
Is it fair then to ban other groups who aren’t on the Right but which oppose Australia’s institutions, promote violence, hate, or prejudice? Because it really is a can of worms that’s being opened, and the prejudice of the Minister has too much sway in what should be the decision of a court.
7

@stephenwellstriggers
13 hours ago
From a former member of said party, I agree.
5

@uasj2
14 hours ago
This is it. The prof is not supporting this group but nevertheless we don’t want repressive laws to ban them, just well-crafted laws that target only extreme groups
4

@seanlander9321
14 hours ago
@uasj2 How then would a government that has funded a group that advocates hate or violence treat itself then?

@stephenwellstriggers
13 hours ago
​ @seanlander9321 you can make violence illegal, but if you make hatred illegal then everyone is a law breaker. Hate is a universal emotion and part of the human condition. You cant legislate it away.
4

@RSA_Liberty
14 hours ago
The system doesnt want open debate
4

@MrBlaygor
14 hours ago
In my opinion if the government really wanted to end extremism, they would have put in a clause ENCOURAGING any group targeted for designation to escape that designation by requiring them to participate in the electoral system.
3

Hide replies

@DeGuerre
15 hours ago
I hate that we have to think about “what this would be like in the hands of ȧ madman” because that’s not hypothetical any more.
16

@Teufeltusken
15 hours ago
This appears to be what happens when you make rushed laws. The intentions may be honourable, but by being sloppy you allow the targets of the legislation to make valid challenges.
4

@CheekyJebus
10 hours ago
Stripping free speech and your right to political expression is never “honourable”
1

@constitutionalclarion1901
15 hours ago
Indeed. Much better to do it carefully and sensibly.
6

@SethWAE
13 hours ago
​ @constitutionalclarion1901 Like Donald Trump?

Hide replies

@MartyH99
15 hours ago
Will the Labor party object when these laws are used against themselves?
10

@MartyH99
15 hours ago
It will interesting to hear how the government proved ‘hate’?
1

@lauchlanguddy1004
12 hours ago
They dont have to. Its not a court. All comes down to one person, seems

Hide replies

@zalzalahbuttsaab
15 hours ago
thank you. informative and well-researched as usual!
3

@constitutionalclarion1901
15 hours ago
You are most welcome.
2

Hide replies

@paulx3733
15 hours ago
Sometimes in this ” modern world” the best motives are easily undermined by those who try to hard to appease the people who are to easily offended…
Just cause your feelings are hurt, don’t make you right.
5

@hs9067
15 hours ago (edited)
I’m continually suprised by Labors attempt at overreach. Restrictive protest, speech laws etc Should we be worried are they trying to lay the foundations for Authoritarianism?
11

@constitutionalclarion1901
15 hours ago
It was supported by the Coalition too.
9

@hs9067
14 hours ago (edited)
@constitutionalclarion1901 Thats worrying two mainstream partys and than One Nation who is outright oligarchical. Thank you for all the work you do!
2

@AustralianGrandmasForDemocracy
14 hours ago
@constitutionalclarion1901 that isn’t at all surprising!
1

@JayGuitars1
15 hours ago
And trying to eliminate legal firearm possession at the same time…gee you could draw a conclusion.
2

@constitutionalclarion1901
14 hours ago
The law did not seek to ‘eliminate’ legal firearm possession. It imposed some restrictions – eg on the number of firearms that could be owned.
4

Hide replies

@robertwalker7924
15 hours ago
the largest ” hate group ” in Australia is the Australian population towards Australias indigenous peoples…its all very one sided
8

@justheretowatchatrashfire
14 hours ago
Yep
1

@AustralianGrandmasForDemocracy
14 hours ago
It’s shameful that antisemitism gets far more attention than the disrespect and violence that our First Nations people are subject to.
5

Hide replies

@aarondemiri486
15 hours ago (edited)
Will be excited to read what the High Court decides in their judgement.
They will likely discuss Latham’s dissent in the communist party case. Fullagar and Dixon’s separate judgements still stand the test of time.
2

@lylegc01
15 hours ago
Thanks again for your vids
1

@Robert-xs2mv
15 hours ago
Hate in it self is never a crime.
To state otherwise is an injustice!
And when injustice becomes law, the law becomes irrelevant!
11

@RSA_Liberty
14 hours ago
Which human emotion are they going to regulate and ban next?
4

@constitutionalclarion1901
15 hours ago (edited)
No one has suggested that hate itself is a crime. It is the public expression of that hate in particular ways (eg inciting violence, intimidating, humiliating others, etc) that is the crime.
1

@Robert-xs2mv
15 hours ago
@constitutionalclarion1901 . So being condemned and accused to be a sinner is a hate crime inciting violence? And you clearly accentuated the relevant minister has the ability to declare whether an expression of hate indeed is inciting ? Sounds like an extremely fine line.
8

@worker-wf2em
10 hours ago

@constitutionalclarion1901 There are already laws against inciting violence in this country. All I see here is overreach from government equating words with violence. Terms like ‘humiliating’ is a ridiculously broad and objective feelings based standard that will be abused by those in power to target dissenters, and anyone the Israel lobby doesn’t like if we’re being honest.
3

Hide replies

@StephenSkinner-k4w
15 hours ago
Who decides if the minister actually did have “reasonable Grounds” to prohibit a “hate group”?
Why, the minister of course!
What could possibly go wrong?
6

@constitutionalclarion1901
15 hours ago
It could be challenged in a court in an administrative law challenge.
1

Hide replies

@JOSEPHDANCE75
15 hours ago
Nothing to be ashamed about for being white. Same can be said for Black or Asian , what ever else is out their like us hybrids. For those that did bad in the pastis on them . Cannot blame so many today for the actions of some.
6

@tedknight2608
15 hours ago
Quick Question: If it is a criminal offence to direct the actions of a prohibited group, then isn’t someone committing a crime by directing the group’s legal challenge against the prohibition?
2

@constitutionalclarion1901
15 hours ago
Possibly. It depends on whether the law is valid, for a start. I think there are also exceptions which allow funds to be provided to lawyers for such a legal challenge – but I haven’t delved into all those provisions.
2

@yubnuts
14 hours ago
This is similar to the question that arose in Deripaska (2026) where the sanctioned person (Deripaska) argued that the sanction laws were invalid because to engage legal representation to contest the listing would have itself been a breach of the sanction laws. The High Court saved the sanction laws by reading them down so that they would not extend to prohibiting a person from engaging legal advice for the purpose of contesting the listing.

Hide replies

@michellefranklin3182
15 hours ago
Thanks for this.
4

@constitutionalclarion1901
15 hours ago
Much appreciated.
2

Hide replies

@DS91284
15 hours ago
Insecurities are so vague and should never be handled by double digits.
1

@Know_It_All
16 hours ago
Thanks
3

@constitutionalclarion1901
15 hours ago
You’re welcome.

Hide replies

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

See Also

top

 

 

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

Harry Richardson: Multiculturalism in Australia, as elsewhere in the Anglo-sphere, is irrational and inconsistent. In order to perpetuate this monstrous ideology, its champions are compelled to attack free speech, that great Anglo tradition which exposes and ridicules such nonsense!

 

A recent example is Peter Drew, an Australian artist who produced a series of posters depicting people of non-European ethnicity who lived in Australia at the time of the so-called White Australia Policy. The posters all have the word “Aussie” underneath, implying that these people were Aussies because they’d lived here. These people faced difficulties because they were told that if they left Australia, they would not necessarily be able to return.

 

It’s a similar situation to that faced today by foreigners living in Thailand. European foreigners are known as “farang” and, unlike Thai people, they’re required to leave Thailand periodically and reapply to return. No guarantee is given that they will be allowed back into the country. These farang are not Thai, and nobody thinks that they are. Nobody thinks any less of Thailand for insisting on this policy, despite the inconvenience and upset that it causes many of these farang.

 

Peter Drew put up his posters around Melbourne without permission. Here he is explaining that in his own words:

 

“It’s a very popular project. It’s so popular that even though it’s illegal, I can put my name to it and I’m still allowed to do it, because people like it, whereas these copycat posters are done anonymously because nobody likes them.”

 

Peter Drew’s artwork is propaganda which reinforces the preferred narrative of the establishment elites who run the government, the media, the education system, the legal system, and the bureaucracies. And maybe it’s a coincidence, but it appears that Peter Drew has a picture of Chairman Mao on his wall. The establishment who are supposed to enforce laws don’t enforce this law, perhaps because they like what Peter Drew is doing. The rule of law doesn’t apply to propaganda that supports their narrative, apparently.

 

So fast forward to a short time ago, and a provocative young social media influencer decided to make a statement by creating posters in a similar style to those of Peter Drew. Instead of the faces of historical minorities, however, Auspill, as he’s known, put the faces of diverse Australians who’ve committed horrible crimes, as well as some others, including Donald Trump, with the word “Aussie” underneath them. The most confronting of these posters had the face of Naveed Akram on it. He was one of the two alleged perpetrators accused of the Bondi massacre.

 

Auspill then made a video of himself and a friend putting these posters up around Melbourne, as well as some of the reactions of establishment figures, with commentary from himself and his friend.

 

Full disclosure here: The BAC made two videos a couple of years ago about the Drew posters, and part of one of these was featured in Auspill’s video. We’ll post links to our videos in the description below, along with some references.

 

At this point, Dr. Dvir Abramovich stepped into the fray. Dr. Abramovich runs a well-known jewish defence and advocacy organisation called the Anti-Defamation Commission. Here’s what he had to say about Auspill’s posters:

 

“They should utilise every measure, every law, to make sure that these people end up behind bars. It was a kick in the guts. This is a hate crime, pure and simple. It’s dancing on the grave of those massacred in Bondi.”

 

Quote:

 

“They should utilise every measure, every law, to make sure that these people end up behind bars.”

 

And Dvir Abramovich again:

 

“It was a kick in the guts. This is a hate crime, pure and simple. It’s dancing on the grave of those massacred in Bondi. It’s psychological intimidation.”

 

Dr. Abramovich’s comments are interesting on a number of levels, especially in light of some of his previous statements. The first thing that strikes us is the severity of the punishment. He’s calling for. Prison time for putting up a poster? This is very extreme by Australian legal standards. Secondly, and perhaps most strikingly, is the way Dr. Abramovich has completely misunderstood the point of the posters. His statement characterises it as a deliberate attack on the grieving jewish community, when both common sense and Auspill’s own words suggest otherwise.

 

Peter Drew himself admits to attempting to deconstruct Australian identity and help ensure that anyone of any racial, religious, or cultural background can be an Aussie. To this end, he portrays a group of racially diverse people who lived in Australia and are perceived as positive for the nation.

 

Auspill has turned this concept on its head and made posters in the same style depicting racially diverse people who are either clearly bad for the nation or, in the case of Donald Trump, someone who’s never lived here. This dialectic is a form of discussion about the identity of the nation. It would seem that way to us, and Auspill appears to agree. Here he is explaining it in his own words:

 

“This project—this funny little Donald Trump, Naveed Akram—this is taking it to its natural conclusion. Naveed Akram—an Aussie; Donald Trump—an Aussie! It’s not exclusive, right? ‘No one’s illegal on stolen land! Everyone’s an Aussie! It’s a piece of paper!’ I don’t think many Australians the Anzacs or the founding people of this country, would agree with that. It is an invention—a very modern invention—that needs to be upheld by, literally, street propaganda. But we can counter it in the street and get people to look at the extreme conclusions of this ideology. And that’s what this really is about.”

 

Note that he also put up a poster of a Chinese man who’s believed to have deliberately scalded an Aussie baby with a boiling hot cup of coffee. This was a horrific attack on a vulnerable member of the Anglo community, but no one thinks that this was “dancing on the misery” of an injured baby. The image of Naveed Akram is well known because it has been shown repeatedly on mainstream media.

 

As far as we know, Dr. Abramovich had not complained about the image previously. It is understandable, however, that using this image to make a political statement could be upsetting. With that said, however, we feel that Dr. Abramovich is completely missing the point of Auspill’s video.

 

The reason I’m bringing up Dvir Abramovich’s comments is that he has a history of commenting on this topic. Back in 2016, TV personality Sonia Kruger made some remarks during a discussion on TV about Islamic immigration into Australia. I’ll quote from a news.com.au article at the time. She said, whilst talking about Islamic immigration:

 

“Personally, I would like to see it stop now for Australia.”

 

She referred to Japan, a racially homogenous country with a low proportion of Muslim migrants, and pointed out—correctly—that they don’t experience terror attacks by Islamic extremists. She also said that she would like to see freedom of speech. Bear in mind that Kruger made her comments in the wake of a horrific Islamic terror attack in France.

 

But we’d also had attacks in Australia. There was the Skaf [Bilal Skaf] rape gang of 50 Anglo girls in 2000; the Cronulla gang in 2005; the Endeavour Hills stabbings of 2014; the appalling Lindt Cafe siege, also in 2014; and the Parr a matter a shooting of a Chinese-Australian accountant who worked for the police in 2015.

 

In the same article, Ms. Kruger is given a severe dressing-down by none other than Dr. Abramovich, who said, and I quote:

 

“I am dismayed and concerned by this misguided and outrageous statement! Sonia Kruger’s call to ban Muslim immigration to Australia is deeply offensive, irrational and unacceptable.”

 

End quote. So I have to say, that statement didn’t age well at all! And, okay, maybe it was offensive to some Muslims, but “irrational” in light of recent events? Worse than that is Dr. Abramovich’s final claim that this position is “unacceptable.” In other words, no one should be even allowed to argue against this viewpoint. Freedom of speech should be suspended for this topic. Insisting on shutting down everyone else’s speech on a topic suggests a belief in one’s own infallibility. In this case, it turns out that Dr. Abramovich and his opinions were not as infallible as he’d assumed.

 

There’s a particularly sad irony to the staunch opposition to free speech expressed by some jewish community leaders, especially around immigration and diversity. For instance, parts of the organised jewish community were instrumental in draughting Section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 and defending it against Tony Abbott, who’d promised to repeal it.

 

The peak jewish national body were also consulted in the formation of the latest laws against anti-semitism, hate, and extremism, which gut the Anglo tradition of free speech, particularly where it includes criticism of minorities. During this consultation process, they advocated for stronger provisions and harsher sentencing.

 

Ethnic diversity tends to have serious and well-documented costs wherever it’s found, and this is true for all Australians. But in this latest tragic episode, it’s jews who have borne the brunt of these costs. This just Showcases the irrationality of multicultural minority politics. Australians are expected to suspend common sense when discussing minority interests. The policies of multiculturalism and its feed corn of indiscriminate immigration have never been discussed at an adult level. The shifting allegiances on which multiculturalism is based can shatter when people least expect it.

 

Dr. Abramovich continued his 2016 comment, stating that, quote:

 

“Banning anyone from entry to our country on the basis of their religion goes against long-standing Australian values of respect, inclusivity and religious freedom.”

 

End quote. What he fails to mention here is that for most of our history, Australian immigration policy restricted non-White intakes in order to minimise ethno-religious diversity. We did, however, have some jews in the colony from the beginning, and this was one of the safest and most welcoming countries for them. We had Sir Isaac Isaacs, who was jewish, as our first native-born Governor-General, which is the highest office in the land. General Sir John Monash, who was the pre-eminent Australian general in the First World War and was widely regarded as one of the finest Allied commanders on the Western Front, was also jewish.

 

Dr. Abramovich continued on in his criticism of Sonia Kruger. He said, quote:

 

“Such singling out and demonizing of Muslims is counterproductive and will only serve to foment fear and hatred. As we face the threat of radical Islamist terror, we must avoid falling into the trap of blaming individuals and communities.”

 

This just makes no sense at all! He admits that we face the threat of radical Islamist terror, but insists that we shouldn’t ban Muslim immigration because that will cause fear and hatred of Muslims. Bear in mind that he expressed this opinion after a string of Islamic-inspired attacks, and recent events simply emphasise how appallingly wrong-headed this approach is!

 

The only reason such weak arguments could prevail was the chilling of free speech, which put pressure on people like Sonia Kruger for opposing them.

 

The abolition of free speech means that influential people get to decide on vital policy directions for the whole nation. When these people are shielded from common-sense arguments, their fallibility is protected by a wall of censorship. Dr. Abramovich reinforced this approach when he continued, saying:

 

“Our nation is strengthened by diversity and it is crucial that all leaders stand united in combating any manifestations of bigotry and prejudice.”

 

End quote. This ideological nonsense just has to stop! Diversity is a strength? The fact is that our once peaceful nation of Australia is now riven by blood feuds that have been imported from around the world.

 

Unfortunately, minority advocates are not the only ones attacking free speech. Chris Minns, who’s the Leftist Premier of New South Wales, has been cheer leading the abolition of free speech for some time now. Why? Well, to protect diversity, of course:

 

Minns: When did I say ‘free speech is incompatible with a free society’?

John Ruddick: Mr Premier, you have said that on multiple occasions!

Minns: Would you mind repeating it to me where I have said it and what I said?

John Ruddick: Are you denying that you said it, Mr Premier?

Minns: I would love it for you to quote it back to me.

Minns: I recognise it and I’ve said it from the beginning, that we don’t have the same freedom of speech laws that they have in the United States. And the reason for that is that we want to hold together a multicultural community.

Minns: We don’t have the same free speech rules that they have in the United States. We’ve got strict interpretation of hate speech in the state. If that needs to go further in a legislative sense, that’s exactly what I’ll do!

Minns: We have to take steps to protect that. It can’t just be a willy-nilly race to the bottom where civic society turns a blind eye and says, ‘Well, look, freedom of speech reigns here. People can say what they want.’ That’s not the case in New South Wales. We don’t have the same freedom of speech laws that they have in the United States. And the reason is because we love the country that we’ve got here and we are going to take steps to protect what has been built up over decades.

Minns: And I don’t apologise for the fact that we don’t have the same free speech laws that they have in the United States. It’s clear that we don’t! We don’t have the same set of regulations. It’s not embedded in our constitution the same way it is in the US.

Naturally, he isn’t the only one, but he is arrogant enough to say the quiet part out loud. This has to stop! Because, as George Washington once said:

 

“If the freedom of speech is taken away, then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep, to the slaughter!”

 

A majority never wanted mass, indiscriminate, immigration. And the elites who insisted on it are now intent on shutting down our rights to free speech so that we can no longer voice opposition to it. And maybe if Peter Drew wants to abolish a national identity, he should have a go at the Indians or the Chinese or the Palestinians, just to show that it isn’t only Anglo-Celtic identity that he wants to abolish.

 

The whole point of this is that these posters represent free speech. Peter Drew’s posters express an opinion on who can be an Aussie, and so do Auspill’s. Both of them should be allowed to express their opinions.

 

Unfortunately, when we allow powerful elites to destroy free speech, then they will decide what can and cannot be expressed. This is a very slippery slope which leads to tyranny and oppression!

 

In the meantime, the British-Australian Community will continue to defend the identity, the interests, and the free speech rights of our people, just as the rest of the multicultural community defend their people. If you think that this is a worthwhile goal, then join us now!

 

Thank you.

 

[14:46]

 

 

END

top

 

 

 

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

 

Youtube Comments

top

(Comments as of 5/4/2026 = 38)

@iksootm
1 day ago
If you don’t have a border, you don’t have a country.
30

@LucienCanon
1 day ago
You must upload more BAC. Thanks so much for your work.
32

@britishaustraliancommunity
1 day ago
Thank you Lucien, agreed. We are more active on X and Instagram however – youtube doesn’t like us very much.
8

Hide replies

@SirJad_
1 day ago
Multiculturalism will always degrade a society into totalitarianism as the state naturally needs to expand its power to ensure all groups remain cohesive and the overall structure of society remains functional. There is no coincidence as Australia becomes more ‘diverse’, it becomes less free.
21

@southern-samurai
23 hours ago (edited)
The fact that we cannot even have an open conversation about this without risking violating hate speech laws if someone decides to interpret one side as racially offensive highlights the erosion of basic freedoms and cultural norms in Australia as a result of protecting multicultural ideology.
7

@keilgre5319
17 hours ago
Freedom. Remigration.
7

@Zinnia-x9c
1 day ago
Peter Drew is still crashing out over Auspill’s art series.
13

@Generico301
1 day ago
Nice 1, Harry. Need more like it.
7

@Whats_newss
1 day ago
Great video
7

@user-di8gh5fw6d
23 hours ago
Africa 54 countries, SA is now kicking out other africans from their South Africa country because their not South African. Are they racist.
5

@what_social_contract
1 day ago
Cracking video
4

@leonhanford5560
4 hours ago
Peter Drew is a delusional lefty.Full regime backing.And don’t get me started on Dvir
2

@joelwhaley8182
23 hours ago
Where is your 1901 federal red flag. Where is your Commonwealth of Australia. Where is your townspeople. Where is your self determination. Lest ye forget is strsight out of the AKJV bible. A warning that rings true today as Australians forgot who they are and what their ANZAC even fought for at all.
2

@Cohen-cidenceinspector
1 day ago
2:47 ….. looks like the ghost of a mud slime woman floating down the street.

@Westyrulz
3 hours ago
The European Race could cease to exist as all European societies have opened up to mass Non-White immigration.

@masscreationbroadcasts
1 day ago
Why do you try to convince people? Sorry, I’m not being clear enough. These people got power by taking advantage of your good will and giving themselves power over you because they hate their own kind for status. Debate won’t fix this.
2

@Melbournelost66
1 day ago
Those posters I utterly despise. I have noticed them around inner Melbourne, in particular Fitzroy, Collingwood etc. Who said its popular? Have they taken a poll? What if we rip them down????
4

@John-p7i5g
17 hours ago
Multiculti society = logical contradiction = balkanisation
1

@persiandrum9871
1 day ago (edited)
Can you imagine the outrage and backlash, if China were to have an Australian-Anglo as its ‘Foreign Minister’, or if India were to have an Australian-Irishman as one of its parliamentary senators? Or if Israel were to have a non-Jewish, Australian Christian prime minister? Or if Saudi Arabia were to have an Australian atheist serve in its Council of Ministers? (continued below)
Why is it that we are expected to applaud all other nations of the earth for having their people represented by their founding stock, while White nations only are expected to prove their ‘diversity’ and ‘multicultural’ bonafides?
How log will this ridiculous canard be tolerated?
11

@Is_This_Really_Necessary
19 hours ago
Multiculturism only works when it’s NOT forced down everyone’s throats all the goddamn time. But because Western governments have chosen to impose multiculturalism onto everyone, as an Auzzie I choose freedom.
So I will say whatever I want, however I want, whenever I want, I don’t have a damn what anyone else thinks.
1

@raycap
2 hours ago
Minns is telling us we don’t matter, it’s, I will take away your freedoms, and you will keep your mouth shut, or it’s jail time. Slowly but surely, like any extreme left party, they are implementing communism.

@THEOFFICEOFHELP
1 day ago
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T4YMXPiM6Jc

@insolent6702
15 hours ago
Mouse click sound effect is ruining this video
1

@australiasindustrialage689
4 hours ago
What Chris Minns said is a load of trash, he fails to understand that Australia was founded on Anglo-Australianism, free-speech was an implied right

@MELcontents.not.american
6 hours ago
You lost me in your first statement. Multiculturalism makes us strong, liveable, rich.
Multiculturalism is the kernel of the Australian experience.

@tsopmocful1958
6 hours ago
No, Australia and the entire West has gone downhill ever since multicultural policies were implemented as early as the 1970’s.
2

@MELcontents.not.american
4 hours ago
@tsopmocful1958 are you suggesting that for example, Vietnamese immigration has been a bad thing for Australia?

Hide replies
Top is selected, so you’ll see featured comments

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

See Also

top

 

 

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

Thomas Sewell: There are certain things that are, in my opinion, mandatory for the correct development of young men in the West, young White men. And that is manual labour, physical exercise and sport, and reading, writing and articulation. These are absolutely fundamental for the development of the man.

 

And there are people who say manual Labor is goyish, or they will speak against it. And it really shows in the people that believe that they ultimately become spiritually something else. I think manual Labor is extremely Aryan, and young guys should develop a trade or they should experience that in a way that helps build their character. And it is really character building. And this is regardless of class, this is regardless of career.

 

Likewise, sport, you know, martial arts, group sport as well, is just as important as martial arts. It shouldn’t just be individualistic training. There should be group training as well. It’s very important. And that’s the body figured out and I guess part of the mind figured out.

 

But what really builds a strong mentality is knowledge. And there is so much knowledge in the world and there are so many great men that have lived over the last couple hundred years or even over the last couple thousand years, and they have articulated such wonderful wisdom to us.

 

And the current education system is really just making people retarded! And they’re just reading swap and there are fundamental philosophical truths of life that men from hundreds of years ago figured out or articulated well, wrote down. And these are in the classics. And they need to be passed on and they need to be kept alive. And they are core to one’s moral framework.

 

And you’ll see a lot of people will bend to the system without any actual physical threat of violence towards them. They’ll bend to material pleasures or the idea that they’re going to have less privileges in a society and they succumb to a moral slavery because they think that they’ll get better coloured chains in their form of slavery.

 

And so when you have knowledge, it unlocks a mentality that you might not have been born with, or it strengthens and hardens instincts that you were born with and that’s why it’s really important for young men to develop themselves physically and to develop themselves mentally and to engage with other men that are trying to do the same, that are trying to better themselves and not go down the path of these defeated men. There’s a lot of weak defeated men.

 

And sometimes this is your own father, sometimes this is your boss at work. And you, of course, you’re going to look up to and respect your boss.

 

Of course you’re going to look up to and respect your own father. But there are men that lived hundreds of years ago that, or even more recently, that can provide a wisdom that is overlooked. So get active. Train hard. Read, write, articulate. Become a leader in your own life. Lead yourself first!

 

There’s nothing worse than a man that is perpetually self doubting. As a man, you have to have a mission in life. You have to have a series of missions in life. You have to be working towards a goal. Everything else makes sense. When you have that focus, when you have that laser like focus, that sharpness to you, everything else falls into place. You’re not subject to the world. The world is subject to you. Never forget that.

 

[4:10]

 

 

END

top

 

 

Joel Davis – One Nation – Ineptitude or Controlled Opposition? – Nov 4, 2024 – Transcript

Joel Davis – ZOG Sends in the Fun Police, Donald Trump White Power – Nov 7, 2024 – Transcript

Joel Davis – The Enemy is Weaker Than You Think – Nov 14, 2024 – Transcript

Joel Davis – “It’s Not About Race” – Nov 21, 2024 – Transcript

Joel Davis – The Self-Imploding Legitimacy of Our Opposition, Why Are They So Afraid? – Feb 14, 2025 – Transcript

Mark Collett – Patriotic Weekly Review – with Thomas Sewell – Mar 19, 2025 – Transcript

Mark Collett – Can National Socialism Be Resurrected? – with Joel Davis – Mar 23, 2025 – Transcript

Joel Davis – So Much Has Happened, But We’re Only Just Getting Started – Apr 11, 2025 – Transcript

 

 

Joel Davis – What Did the Anzacs Fight For? – Apr 24, 2025 – Transcript

Australians Vs. the Agenda with Joel Davis – Apr 28, 2025 – Transcript

Joel Davis – Nazi Trolling is Still the Only Interesting Thing in Australian Politics – May 2, 2025 – Transcript

Joel Davis – Defiance – May 16, 2025 – Transcript

Joel Davis – Symbolic Victory – May 30, 2025 – Transcript

Joel Davis – Tactical N-Word – Jun 6, 2025 – Transcript

Joel Davis – The Chink Question – Jul 4, 2025 – Transcript

Joel Davis – The Chink Question – Jul 4, 2025 – Transcript

Joel Davis – MechaHitler – a Manifestation of Musk’s Machiavellianism, or Something More? – Jul 11, 2025 – Transcript

Joel Davis – Zionist (Paedophile) Occupied Government – Jul 17, 2025 – Transcript

Joel Davis – Another Week of Political Drama – Jul 27, 2025 – Transcript

Joel Davis – The Goonright Pipeline – with Mark Collett – Aug 6, 2025 – Transcript

Thomas Sewell – Masters of Our Own Destiny – Aug 10, 2025 – Transcript

Jacob Hersant – Speech at NSN, Victoria – Aug 10, 2025 – Transcript

Joel Davis – The Fire Rises – Aug 22, 2025 – Transcript

Mark Collett – Patriotic Weekly Review – with Thomas Sewell – Aug 27, 2025 – Transcript

Blair Cottrell – The March for Australia – A National Immune Response – Aug 27, 2025 – Transcript

Blair Cottrell – Australians Unite to Stop Immigration – Aug 31, 2025 – Transcript

Joel Davis – Patriots in Control of the Streets – Aug 29, 2025 – Transcript

Thomas Sewell’s Speech at the March for Australia Rally in Melbourne – Aug 31, 2025 – Transcript

Joel Davis – Reflections on the March for Australia – Sep 7, 2025 – Transcript

Joel Davis – The Only Solution to Antifascism is Fascism – Sep 14, 2025 – Transcript

The Offaly Offensive – Tim Lutze – Part 1 – Sep 20, 2025 – Transcript

The Offaly Offensive – Tim Lutze – Part 2 – Sep 27, 2025 – Transcript

Joel Davis – Ain’t No Party Like the White Australia Party – Oct 5, 2025 – Transcript

The Offaly Offensive – Blair Cottrell – Part 1 – Oct 12, 2025 – Transcript

The Offaly Offensive – Blair Cottrell – Part 2 – Oct 17, 2025 – Transcript

Counter-Currents Radio No. 629 – Joel Davis and the NS Question – Mar 26, 2025 – Transcript

Joel Davis – NSN Conference Speech – Aug 10, 2025 – Transcript

Joel Davis – Patriots Against the Political Police – Nov 4, 2025 – Transcript

Mark Collett – Patriotic Weekly Review – with Thomas Sewell – Nov 27, 2025 – Transcript

Red Ice TV – Bondi Beach Shooting & White Australia with Thomas Sewell – Dec 17, 2025 – Transcript

Joel Davis – Terrorism is Either Gay or Faked by Jews to Take Our Rights Away – Dec 19, 2024 – Transcript

Blair Cottrell – The Joel Davis Situation – Jan 9, 2026 – Transcript

Blair Cottrell – Blair Stream – Dec 7, 2025 – Transcript

Jacob Hersant – Explanation of the Hate and Extremism Bill – Jan 16, 2026 – Transcript

 

 

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

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

Mark Collett — Christmas Adverts – Multicultural Propaganda — TRANSCRIPT

Mark Collett — What We Must Do To Win — TRANSCRIPT

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mark Collett – Sam Melia Sentencing – with Laura Towler – Mar 1, 2024 – Transcript

Joe Marsh – Sam Melia Going into Court Before He was Sentenced – Mar 1, 2024 – Transcript

 

 

 

911 – The Jews Had Me Fooled: A Jewish Engineered Pearl Harbor

Organized jewry Did 9/11

Organized jewry Did 9/11 — The 16th Anniversary, 2017

Know More News — Christopher Bollyn, The Man Who Solved 9/11 — TRANSCRIPT

The Realist Report with Christopher Bollyn – Sep 2018 — TRANSCRIPT

Guns and Butter interviews Christopher Bollyn — The War on Terror – Dec 18, 2019 — Transcript

AE911Truth – Exposing Those Who Covered up the Crime of the Century – May 28, 2023 – Transcript

 

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

PDF Download

top

Total words in transcript = 596

• Total words in post = xxx
• Total images = xx
• Total A4 pages = xxx

Use your browser to download/export a PDF of this post.

 

Version History

top

Version 5:

Version 4:

Version 3:

Version 2:

Version 1: Fri, Apr 17, 2026 — Published post. Transcript completed = 4/4 mins. Transcript Quality = 5/5. Includes Rumble comments (1).

 

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

 

Rumble Comments

top

(Comments as of 4/5/2026 = )

2 Comments

leibekohne
2 days ago
https://www.noticer.news/joel-davis-released-bail-telegram-post/ Joel is free after 133 days, this zog cowardly act must never be repeated, zog should pay huge compensation, and be replaced. Viva; White international unity p….

GreenGladeAryan
4 days ago
Bloody legend this bloke
0
1

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

See Also

top

 

 

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

Thomas Sewell: Alrighty, we’re live. Max volume, everything. Audio input, capture.

 

All right, testing, 1, 2, 3. Use my big boy voice. Volume’s low. What’s your problem? I actually found a setting. Everyone’s like, Tom, fix your settings. We’re going 150%. There we go. Alrighty. Alrighty. Testing, testing!

 

All right, obligatory, free Joel Davis! Free Brandon [Koschel]! Free Jim Roberts!

 

So I’m going to cover a few subjects today, as you expect, with a solo stream. I really enjoyed my most recent stream with James Mason. It was like a five hour don’t Fed post challenge hard. He Fed posted a couple times, but as you’d expect. But I reviewed it and it wouldn’t breach. It wouldn’t breach even the most ridiculous laws we have here in Australia.

 

Now, one thing that I need to correct from the stream is I think I said that the book Siege is in a grey area of the law. My lawyer has told me that it is potentially banned. So he was like, it’s kind of in a dark grey area of the law. It’s not 100% banned. There is a banned list of books in Australia and Siege isn’t on it. But I cannot encourage anyone to go and buy that book because they haven’t made the case yet.

 

But what he suggests is that they’re trying to make the case. So I’d be very careful with that book in Australia. That’s one thing I want to clarify. Yeah, I think Mason gave a pretty sound explanation of what his intention of the book is. And I’m surprised that there hasn’t been any negative press because I know the journalists will watch a stream like that and get their AI ready to write an article for them about how evil we all are. But, yeah, that hasn’t happened.

 

But I do want to give people caution here in Australia that, yeah, I’m not encouraging you on legal grounds. I’m not encouraging you to read the book.

 

And I think all I said in the stream was that I did read it back in 2019 after being bullied by Jacob Hersant into reading it. I originally didn’t read it because I thought it was what everyone says it is. And I was like:

 

“I’m not really interested in that. I know enough about X, Y and Z through reading army manuals when I was in the army, so I don’t feel the need to read something of that nature.”

 

And then Jacob was like:

 

“No, it’s. That’s not what it’s about at all! There’s like some contentious lines in it. But overall, that’s not what it says.”

 

And Mason clarified that on stream. And I do appreciate him doing that because I think siege culture and accelerationist culture is really misunderstood. You know, accelerationism as a concept is, and siege as a concept is really misunderstood. And you’ll notice when I said to Mason about how our strategy has been to do the maximal amount of work with the minimal amount of damage, you’ll notice he was nodding the most. Mason’s not advocating for anyone to be an idiot and go to jail. He’s actually advocating the opposite. He’s saying:

 

“Do as much as you can to the integrity of the system without ruining your life!”

 

And he is proof that he’s done 60 years in the struggle. 60 years of inspiring people to be like:

 

“Well, hang on a minute, this system is evil and corrupt and contributing to it and trying to seek entry into it in hopes to change it is not an effective strategy.”

 

And he’s always been an advocate of the opposite. To siege it, to besiege it, to starve it. And yeah there’s no point, you know, running at it, doing a hero run, you know, charging at the castle walls, you’re just going to get pinged by some dude with an arrow. You’ve got to just wait it out, you’ve got to siege it, not wait it out and do nothing. But there’s a lot of things you can do while besieging an enemy.

 

And so people have to think creatively about what that means. And not but again, all politics, all politics, when it is in its infancy, attracts radical people. And radical people are more prone to self destructive behaviour. And so you want to have people that are courageous, you want to have courageous men, you want to have courageous leaders. And courageous does not mean foolish!

 

And so you do have to balance the concepts of bravery and courage with patience. And there’s a lot of virtue, a lot of virtue in having the strength to put yourself against a system that’s destroying you without becoming a martyr, you know, without letting the system destroy you. Now if you step over that line and the system puts you in jail for life or you get assassinated, like George Lincoln Rockwell.

 

I mean, Matt Hale, for example, who was involved, my understanding, with the creativity movement, he wasn’t the founder, but he was like the young hotshot that was rising up. And I think he’s in jail for life. I think he gets out of jail in about 10 years time from now. And he’s been in jail for like 20 years. Guys like Matt Howell, for example, just got really unlucky. They got. He got really unlucky and he got caught up in something that he hadn’t. I’ve looked at the case, I’ve looked at the case, the facts of the case, and the guy hasn’t done anything wrong. They could just. He was just a serious threat to the system and something like that could happen to me. But God willing, I’m safe from that level of corruption!

 

[07:42]

 

And I think it might be good luck, it might just be good luck! It might be destiny. But you don’t, what is it? You don’t count your chickens until they come home to roost or something? It’s still early days. It’s very early days. I’m still a young man. I might be bald, but I’m young and fit.

 

So, yeah, it’s, I’m 33 years old this year as of this month. And yeah, there’s a lot of struggle to go.

 

Just open with that if you haven’t checked it out, don’t be intimidated by the fact that it’s five hours. It is broken down into separate conversations. There’s an hour and then there’s a break and then there was meant to be an another hour and a break. But it, the first hour, the first two hours is very consumable for most people.

 

And then obviously, if you’re really into this stuff and you go for long drives and, or you work a job where you can have a, your headphones in a lot of tradies and stuff. Tell me that they like the five hour streams. Don’t be intimidated by having these really long streams. They appreciate, they appreciate the dialogue.

 

So as long as not too often. I don’t think you should listen to streams every day and I don’t think you should listen to music every day. I have been doing a fair bit of community service. I got to do knitting, as you’re all aware, and I advise people not to, I listen to music sometimes the whole time, or a podcast or an audio book. Books are probably the best thing. Books are better than streams because books, streams and dialogue and conversations aren’t as sharp. There’s no way I can communicate with you as clearly and as sharply as, say, reading Mein Kampf on audiobook. It’s not possible because of all the jargon. Those are the clearest thoughts possible. And then they go through an editing process.

 

So where are we? So already in the chat. Already in the chat! They’re arguing about Christianity already. Instantly! It’s incredible! Christianity will come up in this stream. When we talk about Manosphere, we’re going to cover feminism in general. We’re going to talk about all this girl bossing that’s going on at the moment with the Evangelicals. And there’s some heinous stuff that I’ve seen on Twitter where these little soy boy freaks are marrying these goblina jewesses with like 100 body counts. And they’re just saying:

 

“But she’s saved by Christ!”

 

And so it will come up. The conversation will come up. When we’re talking about that. There is definitely part one of this stream. What I’m going to open with is I’ll just. People still saying the volume’s low. Let me just unmute myself. Hold on. Now we’re. I could put up 175. I’ll just go 200. I’ll go 200. Okay. People still complaining. 200%. 200% Audio input, capture, volume. And the mic is like an inch from my face, maybe two. Two inches. Audio input, capture. I’ll put this one at 150. Alrighty. How does that sound? Testing for the last time. Testing. Yeah, fair enough. It is pretty quiet. Yeah, there’s a lot of retards in the chat today. Classic. Everyone’s spurging out. Yeah, that does sound better.

 

All right, sweet. Everyone’s arguing over which strain of Christianity. It’s incredible! It’s incredible! It’s endless. It’s endless, isn’t it? It never ends. It never ends.

 

So to start with the Aboriginal question. So obviously we are still what I am, and I have friends and we are trying to get a political party on the table here in Australia. And so covering the Aboriginal question, and you could call it the woman question, is really important. And it has to be done in a way that’s legal because of these laws here in Australia. And it has to be done in a way that people can understand the values and the rhetoric without getting caught up in the emotional arguments. So one has to be cautious when they approach these two topics. So you might find my speech slightly more refined than normal.

 

Hitler won the female vote in Germany. He actually had more women vote for him than men. And that’s a really interesting phenomenon to consider that more women voted for Hitler than men.

 

And so it shows that women don’t have to necessarily like you in order to respect you and I think that’s an important dynamic. A lot of people have commented, including Mason, about how journalists have behaved, female journalists specifically have behaved when interviewing me. And I saw someone online describe it as “negative tingles”, that they’re not used to someone outside the court giving them negative tingles. Normally it’s boring. Normally their job is boring. And then to have someone that’s got an intense character and an intense personality, it hits the dopamine receptors differently. And I’ve seen grandmas on Facebook comment sections in replies to these interviews saying, “hail Australia”. And all the criticism and all the advice people try to give us over the years is all wrong. It’s all backwards. It’s actually all the other way around. The female question is the opposite of the current orthodoxy, the current belief system of how women should be treated and how politics affects women. It’s all wrong. It’s all an inversion of the truth!

 

The truth is that it comes down to respect! And they respect integrity, not niceties! They don’t respect niceties, they respect integrity. And they respect aggression as long as it’s a as long as it’s not a foolish, foaming at the mouth, barbaric aggression. They don’t have much respect for that, but they almost respect that more and get better tingles from that than Peter Dutton and Anthony Albanese. These characters provide no stimulation to the female political psyche. And so understanding how to win the woman vote, you’re not going to win it with outright misogyny. That’s obviously ridiculous! This idea of just be a prick and you’ll get voted in. That’s not what I’m articulating.

 

[16:04]

 

What I’m saying is that people should not continue to spread the lie and demoralisation within our broader scene, our broader movement and political parties in the West, that the way to win the woman vote is to pander to them. That’s really what this comes down to, is the pandering.

 

So that’s a subject on its own that I’ll cover. So that’s what you got to look forward to.

 

But first we’re going to talk about the Aboriginal question and specific. We’ve talked about both these questions a lot, but the reason why it’s come up again is I’ve had a lot of people in person and online message me saying:

 

“Why is our strategy to go to war with Aboriginals? Won’t we win more votes and won’t we do better in Parliament and won’t our message be more well received if we don’t go to war?”

 

These are their words, not mine, with Aboriginals. And my position is not that we’re going to war with Aboriginals.

 

And obviously the Camp Sovereignty situation has played a part in this dialogue because people think that the reason why there’s allegedly an incident on that hill was because of the Aboriginal question. And it’s completely it’s not irrelevant. It’s not irrelevant, but people are conflating and the media has done this. The media has purposefully misled people and made a significant portion of people that support us question their support on the basis of:

 

“Well, why would they attack innocent elderly Aboriginal women?”

 

And most people can see through it. But there is a portion of our supporters that are like:

 

“Oh, I don’t think that was a good move. You probably shouldn’t have attacked innocent elderly Aboriginal women.”

 

And it’s, well, one, that didn’t happen and two, the conflict., … And this is the position that interestingly, a lot of Aboriginals actually share, not all, but a lot, is that the issue is these White traitors.

 

And so if these White traitors didn’t behave the way they did, there wouldn’t be as much conflict between the Whites and the Aboriginals. And you’ll find there’s a lot of, probably a higher percentage of Aboriginal DNA Aboriginals that aren’t supportive of multiculturalism. And there is, the Left call it like an Uncle Tom syndrome, obviously. But my position has always been towards all races that it’s about respect. And it’s a zero sum game a lot of the time regarding resources and living space. That’s zero sum.

 

And so there’s going to have to be compromise or there’s going to be if there’s not some sort of what I’ve always said about the question of re-migration is people bring up the Aboriginals, whenever you talk about re-migration they say:

 

“Oh, but what about the Aboriginals? They were here before you!”

 

So because of that, they’re in their own select category. And what I’ve been trying to explain to people online is that Aboriginals have a choice. And this is the sound bite and this is what you should be saying to if I know a lot of people have an Aboriginal friend, or a part Aboriginal friend, this is what you say to them:

 

“Our position is that you either have part sovereignty over the whole or over full sovereignty over the part. But you can’t have both.”

 

I’ll explain that again. The Aboriginal people can either have part sovereignty over all, or full sovereignty over part. They can’t have both! That’s not a compromise. That’s White genocide. So White people, Anglo, Celtic people predominantly have come to this continent because the continent wasn’t a country, or a nation, it was a continent. It’s a land mass. It’s an island, a big island.

 

But we’ve come to this place. There’s a whole bunch of warring Aboriginal tribes. Some are in cahoots and some aren’t in cahoots. Some have been here 10,000 years. Some have potentially been here 40,000 years. The numbers keep changing. But either way, we came here and we built something separate to them. We tried to include them. There’s a lot of interesting history from the first and Second Fleet and from Arthur and Bligh, Philip. There’s some interesting history where they’ve tried to integrate the Aboriginals and it’s almost always backfired horribly on both the Whites and on the Aboriginals.

 

And so when you look at and Auspill’s done a very good job at covering this, when there has been massacres of Aboriginals, so-called these genocides or massacres, it’s always come down to establishing the Anglo Saxon law on the land. It’s come down to:

 

“Hey, we want this land, we want this territory. We’re bigger and stronger than you. We’re not going to come after you, we’re not going to attack you. But we want this much space. And, it’s living space for Whites. Europe has to breathe out. We’re overcrowded in the streets of London. We’ve got this problem with criminals or petty criminality, people stealing Spoons and stuff. We’re running out of space. We found this place. We’re in a geopolitical issue with all these other people. We can’t explain this to you. We just need what we, what we need. And we’re prepared to fight for it! And your options are to fight us or to just keep moving deeper and deeper into the bush and away from this spot. It’s ours now. You’re not having it back.”

 

[22:11]

 

And obviously anyone in their right mind would be pissed off by that. If some alien force came, you know, from space and did that to us right now and we had really little ability to fight back because they were so technologically advanced, we would rightfully be pissed off, wouldn’t we? But we would have to retreat into the bush, we would have to White flight. We would have to be like, this is too much. We have to consolidate what we’re doing.

 

And so this is beyond Good and Evil. This is a, this is Nietzschean in this concept. The Left try to put a moral framework on that and say:

 

“That’s wrong, that’s evil. And therefore we have to surrender Australia to everyone! We have to be cucks, we have to bend over and we have to let anyone come here and rape us because of this founding moment!”

 

Because White people equals bad as their moral framework. That is their entire moral framework. White people equals bad. And they’ve got this original sin concept:

 

“We’re bad people! We’re horrible people! We’re horrible, bad people!”

 

Now, obviously straight White men don’t think this way. The only people that think this way are people with slave morality, which is homosexuals, freaks, a lot of women unfortunately think this way:

 

“Oh, no, we’re horrible! What we’ve done is so horrible!”

 

You know, this kind of bleeding heart. Not all women, but it is a naturally, it is a feminine energy to put your empathy for others. Well, it’s not even a, it’s a distortion of feminine energy really.

 

But look, it appeals, it appeals to weak willed people. Masculine men don’t think like this. Testosterone doesn’t allow your brain to even go there. We’ve got a completely different philosophical structure, a completely different reality because we’ve got a solar morality. It really comes down to these simple principles. It’s not about good and evil, it’s about solar morality. It’s about, we are a life form, we must exist, we must continue to exist. We don’t have to be pricks about it, we don’t have to be cunts about it. But we’re not going to back down, we’re not going to surrender, we’re not going to roll over and die. And so how do we make this work?

 

And so obviously, while we’re in a nice friendly talking phase about it, I don’t have an issue with Aboriginal sovereignty. It’s not my issue. I don’t. Good on them, Good for them. That’s my position on the Aboriginals. Good for them! If they can have it, good on them.

 

But it’s got nothing to do with me. I’m not paying for it, I’m not engaged in it, I’m not involved in it. It’s not in my face, it’s not in my place, it’s not in my space. It’s in their space. Now that is the problem! That is the problem is that multiculturalism is forcing all these radically different people to live together. And we’re not meant to live that is going to be the death of us. It’s going to be the death of our culture.

 

Now these people, they have a flag, they have a tribe, they have an identity. They’re trying to rebuild their culture. Good on them. My opinion, and I think the opinion of most Aboriginals and most White people is that they should do it on their own! I think they’ve had enough help. We’ve done enough to help them, more than enough to help them. It’s not our responsibility to help them any further.

 

What part of the land are they going to get? Well, that is the most serious conversation. But the philosophy behind that conversation I think is congruent. I think we can, I think all Australians can get on board with the idea that we have a two-state solution, at a minimum. To me, that’s the minimum. If they want to go to war with us, that’s a different conversation.

 

But I think you’ll find that there could be conversations where they have their own government, they have their own schools, they have their own institutions. Are they going to be as good as ours? No, they’re not. Is that going to cause the bleeding hearts to be like:

 

“See we’re still continuing to oppress them by keeping them separate!”

 

And there’ll be an anti-apartheid argument, but apartheid is the most beneficial thing for both parties. Because they will never have dignity, they will never have sovereignty and they will never have dignity while we play this passive aggressive game where they’re trying to rule over us and we’re trying to say we’re all friends, Kumbaya. That is never, while both of us are actually suffering. So I’ve said in the past things like if they want to, if they want to fight, they might get deported too. They’ll get deported back to India. They walked here 40,000 years ago. They might get told to walk back.

 

And I’ve said things like those are very strong comments and obviously a lot of Aboriginal people want to fight me because of those comments.

 

But that is my position. I’m not backing down on that. I’m never going to change my mind on that is my position. It’s a two-state solution or it’s that because we cannot continue. And when we take power in this country, and we are going to take power in this country, we are going to solve this question and we are going to say:

 

“Let’s sit down, let’s draw up the map and here is a fundamental treaty of you will not let China put bases on your land, you will not let any foreigners put bases on your land, blah, blah, blah!”

 

Like there will be a treaty that will say:

 

“You are a vassal of our realm. This is Australdom, this is our realm, you’re a vassal, you’ve got a territory, you self govern it.”

 

Whether we trade or buy or sell or communicate with each other, whether there’s tourist visas, all this is downstream. We can work something out where they can come visit us and we can go visit them.

 

[28:08]

 

The bleeding hearts can go live with the Aboriginals. But you will not put Chinese bases on it. Like this is fortress Australia. We’re not going to tolerate it and you guys can police yourselves. You can have your own laws, you can have your own courts, you can have your own koori justice and your own jails and your own prisons, and all the complaints that they have all solved overnight. All solved overnight. We have nothing to do with it. We have nothing to do with it. We have no part of it! You want to go spear each other, that’s your culture. That we’re not going to intervene. And that is the absolute best outcome for everyone involved! That it’s the best compromise for us. Certainly it’s the best compromise. Is it perfect? Is it ideal? Can we purity spiral and get a better result? Sure, absolutely!

 

Is that feasible? Of course, anything is feasible if you put your mind to it. Is that how the Australian public feel? No, the Australian public don’t feel that there could be something more than that. There might be people that want to do more than that and go further, certainly. And that ethnic tension arises from living together. But I think once you find, once you take that step in that direction, I think you will find that tension will disappear.

 

So when people say to me:

 

“Tom you know why are we doing this? Anti Aboriginal rhetoric and da, da and we should try to win the Aboriginals over and we should., …”

 

The way they’re talking is they’re treating Aboriginals the same way. They’re like:

 

“We should try to win women over. We should try to win!”

 

It’s kind of similar to attitude. It’s like that’s not how it works. You don’t win Aboriginals over by pandering to them. You don’t win women over by pandering to them. I know they’re two very different biological forms. You know, obviously one is male and female. One is just female. You know, when we’re talking about women, we’re talking about White women, obviously. And I’m not making any further comparisons in that regard.

 

But if you understand, what I’m saying is the politics of the White man, the politics of the White Patriarchy, is not about pandering! Our politics is about laying down the law, explaining what we’re going to do and why we’re going to do it and how we’re going to do it. And then saying:

 

“This is the best outcome for everyone. What we’re doing right now is not working and we’re not making any further compromises on that’s the line in the sand.”

 

We’re actually only going to go further than that, we’re not going to come any less than that.

 

There is never, in my opinion, there’s never going to be a time where I or the vast majority of White people in Australia are going to accept are our slow ethnic replacement. It might appear that way right now, but it’s only because we’re not politically organised. This is not how the average Australian feels. This is not how the average White person around the world feels. The average White person around the world wants re-migration. They want to remain, at a minimum, 90%. That’s like the beginning. That’s not even, like controversial anymore, that the 90% or the 95% rule. That is the super majority of the population. I just like deport all of them except the good ones. That’s the super majority. And then you’ve probably still got the majority saying:

 

“No, no, it shouldn’t be 90, it should be 99%.”

 

So, yeah, anyway, I’ll pause there. I won’t cover that subject much more. Oh, my God! There’s a sorry, there’s a spastic in the chat. How do I do ban this person for life? I don’t want to mute. I keep making this mistake. If I mute, then I can’t ban. Isn’t that right? Okay, that just deleted it. Oh, yeah. Also muting on Rumble because Odysee is different. Muting on Rumble is banning. Cool. Glad we got that sorted.

 

I’ll go through the comments section. If there’s any comments on the Aboriginal question. Geez, everyone’s just arguing about Christianity. We’re not even talking about Christianity. We’re just talking about Aboriginals at this stage.

 

So, yeah, in short, as I said before, tell your friends that say this nonsense to you about how we should work together:

 

“We all got to work together. We all got to work together.”

 

They can have full sovereignty over themselves, but not us. Or they can have this fake sovereignty over everyone. Do they actually want full sovereignty? If they do, it can only be over themselves. That means apartheid. Ultimately, that means apartheid. What that looks like is a man can’t serve the Australian flag and the Aboriginal flag. You can’t go to a at the high school, at the courts, all these institutions. It’s got an Australian flag and it’s got an Aboriginal flag. That is not sustainable. It’s one or the other. It can’t be both.

 

And this idea of:

 

“Oh, we got to show solidarity and they’re not a threat to us and all this.”

 

It’s not sustainable. It’s not sustainable. It’s nice. Tingle feels. It feels really nice:

 

“Oh, look, I’m being empathetic. Oh, I’m a good person.”

 

You can have this virtue signaling, but we’re two very different peoples. We need to have sovereignty over ourselves. They need to have sovereignty over themselves. We need to be focused on Australia and White people and civilisation, the Western civilisation that we’re a part of, and they need to be focused on creating their own harmony, the dream time, their version of reality, fixing their problems, punishing their problems. They have a completely different version of reality to us. That is just how different ethnic groups and different races are built. They have different versions of reality. Things we see as a problem that they see it like a major problem, they see as a minor problem, and vice versa. Their biggest issue is White people are locking them up and putting them in jail. Like, they can’t even comprehend that our problem is that they’re committing heinous crimes. They can’t even comprehend that’s a problem. They see the problem as:

 

“Why are you locking us up?”

 

[35:04]

 

It’s the same with the blacks in America. How can these two groups of people live together when they have completely different versions of reality? So they should police themselves. Simple as! Part sovereignty over all or full sovereignty over part.

 

So you can’t have both. Simple. As I’ll move on. Hopefully the comment section is not talking about Christianity, someone says:

 

“Do I make my own toothpaste?”

 

Very funny. Yeah. And this applies not just to Australia, this applies to obviously, Canada and New Zealand as well. I think the Treaty of Waitangi is a mistake in New Zealand. I don’t know too much about the treaties in Canada. I know Alex Ferryman does. Yeah, it’s a mistake. It’s a mistake. Any treaty that exists needs to be a treaty of:

 

“Here’s your space. Here’s our space. You live there, we live here. You’re citizens of your country. We’re citizens of our country. We’re two separate nations. We’re not the same nation.”

 

They even call themselves the first nation so that by definition, they’re not part of our nation. They’re saying this. They’re saying this, not me. They are saying it. What else?

 

Let’s get into the nuts and bolts. The woman question. I need a need a breather. If we’re going to get into the woman question. I need a breather. Yeah. Someone says:

 

“Easiest solution is allow those same bleeding hearts to transfer their own funds to Aboriginals, not government or social funds. The Left can put their money where their mouth is.”

 

Yeah, absolutely! Well, I believe that all the bleeding hearts should go live with the Aboriginals. They should have Aboriginal citizenship. They want to be so bad. They hate White people so much. They hate being White!:

 

“White people are horrible, horrible people! And having White children is perpetuating White supremacy and blah, blah, blah, blah, blah!”

 

Good bye. Bye. See you later. Awesome! You know, we’ll strip all of these people of Australian citizenship when we come to power and there will be people that will say:

 

“Oh, my God, you can’t do that!”

 

Yes, we can and we will. They’re all going to get stripped of their Australian citizenship. These White people that work, that bow down and worship Aboriginals as their god. They can go live with their god. They can go live with their god. Simple. You know, you want to do the Welcome to Country acknowledgment of country, all this. Absolutely perfect! Perfect. Absolutely! Bye. Bye. Yeah, we don’t want those people living in our society. It doesn’t matter that they’re of the same blood as us. That doesn’t matter because they’re not of the same honour as us. They hate us! There are some sort of mutation of our bloodline that is antithetical to our existence. If Aboriginals didn’t exist, they would find some other group to nut hug. Hypothetically, because there’s no Aboriginals in England. Like you don’t see people advocating for the pre-Belgic-Celtic invasion of Bronze Age England. That doesn’t exist. You know, what kind of strain of Leftism would that be? You know, it’s obviously absurd because you’ve got a thousand years of homogeneity of many different layers of Celtic peoples then breeding in with many different layers of Germanic and Nordic peoples.

 

So it’s the English people, the British people are a relatively homogenised people. And so you don’t see that argument because those tribes can homogenise quite. I mean, obviously it still caused things like, I mean, I don’t want to get too much into the intricacies of English history, but you can see the precursor of things like civil war in previous ethnic distinctions.

 

So, for example, Croatia and Serbia are ethnically very similar, but they’re not ethnically the same. They are two different ethnicities and therefore they also have two different versions of their interpretation of Christianity. You’ve got Orthodoxy and you’ve got Catholicism. So ethnic differences play out also religiously and also politically. You’ll see this a lot through human history. You see it in the American Civil War. There was an ethnic difference in the American Civil War as well. Probably not as predominant, but I won’t go into it. Americans know that for themselves.

 

Now someone says:

 

“Tom’s right. They have a different reality. Go to any Northern Territory prison and you’ll see the system isn’t working.”

 

It’s not working by our standards. Absolutely! Our version, our reality of working and their version of working are two completely different things.

 

And I’ll finish it with this. I had a Dreamtime experience with Aboriginals. I’m sure I’ve told this story on stream years ago, so those that have been around a while will remember this story. But I had a friend in the army, a guy called Christopher Knight. He was a Special Forces guy. He’s a translator, he’s a linguist. And I don’t know what he’s doing now with his life, but I’m sure he’s doing well. And he was adopted. He got adopted in a cultural sense, or a linguistic sense by an Aboriginal. An Aboriginal tribe in Darwin in Northern Territory. And this guy was a, like one of those, what is called politician-linguist or something. This guy spoke like 50 languages. It was incredible! I’ve never seen anything like it. I mean, we would go out drinking in Mitchell street or whatever it’s called in the CBD of Darwin. It’s like one street and there’s like four bars on it. And any backpacker, he could speak their language. Any backpacker. It was really incredible!

 

[41:09]

 

Anyway on his weekends, he was going out and living with Aboriginals out in the middle of nowhere. And there were like some, there were full bloods and it’s very rare to find full bloods, but in Northern Territory it’s more common. There’s no way you can find full bloods outside of Northern Territory or Northern New, Southern Queensland or Northern WA. And he started hanging out with these, basically semi-nude Aboriginals in the bushland near Casuarina Beach on the weekends. And he knocks on my door. I don’t know, it was like one in the morning, one random. It was like a Tuesday, or a Thursday. And he says:

 

“Hey Tom or hey Sewell.”

 

Everyone calls you by your last name in the army:

 

“Hey Sewelly, I’m getting deployed tomorrow. They need a linguist. He was a two commando guy, but for some reason he was in our battalion. And he says, I’m getting deployed tomorrow. I’m getting on a plane and I have to say goodbye to some people and I had to run some errands. Can you drive me?”

 

Because I was one of the only LID, which lid means new guy or live in digger. I was one of the only LID that had a car. And I was friendly with him, and everyone thought he was a weirdo and I did as well. Weird means different things to me than it does to other people. When someone says weird, they mean like not radioactive, but they mean, you know, semi-ostracized. They mean:

 

“Oh, we don’t associate with that guy because he’s a weirdo!”

 

Whereas when someone’s weird, I am fascinated by human psychology. And so I was always very friendly with him because I wanted to know what made him tick. He had such a different version of reality to everyone else that I just really wanted to understand. I mean this guy was probably in his early 30s and I think I was 19 or 20 at the time.

 

So I was like:

 

“Unk, how do you view the world? What’s going on, Unk?”

 

Basically I was the same relationship I have with Zoomers and is like that relationship when I was The Age that a lot of Zoomers are that asked me for advice And I’m now. I’m now 90.

 

But anyway, he says, he’s like:

 

“Sewelly, you’re the only one with a car. You know, can you drive me around? I gotta say goodbye to some people.”

 

And so he drives me out in the middle of nowhere, and then we go walking for like 40 minutes down this beach. And I’m like:

 

“What are we doing?”

 

And we find these Aboriginals just on this beach in the middle of nowhere. And they’re all sitting cross legged and around a little campfire. And he introduces me to them and he’s speaking their language, like full Aboriginal! Like whatever sect of Aboriginal they are. And he’s speaking their language. And he introduces me and he says a bunch of Aboriginal words.

 

And then he says my name. And then he says:

 

“5 RAR, 5th Battalion.”

 

And I was like:

 

“What did you say to them?”

 

And he said:

 

“You’re a young warrior from my tribe, from the 5th Battalion tribe. And that you’re a good warrior. You’re a good, young, strong warrior and that you’re helping me today.”

 

And I was like:

 

“Oh.”

 

And then they all, like, acknowledged me. They’re all sitting different. So it was men. I was sitting with the men, obviously, and the women were sitting at a different campfire with the women, and it was segregated.

 

And so I was with the men and Knighty was explaining to them how I was a good warrior, a good young warrior of the 55 RAR tribe. And we’re sitting there and they’re just talking and talking, and I went into a trance. I was tired, but I didn’t know what was, … It was like someone had drugged me. I was in a trance and I was just staring at the ocean, because we’re on the beach. And I was staring at the ocean and the sky was purple.

 

And I was like:

 

“Is there something in this fireplace? Like, what? Like, am I on?”

 

I’ve never at this stage, I’d never tried any drug ever!

 

And I was like:

 

“Is this what acid feels like?”

 

That’s what I was thinking in my head.

 

And I was like:

 

“What is going on?”

 

And they’re making that noise that they make. They’re talking and yeah. And then the sun’s coming up and I’m like, what is going on? And I look at the time and it’s like 6:30. And it was just surreal! It was a surreal experience. And then he’s like:

 

“All right, we’re gonna go.”

 

He gave them bananas and double A batteries. And he taught them how to like Jerry rig a phone to be able to give co-ordinates so that he could communicate where they were in the bush using GPS. And it was just fascinating! It was just absolutely fascinating! That was my first positive experience with Aboriginals. And I had had only about 500 negative experiences with Aboriginals prior to that moment. And every negative experience I’d had with Aboriginals was them being drunk, or not even drunk, but them just behaving the way they behave, and then being violent and aggressive towards me for just existing, for just walking down the street or just going to the shops at two o’ clock in the afternoon. Or them harassing like pregnant ladies trying to get in their car, demanding money off them. Like just every experience I had was so negative.

 

[46:02]

 

And then this was the first time I was like:

 

“I think I’m starting to understand these people. They live in a dream time.”

 

Like the proper full bloods. They live in a different reality to us. They don’t like time. The way we view time and the way they view time is completely different! And I somehow empathed in that moment into their little hive mind with Knightie, who was like my guide. His name was Christopher Knight, like a knight of Christ! And he was a very spiritually attuned man. And that was an experience I’ll never forget. I think I was almost, 20 years old. I was only 19!

 

But yeah, very interesting stuff. Very, very interesting stuff.

 

The stream looks frozen on my end. What is going on? No, no, it’s not frozen. Excellent! Yeah. What can I say? What can I say? I’ve seen the best of it and I’ve seen the worst of it. And the best of it is we should just leave these people alone. Like the problem is enlightenment. In a lot of ways, [chuckling] enlightenment has benefits, certainly. I’m not anti-enlightenment. You know, that’s a big part of how we’ve come to be. And it was a big part of our life cycle as a civilisation. It’s the second last phase of civilisation is enlightenment. The Greeks went through this around, I don’t know, 400 B.C. And yeah, I’m not against, you can’t be against it because it’s nature, it’s time itself.

 

But one of the dumbest parts of enlightenment is “equality”. That’s the dumbest part of enlightenment. The, the, that is the false enlightenment. The false enlightenment is that we’re all blank slates and that we’re all equal. That you know:

 

“All men are created equal before God and blah blah, blah!”

 

That is the most. How the hell. I don’t even know if they sincerely believe that. I can’t even fathom that they were that stupid that the people that colonised Australia, … Because when I read Clark, I’ve got it right here actually, this one here.

 

So this guy’s a communist. He’s a piece of shit, Leftist communist! And he wrote A History of Australia. I have, I’ve only read this one. I haven’t read the other volumes. I think this one ends around 1830. And he wrote this in I think 1961 or 62. And he’s a full blown communist and was investigated by ASIO for being, for coordinating with. Here’s the big boy here. Here’s the main man. Here’s the main man. Mr. Cook. Captain Cook. Anglo Saxon. Anglo Saxon. But yeah, Melbourne University. He’s a commie at Melbourne University.

 

Anyway, I read it. It’s quite interesting, quite subversive. But he, oh, he really emphasises the how enlightened Captain Cook and you know, Arthur Bligh and all these guys were and how they, but what’s interesting is he can’t hide the fact that despite their Enlightenment, despite the fact that they. Excuse me. They arrived in Australia and they tried to treat the Aboriginals as equals.

 

And so they’re like:

 

“Hey, let’s trade.”

 

And then there was nothing to trade. So they were like:

 

“Hey, let’s, …”

 

It was like a clash of values because they had these Enlightenment values and they didn’t know how to implement them on the Aboriginals. They didn’t know.

 

And so there was a whole bunch of different treat ways the Aboriginals were treated by European colonists. And I think it was the Portuguese and the Spanish in the Americas, but a little bit even in the Asia Pacific region, the Portuguese were in Asia Pacific as well. And they were basically like:

 

“You’re going to convert to Catholicism by the sword!”

 

And what Clark says is that they didn’t have those Enlightenment values. So you’ve got like Protestant Anglos trying to communicate with Aboriginals and like uplift them into humanity and uplift them into civility.

 

And then you’ve got the Portuguese with almost like pre-Enlightenment Catholic values that were just like “convert or die”. And that’s quite interesting. You know, it’s possible to talk about history without talking about Christianity. But yeah, that’s quite interesting. I won’t expand on that too much. You can gather from that what you want.

 

Yeah, where was I going with that? Yeah, he has all these little anecdotes or all these little stories about these first encounters and how, yeah, the enlightened English were just bewildered and were just like:

 

“We’ve never encountered this anywhere in the world!”

 

And he’s actually honest about the criticisms that they had. I think he might over embellish their enlightenment principles. I think they were probably a lot more racist than what he’s articulating because he’s a communist.

 

But yeah, I think I titled this Aboriginal communism, didn’t I? Before we get into the woman question, ultimately, if we don’t segregate from Aboriginals, we’re going to get destroyed by Aboriginal communism the way that what’s going on in South Africa, they’re dealing with African communism. And when you end apartheid and you mix or you attempt to get the races to all live together in equality and one is so different to the other, it’s a race to the bottom! And that’s ultimately what communism is, it’s a race to the bottom.

 

And it’s not just anti-enlightenment because there’s a lot of things that are anti-enlightenment, but it is anti-life! It’s ultimately anti-life because our version of life is an upward force, not a, so it’s hard to cover this without getting into the Greeks. You got to get into the Greeks because they figured all this out! And I don’t mean like the Greeks is in the souvlaki shop. I mean like the ancient Greeks, the philosophy.

 

The Greeks realised that when they went through their enlightenment that there’s not just being, there’s becoming. And that the ultimate being is becoming. And we use the word “progress” now and that word is obviously really dirty and that’s why I don’t use it. It’s a very dirty word. To say something is “progressive”, you’re saying it’s Leftist.

 

[53:19]

 

And so the Leftists have actually somehow inverted “becoming” into “progression”. And so when they say it’s progressive, it’s actually regressive! It’s regressive of the total life force. Leftism is the downward path. It’s not Left versus Right, it’s up versus down! And this is something that you really need to understand. Communism, Aboriginal communism, jewish communism, any form of communism, any form of Leftist progression is a progression downwards! It’s progressing the life form downwards. And this applies to even politics of today.

 

So if you want to talk about party politics, if you want to call it that if you want to talk about Parliamentarianism, what the Labor Party here in. I know this is people like, I’m tuning out. I don’t want to hear this. But normies want to hear this. Normies, you do need to. If you’re listening to this, you’re probably not a normie. And you do need to know how to apply the logic that I’m articulating here in the stream to things other than ancient Greece and ancient Rome and like all this stuff, you need to be able to apply it to be able to explain it to, … You need to be able to speak in tongues and that doesn’t mean like that crazy Evangelical crap. That means you need to be able to speak the tongue of the people.

 

And so what the Labor Party here in Australia has done is they’ll get lost on this because they haven’t read a book on economics, but it’s this Keynesian economics where it’s window breaking. So they believe that if you keep breaking windows, the GDP will go up because the glazier is going to make more money. And, it’s all that in conjunction with Fabian socialism. So Fabian socialism is what:

 

“We want the windows to be broken because we want more money wasted on fixing windows instead of building the power system.”

 

And so Fabian socialists or Fabian Communists, Fabian Marxists. They’re ultimately Marxists. They want to create this workers revolution through accelerating the decline of society by wasting as much money as possible.

 

And so that’s why the NDIS is the way it is. That’s why the NDIS is bigger than the defense budget. That’s why we spend more money on parasites and retards than we do on protecting the nation from foreign invasion. It’s why we spend so much money on basically compounding problems. Not fixing problems, but compounding problems! And the problem itself is often the expenditure, the wastage, the fact that we’re taxing the noble, the good, the healthy, and we’re giving to the evil and the weak and the disgusting and the decrepit.

 

And this is Kali Yuga stuff. This is end of time stuff. This is what Hitler talks about in Mein Kampf. Why you have to read Mein Kampf. It’s not negotiable. It’s not negotiable! If there’s only one book you should read, it’s Mein Kampf, because he explains all of this. He explains exactly what’s happening, exactly why it’s happening and exactly what you need to do to stop it from continuing to destroy your society.

 

So that’s why they’re window breaking. That’s why the Labor Party and all the Greenies and all these freaks, they’re all on board with destroying society through taking money from good people and giving it to broken people. And what that does is that what you feed grows. And they know that! They know that! They know it and they’ve already projected how that industry is going to expand. And it is beyond political parties. I mean it’s the Uni-Party doing it. It’s not just the Labor Party. But it obviously gets worse under one and then the other does Labor Party light. They do Fabian socialism light. That’s what the Liberal Party is. It’s homosexuality light. Fabian socialism light. Retard economics light. You know it’s diet retardation!

 

Anyway. Aboriginal communism. Yeah. Where are we? Yeah. I don’t normally do Superchats mid conversation but Delvian said:

 

“Isn’t the abo love a second order consequence of White men becoming feminised and White women hating their own men?”

 

There’s definitely an element to that. I think there’s a lot of different components to the so-called “Aboriginal love”. There’s the false enlightenment, there’s self hatred. Yes. There’s virtue signaling. So society is structured wrong, which is what we’re going to get into with the feminine society and the woman question. Society is structured with an inversion of natural law. The moral framework of society is an inversion of what our society was built on.

 

So that is often described as late stage decline or degeneration where you forget what your purpose was to such an extent where it’s upside down. There’s obviously nefarious influence. There’s particular (((interest groups))) that are a particular ethno-religious orientation and they compound and accelerate and destabilise. Certainly. They’re obviously a major player in that process but it does happen on its own. And you know there’s a lot of, I won’t go into all the proverbs and quotes on the subject but this festering can only exist if you’re already going in that direction. What we need is a complete re-evaluation of values. And you know we have gone through two or three generations of a nihilist phase and we are re interpreting and revaluing our values. We are so far ahead morally of where we were 50 years ago. And people will aay:

 

“No! That’s not true. No! People were so conservative back in the day.”

 

And it’s like they were running off inertia. They hadn’t actually evaluated their values. They were just running off inertia. We’re actually so much further ahead by going through the decline, seeing the nihilism, seeing the hedonism.

 

[1:00:19]

 

 

And I have so much faith and hope in the young generation. Young White people across the world, obviously, a lot of them are infected with the social disease. A lot of them are infected. But the ones that aren’t infected with the social disease have immunity. They have immunity! They have built up. They don’t need to be injected with anything. They have natural immunity! Young White people across the Western world are growing up immune to this social disease. And the disease of our time is not the plague. It’s not the Spanish Flu. It’s not? What is it? You know, all the ones that people, tuberculosis. It’s not these things that are killing people anymore, you know.

 

And Edward Dutton covers this a lot. I’ve talked about this on streams for years and years, and I’m so glad someone actually wrote a book about it. I’ve only read the blurb. I haven’t actually read the whole book, but I might actually get around to reading it at some point. But Dutton covers this and he explains that just the mutational load has the selection process now is, are you a retard or are you not? And if you’re not a retard, you’re most likely immune to the retardation that’s destroying our society.

 

So, yeah. All right, we’ll do it. We’ll go into the woman question. Check the comments first. Someone says:

 

“Ban women!”

 

No, we don’t need to ban them. Reese White says:

 

“Thomas. So are you a fan of Adam Green?”

 

I don’t really know anything about Adam Green. I’ve seen him on Twitter. He’s the anti-Christian guy, isn’t he? He’s kind of built like a platform. I haven’t seen him at all! I’ve never spoken to him. I don’t really know anything about him. I only know of him. Yeah, I can’t comment on that question. I’ve seen a lot of people attack him saying he’s jewish, and I’ve seen him say that Christianity is jewish.

 

So it’s like everyone’s saying:

 

“You’re a jew! No, you’re a jew! No, you’re a jew!”

 

And it’s like I’m not getting into it. It’s not in my sphere. I think I’ve seen him do chats with HT [Handsome Truth]. Yeah, we will cover a little bit of Christianity here. But yeah, you all know I’m not Christian. But we will cover it and we’ll cover it in a respectful way. I think that any criticism people have of Christianity should be done respectfully. I know that’s hard to do. It is very hard to do. But this is a, yeah, I try to be as secular as possible and yeah, let’s start with that. Let’s actually start with Christianity.

 

Let’s start with. If we’re going to talk about the woman question, let’s talk about Christianity.

 

So the Hebrew mythology or the Hebrew founding story is Adam and Eve. It’s a bit different to other founding stories, but you’ll find there’s so much similarities when you’re talking about the origins of man from. And I don’t use mythology. I don’t say mythology in a bad way. I don’t say it in a, I don’t mean it in a negative way. I’m not putting a pejorative on it. You know, all founding myth is myth. It’s mythos. We don’t know for sure, but we can respect myth. I respect myth. Yeah, and geez, we’re already into it.

 

But we all know the story Genesis. So we have this perfect garden of peace and harmony and the founding story of Christianity and therefore the founding message, the founding message of Christianity is that women are inherently attracted to evil. And breaching the peace and harmony of the garden that’s created by the father.

 

So it’s kind of like women inherently have to “shit test” a situation, a society, a these aren’t my words. This is not even my personal interpretation. I didn’t come up with this is what the Bible says.

 

And anyone that has a different version of Genesis is a moron and hasn’t read it. So many Christians haven’t read the Bible. Probably one of my main issues with Christians is that they haven’t read the Bible. I don’t think you should be allowed to call yourself a Christian if you haven’t read the Bible.

 

And likewise, I don’t think people should call themselves a National Socialist if they haven’t read Mein Kampf. I don’t think you should say that. I think you should say I’m interested in National Socialism, but I don’t think you should identify with it. You should hear the words from the man. He says it all. He outlines 95% of it in one book. And it’s a lot easier to read than the Bible. The Bible is a very hard book to read. It’s very tedious at parts. It, sure, it has beautiful parts, like all religious books have beautiful parts, but it is a very hard read. It’s a very long book. It’s like a million words. It takes a long time. Unless you race through it, if you race through it, you’re going to miss things. But Genesis is very clear. Like the first books, Genesis and Exodus, these things are very clear. Very, very clear. There’s no, not much nuance to it.

 

Now there’s obviously different mythological interpretations. What is the snake and what is the apple and what is God’s command and all this. But if you’re going to found a religion off this principle, it’s going to bleed through the whole text, isn’t it?

 

So whatever you’re reading later on in the Bible has to always come back to Genesis and a belief system that men and women were created unequally, that man was created from breathing life into dust or into matter. Women were created from the rib of man, so from the side. So it’s a peer, but it’s not an equal peer. There’s some sort of difference there. And so, I mean, obviously.

 

[1:07:14]

 

But I was talking to Jacob recently and he’s been deep diving Plato. Absolutely deep diving Plato. I’ve read the Republic, but I haven’t read much else from Plato. And he was negging Aristotle, which I was surprised at because I actually prefer, at this stage, I prefer Aristotle to Plato, not to get too much into philosophy, but I’ve only read the Republic. So and I didn’t really rate it, to be honest. I thought it was an interesting dialogue, but I didn’t rate it as much as it gets glazed. But he’s been reading all the other stuff. Full deep diving into everything, every single thing the guy’s written. And what he said to me was, and this is very recently, he said to me that the Greeks believed that, or Plato believed, and this became quite a common belief system, that if that souls were created, this is before Christianity, they believe that souls were created fresh and that they were all men, that if you lived a bad life, if you were a bit, you know, weak or immoral, that you would be reincarnated in your next life as a woman. And this became a pretty well established belief system. And it’s interesting that that is in some way similar to Christianity, that they arrived at a position where they were ripe for proselytisation from Christian apostles.

 

So let’s start there. Obviously, European Paganism is many things, just as Christianity is many things. There’s so much schism within Paganism. And when you’re talking generally about Paganism, you’re talking about general principles which we know from Greek, Roman, Zoroastrian, Indus Valley, and obviously Germanic and Celtic Paganism. And people will cherry pick what they want.

 

There are female church leaders at the moment. I mean, that’s just absurd to me that the whole book is a document saying that women can’t accurately interpret God. They can’t accurately communicate or interpret or follow instruction from God. And therefore they shouldn’t be in charge of the Church. They can’t be in charge of society, they can’t be in charge of the Church. They just don’t possess the correct component to do that. And the whole religion is founded on that principle.

 

And then you have such a degradation of the Church that you now have women pastors and preachers and priests, priestesses or whatever you’d call them. I mean, it’s absurd! It’s not my church, I’m not a Christian. But the hypocrisy is despicable! It is truly despicable! So fascinating!

 

Now, Paganism has varying degrees of male and female relationships. Some interpretations of Paganism are a bit more equitable, others a lot less equitable.

 

So when we go back to the ancients and when we look at thousands of years of civilisation, there is not really any society that has treated men and women as the same, nor has there been a society that has treated women the way women are being treated right now! And it’s not a surprise that our birth rates are really low. Any society that behaves the way we’re behaving dies. Any civilisation that behaves the way we’re behaving dies. Any nation that behaves the way we’re behaving dies! And therefore it is a footnote in somebody else’s history.

 

So we have to reevaluate our values and we have to completely change the way we behave or we’re going to die!

 

And so the woman question is the same question as White genocide. It’s the same question as White replacement. You cannot separate the two. You can’t say:

 

“Let’s stick to just White nationalism and let’s not talk about how evil feminism is. Let’s talk about White replacement. But we’ve got to keep women on side. We can’t say things that might hurt the feelings of women.”

 

And as I said at the start of the stream, this is a really dumb, weak, coward strategy that’s going to cause us to die as a race! Women don’t respect pandering. They find it disgusting! Feminists are pure evil! And they will because of there’s some force, you know, Christians could say they’re possessed. And I do put a lot of weight in possession. I know not everyone does because not everyone believes they have a soul. And not everyone believes in metaphysics or in like a spirit realm. And so people that are very rational will say:

 

“This person’s unwell, or this person’s mentally ill.”

 

All means the same thing. Whereas the more religious or spiritual way of looking at it is this person is spiritually ill, this person’s potentially possessed. And this isn’t very electable, but I have witnessed what I could only describe as exorcisms. I have seen the way some people have behaved, and there is no rational or logical explanation other than this person is possessed. This person has a demon, a demon in them! They’re not at rest. They’re not in harmony. They’re not. There’s something that is currently occupying them and it’s potentially just a phase, but if it keeps occurring, it’s like there’s something that rears its head, something unbecoming.

 

And that’s a difficult conversation to have with people that don’t believe in demons. They don’t believe that it could be possible. They’re so far into post Enlightenment rationalism that just:

 

“It’s so irrational, the idea that there are forces beyond our control that could perhaps be bad forces!”

 

You know, we can acknowledge that there is a good force and inherently good force on earth, but then we want to pretend that there’s not an inherently bad force on earth?

 

[1:13:57]

 

So instead of arguing about whether Christianity is cucked or not, instead a better conversation is, what can we learn from Christianity? Where is Christianity right? And where is modern Christianity wrong? Or where is Christianity philosophically wrong? That’s a much more important discussion and it’s a more respectful discussion as well. Because what you’ll find is I can have these conversations. I had a conversation recently, probably 20, 30 minutes, with some Christian guys in America, and we could have a respectful conversation about what’s happening through that lens, through that lens of that there is an evil that is possessing. There is a snake in the garden, and it’s corrupting women. And then women are corrupting men. And that women, sorry, men, are aware of the snake. Snake, but most men are not aware of how this snake has perverted women.

 

And so the TLDR [Too Long-Didn’t Read] is we need to normalise Patriarchy. I’m a big, big proponent of Patriarchy. I think that Patriarchy is the only way to save the White race. We cannot save the White race through feminism. We cannot save the White race through equality. We can only save the White race through a proper Patriarchy. A proper Patriarchy! And whether you’re Christian, pagan, agnostic, enlightened, not enlightened, Catholic, orthodox, doesn’t matter! We cannot solve male, female. It does not matter! We cannot solve this problem without Patriarchy.

 

Now, it’s very easy for me to acknowledge Patriarchy because, one, I had a really good father. I have a really good father. My father’s still alive. I have a really good father. A really good father! And he has his flaws. Absolutely! And that’s product of environment and breeding and everything else. Right. We all have our flaws. I have my flaws. Product of environment and breeding and circumstance. But we’re on a mission! My bloodline has definitely been through the wars, and we’re on our way back up. All right. There’s a few more generations of work to do to really get us back on track. But I’m part of a Patriarchy. I have a lot of respect for my family name, my line, my lineage, my ancestry. This is really important to me.

 

And, it’s easy for me to accept and acknowledge this harsh reality. It’s not even a harsh reality. This reality because of what I come from. Women that have good fathers can accept this as well. Most women that can’t accept Patriarchy, they don’t have any respect for their fathers. And they don’t have respect for their fathers because their fathers don’t deserve respect.

 

Respect is not something that you’re entitled to. It is only earned. And I know that’s a platitude, and some people might think that’s a meaningless platitude, but that is absolutely core! Respect is earned! You’re not entitled to anyone’s respect. This is, I think, a false enlightenment principle that, like you should just respect the retard being moved around in the wheelchair. Like, what? What planet are these people on? Like, why that makes you a good person? How does that make me a good person? You know what quality of life is the drooling retard, God? And why are we wasting all our tax dollars paying for the drooling retard? This is solved very easily by Patriarchy. It’s not just solved by having a department in government that deals with the problem. It’s solved by Patriarchy.

 

And so one of the first principles of Patriarchy is that every man is king and priest and judge of his own house! I’ll say it again, for those that aren’t listening. The first principle of Patriarchy is that every man is king, is priest, is judge of his own house! And general. That was a component as well. There’s a martial component to it. And so every son, every boy wants to respect his father for the man that he is. And I can’t empath into how girls think, because I’m not a girl, but I would assume it’s similar. Not the same, but I assume it’s similar. I obviously have daughters. And you know what I was sad about when I was growing up? Not sad, but one thing I was surprised at was I asked my dad why he never joined the army. Because I know his dad was in the navy or in the Defense Force. I know his granddad was in the army.

 

And I remember asking my dad:

 

“Why weren’t you in the army?”

 

And he was just like:

 

“Oh, look.”

 

Because they had the draught for the Vietnam War, and he was of that age, and he just never got called up. So he was like:

 

“Oh, I got lucky!”

 

That was his answer. I think he said something:

 

“I got lucky. You know, you put your birthday in. You had to register. You put your birthday in.”

 

And he said something about “balls with birthdays” on them. Like, it was like the lotto. Like, they’d pull a ball out. And if it was like, March 18th, which is my dad’s birthday, then you’re going, you’re signing up.

 

And I thought that was absurd! But it’s one way to do it. I mean, it’s fucking clown world! But anyway, that was his position, was like:

 

“Oh, he got lucky. He avoided it.”

 

And I always thought to myself, wouldn’t it be cool? I always thought, wouldn’t it be cool to walk into my dad’s office and he’s got all his, like, armour and his rifle? And I just had this idea of like. And it’s probably ancient. It’s probably something like an altar, like an altar to Mars, like an altar to masculinity, an altar to the Patriarchy. And then to be able to see my grandfathers and you know there are families that still, they keep all their family medals, the war medals and stuff.

 

[1:20:20]

 

But I mean let’s put that on steroids. It’s not just having like the medals, it’s like walk in and be able to see like generations and generations of uniforms and rifles and, or even before going all the way back to a family sword. That just, that idea is just so cool! And I think every like 10 year old boy thinks like that.

 

And if you don’t, you’re probably a faggot, or maybe you had the idea but in a different way. But if that doesn’t seem cool to you, yeah, fuck you basically! I don’t know. Yeah, you’re not in my gang, that’s for sure. You’re not in my tribe.

 

So back to the woman question. So [chuckling] respect, respect. You can respect that. And I didn’t respect my dad as much as I would have if we had something like that. If my dad had something like I kind of lost a little bit of respect for my dad when I was like 10 years old. When I was like:

 

“Why wasn’t my dad. His answer was he ‘got lucky’.”

 

I was like:

 

“Huh, I don’t know if that’s luck.”

 

You know what I mean? It’s like why would that be lucky? Obviously it’s a dumb war and blah, blah, blah and geopolitics is so broken and everything now.

 

But I think part of us is whether you go and fight in a war or not, I think men should be war-like. And I think the “retard budget” should be directed entirely into well first of all we shouldn’t be taxed as much as we are. So there shouldn’t even be a retard budget.

 

But obviously I like when we take power. I’m deleting the retard budget and putting all of it or most of it or some of it into building like the Stormtrooper halo suit Department. I’ve said this before.

 

To get back onto, someone just says:

 

“Fuck employment!”

 

[chuckling] Modern world does a Superchat:

 

“Thoughts on the employee question.”

 

I actually haven’t watched the podcast that young Michael Nelson did on the subject of employment but I can imagine what he was saying. My position has always been that you need to be productive, you need to be productive, you need to find a way of being productive. You don’t want to just sit around doing nothing! But you need to have times of sitting around doing nothing in order to think of productive things to do.

 

And when you’re in employment, like I have had nothing but issues with like Gen-X’s and Boomers that have employed me over the years where they want you to work 50, 60 hour weeks, they want you just in employment, they want you just head down and just hammer drill in the concrete and just ernnn! Or if you’re doing some other job that’s slightly more technical or less manual labour, it’s the same thing. It’s just head down and you’ve just got no time, no time to be a better man. You’re just stuck in a trap! You’re stuck in like a debt trap. And I don’t think there’s ever been a time in human history where anyone except slaves have worked six days a week or even five days a week. I just think that that’s slavery and they’re boxing us in. We’re getting boxed in and boxed in and boxed in! It’s so obvious what’s happening and it’s so obvious why Zoomers especially and Gen Alpha will be even more so, why people are checking out of this employee, … We’re just getting boxed in.

 

Like we’ve gone from nice blocks of land. There’s plenty of things to do, there’s plenty of animals to tend to. And then you work a couple days a week, you know, old mate needs help with something, you go help him, this guy and people were these warrior farmer builders first, and they were doctors and doctors and dentists and lawyers and tradesmen or skilled labourers second. And it was the pleb class. It’s always historically been the pleb class that became entirely microscopically focused on a singular trade. So like I do pottery, that’s all I do they live in a tiny little house in the city in Rome and they’re the Potter. And all they do is pottery and they just make pots and nothing else. And they do it six days a week, 12 hours a day. And they make pots and they sell the pots and they make pots and they sell the pots. That is what slaves do. That’s what slaves do. That’s slavery!

 

And so, but the whole economics is geared against us because of what they’ve done, because of interest, because of debt slavery. It’s because of debt slavery we can’t build intergenerational wealth where we can have big families on large plots of land where we can learn a whole bunch of skills and manage our farms and feed ourselves and look after ourselves in tight knit communities.

 

The whole economics is now geared that everyone’s a little bug, a little cog in the system. They do their little bug roll and they get their little bug ration and this is broken. This is not sustainable. It’s not going to last. How many generations is this going to go on for? Judging by how much Zoomers want to check out, I’d suggest that Alphas or Betas or what like two or three generations from now, if this problem hasn’t solved itself, I would assume things are gonna be very different.

 

[1:26:10]

 

 

And obviously tying this into politics we’re gonna completely change the zoning laws. Part of the problem with this is people living on 200 square metre little blocks, apartments, townhouses. Part of this is just so dysgenic. We need to not be slave bug people. We need space, we need land, we need multitudes of tasks. Specialisation is key. Don’t get me wrong. We built higher civilisation because individuals did hyper specialise into things. But making pots is not a hyper specialisation. You know what I mean? Like historically people did their specialisation part time. They’d worked a couple days a week doing, and it was usually what was called journeymen. They were usually journeymen like if they were a dentist, or a doctor or whatever and obviously there was no such thing as a lawyer. The whole system worked differently, like tradition, ancient culture and the higher becoming. We have better technology now, but it’s made us, I think we can do both. I think we can continue to improve technology without living like bugs. And I don’t think that interest slavery helped us increase our technology. The increasing technology is part of the life cycle. It’s part of the life cycle of civilisation. And it’s not going to continue progressing in this direction forever for two reasons. One, the law of diminishing returns. And two, we are destroying our stock. So we can’t. We’re going to be in a system decline. The car, the calibre of men that built the society. We can’t even maintain it. We can’t even maintain it.

 

And there’s an elite. They call it elite overproduction. But it’s not. It’s the false elite overproduction. We’ve built a false elite and that’s why these rodents that are all 100, 105 IQ, they got Master’s degrees. They’re absolute midwits! They’re not idiots, but they’re absolute midwits! They are the ones running this into the ground. We have allowed midwits to take over society!

 

And I’m not going to talk about what my IQ is because I don’t think it’s super important, but I think it’s clear that it’s at least one or two standard deviations above average. And we’re having midwits go through university, male and female, and then they’re taking elite positions, but there’s not enough elite positions, so they have to create positions for these other fake elites.

 

And that’s like psychology, for example. You’ve got so many idiots going through university and studying psychology. And so we’ve created a whole industry of government rebates here in Australia and in America you’ve got all this drug prescription and all this mental illness and all this compounding issues of the parasitism of psychology. Psychology, psychoanalysis, psychotherapists, all of this is a parasite economy. They’re all parasites. They’re all parasites! It’s one giant parasite economy! And the purpose of it is to continue to make the problem worse so that they can have employment. And so they will never, ever be able to solve the problem because a purpose of a system is what it does.

 

So that’s just one element of university that’s caused this over education. We’ve got this over education where if you don’t go to university, you’re a moron. And it’s like we have more engineers and architects than we’ve ever had and our society is uglier and more broken! So it shows you that exclusion is the rule to greatness. You need to be exclusive in order to create hyper specialisation. You can’t just send everyone to university or the vast majority of people to university, and then think:

 

“Oh my God, society is getting so much better!”

 

It’s like, no, we’re running off the inertia of intelligent, hyper selective people. And the show’s about to come to a halt. We have printed so much money! They’re literally printing like $8 trillion, not a trillion, 8 billion dollars a day in the US to keep their bullshit fake economy going. And it’s just leading to the Weimar conditions. And we’re going to pay for all of this. We’re going to pay for all of this.

 

And that’s why you need to be prepared. You need to be prepared. And I’ve gone off topic from Patriarchy, but it all ties together. You can’t cover the subject without covering it all. Obviously. I’ll take a pause and I’ll come back.

 

Someone asked me about the employment question. Yeah. You gotta have skills. Look, you gotta have skills. Home of the brave, says:

 

“Tom, you’re the embodiment of the spiritual healing of the entire European race. Hey, we approach phase one of total re-migration of nons in the West. Segregation. Stay safe!”

 

Nah, I can’t do that on the stream. It’s a good question. I appreciate the question. Maybe I can leave that to the end. I can’t do that at this stage. I have to cover the woman question. Celine says:

 

“As a younger White woman, I’ve had to come to terms with Jesus being brown when I’ve always pictured him as a tall White man. Jesus being brown makes me deny it. Christianity is more of a woman thing.”

 

I don’t necessarily agree with. I don’t know what Jesus looked like. But I’ll tell you a really funny story. I’m not sure if I told this story on stream. Obviously all the Christian identitarians are raging at you now because they’re all saying Jesus was blonde hair, blue eyed, Aryan. I saw a really funny post yesterday or last night where some guy was saying that Jesus was Italian. He was like:

 

“He was born in Judea of the Roman province of Syria. He was therefore Roman. He was therefore Italian. Jesus was Italian!”

 

I just thought it was funny. Obviously he’s not being serious, but I wonder what the implications of everyone saying Jesus was Italian would be. And whether that’s like a bit of an icebreaker. Because it’s like people say Jesus is a jew. Well, the Bible says Jesus is a jew. And then Christian Identitarian said Jesus was like a Nordic Aryan. And then it’d be funny if we just say like:

 

“We meet at halfway and say Jesus was Sicilian or something!”

 

That’ll [chuckling] cause drama, won’t it, that one! But that just would be funny. We’re like, Jesus was White passing. That’s like the compromise. Now I know you people don’t believe in compromise. They want it one way or the other. Maybe that’ll keep the peace for like five minutes. If we just say Jesus was Italian. It’s a theory. What’s the funny story? So someone in the conversation tell me if I’ve said this before on stream. I can’t remember. Some [chuckling] guy replied, “smartest women woman”. Look, I think I’ve only told this story in person. It’s story time. I might have said it once on stream.

 

[1:33:41]

 

So the last time I was in prison last year I was in solitary confinement and I wanted a Bible. Actually, this Bible right here, this one right here. King James. I wanted a King James Bible because I got my other prison Bible. This is the prison Bible I got the first time into prison. It’s the NIV*. Look at that. [chuckling] Presented to Thomas Sewell, Melbourne Assessment Prison. That was in 2021.

 

[* The New International Version (NIV) is a completely original translation of the Bible developed by more than one hundred scholars working from the best available Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts.]

 

Anyway. This is now:

 

“Bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh. She shall be called woman, for she was taken out of man. Adam and his wife were both naked and they felt no shame.”

 

Genesis 3:16:

 

“To the woman, he said, ‘I will make your pains in childbearing very severe. With painful labour you will give birth to children. Your desire will be for your husband and he will rule over you’.”

 

“Then the Lord said to Cain, where is your brother Abel? I don’t know. He replied, am I my brother’s keeper? The Lord said, ‘What have you done? Listen, your brother’s blood cries out to me from the ground. Now you are under a curse and driven from the ground, which opened its mouth to receive your brother’s blood from your hand. When you work the ground, it will no longer yield its crops for. You will be a restless wanderer of the earth.”

 

Yes, well, they got the mark on him. And I really wonder when circumcision started and when the restless wanderers of the earth started getting the anti-semitisms on him. Anyway, that’s just a theory. I won’t go too deep into that or piss people off.

 

But anyway, I got that version and I read it in full.

 

And I was like:

 

“Wow, okay!”

 

I probably should have read this the first time, but I wasn’t ready because you kind of you read the Bible when you’re a kid and you just like, you don’t read it properly, you don’t read it in full. And when you’re in solid confinement, you get a lot of time to read the Bible. And I read the NIV and I was like:

 

“Whoa, okay, this is definitely eye opening.”

 

And everyone’s trying to convert me. And I’m like:

 

“No, I can’t. Like, I just read it. I just read the whole thing. Are you kidding me?”

 

And they were like:

 

“You read the wrong translation.”

 

So then this time I went to prison. I went and got a King James. It didn’t make any difference for me. But I do think the King James is a better Bible. But story time.

 

So how did I get the King James Bible? So when I got to prison this time I got sent to Barwon, which is a much nicer prison. It’s older, but it is better. And because I was in Port Phillip before that. And they wouldn’t give me a Bible, they took my Bible off me. I got another NIV. I got a wait, is that King. No. So that’s a King James. No, they took it off me, sorry. I got that one later I got another NIV and when I got transferred from Melbourne Assessment the second time to the prison, the Barwon prison, they took my NIV off me and I had to fill out a form to get another Bible.

 

And I was like:

 

“Why? Why would you take the Bible off me? I don’t understand. Just let me keep the book.”

 

And they’re like:

 

“Oh, it’s not your property. It’s the property of the MAP.”

 

And I’m like:

 

“So you’re going to send the Bible back to the MAP, back to the other prison?”

 

It’s just crazy! But they’re just there to fuck with you. That’s their existence. And they won’t even let a non-Christian man keep his Christian book. And so then I had to fill out a form to get a Bible. And to get a Bible you had to have a meeting with a priest.

 

So if you want a Quran, you could have a meeting with an imam. If you want to. Whatever it is what it is. I don’t know what the Buddhists have. But like there was these boxes you could tick. I ticked the Christian box and I picked the Anglican one because I’m an Anglo Saxon and I’m not a Catholic, I’m not orthodox, and my grandmother was Anglican. None of the men in my family went to church really, but the women did. And they were Anglicans and so, Church of England. So I picked the Anglican box and it took two weeks.

 

And then this guy, I get pulled out of my cell and I get put in like a visitor room and I’m put in there with a priest. And I’ll just check the comments. Have I told this story on stream? Because I won’t go into too much detail if I have. Oh Jesus, so many comments. Have I told this story before? I’ll just tell the story!

 

And so he was like. I asked him:

 

“Why are you Christian?”

 

And he told me a story. The priest, he said that when he was a teenager he was really angry and him and his mates went out to this golf course and they had a BB gun and they shot a bunch of magpies or something. A bird, I can’t remember what type of bird I think was a magpie. Magpies. And he just felt horrible! He just felt horrible about it afterwards. He had a lot of regret and guilt about killing these magpies.

 

[1:40:02]

 

And then, he was raised in a Christian household, in a Christian environment, but he just wouldn’t go to church. And after like leaving the Church for a year or two and kind of hanging out with the wrong kids and you know, doing bad stuff, like shooting magpies with BB guns, as like most 14 year old boys probably would if they had a BB gun, he started noticing the kids walking home from church. They just looked happier. They just looked happier. And he was like:

 

“I wanted that happiness. I wasn’t happy and I wanted that happiness. And so I started going back to church and I asked my priest, when I was 14, I said I want to be happy like the other kids, they’re all happy. Why am I happy? And the priest said to me, you have to surrender yourself to God. You have to be God’s slave. You have to submit yourself. And once you submit yourself, then you’ll be happy. Then you’ll finally find peace. Because you’re fighting God and that’s why you’re unhappy. And you just have to stop fighting. You have to give up! And when you give up and you let go, then you’ll finally be happy.”

 

And he says:

 

“Why do you ask?”

 

And I was like:

 

“So I asked because I’m not Christian, but I ticked the Anglican box because it was the closest thing that I could do. But what I really want is a Bible. So I’ve got something to read in here because they’re torturing me and I’d like a Bible.”

 

And he was just like:

 

“Oh, okay, okay, yeah, but why do you want to know why I’m a Christian?”

 

I was like:

 

“Oh, I’m just fascinated. I want to know your story. Like you’re a priest. Like you’re obviously highly motivated to be a Catholic, Anglican priest. You know, I just, I want to learn more about your journey and like how that, how do you become an Anglican priest?”

 

And then we talk a lot more about this subject. And he’s very, he’s very apprehensive. He’s very like on the back foot the whole time, very defensive. And yeah, just the way he explained it to me, I said to him:

 

“You know, do you still have this same attitude? Like, do you still feel this way about God? Is that your relationship with God?”

 

And he said to me, he said:

 

“I wake up every morning, and the first thing I do every morning is I pray to God and I say, God, I am your slave. Let your will be done through me! I am your vessel. I am your slave on this earth!”

 

And I was like:

 

“You do that every morning?”

 

And he’s like:

 

“Yep, that’s what I do.”

 

And I was like:

 

“Wow! That is fascinating!”

 

And he’s like:

 

“It is, isn’t it? And I know that might sound really intense, but it works. It works for me! And I’m so much happier. Life is so much easier this way. It’s just so much easier! Like, I don’t feel what I used to feel. And, look, I still have challenges, and I’m a grandfather now, and da, da, da, da. But life is just so much easier this way!”

 

Okay, [chuckling] what the fuck! Okay. Anyway, an hour goes by, we shake hands, and he goes:

 

“Nice to meet you, Tom. Blah, blah, blah.”

 

And then the second time I meet him, so I ticked the box again. I want to have another conversation. He says to me right at the end, he goes:

 

“Do you want to meet me again? Do you want to talk to me again?”

 

I said:

 

“Absolutely! I really enjoyed this conversation.”

 

“Are you sure?”

 

I said:

 

“Yeah, I really enjoyed this conversation. I really enjoyed it. I would like to meet you again.”

 

And he said:

 

“Okay, well, what about next week?”

 

And I was like:

 

“Maybe not next week. I need a bit more time to digest this conversation. But maybe give me two weeks.”

 

He said:

 

“Okay, two weeks, Same time, same day.”

 

I’m like:

 

“Excellent!”

 

So this is my only human contact. I’m in a concrete box for two weeks straight. And then I meet up with him again. He walks in and he’s nervous. He’s so nervous! And he says:

 

“Tom, I have to be honest with you. I Googled your name. I thought I recognised you, but I Googled your name, and it was really hard for me to come in today.”

 

And I was like:

 

“Oh! Why is that?”

 

And he said:

 

“Because, … There’s a lot of people in this prison, and they’ve really beautiful people that have done really horrible things. And I’ve never felt like this before where I felt selfish that I didn’t want to come in. But I prayed to God this morning, and I said God, I don’t want to talk to this man. I don’t like this man. I think this man is evil, and I don’t want to speak to him. What should I do? And what God told me was that’s why you have to go speak to him. Because he’s evil. Because he’s evil, you have to go speak to him. That’s why!”

 

I was like:

 

“Oh, okay, all right.”

 

And then I said to him:

 

“You ever spoken to a paedophile?”

 

I said:

 

“Have you ever felt that way about a paedophile?”

 

And he was like:

 

“No, no. There are some really beautiful people in this prison. Some really beautiful people in this prison.”

 

“Never felt that way about a paedophile? Okay, interesting! Well, luckily, you are God’s slave, and that God forced you to come in here today to speak to me!”

 

And [chuckling] he said:

 

“I want to show you something. I want to show you my God! I want to show you my God!”

 

And I was like:

 

“Okay, you want to show me your God?”

 

“Are you ready? Are you ready for my god?”

 

It’s this weird, passive aggressive, feminine. He’s got tears in his eyes. And he’s like:

 

“Before I do, can I ask you a question? Why did you want to speak with me?”

 

[1:46:16]

 

And I said to him:

 

“Because I told you the truth last time. My grandmother was an Anglican. I’m an Anglo Saxon. I ticked the Anglo box, not the Catholic box. Simple as.”

 

And he was like:

 

“But me specifically, did you know I was the Anglican priest. Me, personally?”

 

And I was like, I think his name was [changed]. And I was like:

 

“Leslie, I don’t know who you are. I just know that you’re an Anglican priest.”

 

He goes:

 

“You don’t know about my past?”

 

I was like:

 

“No, I don’t know. What is your past?”

 

And he said:

 

“Well, I want to tell you a story, Tom. You know, I had to take a stand against, … I mean, there’s a lot of evil men in the world., …”

 

And he’s talking like a lesbian. He speaks like a lesbian, right? He’s like:

 

“There’s a lot of, …”

 

Like a feminist. He’s like:

 

“There’s a lot of evil men in the world. And Donald Trump comes to mind, and Adolf Hitler comes to mind. And when I was younger, there was a man that came to power in Australia that reminds me of Donald Trump, and his name was John Howard. And when John Howard came to power, he had an immigration minister called Peter Dutton, who you might know, because he was running for prime minister recently. And they imprisoned people in concentration camps on, …”

 

I think it was like, Manus Island or something, one of these islands off the coast of Australia:

 

“And there were these people, these desperate, honest, loving, caring, they were God’s children, and they wanted to come to Australia, and they begged for our help and our safety. And they were refugees, …”

 

And he’s literally crying! He’s literally crying!:

 

“And we locked them and their children in concentration camps on these islands and treated them so horribly! And I had to make a stand, so I went and visited them!”

 

So he goes to the concentration camp and he’s like. [chuckling] He says:

 

“And I like painting. And I met this man, and he was a refugee, …”

 

And I think he was Iranian or Iraqi or something like that. I think Iraqi. And he goes:

 

“And I met this Iraqi man, and his name was Fadim, …”

 

Or some shit! And he goes:

 

“I said to him, you are so beautiful! You are such a beautiful man. Can I paint you? I want to paint you. Will you let me paint you?”

 

And then he said:

 

“Yes, I’ll let you paint me. And then I painted him.”

 

And it’s hot. It’s so weird! He’s holding a, he’s got like a, he’s got the, … Imagine this is the painting of the guy, but he’s got it like this, and he’s holding it on the table, and he’s holding it upside down. And he’s holding upside down on the table, and he’s like:

 

“I want to show you this. And the reason why I want to show you this is because when I was painting him, I looked into his eyes and he was crying. He had tears in his eyes as I was painting him. And I was painting him. And the whole time I was thinking about Jesus on the donkey going into Bethlehem as a refugee, needing safety. And I thought, this man is from that region. This man is from the same region, very similar region, near the Euphrates. And he’s a refugee as well., …”

 

You can predict the whole conversation, can’t you? Like, I’m drawing it out, but I’m drawing it out for effect. This was the tone this guy was taking with me.

 

“And I still remember. And I thought to myself, this is what Jesus would look like, and this is how Jesus would feel if he was here right now with us, seeing what John Howard, behaving in a fascist man manner, putting these innocent people in concentration camps! This is how Jesus would be looking at me. So I painted him. So I painted my God! This is my God, Thomas! This is my God!”

 

And then he shows me a painting of a brown man crying. And he’s like:

 

“This is my God! How do you feel?”

 

A picture of a brown man crying. And I was like:

 

“Fascinating! Fascinating! That’s your God?”

 

He’s like:

 

“I want you to have this. I want you to put this up in your cell.”

 

And I was like:

 

“No, no, I don’t want it. It’s your painting.”

 

He’s like:

 

“No, this is a copy of it. This isn’t the one I painted. This is a copy. I want you to have it. I want you to put this in your cell and I want you to look at my God! And I think that will really help you and I think that’s why I was sent here today to give you this painting.”

 

And I was like:

 

“It’s a decent painting. You’ve done a good job painting it, for sure. This is not my God! This is your God. This is not my God! I can’t put this in my cell. It’s just not my God! Not my God! There are many gods. This one’s not mine. This is your one!”

 

And [chuckling] that was the end of the conversation! And yeah, fuck, I’ve just had too much life experience at this stage! [chuckling]

 

[1:52:11]

 

And when I got out of jail, I’m gonna Google this church that this guy’s from. And it’s like gay flags and trans rights and refugees are welcome and all this shit!

 

And it’s like [chuckling] women pastors! These people, they’re sick! They make me sick! People in the chat saying, Jesus’ Italian. Man. A lot of, lot of Superchats to go through. Jeez. How much more do you want me to go, in a detail about that one? Oh, I don’t know what it is. It’s not dopamine, but it’s some sort of chemical. There’s some chemical in the brain. It’s just surreal! It’s like a surreal chemical. It’s not dopamine. It’s the surrealism of it. It’s the surrealism. Hyper, hyper, what do they call it? Hyper realism. How are these people real? They share this planet with us. What planet are they on?:

 

“I felt really bad for the magpies. That’s why I had to go back to the Church!”

 

Well, yeah, obviously you shouldn’t just like indiscriminately kill animals!

 

But what he was doing at 14 was what all 14 year old boys do, is they’re testing themselves. They’re seeing, can I do it? Can I do it? Can I put meat on the table? Can I put meat on the table?

 

And I said to him:

 

“Are you a vegetarian now?”

 

When he talked about the magpies, I said:

 

“Are you a vegetarian?”

 

He’s like:

 

“No, no, I’m not, but I make sure I thank God every time I have meat. And I thank God for what’s happened to the animal and pray for the animal.”

 

And I’m like:

 

“Yeah, that’s fair enough. That’s good. I respect that.”

 

I have a lot of respect for that. I think that’s important when you take life and you’re consuming that life. Trans. The transmutation of it. Transubstantiation. Yeah. Like you’re putting meat on the table and you shouldn’t indiscriminately kill, but you’re doing what all teenage boys do when they’re going through puberty is they’re seeing not just if they can do it, but they go over the top. You know what I mean? They go a little, you go a little bit over the top and then you dial it back in. You’re like:

 

“All right, that was unnecessary.”

 

But he’s gone, he’s dialled it back in so much that his God is a brown man crying. That he has to live with White people!:

 

“He has to come live with the White people! He has to! We have to let them in! We have to!”

 

This is what his God wants. So look, obviously if you’re a Christian and you’re watching this, you would be disgusted by that story, that this is the calibre of priests. This is not Patriarchy. This is not the original church. This is not anything like the Greeks or the Romans or the Hebrews or even the jews. This is like the jews don’t even behave this way. This is like sub-Aryan and sub, even sub-Hebrew behaviour. And like ancient Hebrew, if we’re going to call it that. But this is like a completely poisoned chalice and these people are church leaders.

 

And so, yeah, it’s been completely infiltrated by communists. This is the downward path. They’re cherry picking document a book that has a lot in it.

 

As I said, the Bible’s a million things! There’s a million words in it. There’s a lot going on in that book. You can cherry pick whatever you want to articulate something, but what you can’t lie about is the general progression of themes and the general moral structure that the Bible is putting forward.

 

Now, is there, in my opinion, contradictions of the moral structure? I think there are some things that, and I’ve discussed them, I won’t go into them today. But you’ve all heard me say what I think is contradictory in there, within the moral, within the framing of a lot of things. And in short, I don’t like the story of Jacob and Esau. I don’t like that story.

 

Well, I mean, I don’t like the character! I don’t like the individual. And I don’t like the moral of that story. I think it is either miswritten or it’s not correct, it’s not right, it’s not fair, or there’s missing data, something’s missing from it. In my opinion. Like that would be the only way I could describe it as a moral story. Anyway. But the Bible’s full of that, of this kind of fight of morality. And you can see the schism of morality. You can see the schism of an ethnicity or the schism of a people are schisming, which is I guess one of the main themes of the whole text.

 

But if we just come back a little bit and we don’t talk about the Bible and Christianity, we just talk about the theme of Patriarchy, which is beyond just Christianity. I think that’s one thing the pagans and Christians can both agree on, is that we need Patriarchy.

 

And I think the Christian view is that women are inherently prone to an evil influence, just as men are, but that it infects the women first. And you can kind of see that with how giving women the right to vote and the late Enlightenment values of total, absolute human equality led to the suffragettes and led to women voting and led to first wave, second wave, third wave feminism that has come out of that structure. And we can see the damage that that has done to society. Anyone that can’t is obviously an idiot! But we can see the damage that it’s done. And yet women are also capable of fixing the situation. That’s also interesting.

 

As I said before, when I started women, more women voted for Adolf Hitler than men!

 

[1:58:41]

 

 

So that is a very redeeming quality when you realise that. Well, hang on a minute. Why? How could that possibly be? How could that possibly be? And what that might give a little bit of Credence to is this idea that when there is a strong leader, when there is a return of masculinity and a return of Patriarchy, women are actually more inclined to notice it than men. Women are more intuitive to the cure than men are. They’re more sensitive to the disease, but they’re more sensitive to the cure as well.

 

So I had a thought that ran through my head yesterday or the day before, which was, if we don’t contain women or restrain women, who will? Who’s going to? Because what we can see by the decline of the last hundred years of civilisation is we have removed the barriers, all barriers, every barrier possible, and said:

 

“No. Men and women are exactly the same!”

 

And we have done this to the detriment of women. We have not improved their life, and more importantly, we have not improved civilisation, and we have not improved the fucking mission. And the mission isn’t to make women happy. I want to make that very clear. That’s not the mission. It’s not to make men happy either. You know what this guy’s talking about? It’s like he accepted God because he wanted to be happy. That’s what Nietzsche talks about. That’s crazy! Well, it’s not crazy, but it’s like, that’s not why you should accept God. That’s selfish! That’s not the mission. Morale is not your happiness. It’s your willingness to fight. You have to fight for a mission. You have to fight for a purpose, for meaning.

 

And I believe you have to fight for life itself. Life is an upward struggle. And my religion, my personal religion is what my interpretation of Hitler’s religion is, which is that it’s about struggle into victory. And that these things aren’t necessarily steady states or acts of being, but they’re acts of becoming. Struggle is an act of becoming into victory, which is also an act of becoming.

 

So it’s never ending. It never ends. It’s like beyond time because God has to be above time. God can’t be subject to time because then he’s not God. So God is above time. So therefore, struggle and victory have to be conceived as being principles above time. That it’s like infinite struggle for infinite victory. It’s just like a yeah, it’s like you got a hail victory and you got a hail struggle. You got a hell struggle to hail victory! You know, which is a bit. Yeah, a bit different to:

 

“I just wanted to be happy! I just saw all these people around me and they were happy. And I just wanted to be happy. I just wanted to be a good person because I was a bad person!”

 

You know what? Yeah. [chuckling] Very different sense of moral structure and moral framework. So yes, Patriarchy, restraint, it’s about building a world that is driving towards this goal. And the relationship between men and women in that world is one built off respect, not pandering.

 

And so the issue with our society at the moment at a just socio-economic level with 50, 60% divorce rate, with the family courts tearing families apart like all the societal diseases we’ve got, is about, what they all come down to regarding the bad relationships between men and women and is that women have on average more respect for the government and more respect for the system, for the justice system or for the police than they do for their own husband and their own father. That’s the issue!

 

So a system needs to be built by husbands and fathers that form a collective, that form an organisation that are all on the same page with how they’re managing their family. It’s up to them how they manage their family. But they’re all roughly on the same page as to how they manage their family. A nation is a collection of families. It’s not a bunch of gay men masturbating into each other’s assholes and adopting kids. That’s not a nation. That’s just craziness! A nation is a bunch of families. You know, the family is the building block. This is not a meaningless platitude. It is the truth! You cannot have a nation without families. Because a nation is an extension of the family.

 

And so therefore the leader of a nation has to be the extension of the leader of a family. And the leader of the family is the father or the grandfather or the great grandfather, if he’s still alive. Like that is the leader of the family.

 

And that’s how society has always worked. And it’s a sacred, ancient, basically unwritten rule. I mean, we don’t even need to write this down. This is a reality.

 

And anyone that disagrees with that reality is our enemy. Because they disagree with it, because they care more about something else than making our society, our civilisation, our blood, our spirit, our life force, move upwards. They care about something else. They care about some sort of momentary happiness or some sort of:

 

“I want to feel good. I want to get along with everyone.”

 

Like this is their God, this is their God!

 

And so those people shouldn’t be given the same rights as the Patriarchs, as the people that acknowledge that:

 

“Hang on a minute. We’ve tried that. What it leads to is like millions of Indians and Arabs and Africans coming into our country and just like raping and pillaging and destroying it economically, socially, and sometimes unfortunately, physically.”

 

And these consequences are obvious. And we’re going to structure society in a way that this doesn’t happen going forward. So yeah, it’s non-negotiable. I’ll go through the comments and wrap up the stream.

 

[2:05:06]

 

Where are we? Where are we? Celine’s got another question. Just something about I don’t like Christians. Cool. Three story Rory:

 

“G’day, Thomas. What do you think about starting a petition for Joel Davis similar to one for Brandon Koschel? Chances of their release are low, but this activism can rally support and drive attention.”

 

A petition? I don’t understand what a petition is. Yeah, I’m not in the petition business because it doesn’t work. It doesn’t do anything. There’s a petition to deport me to New Zealand with a hundred thousand signatures, and yet here I am in Melbourne, Australia.

 

So look, the way we get Joel out of prison is either he’s released because the Supreme Court has a sense of the law and will enforce the law and the law says that he should be released from prison. And the Supreme Court follow through with that because the magistrates certainly don’t uphold the law. They’re activists. They’re political activists that do what the politicians tell them to do. That’s the only way to get him out of prison. Or we wait for the infinity amount of time he’s got to be in prison.

 

But yeah, sorry, a petition is not going to do anything. It’ll help raise awareness and that’s really the purpose of petitions. But no, I’m not in that business:

 

“Thank you for your sacrifices and bravery. God bless!”

 

Yep, thank you. A lot of comments. A lot of comments. Fanny Schrute says:

 

“Jesus was Italian.”

 

I think that’s the way to go. Someone gives me $100 for the cause:

 

“No need for acknowledgment.”

 

Thanks, mate. Celine’s got another one. Something about KGV, Shakespearean old English language. Stone Mountain:

 

“What are your thoughts on infidelity in women versus infidelity in men? And are our highly successful Chad man with multiple baby mothers a greater good or bad for society?”

 

Oh, that actually brings me to what I was meant to talk about the manosphere and stuff and we just end up talking about Christianity. Yes. That actually brings me to the second half of the stream, and we’ve been going for like two and a half hours. It’s crazy! This is madness, guys!

 

Yes, yes. Look, let me get a glass of milk. Let me get a glass of milk. And I have all these thoughts that I’m gonna put down. Because there’s just been so much chatter about the manosphere and looks maxing and Louis Thoreau’s recent thing. And I made a little post. Obviously most of you have probably already read my post, just explaining, the TLDR [Too Long-Didn’t Read]. These people that are trying to embarrass the manosphere, which is quite easy, clearly. These people are not morally triumphant. These people are equally as bad, if not worse than the manosphere. And don’t get blindsided by this and fall into some trap where you’re going to take moral, what’s it called? Not legalisms, like lectures. Don’t take moral lectures from these freaks! These people are easily as bad, if not worse than the manosphere people. The manosphere people, a lot of them are not good people. I want to make it clear this next segment is not in defense of the manosphere. I’m not saying that. I’ll explain how you should accurately interpret why this phenomenon exists and how it needs to transmute into something much better. I’ll be back. I’ll just close this little thingy. Two minutes.

 

[2:11:12]

 

 

All right, I’m back. I’m not sure who, because there’s a couple wives here, but someone made these little steak mushroom pies. Homemade everything from scratch. And there was a little pot on the stove with like a mushroom sauce in it on top of that. And I just absolutely demolished these absolutely incredible, like 10 out of 10, homemade steak and mushroom pie! And I was dipping the mushroom pie in the mushroom sauce and the steak was like, just perfect! And I got myself a glass of Jersey milk. Raw, organic, biodynamic Jersey milk from my mate’s farm. His family’s got a hobby farm. They’ve got 12 Jersey cows. Incredible! Incredible! I feel like food like that is near medicinal. It’s that good for you. I feel alive!

 

People say we don’t have a culture. And it’s like, whatever these people have as a culture, I don’t care! [chuckling] Like, whatever they think culture is, I don’t care! Like, I’m actually happy with meat pies and footy. I think we got to make it better. We could do better footy and we could do better meat pies. But I am genuinely like a meat pie and footy nationalist. All my kids are going to play footy. All of them. All of them! I don’t care! What I hate about sportsball is what I hate about consumers. It’s the consumption of the fake cult that’s the problem. It’s the cult around football that are the issue. It’s not football. Playing the sport is great. I mean, depends on the football. I think AFL is probably one of the best sports in the world. But I’m biased. I’m Victorian. I didn’t play enough footy growing up. I think that’s why I’m short. [chuckling] People say:

 

“No, it’s the other way around.”

 

No, no, no! Just give me a minute, give me a minute. My dad’s English though, so I played a lot of soccer. I played high level soccer which I know a lot of I know in Europe you call that football, but yeah, we call it soccer in Australia. And footy is either rugby or AFL, depending on which state you’re in. I talked about this with Mason, I think. But anyway, this milk is so good! Are we back? Is the stream back up and running? Stone Mountain says:

 

“What are your thoughts on infidelity in women and infidelity men? And are highly successful Chad man with multiple baby mothers a greater good or bad for society?”

 

That’s what we’re going to get on. And I’ve got like, there’s like 200 and something comments underneath that. So that’s how far behind I am, guys. I don’t apologise.

 

[2:15:04]

 

So Louis Theroux is the same exact individual as that Anglican priest I was telling you a story about just then. He’s a passive-aggressive lesbian. Louis Theroux, he wasn’t raised by a man, he was raised by a single mom. Now there’s a lot of people that were raised by single moms that turn out as men. I’m not attacking men that have had to go through that unfortunate situation. I’ve got a lot of friends. Almost all my mates in the army interestingly were products of single moms. They didn’t have dads. Almost all of my friends in the army. Which is really interesting and that actually ties in with the Roman understanding of creating a full-time army, was that it was a brotherhood cult of men that didn’t have proper, they weren’t in a proper gens, so they didn’t have a cult of a family. They weren’t in a proper family Patriarchy, so they had to join an institution of Patriarchy. I think you got to do both.

 

Most men I know that turn out, every man I know that’s turned out well, that has been born of a single mom, has had really good male role models. They’ve joined the army or they’ve gotten into MMA or they’ve gone into footy or whatever it is. And they’ve got this like brotherhood. They’ve got this Patriarchy. They’ve got men, they’ve got unc [“uncle”], they’ve got uncs. They might not have dad, but they’ve got uncs. And you got to have uncs. Even if you’ve got a dad, you gotta have uncs. I actually didn’t have any uncs. Well, I had some soccer coaches and stuff, but it’s not quite the same.

 

And then when I joined the army, obviously I was telling you about some uncs. But I didn’t have uncs until I joined the army, basically. You got to have uncs. It’s a big part of young guys developing. Got to have uncs! And the system hates uncs! The system hates uncs! They absolutely hate uncs! This gynocracy, this feminised Kali Yuga, disgusting freak stuff. They hate uncs because they want you to have lesbian, passive-aggressive lesbians explaining to you how life is. And they’re trying to reprogram you from your dad. And if you don’t have a dad, then you’re double fucked!

 

And so that’s why they went after the manosphere, because the manosphere is basically a bunch of guys trying to be uncs. It’s a bunch of guys trying to make money off being an unc. And most of them are not good people. Some of them are the middle somewhere. They’re a bit Beyond Good and Evil. But most of them are pimps, unfortunately. And they feed off the worst energy of the Kali Yuga.

 

But in doing so, they expose it! So it’s a double edged sword. They attract the energy that they put out and vice versa. They go after these OnlyFans hoes and they, you know what I mean? They associate in those circles. Even if it’s from a juxtaposition, it doesn’t matter, you’re associating with it, so you’re going to attract that energy.

 

But Louis Theroux is a passive-aggressive lesbian. And the system is really intimidated by the return of Patriarchy. And what the manosphere represents is these little warlords. It represents these little Patriarchs building their little Patriarchies. And they’re an influencer. And young teenage boys and even older guys in their 20s are looking up to these people. They’re looking up to Andrew Tate, and they’re looking up to, I’ve never heard of who HS Tiki Toki is. I mean, it’s just ridiculous! [chuckling] But that’s obviously absurd!

 

But the same kind of demographic that are looking up to these guys are also looking up to us. I have young guys in their late teens almost every day come up to me and try and take a photo with me almost every day. Some days, five, six young guys will come up to me and they’ll say:

 

“You’re a legend, blah, blah, blah.”

 

Quuk And they tell me a story about what’s happening at their school, and they’ll say:

 

“Like they do a Welcome to Country every Monday morning, and everyone just kind of like, mumbles and they don’t boo, but we haven’t built up to that yet. But then when the Aussie anthem comes out, we all stamp our feet and chant it loud. And all the woke teachers are seething! You can see all the fat bitches seething! And we just smash out the national anthem! Every Monday morning we make a point of it!”

 

They didn’t say that. I said:

 

“You make a point of it?”

 

They say:

 

“Yeah, exactly!”

 

I’m like:

 

“Yeah, good!”

 

But these young guys, they’re looking for unc. Where’s unc? Because dad’s a pushover. Or maybe dad is not a pushover, but you still need uncs. And Louis Theroux is a very insecure dude. He’s really messed up because he didn’t have the opportunities that he should have. But he grew up in a world where you could still, if you’d got your foot in the door you could establish yourself, and if you were good at your job, you would be promoted. And that’s the world that he grew up in. He’s like an older millennial. Actually, he’s probably a Gen-Xer. He’s probably like a young Gen-Xer. He’s somewhere around the Millennial. You know what I mean? Like a Gen-Xer Millennial. And he did a little bit of work for, who’s that other lesbian? Michael Moore. He did a little bit of work for Michael Moore. And it’s that Left-wing agitating expose journalism. Now I’ve watched a few Michael Moore documentaries and I think he does a good job.

 

[2:21:05]

 

Same thing as I’ve watched a lot of Louis Theroux documentaries and he does a good job. Louis Theroux is almost more annoying than in some ways because his whole shtick is trying to get the person to be pissed off! Which again, that’s kind of how my brother behaved. And it was weird! No matter how much my dad told my brother like:

 

“Michael, you can’t talk to people like this. You’re gonna get punched in the head.”

 

And no matter how many times my brother got punched in the head, he still kept behaving this way.

 

Now I don’t think Louis Theroux has ever been punched in the head, but he behaves in a way and he talks to people in a manner where he relies on the passive-aggressive and gynocratic system to enforce his moral structure on society. Now he’s got a lot of idiots and midwits convinced because of the way they’ve done very clever editing. Like they’ll ask a question, whether it’s a silly question, or a good question. And then he kind of feeds off this pause moment the person’s pause paused and reflected on the question and they’re like:

 

“Ha! Gotcha!”

 

And then all the midwits that like Louis Theroux that are watching and they’re like:

 

“Gotcha!”

 

Now, I haven’t even watched this manosphere doco, I’ve just watched the shorts, but I’ve watched a lot of Louis Theroux doccos. So I know exactly his tricks, I know exactly what he does. And it’s a shtick, it’s a grift! And the grift is:

 

“I’m going to try to piss this person off. I’m going to try to make this person seem unreasonable.”

 

And he found a group of people that it was quite clear they couldn’t articulate their value systems. And in a lot of cases their value systems were inherently, not just broken, but misaligned and not very White and Aryan.

 

I’ve done lots of streams on monogamy and polygamy and I’ve talked about how polygamy is a weapon of war. Polygamy is a weapon of war! It’s a weapon. Polygamy is a demographic weapon. It’s a form of jihad. Polygamy is a form of jihad. And there are Christian groups that do polygamy as well the Mormons. And polygamy is not sustainable. It creates, … You want to talk about lack of social cohesion. What it creates is a society where it creates an incel society that check out! There’s a lot of layers to this. When you have polygamy, especially in a capitalist society, you’re now hyper selecting for genes that are capitalist pieces of shit!

 

So I’m not a communist, but I’m definitely not a capitalist. I’m the Third Position. All right? People that think the purpose in life is to make lots of money, and there’s nothing wrong with being good at making money. It’s good to be good at your trade, it’s good to make money, but it’s not, … The love of money is the root of evil! And that’s a fact! Your purpose in life isn’t to make lots of money. If it happens for you and you’ve got a utilitarian or industrial drive to do better, then there’s Aryan qualities in that, as long as you are fairly and honestly and you’re a community minded person, there’s nothing wrong with being rich.

 

I’m not anti-rich. And I want to make that very clear. I’ve never ever been anti-rich. I’ve never seen a rich person and been like:

 

“Why is he rich?”

 

Like the way Marxists feel like they’ve got a jealousy component to it. I’m not jealous of rich people, I just don’t like pieces of shit, and there’s a lot of people unfortunately that are rich because of really immoral means. And there is obviously huge wealth inequality. And it’s very unlikely, except in the cases of religious structures that you could have polygamy in this society that wouldn’t be entirely associated with wealth. It is not going to come down to good genes, it’s going to come down to wealth. And in our broken society, wealth is correlated with being immoral. Wealth is correlated with having bad genes. People with bad genes are doing really well in the society and good honest people are being punished because we’re controlled by these dishonest bad people that have created a structure and a framework to keep them in power and to keep them wealthy and to keep their competition down.

 

And the weakness of our fairness and our altruism is we’ve allowed this to happen. That’s our major weakness. And that’s because we’re living in the collapse of our aristocracy. We used to have an aristocracy, we don’t have an aristocracy. We need an aristocracy! We can’t survive without statesmen. We can’t survive without massive! Well, not massive! Massive is probably not the right word but concrete intergenerational power structures. Democracy is the last. Well, this is late stage democracy. And democracy in of itself is towards the end. And we’re in the end of the end. We’re in the worst form of democracy where everyone gets a vote. That’s not actually how democracy was intended to be.

 

So yeah, I’m not a fan of polygamy. I think that whatever goal you’re trying to achieve with polygamy can be achieved without it over more generations. And polygamy is a thinning of the male population, and we have to be very careful to not thin out the male population. There are a lot of dorks and there are a lot of losers, sure!

 

[2:27:01]

 

 

[Remainder of Transcript in Progress]

 

 

[3:41:59]

 

 

END

top

 

 

 

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

 

Rumble Comments

top

(Comments as of 3/28/2026 = 34)

DJTriumph
Supporter
18 hours ago
the James Mason podcast was great
11
0

‹ Hide 3 replies
FLmetalhead
12 hours ago
Where is it?
2
0

‹ Hide 1 reply
Hazelmango
Supporter
10 hours ago
https://ftjmedia.com/live/0/DaveGahary/ls/2444
3
0

Jaymeo1
12 hours ago
Link ?
1
0

‹ Hide 1 reply
Hazelmango
Supporter
10 hours ago
https://ftjmedia.com/live/0/DaveGahary/ls/2444
2
0

eclipseNF
11 hours ago
Where is it?
1
0

baileyspunts
13 hours ago
Man i love when Sewell streams. White pill every time
11
0

LachlanMD
21 hours ago
L foids
6
1

‹ Hide 1 reply
RoseRock444
Supporter
19 hours ago
Nah. W foids
4
3

Jomaha22
20 hours ago
Every time I see that text “manosphere” I cringe. Where did this analogy came from? Ayn Rand male equivalent?
5
0

‹ Hide 1 reply
imSofaKingRayZest
12 hours ago
im guessing its the “every single time” crowd
2
0

christophawilkins
16 hours ago
hail
4
0

imSofaKingRayZest
12 hours ago
great to see another talk mate
3
0

squatmech
18 hours ago
There never anything wrong with the volume wtf is wrong with these people it’s like if you get kicked out of hundred bars but with low volume…
1
0

eclipseNF
14 hours ago
What’s the 5 hour stream where is it?
1
0

‹ Hide 1 reply
Hazelmango
Supporter
10 hours ago
https://ftjmedia.com/live/0/DaveGahary/ls/2444
2
0

‹ Hide 1 reply
eclipseNF
9 hours ago
Thanks a lot

imSofaKingRayZest
12 hours ago
whats gonna get too us 1st, terminator or mad max?
1
0

‹ Hide 1 reply
CrazyRecluse
Supporter
1 hour ago
Mad Max. These fuel shortages are serious & AI cannot become conscious – it is built from outside-in, life evolves and self-builds from inside-out.

imSofaKingRayZest
12 hours ago
ive never heard of any abbos trying to claiming other abbo land that was taken in their tribal warfare, but the land whites took on the other hand will always be theirs??? and dna shows the have only been here for about 5000 years, coming from india and they were not the 1st people in australia, the originals were eaten by them.
1
0

TRUTH1488
11 hours ago
Where can I find that james mason podcast
1
0

‹ Hide 1 reply
Hazelmango
Supporter
10 hours ago
https://ftjmedia.com/live/0/DaveGahary/ls/2444
1
0

Tax_Cow
VerifiedSupporter
5 hours ago
Our boomer parents have been hooked on the TV since childhood and they’ve been soaking up jewish propaganda for so long that they aren’t capable of independent thought. Despite whatever their friends and family say, what the TV says is the bottom line. Unwitting agents of our destruction, professing to be enlightened because they watch the talking heads on TV every night.
1
0

CrazyRecluse
Supporter
1 hour ago
Tom, im glad you still give Abos a chunk of land as their own country. African americans & native americans are similar. Thats the best way. I like wat you are doing but im softer on nons. I feel that at this point we may have to give all nons a chunk of western nations, as their own nation. Set cameras up and make documentaries on how they make a clean 1st world society to a 3rd world shithole. Juxtapose it with our first world living. This way we will document in 4D why we will never live with them again. We would play multiple weekly reality TV shows akin ‘Running Man’ & ‘Hunger Games’. This would change our culture. Then we will make museums to store these films and all the injustices we suffered with/from them. Especially the lil caps. Then maybe in the future we might decide to conquer them & retake the land, and put them where we want, maybe isntreal? Or put these brown masses in africa, or somewhere low on resources, since they cant mine them anyway. Tom, I also think 90%+ whyte is a good target. Because the good ones that help us have a reason to. But once we have control we can create policies to reduce their breeding over time: a white centred society; they will admire us or leave; we will be re-morale-ized; etc. If they dont want to accept it, they can always leave. Caramel island is an alternate choice for them too.
1
0

birdhouse456
15 hours ago
The problem with “where is the aboriginal land” is that their concept of it completely different to ours. We look at different metrics. They can’t just pick up and move their culture because it’s linked to place. If they don’t want to give that up they will be motivated to go to war regardless. Or, they’ll just be squeezed out and fade away, because once they are away from their territory the culture doesn’t function. Now we have a hybrid that succeeds at neither way. Maybe there can be agreement with some tribes but others will disappear completely. it’s similar to the clans of the Scottish Highlands. The culture survives, but it’s not what it was.

BossLurker
9 hours ago
Parasites and retards

BossLurker
9 hours ago
The whole “in the past they weren’t truly conservative they were only going off inertia” is actually an extremely good point

‹ Hide 1 reply
BossLurker
8 hours ago
Around 59:27

leibekohne
5 hours ago
Tom you have some criticism from USA NS bit-chute or odysee. The abos solution is good. I will give them a bare-bush land without any infrastructure, also they have to create own if needed financial system with own currency. This is about purity and recuperation of race thus Australia + has to be 100% white otherwise there will be no progress.Those idiots want to convert abos and save theirs lives but had no problem with murdering 35.000 white Boers woman and children. Cake destroyed Egypt Greek Roman empires by usury and by miscegenation. 1000 year of Romans were destroyed by 100 years of Christianity=Judaism 2.0= children blood drinking sacrificing cannibalism. Germany were destroyed in WW2 by another stupid and manipulated white men who should know better. White international unity.

CrazyRecluse
Supporter
56 minutes ago
Tom, I emotionally agree to boot out all leftists, or white antiwhites. But something for you to consider: Richard Spencer says that whites can build because we have all levels of people Elites, managerial class & working class. Dr Ed Dutton “white race functions like a bee hive”. So we might need to select the better ones and put in breeding policies to get them to their 15% balance. Because nearly all managerial class are leftists.

eclipseNF
14 hours ago
More and more blackpilled every single day
2
3

‹ Hide 1 reply
imSofaKingRayZest
12 hours ago
life is struggle mate, learn to laugh in the face of these demons and keep the sprits of our ancestors lovingly in your heart. heil victory
7
0

trvkvlt
2 hours ago
Thomas Sewell is my rabbi
0
1

drshreddie
6 hours ago
you need a better background, the baby blue with the books isnt working. How about a more masculine color with a NSDAP banner? I know this seems trivial but perception is a big deal and your message is important.
0
4

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

See Also

top

 

 

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

Mark Collett: Hello everybody and welcome to tonight’s stream. We’re live on Odysee, Rumble, DLive and Entropy. And I’ve got a wonderful panel for you here tonight to discuss the big issue of, well, the last week or so, and it’s obviously Trump’s war for Israel or Trump’s war on Iran for Israel, to be more precise.

 

Now, the guys I’ve got with me I’ll be introducing shortly. It’s of course Natty and Yuro from the Nationalist A-Team. We’re going to cover some of the things we covered last Sunday quickly. And then we’re going to go deeper into things. Everyone’s going to get roughly an equal time to talk. I’m not going to be putting people on an egg timer, but we’ve probably got nine or ten topics and if everyone puts sort of three, four minutes into each topic, it’ll be about a 90 minute presentation. So stick around. It’s going to be pretty entertaining or at least pretty enlightening.

 

You might have noticed I’m not on camera tonight. My apologies for that it’s not because I’m being rude. Slightly under the weather today, actually. I don’t know whether I sound it and if I do, my apologies. But I am doing my best to essentially be as chirpy as humanly possible, all things considered.

 

Now, if you like this stream, please share it. If you really like this dream, please consider making a donation. Please consider contributing to my work. You can do so via Entropy and also directly through Rumble. Anything that is sent tonight, any Superchat, any donation that has a message attached, the message will be read out live on tonight’s stream.

 

So we will talk about that. So if you’ve got a different point of view, if you’ve got something you want to raise, if you think we’ve missed something, or if you just say:

 

“Look, Mark, I really appreciate the fact that you’ve been consistent for the last, 26 years and I want to keep you fighting even though you’re banned from everywhere.”

 

I appreciate that as well.

 

So thank you in advance for everyone who Superchats. You can also donate by crypto all the crypto links in the description below.

 

And finally you can write to me at mark@thefallofwesternman.com. Although I didn’t answer emails this morning, again under the weather. So sorry guys, back to things on Monday. Unless I’ve got some kind of horrible illness that drags on past then and sort of takes me out, which I’m sure I haven’t. That’s quite a morbid thought. Anyway! We are going to get into it now, but before we do that, let’s go around the group and we’ll introduce everyone.

 

Now, the first is of course Natty. You know him from the Nationalist A-Team and also from numerous other streams that he’s done with me in the past. Natty’s a guy that’s been around since the beginning of PA. He’s been to all the meetings, at conferences, camps, etc, and he’s always someone that everyone likes hearing from.

 

In fact, I always say that if I had a wingman on PWR, it would be this guy here. Natty, how are you doing, my friend? I hope you are well.

 

Natty: Yeah, I’m good. I’m enjoying watching Tel Aviv burn. I’m sure we’re gonna talk about the ins and outs of what that means, but yeah, I’m good apart from that it’s been a bit of a crazy week trying to keep up with everything and I think my wife has suffered constantly looking across at me and seeing my face buried in my phone because I’m trying to, I’m monitoring the situation. But yeah, it’s very interesting times.

 

Mark Collett: Do you ever get it where you’re out on the sort of a supposed family event and the wife’s like:

 

“Why aren’t you paying any attention? All you’re doing is sitting on the phone. What can be so important that you need to be on your phone at this family event?”

 

And you’re like:

 

“Look, you know, Israel is on fire. Tel Aviv is being hit with hypersonic missiles. Chill out!”

 

Natty: It’s like:

 

“Honey, there’s cluster munitions going off above a suburb in Tel Aviv. This is really important. [chuckling] I’m watching it right now! It’s amazing!”

 

Mark Collett: Well, yeah, [chuckling] that’s kind of that’s kind of the str. I’d say that that’s the struggle that we have.!

 

Anyway, we’ve also got Yuro with us tonight. He’s obviously famous because Yuro used to do The Absolute State of Britain podcast.

 

And again, he’s a very able wing man. He has been on the National A-Team standing in for Sam. He always has good takes, he’s a funny guy and sometimes I bully him a bit, which is a little unfair, but that’s because I love him and see him as like my little brother, My little brother who needs the odd sort of monkey scrub and jab in the ribs, but he’s like my little brother, so I still love him.

 

Anyway, Yuro, how are you doing, my friend?

 

Yuro: I’m good. I’ve also been keenly paying attention watching Middle East Spectator and other such channels on Telegram. You know, it’s, I think there’s a lot more censorship obviously during the 12 Day War that was going on between Iran and Israel before. It was very much like:

 

“Well, what can we believe? How much are they not showing you?”

 

And it’s just that more. So we see all of Iran’s failures and then some things that’s like disinfo and we see all of Israel’s successes and then some, and some of that’s disinfo. And it’s kind of hard to even know what’s real.

 

[04:47]

 

Natty: That’s a good point actually because just briefly, it does seem like the information blackout from Israel was way more intense during the 12 Day War. And it seems like now because of the scope and the breadth of everything, just more is getting through or you’re able to find out more. And I’m sure this isn’t true, if you check the BBC or just some other like ZOG regime outlet, you’re not going to be seeing anything hitting Israel. But that’s what everyone’s interested in. That’s what everyone wants to see. [chuckling] You know, how many hypersonics hit Tel Aviv? This time, you know what US asset has just been blown up by a drone in Saudi Arabia or Bahrain or wherever it is. That’s what people are interested in seeing. They want to see the underdog smacking the bully in the mouth. And that’s what happens when a cheap Shahed drone gets through a multi-million dollar interceptor screen and like blows up a THAAD [Terminal High Altitude Area Defense] radar system or something. That’s what everyone’s into, right? Everyone wants to see that. No one wants to see like Iranian suburbs being like caught on fire and hit with JDAMs and hit with Tomahawk missiles because that’s just brutal civilian casualties, which is what ZOG [Zionist Occupied Government] is good at.

 

Yuro: Well, the funny thing is to see America in this war using the copy of the Iranian kamikaze drones. They’ve got their own basically one to one copy of the Shahed drone that they’ve now rolled out and they’re starting to fire back at the Iranians. Because it was just like the near perfect design that they’re like:

 

“We can’t make any better than this. We’re just going to copy it.”

 

Natty: Yeah. You know, for the grand and mighty American empire is reverse engineering Third World brownoid country drones [chuckling] that sound like lawnmowers when they’re flying through the sky!

 

But yeah, that’s what America’s up to these days. I mean, you can’t really claim it’s the European heritage stock that’s like the most genius country in the world. It’s just not that anymore, I’m afraid, guys.

 

Mark Collett: Well, I agree. But we’ve got a lot to talk about. So and we do actually have just. We do have a little sort of running order as well, tonight. I’m not going to read it out, but I was going to post it actually and say:

 

“Look, these are all the things we’ll be discussing.”

 

But there’s a lot to discuss and we’re going to go through things from the start. Now we’re going to speed run some of the bits we talked about on the Nationalist A-Team because for anyone who watched the Nationalist A-Team and enjoys it, look, it is a banger of a stream, except for when I get killed by somebody and get upset.

 

But other than that! It is a good stream. And if you want to watch it, there’s some takes there. And also there’s the Patriarch there as well who provides quite a lot of good comedy.

 

Anyway, so we’re going to start with the wider justification for this because there’s nowhere better to start than the official justification. Now, I’ve seen these videos where Netanyahu, they’re sort of like compilation videos of every time Netanyahu is claimed that Iran is sort of five months, five weeks, you know, two years from getting the atomic bomb. And he’s been doing this, believe it or not, for over 30 years!

 

So the first example I’ve seen of Netanyahu saying that Iran is just moments away from like nuclear weapon capability was actually all the way back in 1995. And the reason that’s interesting, …

 

Yuro: There are people dying in this war on the American side who have not been alive longer than Iran was supposedly two weeks away from a nuclear weapon!

 

Mark Collett: That’s a very good point. That is Yuro. But you get minus points for butting in. You’ve been told about that.

 

Natty: Oh, no [word unclear] battalion!

 

Mark Collett: Wiffle bat to give you a spanking. Right. So these fake nuclear claims that are interesting for two reasons.

 

Firstly, because they are blatantly fake! It’s been, to my knowledge, 31 years. And Yuro does make, … Look to Yuro’s credit, he makes a very good point. You know, the idea that this has been going on longer than some of the people on these American battleships have been alive is incredible!

 

But one thing that struck me immediately with this was I remember living through the time of the Iraq war. And at the time of the Iraq war, Weapons of Mass Destruction became one of the most maligned phrases to have ever been used in British Parliament, to the point that where if you now say “Weapons of Mass Destruction”, it’s sort of synonymous with war crimes, lies and a regime that took us into what was essentially an illegal war. You know, there was no Weapons of Mass Destruction.

 

But one thing that shocks me is this is the kind of thing where people just seem to have either forgotten this or put it to one side.

 

So the Daily Mail is a classic example of this. The Daily Mail is sort of the populist Right-wing, you know, vote Reform, consider voting Conservative newspaper. And they were all against Blair and the Weapons of Mass Destruction and exposing his lies and speaking out about it once it was exposed via the Chilcot inquiry.

 

But now the Daily Mail, like:

 

“We need this war. You know, usually we’re against war, but in this instance, this needs to happen!”

 

And you’ve got all these shill commenters in the sections underneath the Daily Mail articles in the comment sections, and they’re all saying things like:

 

“Oh, I’m against the war, but this is an exception.”

 

And I don’t know whether these are real people, idiot Boomer types or that’s not all Boomers. But you know, the sort. I mean the kind of person that says:

 

“Oh, well, I’m against the people on the small boats, but I would let the genuine refugees in all. Yes! And if somebody comes here and learns to speak English, well, he’s as British as Yorkshire pudding, isn’t he!”

 

Those sort. Is it one of them or is it a shill account?

 

[11:04]

 

But I think it’s really interesting that exactly the same justification for the attack is being used, as was used in Iraq. But the Iraq, War retrospectively is possibly the most maligned conflict and the conflict seen as the most unjust conflict. Probably post World War II. I’d have said that would have gone to Vietnam at one point, but Iraq seems to have, maybe because it’s more recent, seems to have eclipsed that.

 

So what do you guys think?

 

We’ll start with you, Natty. Obviously this is what they’re saying and we’re going to discuss next the real reason and what we think the real reason is. But what do you think to this sort of fake reasoning for going to war?

 

Natty: Well, just listening to you there, I haven’t done this because I was just reminded by what you said. But I’m fairly certain if you went back to the 2000s and had a look at the lead up to the Iraq war, you, amongst the Daily Mail articles, you wouldn’t find opposition to the actual war itself, because none of these publications were really opposed to it in any meaningful way and certainly weren’t like trying to rally people against the war. So you know, post Iraq war when everyone was kind of saying what disaster it was, I’m sure the Daily Mail were jumping on board that.

 

But as even now publications that you would think would be against the war in Iran are kind of talking around the edge of it whilst not decrying the war and certainly not being like anti-war, like proper anti-war publications and laying out all the connections between the Epstein regime and the people connecting in it like Mandelson and like Boris Johnson and Tony Blair and all the rest of it.

 

But yeah, it’s striking. I mean, one of the things I put in the chat earlier was that before this happened. Well, okay, let’s let me take it back a little bit. Before Iraq, the reason why the term “Weapons of Mass Destruction” became such a big thing is because the media and the government, Blair’s regime spent so much time and energy trying to get public approval for it, because they felt like, they obviously felt like they needed it. They needed a justification. They needed something to sell to the British people as to why it was a good idea, why it was necessary to go into Iraq.

 

Now that just hasn’t happened this time. Because I think they understand that the forces controlling the “Epstein Empire” as people are calling it, which is fairly apt, simply are not in the shadows anymore. You know, this stuff has been laid out. Israel is pulling the strings and it’s pulling the strings of America and it’s America’s pulling the strings of Europe because essentially Europe is just a colony of the United States. So they don’t feel they need to justify it so much.

 

Now, obviously there’s like regime mouthpieces and stoolies like Tommy Robinson and Douglas Murray, the Daily Mail and all the rest of it, who are now going out there and running cover and trying to make this war popular or make it so that it seems like:

 

“Well, it’s not a job any of us want to do, but it’s necessary and we need to do this for stability and peace!”

 

But I just don’t think the public are buying it. And the public for the most part didn’t buy it with Iraq, but that doesn’t stop that happening. And they’re not buying it with Iran either.

 

But there hasn’t been a groundswell of opposition to it in the same way as Iraq because they haven’t spent so long trying to justify it. And for a lot of people this just came out the blue. Not for anyone who’s kind of a properly dissident to the kind of Epstein Empire. This didn’t come out of the blue. This was fairly predictable. But probably just for your average person sitting at home and getting on with life, this kind of immediate blow up in the Middle East, where oil prices are about to skyrocket, petrol prices creeping up and we’re probably about to experience an energy crisis, just came out straight out of the blue! And the justifications, unlike Iraq, are all post hoc. They, it wasn’t a media build up to a war, it’s like a media cover plot after the war has started.

 

Yuro: What I find interesting as well is as you say, with the Iraq thing, there was a lot of build up and there was:

 

“Let’s get the UN involved, let’s condemn them, let’s build a coalition, let’s get Britain involved.”

 

But the other thing is they never said Iraq has a nuke. It was always this nebulous “Weapons of Mass Destruction”. And it’s kind of like the, well, we’re going to say that they have Weapons of Mass Destruction and that’s like we will say:

 

“Oh, actually they have chemical weapons which we’re going to classify as Weapons of Mass Destruction. And we’re going to hope that we can gin that up in people’s minds to be like, ‘Oh, they have a nuclear weapon’.”

 

And it was like:

 

“We won’t explicitly state they have a nuclear weapon. We’ll just try and make people think they have a nuclear weapon.”

 

And then there was the thing about:

 

“They can strike us in 45 minutes with their Weapons of Mass Destruction!”

 

But now they just come out and say:

 

“They’re building a nuke!”

 

It’s not Weapons of Mass Destruction. And as you say, that’s because the term is just completely lost all validity. You know, people at the moment, they hear that, they just know it’s Iraq, War 2. But they’re not even like trying to do that lesser thing.

 

It’s kind of like what they do with racism, where you’ve got like the small definition and the big definition. The Weapons of Mass Destruction is like what they do with racism.

 

So if you’re a “racist”, it’s like you just think that different people are different and you care about your own people. Well, that’s a racist. But the moment you get labelled a racist, it’s like you’re a “supremacist who wants to murder everyone who’s not you”. Well, the Weapons of Mass Destruction is chemical weapons could be a weapon of mass destruction, but the moment you get labelled with that, all of a sudden:

 

“You’ve got nukes, you’re dangerous!”

 

[17:31]

 

Natty: Yeah. And the 45 minute claim was like, they can hit the tip of Cyprus. If they drive a Scud launcher right to the edge of the Iraqi border and fire it, they might just be able to hit Cyprus! And that was translated into British headlines as “British territory”. Yeah:

 

“They can hit us in 45 minutes! Oh my God, the sky’s falling!”

 

And the reality was, it was Scud missiles and some Sarin gas artillery shells which have a range of about 10 or 15 kilometers, which they used in Halabja [1988 against Kurds] apparently. I mean, we saw, I, we got trained on that in the CBRA regiment of what happened in Halabja with the Sarin gas shells. But that was passed into, like you said, Weapons of Mass Destruction. Very nebulous. Well, not easy to disseminate term, but very little detail and very little meaning. And you could say to people:

 

“Well, they’ve got Scud launches on trucks which can fly however many kilometers it is, and they’ve got some Sarin gas shells.”

 

But these, in terms of where the United Kingdom is and the rest of Europe, these are absolutely meaningless! And again, it was just to justify the Greater Israel Project and take out one of Israel’s enemies and destroy one of Israel’s enemies.

 

Yuro: Well, I was having to think about this before we started this stream. And I said to myself, you know:

 

“There is one state, there is a rogue state in the Middle East that has Weapons of Mass Destruction.”

 

And by that I mean a boatload of actual nuclear weapons. And they have the capability of targeting Britain, …

 

Natty: And if rumours are to be believed, then the Samson Option is a real thing and Israel is the lunatic state that has no compunction about using these things. Now, I don’t know if that’s a real thing or whether that’s just something that gets disseminated to scare everyone.

 

But you’ve got to remember the only people who have used nukes as an actual weapon of war against living targets is the Epstein Regime in the Second World War. And I don’t separate the people who are running America now from those people. I mean, it’s the same group of people.

 

Yuro: If you look at the way that they behave on the world stage, the way that they behave against the Palestinians, the way that they behave against the Iranians, it wouldn’t be out of character for them to just lash out at everyone else for “not defending them hard enough”. But according to the publicly available information, they have intercontinental ballistic missiles with a range of 11 and a half thousand kilometers, which basically means they can hit everywhere on the planet with the exception of kind of east Australia, New Zealand and some bits of South America.

 

Natty: So those parts of South America where all the Nazis fled to, so unfortunately they [chuckling] can’t touch them!

 

Yuro: The parts where Javier Milei, who’s converted to Judaism, is currently in charge.

 

Natty: Oh no!

 

Yuro: And they might also not be able to quite hit Mexico where (((Claudia Sheinbaum))) is in charge.

 

Mark Collett: Oh, dear! Well, talking about the control that jews wield, let’s talk about what we think is the real reason for this.

 

Now, I’m going to go straight out and say it. I believe the real reason for this is the Greater Israel Project. I think the Greater Israel Project is something that has gathered pace in the last few years, especially under Trump. We’ve seen the attacks on Gaza, we’ve seen the attacks on Lebanon. We’ve seen the fall of the Syrian regime, which was obviously heavily influenced by Israel, who were helping Islamic terrorists in the region. You know, the head chopper ones that we’re told are the great threat to peace and justice and decency, yet Israel is actually supporting those people!

 

And we’ve also seen Israel be involved in the fall of other regimes. Israel were famously involved. And this came out in the Chilcot Inquiry. I actually did a video on this. Israel were very famously involved with meeting, … And Tony Blair admitted this under oath in the Chilcot Inquiry. He met influential jewish leaders from the then current Israeli regime. And he said:

 

“The meetings had nothing to do with military intelligence. They had everything to do with overall strategy and long term goals.”

 

So take that as you will. But I’m taking that as they were heavily involved in getting rid of Saddam Hussein.

 

[22:24]

 

And I think it’s obviously within Israel’s interest to topple almost every sovereign regime in the region. And they do this quite openly. They are doing it more openly now. They’re getting away with it, sadly. And this is a blatant example of that. Although they’ve loosely talked about the nuke thing, like we said, Natty did make an important point that they felt it’s less necessary to sell this like they sold the Iraq, War. And in some interviews, members of the American regime have simply said:

 

“Yeah, we just want to kill these people. We want to kill them, we want to take them out. This is about regime change. This is about Israel.”

 

And I believe it was Marco Rubio, the Secretary of State, who said:

 

“It was Israel who forced our hand. They began this and we are there to defend them and assist them. So when they began the attacks, we were forced into going along with it.”

 

Now, Trump then furiously denied this, but it’s a very interesting admission from Marco Rubio.

 

So I think this is all about the Greater Israel Project. And I believe that has been the driving force or the driving ideology behind the destabilisation of the Middle East.

 

Natty: Yeah, totally! And it kind of behooves me to say this and to get people to realise that whereas we’re living kind of day to day and prices of things go up and you’re worried about your children. We’ve been totally separated from any idea of our history and our lineage and where we’ve come from and where we might be going.

 

So it’s kind of hard to understand for us the jewish mindset. And this is a plan that’s been in the making for a very long time, years, decades, where once Israel was created and they have a vision of the Greater Israel Project. There’s a whole, there’s a list of countries. Libya, Syria, Iraq, Iran, Egypt. And through various machinations, they’ve all been, one by one, they’ve been taken out or pacified. Egypt is basically paid off by the United States and is under the sway of Israel, has a border with Israel, but it doesn’t do anything about their genociding of the Palestinians and the destabilising and eventual collapse of the Syrian state. What happened in Libya with Gaddafi ending up with a bayonet up his bum, dragged out into the street, and the subsequent flooding of Europe with migrants, which is a kind of side issue we can get onto if you want. But all of this, …

 

Mark Collett: I’ve got that further down the line, mate, that comes at the end, if you look at the show notes, I’ve actually said:

 

“You know, what are the actual repercussions for this, both for the West and for the Middle East?”

 

And that’s one of the things we will talk about.

 

Natty: Yeah, for sure. And it’s clear now, I mean, in my opinion and the opinion of other people who have been following this, that the reason Trump was so heavily pushed into a second term was that the people who are running him and the jews in Israel believe that he was the best chance of getting this done. You know, this final push to topple Iran, which basically gets rid of the last bastion of resistance to Israel. And you’ve got to think:

 

“Well, why is Israel so hell bent on getting rid of people who resist them?”

 

You think, well, the people who are opposing them, the only real people who are opposing them, committing genocide in Gaza, Europe was on board with it. The United States was supplying them with bombs and had carrier groups in the Mediterranean. The United Kingdom, our own government, was flying surveillance flights over Gaza and letting Cyprus be used as a refueling and an air base for Israel. So Europe was aiding in the genocide in Gaza.

 

And it was only Hezbollah and you know, funded via Iran that was really attacking, and the Houthi rebels in Yemen, who were attacking Israel and trying to hold them account for genociding the Gazan people. And that’s unacceptable for Israel to have that resistance in the region, even though the attacks on it are totally justified and being used as like, defense against people who are being hurt and destroyed in this like, brutal way by this lunatic, lunatic group of people who have been squatting on the edge of a Mediterranean.

 

So the justifications the real justification is the toppling of Iran as a coherent state. And I’ll touch on this before I pass this over to Yuro. But there’s talk of regime change. You know, that’s what they say:

 

“We’re trying to enact regime change here.”

 

But that isn’t quite true. They’re not really interested in a regime swap where they swap one regime for another. What they’re interested in is total destabilisation! Just like with Syria, just like with Iraq, just like with Libya, where these are just failed states with tribal warlords with like Mossad and CIA run groups running around HTS, ISIS, all of these people. Which means no coherent defense, no missile bases, no civil defense, nothing! Just a load of groups that you can pay this group to fight this group and you know, you can pay these guys or stop paying these guys and just let chaos reign while Israel just expands and expands and expands and gets to do what it wants.

 

You know, kind of reminiscent, I’ll just finish on this. Kind of reminiscent to how if you import millions and millions of foreign people into a small island nation, it also becomes destabilised and coherent resistance or coherent defense or coherent politics kind of become very difficult and a very well motivated minority can rule the lot! So there’s your answer as to the real reasons for this war.

 

[28:45]

 

 

Yuro: A few things I wanted to pick up on there. Just as Mark was speaking, you kept using the term “regime”. And that’s like one of those MKUltra trigger words that they’ve put in people’s minds that like “regime is bad, regime is authoritarian, evil government”. It was all it was always the “Saddam regime” and the “Iran regime”. They’re just governments. They’re a different form of government. You know some of them are more or less Democratic than others, but it’s like this regime thing is a trigger word. And along that same lines, Natty, you mentioned the Houthis as “rebels”. I think the ones that we call Houthis are pretty much just the government of Yemen now. I mean, and they have pockets of what’s left of the people that they overthrew. But they’re basically just the government of Yemen. They’re not rebels anymore. They’re not a regime, they’re just that government.

 

But obviously this was all part of a plan. This is something that they’ve been going at for a very long time. They had the Project for a New American Century [PNAC] where they said we want to hit like seven countries in 10 years. And they’ve basically got all of them.

 

I mean, they wanted to get Iraq, they wanted to get Syria, they wanted to get Libya, and of course it’s neocon jews behind it all.

 

So that’s been happening for a very long time. There’s a reason why they caught a bunch of jewish Israelis dancing on 911*, already filming before the first plane went into those towers. They were dancing around, they were happy because they knew that was the excuse that they needed to start their own genocidal campaign. And it’s like dominoes falling. They get this one, then they get that one. And I mean, what happens to Libya? He, Gaddafi, gave up his weapons, chemical weapons and things like that.

 

[* 9/11: A false flag carried out by ZOG with Israel being the lead behind its planning and execution. The aim was to unleash the War OF Terror on the countries around Israel, among other aims. See See Also links below, especially the work by Christopher Bollyn.]

 

And as soon as they were gone, they were like:

 

“Right, well he’s defenseless, we can go in there and kill him now!”

 

So that’s what they proceeded to do.

 

And the other thing as well, like looking at what they’re doing to Iran, I mean, you talked about them wanting to destabilise them. As far as I understand, because they can’t really hit these military targets. They don’t know exactly where all the underground bases are and where they’re being launched from. So they’re targeting, I mean, apart from like primary schools for girls and things like that, which they do just because they’re evil and want to blow up kids when they’re not abusing kids in other ways, they’re just like targeting police stations and things like that. Just like blow up all the police stations in the country and hope it destabilises that way!

 

And of course they had this gayop a few weeks ago, maybe a month ago now, where they tried to incite some sort of terrorist uprising in Iran and that failed.

 

And obviously they wanted to coincide these two things at the same time.

 

Natty: But I was going to say that was obviously hilariously mistimed. [chuckling] Right? So they fermented this terrorist uprising and meanwhile they haven’t got all like the military assets in place to strike it. I mean, you might have a better idea of this than me, you guys, but maybe they thought in the January uprisings that they like funded all these terrorist groups to try and overthrow the government of Iran. Maybe they thought that it was still going to be going on now while they moved all these carrier groups and pulled their troops out of the Gulf oil state bases. Maybe they thought it was still going to be going on and that the Iran government was still going to be fighting these guys, but it was crushed within like a few days. Right!

 

Yuro: I have a feeling that maybe they were trying to like wait a little bit longer, but it was about to be compromised and they thought:

 

“If we don’t do it now, we miss the opportunity entirely.”

 

So they had to launch it. And they spent so long getting carriers into place to attack Iran because they’ve had these problems with the sewage system on the Gerald Ford, which obviously some people are saying that’s like a deliberate thing, that soldiers or sailors have clogged the tubes on purpose to destroy the system because they don’t want to go and die and be the next false flag. But they’ve had problems with that before. So it’s not entirely out of the realms of possibility that it is sort of coincidental to some degree.

 

But yeah, obviously that was something that delayed them. So I mean we can be glad about that because it’s meant that Iran’s not facing these two things at the same time.

 

Natty: I’m not sure. Look, I’m not a, like a military analyst or anything, but I’m not sure even if the like Epstein empire, the Epstein regime, had fermented this terrorist uprising whilst they carried out this first strike against Khomeini in a little girl’s school for some reason, whether if those two things occurred, coincided, even then, whether they’d have been able to pull off this kind of toppling of the regime. It seems like, …

 

Yuro: Regime?

 

Natty: Look, [chuckling] it’s the word everyone uses here! I can try, but I’m as susceptible to the MKUltra* terms as everyone else. Right? I’m just not sure it would have worked even if they had pulled it off at the same time.

 

[* MKUltra was a covert program run by the CIA from 1953 to 1973. Its primary goal was to explore methods of mind control and behavior modification through various means, including drugs and psychological techniques. MKUltra is widely condemned for its unethical practices, including: Lack of Consent: Many subjects were unaware they were part of experiments. Abusive Techniques: Included torture, isolation, and drugging without consent. The term MKUltra is a CIA cryptonym: “MK” is an arbitrary prefix standing for the Office of Technical Service and “Ultra” is an arbitrary word out of a dictionary used to name this project.]

 

Mark Collett: Well, look, we’re going to go on to that anyway, so let’s move a little bit further forward because there are other things we want to talk about.

 

Now, I think the next thing we need to talk about, we’ve placed this into context, talk about the Greater Israel Project. Now I think the next thing that’s very important is discussing the issue of these fake negotiations that America has had with the likes of Iran before all of this kicked off.

 

And they obviously had similar sort of fake negotiations with, I think it was Venezuela, didn’t they? And then they go in anyway. This is something that America started doing, you know, fake negotiations, but then we come and get you anyway.

 

[35:06]

 

Yuro: I think they had a similar thing with the, like Hezbollah and Hamas, didn’t they?

 

Mark Collett: Yeah, there’s multiple examples.

 

But what I’m getting at is a real, and we won’t labour this because we spoke about this extensively on the Nationalist A-Team the other night, but when we were talking about that, we did make the point that fundamentally at one point the idea of going in somewhere you know, negotiating, but then using negotiations as a reason or as an excuse to then hit another country. So the negotiations aren’t real negotiations. They’re cover that gets the other side to drop their guard. So, it’s like walking up somebody in a bar saying:

 

“Look, mate, let’s just settle this amicably. Let me buy you a drink. What do you want?”

 

And when the other guy turns to have a look at the list of craft beers, you sucker punch him! You know, that’s an underhanded thing to do. Everyone would be like:

 

“Wow, that’s pretty much scandalous! We don’t want to see that kind of behaviour. That’s the kind of behaviour that’s not becoming of an honourable man.”

 

And there used to be this narrative that the West was honourable, that we were the good guys. And I’ll say these fake negotiations are being used as a means to cover up an attack which is I’m imminent. I do think that is a really shady thing to do.

 

And I think that as time goes by, we are going to see more and more people be unwilling to negotiate with the West. Like, why would Vladimir Putin or China or any other nation, North Korea, negotiate with Trump? Why would any foreign leader trust going to America or sitting in a negotiation room with the Americans when they assassinate leaders, carry out fake negotiations, use the hand of friendship to lock their opponent’s hand in place before they sucker punch them? You know, it’s like holding one hand out to shake the other guy’s hand and when he starts giving the handshake, you just sucker punch them! You know, it’s awful! I mean, what do you guys think to this?

 

I think this is going to fundamentally change the way, the implication of this, is going to change the way that every other nation does business with America. And it’ll put America on a even people like the Europeans, who are essentially vassal states of America, are not going to be trusting of Trump again or America.

 

Yuro: Well, Europe is already not going to be trusting of Trump and America because of the whole thing with Greenland for a start. But I mean, I hope at the end of this, obviously Iran’s going to hold out. They’re going to continue to resist until America and Israel, …

 

Mark Collett: This is the summation, what you hope for comes at the end, like, stay on, …

 

Yuro: It’s related to this! It’s related to this. I was going to say I hope that Israel and America run out of interceptor missiles. Iran fights them to a standstill. And they say:

 

“Right, we will negotiate with Trump in this place.”

 

He goes there to negotiate, and then, …

 

Natty: They just blow him up! [chuckling]

 

Yuro: And it would be entirely justified on moral grounds and on the grounds that it’s already been done to them.

 

Natty: They would cry bitter tears if the same tactics they had used, these same underhand, cowardly, sniveling, weak tactics were used on them! And this is something to point out to. I say I’m gonna use Boomer, but, like, Boomer mindset, Civnat, kind of Tommy Robinson-tard mindset where like:

 

“Oh, yeah, no, we’re the good guys and we should stamp these dirty terrorists into the ground! They’re terrorists!”

 

It’s like your pedo jew empire assassinates little girls for some reason, I guess because they’ve just got bloodlust and we can talk about the Purim Fest, if we want. Assassinates little girls, assassinates world leaders, which is supposed to be off the table. Totally violates, like, any notion of the Geneva Convention or the kind of rules of war and does it in a cowardly way. This is like your medieval knight marching out to the front of a battle under a white flag to negotiate terms and then just pulling a knife and stabbing the negotiator. Your entire army would be, they’re like, forfeit. And the enemy army would be totally justified in just slaughtering prisoners and like, just pillaging and doing whatever it wants at that stage! You’ve set the rules. You’re supposed to be the powerful, the one who’s setting out exactly how things are going to go down. And you open the conflict or the latest round of the conflict with an underhand cowardly assassination under the flag of truce and blowing up 170 schoolgirls! Well, I’m sorry, but what space have you now given for quarters? None! And no one’s going to trust you, and they shouldn’t trust you.

 

And the other world powers looking on Russia and China, who we’re going to touch on in a little while, like Mark said, they’re not going to be trustworthy. They’re going to have that in their minds anytime America tries to talk to them, anytime the jew empire reaches out to say:

 

“Oh, we just want to discuss the Ukraine war and negotiate terms in the Ukraine war.”

 

And like, Yuro said, they would be totally justified in shooting down like diplomatic planes, like bombing, like delegations, peace delegations, assassinating the head of state. Who’s to tell anyone now that that is a wrong or immoral thing to do now that supposedly the world police and a global superpower and the most moral army in the world, Israel, has carried out exactly that, such a thing.

 

And I don’t need to belabour the point, but they’ve been doing this for a long time. And you can look back as far as Dresden and the nuclear bombs dropped on Japan, to say:

 

“Well, that’s how these people act! And people who oppose them should act accordingly and plan accordingly.”

 

[41:35]

 

 

Mark Collett: Well, I agree. And not only this or not only what you guys have said, but I do think it’s very interesting that on top of everything you guys have said, there is also the issue of Russia and Zelensky.

 

Now obviously if Russia had wanted to, they could have bombed Kiev, day one of the conflict and absolutely just beheaded the regime. Now Russia never did that. Now I’m not saying Russia are the good guys or shilling for Russia, but it is an interesting comparison to see that everything that Russia has been accused of, the West has done and the West has done it in a much more sort of egregious fashion. It’s quite interesting.

 

And this so-called “Axis of Evil” now appears to be far less evil than the “good guys”. The “good guys” have shown, I said that in inverted commas. Have shown their hand. They’ve, it’s a mask off moment. I don’t know if anyone wants to add something to this because we did talk about this a lot, but I’ll give you the chance to follow up if anyone wants to talk about this.

 

Natty: Yeah, go on. Yuro, you go first.

 

Yuro: I was just gonna say it’s a complete moral inversion. It’s, we are supposedly the good guys because we fight against the bad guys. And they’re all terrorists. They’re inherently evil. I was listening to, I think this was on the Daily Shoah they were talking about basically the term “terrorist” is a social construction. It’s just a word we can use to label somebody and all of a sudden their grievances illegitimate. We don’t have to stick to the rules of engagement. We can just murder them, we can murder their families and put them in jail. We just put this label on them and they are inherently evil.

 

But you know, the Ayatollah was never in the Epstein files. That’s the difference.

 

Natty: Yeah, the Ayatollah never called me a goyim or demographically replaced my people or ethnically cleansed my people. So you know, what beef do I have with the Ayatollah, at this point? And like Mark was saying, the Russians opened Ukraine, the Ukraine conflict by striking out military targets. They were landing at Hostomel Airport and controlling like major supply routes. And the Jewpedo regime starts its war with an assassination of a leader, or a spiritual leader. Not a military strategist or anything like that. A spiritual leader who’s in his 80s as well as his granddaughter and his family members all blown up. And like blowing up a school with 12 to 17 year old school girls in it. Now you tell me, yeah, you tell me who the bad guys are.

 

Yuro: It’s worth pointing out as well that the entire war in Ukraine or although it was something that had been kind of slowly building up for a while, that NATO had been expanding further and further eastward, it was really brought to the fore because Russia was supporting Assad in Syria. And the Epstein empire had to take out Syria in order to stop Iranian weapons getting to Hezbollah and getting to Gaza.

 

And so they started this whole other conflict to take Russia’s focus away from helping their allies in Syria. And that allowed them to get in there and destroy Syria. And it’s all part of the same program.

 

Natty: The same grand strategy. Yeah, I think people, a lot of people kind of don’t seem to understand that. They’re like:

 

“Well that seems, that seems too far fetched that the Pedojew regime would start a war with Russia in Ukraine just to help topple the Syrian government. Or the Pedo jew regime would kidnap a South American president just to support an ongoing or like support a future war against Iran with oil, you know, oil routes and all the rest of it.”

 

Because people are like:

 

“No, that can’t be right, you know, 50,000 Ukrainian men dead and God knows how many Russian men dead just to tie up Russian forces to leave Syria exposed?”

 

It’s like:

 

“Yeah, that’s how these people think. That’s what they’re willing to do.”

 

And that’s what they did do. And in Syria, Russian troops, Russian air power in Syria was halting Israeli aggression and you know, Western aggression. It was the CIA, it was MI6 and was Mossad, was paying ISIS, which has now become HTS, which is basically ISIS, to mess up Syria and mess with Assad and sanctions on Assad’s government that was turning the place inhospitable. Making it so that just to live there was pain and it wasn’t the government was obviously suffering and trying its best, but the people suffer when you put sanctions on a country. So on behest of like jewish paedophiles and Israel, America just makes people’s lives a misery around the world, everywhere! You know, Ukrainian men dead, Syrian families wiped out, little girls in Iran, hundreds of thousands of civilians everywhere, in Iraq, in Gaza, in Libya, all dead! Because jewish paedophiles just cannot get enough blood.

 

Yuro: And until the extent that they have any support for the Israeli regime in places like the UK, people in the UK who support Israel, they see this as a war against the Muslims. And they hate Muslims because of what gangs of Pakistani men do to White girls after jewish people like Peter Mandelson and his friend Tony Blair, people like that brought them to our country.

 

And it works for them both ways because it destroys the youth of the British people. It destroys our homogeneous country. It creates resentment against Muslims which they can then use and say:

 

“Well, don’t you hate the Muslims, you hate the Pakistanis who are raping children over here!”

 

[48:08]

 

 

Natty: Yeah:

 

“Live vicariously as we bomb them in the Middle East. Oh, we’re getting those dirty Muslims for you know, goyim! Don’t worry, we’re bombing them. You love it, don’t you? Rah, rah, ra! Let’s go Israel! Israel’s defending you! If we weren’t fighting them here, you’d be fighting them in your streets!”

 

Well, how? Okay, thanks, Schlomo. How did they get onto my streets in the first place? Anyone fancy answer that, answering that question?

 

Mark Collett: No, that’s a very good point. Now obviously we discussed that.

 

So when we discussed the Ayatollah being killed, we’ve discussed the schoolgirls being killed. I mean, know, as you said, the paedophiles are now murdering children. And this says something about America and Israel.

 

Now, I don’t think this was an accident. I don’t think that school being hit was in any way an accident. I think they did that on purpose. I think that’s the sort of people that they are. I think they do things like this because it pleases them to do things like this. And it pleases them to do things like this because to them this is they could avoided doing this, but they don’t want to avoid doing this. What they want to do is they want to cause as much hurt and pain as possible. Now these missile systems that they have, they are probably the best missile systems in the world. They understand where they can strike and where they can’t strike. Those missiles are pretty damn accurate.

 

So when they hit a school, I think that’s by some sort of sick design. I don’t believe it’s accidental. I don’t know if you guys want to add anything to that.

 

Natty: Yeah, there’s a term called “sub-metre accuracy” and I think Tomahawk missiles, I’m not sure about JDAMs, but certainly Tomahawk missiles and the types of missiles that the Jewpedo regime uses all have sub-metre accuracy.

 

So the claims about:

 

“Well, this girl school was next to a Iranian military base or something.”

 

These munitions have sub-metre accuracy, which means they can target within a metre, which is where they drop these bombs. I mean, are we supposed to pretend that the Pedojew regime is somehow like squeamish about blowing up children and civilians? A regime that goes out of its way to target hospitals and suburbs and then when it’s blown up the hospitals and suburbs, then blows up the tent cities that spring up around it to house all the refugees and injured people that you’ve just like totally displaced.

 

So these people are not squeamish about killing civilians then. They never have been. They never have been. Not for the last 70 years and probably not before that.

 

Yuro: We’re always told that we have the most advanced, precise, ultra accurate munitions. We can take out a terrorist in a crowd without killing anyone else:

 

“Oh, look, we dropped a bomb dead centre on that school. Total accident! We don’t know how it happened!”

 

Do you remember when they were attacking Gaza? I mean they’re always attacking Gaza, but in particular in the aftermath of October 7th and there were various organisations that went there to try to provide food relief and they had a car with a big logo on the top that says, “Food Kitchen”. It’s a non-governmental organisation, it’s a charity that’s bringing food to starving people in Gaza. And they sent a munition. It’s like a missile, but instead of a bomb, it’s got just like razor blades all around it.

 

And you can see the picture of the car, they sent it straight through the roof, directly on top of the driver’s seat and cut that man to bits! That’s how accurate they can be when they want to be. So they have the ability to do that they have the ability to do it. It is not an accident when they, …

 

Natty: The other interesting thing about the strike on the girls school was in the immediate aftermath, like there were shills online, there were online shills and righttoids and jews and all sorts of like scum coming out the woodwork claiming again, like they used to do in Gaza or like they have done in Gaza, that:

 

“Oh, this was an Iranian missile that kind of missed a target or misfired as they fired it out of Tehran and fell back on the girl school.”

 

Which was utterly disproved! And yet, you know, none of the people who were claiming this was like an Iranian misfire will ever be held to account or ever be made to apologise or made to like confront their lies about what this was. So the misinformation is hot and heavy.

 

But if you think, like I said, I’m going to reiterate this, if you think the Pedojew regime is squeamish about blowing up children, you’re mistaken. They’re not squeamish about blowing them up. Probably the only disappointing thing for the Pedojew regime is that these girls were blown up and didn’t have a chance to be like, sent off to Epstein’s island or something like that.

 

[53:08]

 

Mark Collett: Thank you. The next thing is, this is quite interesting because it’s not the first time that Israel have admitted to bombing civilian populations. And we’ve discussed that they did it in Lebanon. They do it quite indiscriminately, they do it in Gaza.

 

But one thing’s quite interesting about these particular bombings and you guys made the point that they were bombing police stations. And I think they believe that they bombed police stations and took out government leaders and spiritual leaders, that there was going to be a revolution. And we’ve constantly heard this nonsense in the West, haven’t we? That the Iranian regime is hideously unpopular, that normal people in Iran hate the Ayatollah, they hate the government, the police, every organ of the state. I’d actually say more people in Britain hate Keir Starmer than people in Iran hate the Ayatollah.

 

But one thing that’s been very interesting is post these strikes and these indiscriminate missile attacks on schools, police stations and other sites around Tehran, we’ve seen more people out in the street supporting the Iranian government and wanting to fight back against America. I think that really underlines the fact that this idea that the Iranian people are all kept down, they have the Ayatollah’s boot on their head, this is nothing more than propaganda.

 

Natty: Oh, of course! It’s quite interesting to juxtapose it.

 

Can you imagine like a protest, or a march with hundreds of thousands of people ever coming out for any European government? I mean, the closest you got in the West was Trump, right? And that is quickly turned to ash in a lot of people’s mouths. He’s been exposed as basically just another neocon.

 

But if you put yourself in the shoes of like an Iranian, a normal Iranian citizen who’s just watched every single country where his kind of ethnic people, I know that Persians are maybe looked at differently than other people are on the Gulf states, whatever. All the other countries around him who aren’t in league with Israel have been like, brutally broken up and just left as failed states. Well, you’re going to want to cling to anything that stands up to these people and anything that resists being destroyed by them, because you know that if your government falls, that’s the end of any semblance of stability or normality you’ve got. You’re just going to have to either flee or deal with a failed state of a nation. So, of course they support it!

 

And you listen to like the BBC or Piers Morgan or some of these shows and you would think that, …

 

Mark Collett: Andrew Neil!

 

Natty: Yeah, he’s the worst! He’s a total Zio boot licker, man! I’m surprised he hasn’t drowned in jewish semen! [LOL] But like, you listen to these people and you’d think that every single person in Iran is just waiting, crouched behind their door, ready to rise up and take out this hugely unpopular government that everyone hates.

 

And like you said, there’s no government in Europe or anywhere in the West that is as popular with its people as the Iranian government. So take that as you will.

 

Yuro: Obviously, you know, Iran, I mean, I’m guessing, but much like most of the Middle East is awash with weapons from previous gayops and plans that we’ve had to overthrow them in the past.

 

But if you turn this around and let’s say some foreign actor blew up Parliament with every MP in it and blew up every diversity police station across the country and just dropped a bunch of weapons the chance of having a revolution would be much more likely here than it ever would be over there!

 

Natty: Yeah. And just to add on to this point, funnily enough, the strikes on Bahrain, and Bahrain’s a tiny little island nation. I mean, it used to be part of Iran. But the strikes on Bahrain look like they might actually foment a revolution because they’re kind of the Pedojew empire installed monarchy in Bahrain has lost its grip thanks to the Americans retreating and the actual people in Bahrain absolutely hate their rulers. And possibly, you know, news blackout and all the rest of it might actually foment a popular revolution in Bahrain and change governments there, [chuckling] which is supposed to be like a stronghold for the American empire and the Epstein regime and the headquarters of the Fifth Fleet, which controls the Persian Gulf or it used to control the Persian Gulf until the Pedojew regime started this war. So yeah, good one, guys. How’s it going? How’s this war going for you?

 

Mark Collett: Well, I would say that you’ve got a very good point there. And it’s a good point because we are moving on to how is this war going? Well, this is the interesting thing. Trump was elected as the guy who was going to be the President of peace and he was also elected on this America First ticket.

 

The idea that he was going to look after the average American. Now since Iran has closed the Strait of Hormuz, we’ve seen sort of panic buying. Oil prices have spiked. This is something that isn’t helping normal Americans who are already struggling with Trump’s idiotic tariffs.

 

And I would say, for Trump, when you actually look at, you say, how’s it going for him personally? It’s not going well domestically, but his approval ratings are at an all time low. They’re actually beneath his previous approval ratings for his first term and actually beneath Biden’s approval ratings. Now he’s getting savaged.

 

Now obviously he’s going out on TV:

 

“Oh, none of these mean anything. This is rubbish! The people love me!”

 

And I’ve spoken about this before. Post World War II don’t think any Western leader has built a cult of personality as intense as Trump has done with the MAGA movement. Trump has truly built a cult of personality where people see him as the supreme leader.

 

But I think that can be a good thing and it can be a bad thing! It’s a good thing because you have a dedicated support base. It’s a bad thing because often you become insulated and you only listen to that dedicated support base. And because you have that insulation, because you have that ring of people cheering you on and like:

 

“Up Trump! Yeah, you’re doing it right! You’re getting it right! Donald’s got it perfect! Bomb them all!”

 

You don’t actually hear the people outside of your immediate circle. And I think Trump has got this wrong. I think this is going to bring more misery on normal Americans. And I also think it could cost the Republicans the midterm.

 

[1:00:51]

 

 

Yuro: I don’t think Trump got this wrong. I think Trump did this because his handlers wanted him to do this. I mean, was it Marco Rubio who basically came out and said Israel told us they were going to attack and when they attacked, we were going to get hit in response, so we just had to join them, basically, the tail wags the dog. We had to join in. They forced our hand.

 

And of course, Trump’s all over the Epstein files. He’s part of the Epstein class. He is part of that jewish Zionist Occupied Government [ZOG]. He’s not doing it because he thinks it’s going to make him popular. He’s doing it because he is either severely compromised or that’s just his team.

 

Natty: Yeah. And to assume that Trump cares anymore, I mean, he’s not up for a third term. And if he doesn’t care, do you think the jews who are running him and the Epstein, whoever takes over from Epstein cares about Trump’s reputation or cares even less about the American people and what they want? They were just dupes who were fooled into voting for him. And you can say:

 

“Well, the 2016 Trump train.”

 

Which was a lot more based and had a lot more kind of like groundswell, Right-wing energy behind it. Well:

 

“They were tricked as well. Right?”

 

But if you fell for it again and voted for him this time, they really must despise you and just think you’re the most stupid person ever going! And it’s been proven right. I mean, Trump has now burned any credibility he’s had. This is an extremely unpopular war, but it doesn’t matter. His reputation isn’t on the line anymore, and it’s not a consideration for the people pulling his strings. They wanted this war done. Trump was their best shot of getting it done. And so they’ve got him to enact it.

 

And what we’re seeing is the fallout. And who knows where this ends? I’m sure we’re going to move on to that point. But the suffering of the American people, the suffering of European people is not any concern to these people! And you might argue that European suffering and American suffering is just a little bit of icing on their cake.

 

Yuro: This is something that they’ve wanted for decades and they’ve realised that as time’s gone on its getting less and less possible. So they’ve done it now because now is more likely than tomorrow as bad as it is and as badly as they’re doing and not winning what they want to be. If they’d waited longer, they would have had even less chance.

 

So it’s just like it’s do or die. It’s all out now because they’ve got no other choice.

 

Natty: Right. That’s what I totally agree with that.

 

And what I’m saying is the considerations that like a rational government that cared about its people would make, and there’s going to be an energy crisis, our people are going to die in this war. It’s hugely unpopular. This doesn’t benefit us in the slightest. None of that is like, none of that is in consideration. And it’s clear when you listen to people that they don’t quite understand that. And you listen to like the media class trying to justify this war and just grasping for anything.

 

Whereas like the reality, the truth, that this is purely for Israel and purely for the pedojew empire just doesn’t, it’s quite a hard pill to swallow.

 

Yuro: And as always, it’s going to affect Europe and it’s going to affect the UK so much worse than it’s going to affect America, because America has its own energy supplies.

 

Whereas, you know, Europe has been deliberately cut off from Russian energy supplies and made to not take fuel from Iran in the first place. And so Europeans are probably going to freeze this winter because of what the Americans have done or the jewish-American empire has done. Yeah.

 

Natty: Not content with cutting off via like a jewishpedo regime war with Russia. Not content with cutting off like the majority of European energy supplies. Now [chuckling] the pedojew empire now starts another war in the Gulf, which will just totally screw energy prices. And I like you guys know this, but I’m in the middle of, I’ve almost finished building my house and part of that was installing a heating system and we’ve got like a central heating system.

 

Yuro: Didn’t install a heat pump, did you?

 

Natty: We did not install a heat pump. We installed a central heating oil boiler which we needed to run up as like commissioning the system [chuckling] and like we went to fill it up the day after this started and the price of central heating oil was like 63 per litre. And the day after this thing started and Iran closed the Strait of Hormuz, it went up by like 33 P per litre and it’s now at like 1 pound 33 a litre. So I know this isn’t funny because this is going to affect everyone, but it’s like these are real effects and no the people who started this war just don’t care about this. You haven’t felt this at the pumps yet, but my God, like you are going to and the whole of Europe is going to, so.

 

[1:06:19]

 

Yuro: And it will be White pensioners who freeze whilst illegal migrants can turn up the heating as much as they want in hotels and non-Whites all over will get preferential benefits and help to make sure that they’re looked after while our people suffer.

 

Natty: Yeah, I mean that’s a given at this point.

 

But yeah, we’re about to be hit with this thing. I mean, unless it wraps up quickly, which is not going to happen.

 

Yuro: Even if it did wrap up tomorrow, we’d still have the price shocks. I mean this is what always happens when there’s a, like the price of oil shoots up, petrol prices shoot up, the price, …

 

Natty: Two days for it to rise. 106. Yeah, six weeks for it to creep its way back down. Yeah.

 

Mark Collett: They’re very interesting points and obviously it sort of goes into what we said before about Venezuela. It puts everything into context.

 

Now one of the things that he’s really. We’re going to talk a bit about the fight back here and what Iran has done, its retaliatory strikes, but one of the most disappointing things is they talk about this Axis of Evil, but so far Russia have condemned this. I’m not sure what China have said, if anything at all, but there’s largely a wave of silence about this, isn’t there? There isn’t sort of the international, … So when Russia started their, in inverted commas. They’re not my words, but their words, “the Special Military Operation”, you know, there was this wave of condemnation from every European country about the invasion of Ukraine.

 

However, here, this so-called “Axis of Evil”, China, Russia, etc, there doesn’t seem to be much in the way of pushback other than a couple of snappy press statements.

 

And I think this does tell you something about Russia and China’s ability or readiness to get involved. Now I would say China is more concerned with potentially taking Taiwan. And the knock on effects of this is, well, China will look and say:

 

“If America can take out the leadership of countries they don’t like, why can’t we do the same to Taiwan?”

 

And I think Russia is still tied up in Ukraine, which is probably by design. I think part of the issue with Ukraine was pulling Russia so deep into Ukraine that it depleted their resources in places like Syria. So regimes did fall in areas that America wanted them, America and Israel wanted them to fall.

 

But what do you think about the lack of sort of international pushback on this?

 

Yuro: It’s obvious that the Chinese and Russians are helping the Iranians in terms of intelligence gathering, satellite imagery. Supposedly the Iranian missiles use like an encrypted Chinese GPS as opposed to the American run satellites.

 

But yeah, they’re not coming out and publicly saying a lot and they could be doing a lot more kind of out in the open. And if they were really serious, the Chinese and Russians could help the Iranians develop an actual nuclear weapon to allow them to have a deterrent to defend themselves. And that could have happened, you know, within the last decade, but we don’t see them doing it.

 

Natty: Well, I made this point to mark the other day. This is where I kind of disagree with you a little bit. I think there’s only so much they can do. And Russia can’t just import a nuke into Tehran or into Iran without them asking for it. And if you’ve been paying attention, …

 

Yuro: Well, they should ask for it then!

 

Natty: Well that’s, maybe you’re right and they probably should and they probably will if they ever, if they get through this thing in one piece. But Russia has to be asked to provide that nuke. And the Ayatollah, Ayatollah Khomeini has famously had a fatwa on acquiring nuclear weapons. Which, you know, looking back to how we opened this thing puts lie to the fact that:

 

“Iran is two weeks away from having a nuke. Iran is five weeks away from having a nuke!”

 

For the last 30 years, every couple of weeks. So for one, Iran has to ask these countries for things. And I’m fairly certain that Russia is providing military assistance. You know, maybe not flashy supersonic missiles and all the rest of it, but you know it’s a short hop across the Caspian Sea for Russia to send boats and send equipment down to Tehran as much as it can. Like you said, Mark, they’re tied up in Ukraine as per the pedojew regime’s plan.

 

And like you said, Yuro. They’re using encrypted Chinese satellite data for their missiles. And I’m sure, like satellite imagery of the surrounding Gulf states and areas that Iranian like ballistic missiles and drones are hitting is provided by the Chinese.

 

So I think Russia and China understand the stakes here and understand that if Iran falls or we’re kind of at a turning point in history of the future of the Pedojew regime empire and where it stands and if it manages to pull this off and destroy Iran, then who knows what’s next? And we, I guess, we can talk about that. But for Russia and China, they probably think that actually halting the Pedojew regime here is probably a good thing to do.

 

And as much as much as they can do under the table, they’re going to do. And if it gets any hotter than that, well, who knows? But I disagree with you that they’re not helping as much as they could be.

 

Yuro: I don’t expect them to hand over a dozen nuclear weapons and say:

 

“Here you go!”

 

But why is Iran using such an antiquated air force instead of more modern Russian fighter planes, for example? Like, things like that would not be outside of the realm of possibility.

 

[1:12:38]

 

Natty: Well, because that’s not where the Iranian like, national defense has been focused. America, whatever you like to say about it, dominates the air and it always has. It has the most advanced and the most aeroplanes that it can put in the sky. You know, carrier groups all over the place, air bases all over the place. And Iran has had a long time to prepare for this. They’ve watched what’s happened around them and has decided actually our best national defense is in this missile capability and drone capability. And if Russia sent a squadron of like Su-22s or whatever the latest MIGs are, they would probably be shot down in fairly short order, which would be waste of resources.

 

So I think this idea, like I said, I think this idea that they’re not helping as much as they can is misplaced.

 

And interestingly enough, Arab Natsoc in the chat has just said Iran has a hyper fixation on self sufficiency. And he says it’s noble, but it’s not always the best way.

 

And I think that’s probably correct. Like I said it’s not up to China and Russia just to unload the docks in some port somewhere. Just tons and tons of military hardware that Iran never asked for. You know, they’ve got to agree these things and they’ve got to ask for it and they’ve got to trade for it and give things away and they probably feel they don’t need to. And judging by what’s happening so far, maybe they’re right. They didn’t need it. Maybe whatever they’ve asked for, they’re utilising and anything they haven’t asked for, they don’t really need.

 

Yuro: [with a Russian accent]

 

“I’m sorry, comrade, I didn’t mean to leave that pallet of nuclear weapons. You can do what you like with them.”

 

Mark Collett: Yeah, [chuckling] I did say this in all fairness, mate, I think I did say to you it would probably, to do something like this or to create a deal of that sort you would probably actually need for the Iranian regime to fundamentally turn around and say:

 

“Look, you’re gonna have half of our country, you’re gonna have X amount of our oil production. You’re going to be able to put your own bases on our soil. You’re going to have this power over us.”

 

And then Russia or China might say:

 

“Well, this is actually worth it. Then we will put bases on your soil. This is absolutely worth it! We’re going for it. Thanks. Thanks a bunch, guys. You know, this works.”

 

But the Iranians might not actually want that they might not actually want Russia and China to have that much control over Iranian politics.

 

Natty: Yeah, that’s absolutely right!

 

And if you think about it, that would turn Iran into a, like a, not exactly a vassal state, but as a, like an arm of Russia or an arm of China.

 

Whereas if they come out of this unscathed, they emerge as the regional power in the Middle East, which has much bigger implications for them and then makes them bigger on the world stage than just being an outpost of Russia or China.

 

Yuro: But they could trade on more equal terms with the North Koreans. And the North Koreans have come out and said:

 

“If they ask for a nuke, they’ll get one.”

 

Natty: Well maybe they will. I suspect the Iranian government is going to be much more looking at that idea much more favourably after this.

 

Mark Collett: Well, that is an interesting point.

 

And ultimately I’ve said this on many streams, but we are in a situation where that is the only way that you can keep America off your back. That’s the only reason North Korea didn’t fall. It’s the only reason Russia probably hasn’t been invaded or struck by the Americans. I think if Russia didn’t have nukes, undoubtedly America would have attacked them.

 

But despite them not having nukes, I will say this. I think the Iranians retaliatory strikes have been extremely impressive! But amongst those retaliatory strikes, it is noted that, because when this all started, I was thinking:

 

“Why are they bombing refineries? Why are they attacking refineries in other Arab nations? Surely that’s going to annoy potential allies. Why would they do such a thing? You know, we don’t do that, guys, because if you do, you’re going to end up being a pariah state and you know, your next door neighbours aren’t going to want to essentially work with you.”

 

And then the other day it comes out that effectively what you’re seeing here is not Iran striking these oil refineries, but the strikes on the oil refineries have been carried out by Israel!

 

So what do you think to Iran’s actual retaliation and what do you think of Israel’s rather underhanded attacks? Because, and this isn’t just theory crafting. We’ve actually seen over the last, 24 hours scores of Mossad agents being arrested around the Middle East for being involved in false flag operations in numerous Middle Eastern nations.

 

And of course, this is something that we all know happens. This is something that we all are completely aware of you know, we know that Israel is regularly involved in sort of false flag events. This is something that has happened many, many times in the past.

 

And I think it’s interesting that this is being exposed. So we’ve had the USS Liberty, [we’ve had 9/11] we’ve had bombings in the Middle East. We’ve had potential or we’ve had sort of “terror attacks” in inverted commas in numerous countries which have turned out to be the work of Israeli agents. And we’re seeing that again now.

 

So I think Iran has performed far more ably than people might have thought. Sadly, they don’t seem to be winning this. Their navy seems to be taking major hits.

 

But some of these retaliatory strikes are looking questionable, are actually the work of Israel.

 

[1:19:06]

 

 

Yuro: Well, supposedly, I mean, who’s to say that the attack on our base in Cyprus was actually carried out by Iran? Because didn’t Keir Starmer say:

 

“Oh, we won’t actually engage in hostile actions, we’ll only defend Israel with our planes!”

 

Which is, of course, kind of a schizophrenic point of view in the first place. But then all of a sudden:

 

“Oh, look, our base in Cyprus is attacked and now we can kind of get in fully without restriction.”

 

Natty: So that’s a good point. I mean, we can talk about RAF Akrotiri, but if you look at where Cyprus is on a map, any Iranian weapons, munitions, whether it’s drones or missiles or whatever, have to fly over, like directly over Israel. So there’s speculation it was like Hezbollah or possibly someone else or even maybe a, like an Israeli false flag, which is certainly possible. And who can say?

 

But it does seem like the refineries in Saudi Arabia and Qatar are Mossad operations to blow them up. With the point being to try and engage those countries on behalf of Israel to come into the war on behalf of Israel and do what they can or do more for Israel.

 

But coming back to your point, Mark, about the strikes that Iran have carried out, it’s not clear to me that they’re losing. I mean, you say it seems they’re losing. I’m not sure that’s totally true. And we spoke about this before I think a few months back on the Nationalist A-Team, where I think they’re doing much more, they’re doing a much more capable job than anyone except expected them to in the sensibility and where they’re striking.

 

So they’re hitting US bases in these Gulf oil states, you know, Bahrain and Saudi Arabia and Qatar. And they’re forcing the Americans to retreat, which stretches their logistic lines. And like we said earlier, they may have fomented an uprising in Bahrain and they’re making these Arab states which have been paid off or controlled by Israel in some way unstable and shaky. And the Israeli installed governments and monarchs and regimes in these countries are looking incredibly shaky or shaky as you’ve just put in the chat, that you’re on shaky ground. And hitting Dubai, well, that’s just popular with everyone in the entire world. So what do you say about that?

 

Yuro: It’s kind of, it’s almost like their own kind of Samson Option, except inherently justified and not evil because they’re only going after the American bases and the people supporting the Americans and the Israelis.

 

But you know, they’ve said:

 

“If we’re attacked from here. We’re going to take this, and just kind of everything in the region, every American base.”

 

And it’s entirely justified because these countries can’t claim to be not involved:

 

“Oh yes, we’re not involved in this. We just have a base where your enemy is launching attacks on you, but we’re not involved!”

 

And then the moment Iran says:

 

“Okay, well we’re not going to attack you, we’re not going to attack your people, but we’ll take out that base.”

 

And then say Saudi Arabia:

 

“So we’re under attack, we’re being attacked.”

 

Well, no!

 

Natty: That’s American soil. That’s American soil there buddy! A totally legitimate target by anyone’s standards.

 

Yuro: I mean, it seems like Iran is taking a kind of “tank and turtle” strategy. You know, it’s like when you play a, like a strategy game and you can put a lot into units or you can just build up your base and wait for them to come to you. And it can be risky because there’s a possibility that you get overwhelmed.

 

But if you’re turtle enough you can withstand that storm and then you can turn around.

 

Mark Collett: Is Yuro the tank or the turtle? That’s the question. [chuckling]

 

Natty: Depends what he’s had to eat. [chuckling]

 

Yuro: Turtling and tanking, kind of the same thing.

 

Natty: But I think like Iran by its like geography is kind of is able to naturally turtle and the fact is that there’s so many assets that America have placed around it and like the jewpedo regime have around it. And the fact that Israel is within striking distance means it can strike effectively. And America is very powerful and has a very powerful military, but that military still has logistical concerns and still has aircraft carriers that are clogged [chuckling] with like fat Mexican sailors poo!

 

Yuro: American aircraft carriers are as full of shit as Donald Trump!

 

Natty: Well, [chuckling] yeah, agreed.

 

Mark Collett: Well that’s the thing. Look, I mean, we haven’t seen an aircraft carrier at the bottom of the Persian Gulf yet, have we? Now you might be saying:

 

“Oh well, Mark, that’s a big ask.”

 

Because Obviously, if that happened, we would actually probably see the beginning of World War III! Because at that point, I think Trump would have to put boots on the ground. It actually might be the end of him. You know, it’d be one of the other, wouldn’t it? He’d either have to put boots on the ground or it’d be the end of him. But we are yet to see an aircraft carrier effectively being scrapped.

 

Now, that doesn’t mean they’re not doing anything in retaliation, but they’re not hitting the big targets. And look, we’ve had American commentators, some of these American commentators that do these sort of big takes on these things. You hear them talking about this Axis of Resistance and saying:

 

“Oh the time will come when these hypersonic missiles are going to be putting aircraft carriers at the bottom of the Persian Gulf!”

 

We yet to see that, are we? I mean, we’re also yet to see any of these sort of hypersonic super weapons take out leading members of the Israeli government or the Israeli regime. You know, I know Yuro doesn’t like the word “regime”, which we keep using, but that is an interesting point. We haven’t seen Israel struck. Israel has been proved to be not invincible, I think it’s fair to say that. But we haven’t seen the Israeli government reeling in the same way that the Iranian government has.

 

[1:25:49]

 

Yuro: Well, there’s a couple of points to make here. First off, with regards to the aircraft carriers, the American Navy has been keeping the aircraft carriers at a much greater range than they would normally use them to attack somebody because they are scared of those missiles. And the Iranians have launched small salvos of kind of like four missiles at time at them and got them to basically back off and back off to a greater distance, which means they can do much fewer kind of bombing runs at once and they have more fuel requirements and greater maintenance on the planes. So it is diminishing America’s capability to attack.

 

There was also satellite footage, I think, from a Chinese satellite that showed a fire on one of the destroyers in one of the aircraft carriers escorts. So potentially that was hit by Iranian missiles and although not sunk, caught fire. So they’re keeping them at bay. The Americans know if they get any closer, they will be hit.

 

And with regards to the missiles that they’re firing, it seems like they’ve used a lot of their kind of crappier munitions and their older munitions, like everything they’ve been launching at the other Gulf states is short range ballistic missiles that don’t have the range to go anywhere else. So they might as well use them on these targets. And they’ve been using up these older, less advanced munitions and drones and still still getting so many interceptors wasted before they actually bring out the big guns. And we’ve seen within the past day or two they’re starting to launch these missiles. I can’t remember the name of them, but they’re like a very large cluster munition that drops about 60 different submunitions on the way down and they’re dropping those on Israel.

 

And as I said in the very beginning, we just don’t know how much is actually getting through and how much damage they’re actually doing because it’s censored and covered up.

 

Natty: Yeah, we did touch on this and like you said, like an interceptor system, like a THAAD or like a Patriot battery or whatever, costs like in the millions, you know, hundreds of millions of dollars. And they’re being used up [chuckling] like drones with lawnmower engines and like a few kilogram warheads. And Iran’s just like churning these things out, like churning them out and churning them out and they’re still intact and they’re at some point America is going to run out of interceptors.

 

And I don’t know if you saw this, but the pedojew regime in America like called its defense manufacturers, heads of its defense manufacturing industry in for like an emergency meeting to say:

 

“We need more missiles! We need more stuff like come on, make it happen!”

 

But I was listening to something earlier saying this is very well demanding that, but there’s a lot of a very expensive gear that goes into this stuff, like certain gases and certain rare earth elements and guidance systems and radio radar systems and optics and all the rest of it that has to go into this missile production.

 

Meanwhile, you know, Iran can get like a cheap [chuckling] Chinese lawnmower engine, stick it in a, like a fiberglass Shahed drone shell, put a bit of explosive on the tip of it and just launch it wherever it runs, you know, within a few hundred mile radius, which is enough to cover the Gulf states and Strait of Hormuz and all this oil production that Europe relies on and lots of other people rely on and it’s going to destabilise all these countries that surround it.

 

Yuro: There’s a psychological aspect of them just doing the drip, drip, drip, dropping wave after wave of missiles on the Israelis, that’s definitely going to be wearing the Israelis down.

 

And also let’s say they absolutely opened up and dropped every missile that they had on Tel Aviv and the surrounding areas. Well in that situation the Israelis would come out and enact the Samson Option, wouldn’t they? And just you know, destroy them with their own nuclear weapons so that obviously they’re not going to feel like they can just drop everything on them at once because they don’t want to force them into that corner where they say:

 

“All right, well we’re doomed anyway!”

 

Natty: Well the other thing to remember is for Iran, the people in Iran and the government in Iran understands this is like a fight for survival. Like I said earlier, if they lose now, if they fail in this defense of their nation, they turn into a failed state. Israel has free reign and MI6 and the CIA have free reign to just fund all sorts of horrible like disgusting groups like ISIS and like the Kurds and everyone else to come and storm their country and make it into a living hellhole, just like they’ve done with Syria and Iraq and Libya.

 

So they understand this is a fight for their survival. So they’ve got to bend their entire will to doing this. Israel and America can stop anytime and can be forced to their knees if their civilian populations demand it. You know dropping cluster munitions on Tel Aviv is like a terror tactic. Well I mean “terror” in like air quotes, right? But at some point the Israeli people, the jews in Israel were going to have had enough of air raid sirens and cluster munitions raining on their heads and could be going to demand that it ends one way or another.

 

And this is what happened in the 12 Day War. I mean if you listen to shills and like pedojew media you would think that Iran lost a 12 day war, but it was Israel who cried off, who’d taken enough punishment from everything I can see. And it’s only a matter of time. I mean if Iran can sustain what it’s doing the Iron Dome is not stopping a giant like cluster warhead that like you said drops 60 submunitions on the city in a suburb somewhere, they’re going to cry uncle and they’re going to bend the knee to Iran.

 

[1:32:14]

 

Meanwhile Iran can’t stop and it simply can’t otherwise it fails. And I’m sure almost everyone in the country understands that.

 

Yuro: This is like a boxing match where the other side controls the bell. You know, you’ve got Mike Tyson there and he’s got the bell. He chooses when the match ends. You don’t want to give it everything you’ve got and gas out too early because it might go on another five minutes.

 

So they are happy to let this draw out. And everything that the Americans and the Israelis has done has all been about, let’s go in there with the alpha strike, let’s drop as much on them as we can, let’s take out this, let’s take out that, and then we’ll just walk away and say:

 

“Mission successful, we can walk away now.”

 

And the Iranians are like:

 

“No, we’re not surrendering! We’re going to keep on fighting!”

 

Because as time continues it gets more and more in their favour. What they don’t want to do is say:

 

“Right let’s have a ceasefire!”

 

And three months, six months down the line, it starts all over again. They’re better off just continuing it now.

 

Natty: Yeah, I agree with that.

 

I mean, this is, like I said, this is a long, long time in the making. This is a long term plan of Israel’s to destroy and destabilise Iran. So if there’s ever, if there’s a ceasefire, if this stops, it’s going to be back on again at some point. And in the same way that a Gaza ceasefire isn’t really a ceasefire and at some point Israel is going to move on Gaza again and try and wipe those people out. So I think the Iranians understand that. Well, hopefully they understand that.

 

So we’ll see what happens.

 

Mark Collett: Well, it is interesting because they haven’t begged, have they haven’t begged and they haven’t cucked! I think they know there is no negotiations. That’s one of the big problems earlier that we talked about though. You know, when you make it so negotiation is meaningless, you essentially do put people with their backs to the wall. You know, if you’ve got a guy, you know, stood in his house with a pistol and the police are like:

 

“Look, let’s negotiate.”

 

But you know that when the police come through that door, they’re going to shoot you no matter what. At that point, what are you going to do? Is it going to be fight to the death, blaze of glory time, or is it going to be:

 

“Well, I’ll spend 12 hours negotiating only to be shot in the head anyway.”

 

At that point, you are creating an interesting sort of situation where fundamentally the American word is good for nothing! And the only answer is to fight to the death. And look, you know, without going into World War II, many, many Germans surrendered in good faith, believing that they were going to be treated like human beings, that they were going to be treated honourably, that surrendering to the Americans would be the right thing, that they would go home, that they would be treated as prisoners of war. And then they were brutalised and starved to death. I mean, surrendering to America is often, …

 

Natty: Or sent to Russia as slaves.

 

Mark Collett: Yeah.

 

Natty: Even starved on the banks of the Rhine or sent to Russia as slaves. Yeah, you shouldn’t imagine that you’re going to be treated fairly if you surrender to these people. They’ve shown, as we discussed earlier, they’ve shown that they’ve got no honour. They’ve shown that they’re dishonourable people and they don’t treat civilians well. Those are the lessons that should be taken from this.

 

Yuro: They protest for their right to rape captives. When their own people have been caught on video, you know, sodomizing prisoners like Gazans that they’ve captured, they protest. And they don’t say it didn’t happen

 

Natty: Out in the street.

 

Yuro: Yeah, they said they turn out in the street to protest and say:

 

“We should be allowed to sodomize them!”

 

Is there any other country in the world where you would get that?

 

Mark Collett: Well, I think one of the interesting things about Trump, and this is sort of just one of my sort of notes on this, is that Trump came in as this “art of the deal”, wanting to put world peace on the table, get America out of the foreign wars that have dogged it for some time. And essentially what we’ve actually seen is quite the opposite. Trump actually does seem to be. And this isn’t meant to be a compliment, by the way, but it probably comes off as a little bit of a compliment. But he does seem to be sort of the ultimate ZOG warlord, doesn’t he? Trump as a guy, as a mad sort of emperor stood, you know, addressing his troops does seem to be a role that he slips into far more easily and readily than the role of peacemaker.

 

Now, I’ve seen him in these interviews. I’ve seen him talking about future operations. I’ve seen the way he really does love having this power and being able to tell other nations to bow to him or else. And that’s what he’s saying, really, with Iran:

 

“You’ll do what I say or I’m going to completely raze you to the ground!”

 

Now saying that, do you think there has ever been a more philo-semitic president? And following this, do you think this will change the way Americans vote in the future?

 

[1:37:45]

 

 

Natty: I doubt it. And there may have been more philo-semitic presidents, but certainly not in our time, or I mean, our time is in a time when I’ve been a, like an adult. I think I was 12 at the time when the first Gulf War started, when Bush rolled into Iraq and dragged Blair in and dragged the rest of the British people in. But it’s hard to imagine a more philo-semitic president.

 

And I think part of the problem is. Well, maybe it’s not a problem for them, although it might turn out to be, who knows, depending on how this thing goes, is that more and more people were just nakedly seeing it as that it’s like, why, what possible reason could the American people, like the people in America have for engaging in this terminal war with Iran? What possible cause do the British people have against the people of Iran? You know, flimsy excuses like:

 

“Oh, they’re a terrorist nation and you know, they might at some point have a nuke!”

 

This just doesn’t cut it. This isn’t a reason that sensible people would launch wars against people and go on these destructive campaigns against people.

 

Yuro: Sunni Pakistanis rape children. So we need to fight against them

 

Natty: Yeah:

 

“We need to fight a Shia country, a Persian Shia country!”

 

Yeah, absolute lunacy! But people, I think people genuinely understand more now. But this is just jews! This is a war for jews. It’s a war for Israel. And Trump is like deeply, deeply friends with the jewish paedophile who was the mover and shaker for the evil jewish paedophile regime. This is their guy. You know, he is their guy and he’s the guy who’s going to see this done. Not for you, not for your family, not for the American infrastructure, not for the home country and what it means for the future of America, but for Israel and for his jewish handlers. And people, I think, understand that. More and more people understand that, which is why this war is so unpopular.

 

Yuro: We see more and more people waking up to jewish power every day. And in America, I mean, you see mainstream Leftists like Ana Kasparian from the young Turks goes out and just says:

 

“The goyim are waking up! Deal with it!”

 

And that’s amazing to see and it’s a great thing! But at the end of the day there’s no one for them to vote for. The two party system in America is so entrenched, they’re not going to have that option anytime soon to actually get out of it. I mean you’re just going to have a continuation of the same thing where you have presidents get elected and have lower and lower approval ratings, but the people just won’t believe it.

 

Natty: And that’s like you said, no other choice. And I’ll remind, you know, Mark was saying that President Trump ran on like a “no foreign intervention, no foreign wars” ticket. Certainly in 2016 he did. But every president has done that and most of the prime ministers and most of the regimes in this country have run on the same kind of, “we’re not for foreign wars”!

 

And yet every time there’s a foreign war on behalf of Israel and the jews, these people snap to. And all of a sudden it’s:

 

“Well, this war is justified. And this is a terrorist regime and Syria used Sarin gas on its people and Iran is a terrorist state and Iraq has Weapons of Mass Destruction!”

 

So these people know that foreign wars aren’t popular and you know, foreign wars within justifications, but foreign wars where there is literally no justification apart from the jews want us to do this, are extremely unpopular! And burn through the veil that these people use to hide what they do and kind of hide the levers they pull in order to get what they want.

 

Mark Collett: That’s very interesting. And I do concur. I don’t think there is anyone else to vote for. But I’m not really here to correct anyone tonight. I think everyone’s made excellent points, but you are actually wrong that it was just, 2016. There are pictures floating around that I’ve actually shared showing with Trump and Vance stood together and it’s the kind of text around them is “the peace ticket”, you know, saying:

 

“You’re voting first, you’re voting for peace!”

 

This is what they ran on this time as well. And Trump did make these huge sort of overtures to the Nobel Committee, that he wanted the Nobel Prize Peace Prize, that he was going to stop these wars, which obviously he hasn’t done.

 

Natty: I think I’m probably guilty of paying less attention to the Trump campaign in 2022, [chuckling] when it was in 2016. But, yeah, I can well believe it. And I’ve heard, I’ve seen that in headlines, quoted for the peace ticket. And Trump lambasting Obama on Twitter at the time, saying:

 

“Oh, Obama’s going to start a war in Iran because he’s such a terrible negotiator and he sucks at being a peaceful president.”

 

And it’s like, yeah so many years later, you’re the guy. You’re the guy these people have activated to get this done.

 

[1:43:07]

 

Mark Collett: Well, indeed. And the next point, because we’re sort of getting towards what do we think’s going to happen?

 

But before we do that, I think one of the interesting things about this is we’ve seen, so there are a lot of, what can I call them, “Shitbag influencers” like Tommy Robinson, Douglas Murray, Andrew Neil. I despise Andrew Neil! Fat, worthless toad! The day he has sort of a gigantic Coronary as he sat eating his sort of duck pate on his terrace in the south of France will be a good day for the world! That guy is always on the wrong side of everything. He wants to attack Iran, wanted all the Covid restrictions. I can’t remember him ever saying anything good. He is scum of the earth!

 

But on the other side, we have seen this in interesting bipartisan pushback. We’ve seen Tucker Carlson, Marjorie Taylor Greene, Thomas Massie, Ana Kasparian. There has been this mass awakening to Israel! I mean, Tucker Carlson stood in front of Turning Point USA getting a standing ovation for saying:

 

“Israel needs to get out of American politics!”

 

That is seismic. You know, he is still the biggest American political voice in terms of being an influencer. I think this is incredible!

 

Now, I was somebody that was quite happy for Trump to get in for a couple of reasons, but one of the reasons being that I believed that this would bring things to a head. I believe that the Trump regime would be the regime that accelerated things to a point where numerous people who had previously been extremely philo-semitic would end up coming out, breaking ranks, and there would be a mainstream acceptance of our points. I remember saying that, actually I was briefly invited on WarStrike, of all streams, the night of the election.

 

And I was like:

 

“Look, this isn’t a bad thing! Don’t have a cow over this basically. This is something that may well bring us certain benefits.”

 

And I think that we are sort of seeing this to a large degree now. What do you guys think about this? Because I can’t really remember the last time we’ve actually seen a such a bipartisan move against Israel. And it’s not just the ones I’ve mentioned. I mean, Marjorie Taylor Greene has been incredible! Tucker Carlson’s leading the charge with young Right-wing males and females. Turning Point USA, which used to be absolutely ZOGged, is now a hive of like counter-semitism, if you like.

 

And on top of all of that, having the absolutely delightful and wife ready material known as Ana Kasparian.

 

Yuro: She’s absolutely perfect! [chuckling] Coming out for me!

 

Mark Collett: What? What did you say Yuro?

 

Natty: What did you say?

 

Yuro: It’s a bit brown for me.

 

Natty: Get out! Booted from this stream!

 

Mark Collett: You know what? Do you know what? Yuro’s got this thing, right, where you show any girl who’s got the mildest amount of than, and he goes into some kind of like tail spin as if like White women have never ever set foot out of the house!

 

Yuro: Are Armenians White?

 

Natty: This one is. This one certainly is!

 

Yuro: If she’s anti-semitic, she’s White! Okay.

 

Mark Collett: The question is, Yuro, are you White? [chuckling] Because the fact you’ve asked this of our lady in chief, …

 

Natty: Perfect Queen.

 

Mark Collett: Yeah, a perfect Queen means maybe you’re, …

 

Yuro: I’m not as big as simp as you are mate!

 

Mark Collett: Mate, there’s nothing simpy about loving Ana!

 

Natty: It’s [chuckling] a justified simpery.

 

Mark Collett: It’s justified simpery. Yeah. And so why I like Ana as well is when she gets angry, she just doesn’t hold back, does she? She’s one of those people, sometimes watching somebody get really angry, …

 

Natty: There was a clip, there was a clip of her on Piers Morgan and she was like yelling at these like jews. There were like six of them on the panel and I think they were all jews apart from her and Piers Morgan. And she’s like yelling and screaming at them because they’re trying to dissemble and you know, do what “aboutery” about the killing in Gaza and the killing kids in Iran and stuff. And she’s really letting them have it! And she’s screaming at them. There was some like Boomer in the Facebook comments, like:

 

“Oh, I tried to watch it but I couldn’t take the screeching!”

 

I just, I put underneath it, I was like:

 

“I would listen to her scream about jews in my ear all night!”

 

Mark Collett: Look, [chuckling] that is how I feel that like she has come out and when she does it? She does it! So if you’re screaming like some mad, sort of disheveled, for want of a better term, “Karen” and so you’re sort of mad because there was only, …

 

Yuro: Karen is a slur.

 

Mark Collett: Well, it is, but Karen can also, you know what I mean? You get some women who’ll go crackers over like the fact there’s only seven olives in there, you know, olive pasta. And the menu shows eight or something and they throw an absolute fit over it! But the way she blows up, it’s so attractive. She’s like:

 

“Don’t give me this! You disgusting Zionist pig! You make me sick!”

 

And she’s enunciating every one of her words and she’s not holding back either. She’s like:

 

“You child killing monsters!”

 

Natty: It’s like righteous fury at the people she’s like, that’s been put up on these panel shows.

 

Mark Collett: Yeah. Exactly! And when you’re watching it’s extremely attractive! It’s not sort of like I said, I know “Karen” is a bit of an anti-White slur, but it’s not Karen-esque. It’s not like an overly liberal White woman and who’s outraged because of something minor that normal people are like:

 

“Look, just pull yourself together.”

 

The way she does it, I find it to be absolutely cracking! I love it!

 

Anyway, that’s enough glazing of Ana Kasparian. I mean, look, can there ever be enough glazing about the Kasparian? That could be a two hour stream in itself!

 

[1:49:33]

 

 

Natty: It’s for Yuro, apparently. I mean, Yuro’s not on the Kasparian train here, unfortunately. Maybe we’ll have to have a word with [word unclear] after the stream.

 

Mark Collett: We have to, … You mean a beating? [chuckling]

 

Natty: You’re going to a re-education camp.

 

Mark Collett: After the show in the green room, we give him a kicking!

 

So what do you think of this bipartisan movement, though? I find it refreshing. I like it. And it’s got real gravitas. Because, look, I was on the David Duke show earlier and obviously I work with David probably more than anybody else in the world, for better or worse. And I love David! He’s a real character. He can be a bit difficult at times, but he’s a real character. But sadly, David does not have the influence he once had.

 

And I’m not saying that to sort of mock David or deride David. I’m just saying that as a statement of fact. But somebody like Ana Kasparian does have that power! She does have that gravitas, but so does Thomas Massie and Marjorie Taylor Greene. You know, Tucker Carlson. Absolutely massive! And you’re watching these people tear in to the Zionist cause and attack these Warhawk jews. It is very refreshing! I mean, well, for me, it is anyway. I mean, I don’t know about you guys, but I love it!

 

I mean, how does this make you feel after all the years of being in the wilderness? Look, being in the wilderness is something that. I am still very much in the wilderness, despite all my hard work over the years, despite my incredible consistency. Like, if I’m not the perfect guy, okay, not by a long, long means, I am very good at debates, but I’m not the perfect guy. I have my foibles. I screw up, …

 

Yuro: Not good at controlling your temper.

 

Mark Collett: I was gonna joke there by exploding at you!

 

Natty: Yeah. [chuckling]

 

Mark Collett: I’m not brilliant at controlling my temper, but one thing you’ve got to say for me is that throughout all these years, I have been extremely consistent in what I’ve stood for.

 

Now, when it comes down to it, seeing these people, for me, anyway, come out and be sort of so, you know, completely anti-Israel. It’s the first time I’ve ever seen it. And it’s not just relying on, as I said, this isn’t to knock David, but it’s not just to rely on me and David Duke making the point anymore. You know, these points are being made by these more mainstream individuals who’ve got serious gravitas. And I actually like that. I think it’s something that I think is really important. Seeing Ana Kasparian and seeing all these others doing it. I think this has taken our message to a new crowd. And it’s interesting to see that there are people all over the political system who have had enough of Israel.

 

Natty: Yeah. And I think having this kind of, it’s not perfect. The things they say aren’t perfect. Right. And the problem isn’t just Israel. And I think most people get that. And this isn’t to kind of pee on your cornflakes, Mark. But even the things they’re saying do give amount of headroom for anyone who’s less sizable and less influential from them to kind of push those boundaries a little bit more. And there is further to push.

 

I mean, we shouldn’t be coming around the campfire at this stage to stretch your wilderness analogy. We should be trying to, we should still be in the wilderness telling the truth and putting the final truth to it. Because, like I said the things are saying are anti-Israel, which is like 90% of the way there, right?

 

And like I said, giving headroom for more, not extreme, that’s not the word, but for a greater and more deep understanding to come forth.

 

And I think that you are going to see from this war with Iran, you’re going to see a tranche of politicians and people emerge who are willing to say these things. And sure, amongst those people there are going to be shills and they’re going to be subversive people, but at some point it just becomes like a political football whether you support Israel and whether you’re going to do their bidding.

 

I mean, one of the disappointing things with Rupert Lowe is he hasn’t really come out against, he hasn’t made a statement against Israel, which I’m sure none of us really expect, but now would be the perfect time for someone in his position to make that leap. We haven’t seen it yet, but I think this just pushes that football a little bit further down the road. You know, pushes the can a little bit further down the road to give space for that to happen.

 

Yuro: I think every day that the Rupert Lowe goes out and doesn’t support Israel, even if he won’t explicitly say that he’s against them, obviously that’s giving us room and whatnot.

 

But another thing, sort of talking about, obviously, the goyim waking up and Trump, I think it is great that we see all these people realizing the extent of jewish power.

 

And I think Trump especially is to thank for it, because he is just so openly philo-semitic in a way that no previous president, even if they love jews as much as he does, they just wouldn’t do it so openly! You know, he goes out there and declares himself the King of Israel and he says this, that and the other. And it’s again, with the attack on Iran and the thing with Venezuela, there’s not even a pretence anymore. It’s just:

 

“We’re doing this because it’s in our interest and we’re attacking Iran because that’s what we want to do!”

 

They’re not having the pretence anymore.

 

[1:55:32]

 

Mark Collett: I don’t like to cut across people because we’ve all been pretty good at not cutting across people. But I just wanted to further your point. You know, when Trump does things which are so sort of egregious [chuckling] that you sort of wonder why he’s saying them. Like when he said:

 

“Oh the Adelsons basically bought me the White House! So whenever they want to just walk in and ask for a policy to be passed, what am I gonna do? It’s the bloody Adelsons! They gave me about half a billion. How are you gonna say no to the people who gave you half a billion? Come on, guys, let’s get things going!”

 

You’re thinking to yourself:

 

“Are you actually saying this? Are you actually saying to people, ‘look, the Adelsons bought me the White House. So then when they want a policy passing, I just bring them in and say, ‘What do you want?’ And when they say, ‘I want this.’ I just give it to them’.”

 

Most people would know which bits not to say out loud. You know, it’s like when you were a kid, your mom was like:

 

“Did you clean up the house?”

 

You’d be like:

 

“Yeah, I did!”

 

But you wouldn’t be:

 

“Well, actually, I spilt the water from the big vase, partially flooded the living room, spent ages dabbing it up, and have hid the stain under the mat!”

 

Because there’s part of it that you don’t say out loud, isn’t there? And there’s part that you say out loud. But Trump, he says it all out loud, and it becomes sort of so almost jarring to hear him say it, because for years, we’ve heard that politicians are bought, they’re sold. You know, powerful foreign forces pay for politicians to do their bidding. And here’s Trump just honestly saying:

 

“Well, that’s exactly what happens! I do it all the time! The Adelsons basically funded me, and I did everything for them. So when they want a policy, I give them!”

 

You don’t say that out loud, do you? You say:

 

“The Adelsons are an important part of what we’re hoping to do, and no one has undue influence over me, but I’m happy to hear from them.”

 

He doesn’t do any of that. There’s no beating around the bush. He basically says:

 

“Jew’s got me in. And when they want a policy passing, I give it to them!”

 

I mean, is that refreshing to hear? For me, it is, because it confirms everything that we’ve always said.

 

Natty: Yeah, he is known for slurping up the “juju come”. As someone put in the chat earlier.

 

I think the worrying thing is, or I guess it’s not worrying. I mean, it’s interesting. So there was like just this ground swell of JQ awareness, like Israel hatred after October 7th because of what Israel was doing to Gaza.

 

And then the media gets to declare:

 

“There’s a ceasefire, Gaza’s over. We can look away now. We can look away from the fact that Israel has been bombing hospitals and stuff.”

 

Because of the nature of the news cycle and everything else, people let it drop. And then this big orange slave, jew slave, Trump, comes along and starts a war with Iran, like, totally on behalf of his jewish handlers in Israel. And all of a sudden it’s like:

 

“Oh, right, my awareness is shaking again.”

 

Like:

 

“Now there’s just another thing that’s like, cannot be ignored where we have to bring out this question again to the public and try and explain why this war for Israel isn’t anything to do with jews and is secretly about Russia.”

 

Or whatever else it is. You know, so, yeah, I mean, awareness, awareness rising!

 

Mark Collett: So we pretty much wrapped up a lot of the things we were going to talk about. And we’ve already said that Israel has been proven through this not to be invincible.

 

And I think that’s one of the key things here. At one point, Israel touted the Iron Dome. It touted their invincibility. I think this has shown something that’s very interesting. It’s highlighted that America is Israel’s lapdog! But it’s also highlighted that without America, Israel couldn’t exist. And that’s important, I think, for two reasons.

 

There’s this symbolic idea of Israel being this invincible outpost in the Middle East that the Iron Dome protects and they can stand alone if necessary. I think Israel have been really undermined here, not just from a moral perspective, but from the view that they can be hurt, which is important. You know, one of the big things, if you’re ever in some kind of conflict, facing what appears to be an immovable or unstoppable enemy, to show that that enemy is, in fact, fallible and can be hurt is very important.

 

And although we’ve hardly seen Israel sink into the Mediterranean, I do think the strikes on Israel have been significant from the point of view that it has shown them to be scared, that if they don’t have the West on their side, they can’t defend themselves.

 

Yuro: Well, it’s like with October 7th. When October 7th happened, it showed the world that they’re not all powerful, they’re not all knowing, they’re not always just gonna win because they’ve got everything on lockdown. Their power does have limits. And there’s some amount of White nationalists who come out and say:

 

“Oh, no, they let that happen1 You know, they let that happen on purpose! That they have a reason to do this.”

 

But actually, it’s like you’re unwilling to believe that they just screwed up that badly.

 

[2:01:21]

 

 

[Remainder of Transcript in Progress]

 

 

[2:29:32]

 

 

Mark Collett: Look, I’m not going to get into a big debate, but I actually believe they let that happen. I believe that that was part of their plan and gave them this imperative to do what they did in Gaza.

 

However, I think Iran’s a different kettle of fish. I think that what we’re seeing with Iran here is something fundamentally much more damaging for them, because they have nothing to gain by letting Iran smash through the Iron Dome. They have nothing that they can say:

 

“Well, this gives us the moral imperative to do X.”

 

Because in the case of Iran, they’ve already done X, haven’t they? X has already been committed to, it’s already been carried out.

 

So I think there’s different things here.

 

But look, let’s wrap this up and we’re going to wrap this up before we do the questions and answers. If anyone wants to Superchat. If you’ve enjoyed the stream, please consider sending a Superchat. But we’re going to wrap this up with, obviously we’ve said this is for the Greater Israel Project and we’ve talked about the political ramifications around the world for America, for Russia, for China, for future conflicts.

 

But one thing we haven’t talked about is the political ramifications here in Britain. Now, obviously Starmer hasn’t embroiled himself and he’s made the right choice in that case, but probably for the wrong reasons. Rather than doing this because he doesn’t want to serve Israel, he’s done this because he doesn’t want to turn the Muslim bloc vote against him any further because he fears losing the next general election.

 

But what we can see here, or what I see here, is a major problem with refugees and they’re talking about potentially two, … There was the, I think it was the Telegraph that stated this. The calculation is that 2.5 million people will be displaced from the region due to this conflict. At the present time, that number could obviously rise and they’re all going to be coming to Europe, they’re not going to be going to Israel.

 

And I’ve always described this as sort of the twin evils of Israel. On one hand, Israel menaces, murders, maims, terrorizes states in the Middle East for its own gain and to maintain dominance in the region. However, the blowback is never for Israel! The blowback of all this ends up hitting Western nations who take the refugees or the people that are displaced.

 

And I think that’s the final piece of the puzzle, that the Greater Israel Project makes Israel more powerful, but by extension due to the knock on effect, it weakens the West, it pushes us closer to a demographic shift that will be unrecoverable and fundamentally takes us a step nearer to being a minority in our ancestral homelands!

 

Natty: Yeah, destabilising its immediate neighbours, like I said earlier, destabilising its immediate neighbours with missiles and bombs and gayops and all the rest of it, is a short timescale. But destabilising European countries with mass immigration and kind of ethnic cleansing and all the rest of that, that’s still just destabilisation. It’s just on a longer time scale. And I alluded to this earlier, but the Israeli gayops and the CIA and Mossad and MI6 operation, well I mean it was the open British government was just aiding like terrorists in Libya, overthrowing Gaddafi. Gaddafi had an agreement with Italy where Italy would pay him to stop, just endless floods of migrants crossing the Mediterranean into Europe. And Israel uncaring that that was in place or seeing that actually destroying that was a good thing because it helped destabilise everything, not just Europe, but top to Libya, decided to enact you know, plans against Gaddafi that ended with him, like I said, with a bayonet up his bum, dragged out into the street.

 

And that led to the migration crisis in 2015, 2014, 2015, which is ongoing today. And I just posted in the private chat there because I just looked this up, Morgoth’s Law, which was spoken by Morgoth himself:

 

“No matter where the conflict is in the world, the refugees coming to Europe will be fighting age black and brown men!”

 

And that’s going to hold true for this conflict.

 

Now that might be coincidental in other cases but certainly with Iran this is the double, not the double edged sword but like the win-win situation for Israel. They get to destabilise nations by direct war against their like direct competitors. But they also get to destabilise their so-called “allies” in terms of European nations in America with all these displaced people who then through their human rights groups and refugee groups and these kind of NGOs get to set up migration routes into the countries who are supposedly their allies that they help destabilise. The knock on for politics in this country, unfortunately there won’t be much because we don’t have much of a choice. And if Reform was in power at the moment it would probably be just balls out gung-ho for Israel. So what choice do you have in this country? I mean it’s probably less than anywhere else.

 

Mark Collett: I will say though, I think Yuro is right in what he said. Every day that Rupert Lowe spends not endorsing Israel is a victory from our point of view. You know, I know that might sound like a cucky thing to say, but it has been so long since we’ve had anybody in any form of position of genuine power who hasn’t immediately been a slave to Israel. And it’s one of the things that Tommy Robinson’s been quite upset actually by a number of things Rupert Lowe has said and done. I don’t know if you saw, but Tommy Robinson said:

 

“You know, Rupert Lowe needs to clarify whether black people can be British. Rupert Lowe needs to clarify his position on all these things!”

 

Well, I find that very interesting because that suggests that Tommy and his handlers are getting quite nervous that Rupert isn’t going to be the Zio lap dog they hoped he would.

 

[2:07:56]

 

Natty: Yeah, the kind of the cucked civnat stuff that always bends towards this like piss-weak conservatism, as we’ve seen with Reform, where it just turns out they’re just as I mean they’re not really even civic nationalists, they’re just Conservatives in that anyone’s British, anyone who steps foot on this island is British.

 

So yeah, I mean funnily enough, Tommy wrote, those questions from Tommy Robinson he tried to put to Rupert Lowe:

 

“We’re in the wake of the Iran war starting and Rupert Lowe not coming out in support of Israel.”

 

And all of a sudden here you’ve got Tommy Robinson popping up like fresh from snorting up lines of coke on a mirror somewhere in America asking him about the same, well as pulling the same gay ops that he tried with the BNP all those years ago, which you know about very well, Mark.

 

Yuro: And after hopping off his private jet with his son, who’s posting about it on Instagram while he begs for money from poor White people who haven’t got a dime to scrape together.

 

Natty: Yeah, Tommy Robinson, just to reiterate, is absolute scum! He is scum! Everything out of Tommy Robinson’s mouth is like a jewish handler somewhere. And that has become more and more clear! There’s no like, no intersection of lines from real dissidency in this country in the West. And Tommy Robinson, this is like a literal jewish mouthpiece being paid by Israel to say the things he does.

 

And if you think there’s some part of Tommy that’s still good or some part of him that’s still worth listening to, then you simply haven’t been paying attention. And you need to, I don’t know, get with the programme or get your head right, because he’s evil, he’s terrible, and he’s a scumbag!

 

Mark Collett: I concur.

 

So I think we’ve had a pretty robust chat. We’re going to do the Superchats in a couple of seconds. If you want a Superchat, please do.

 

But I’ll say this, I think in conclusion. I’ve said this many times before, but the judeo-American empire is the greatest threat to the world!

 

Yuro: And I’ve said they are the great Satan!

 

Mark Collett: Well, it’s not just the greatest threat, is it to White people. Now we obviously are fundamentally our thoughts are for White people. That’s the most important thing for us, that we look after people of European descent.

 

However, it’s not just people of European descent that suffer under the judeo-American State. Obviously Arabs suffer immensely.

 

And a lot of the problems created by the judeo-American States, actions such as these unnecessary wars, these toppling of sovereign regimes, the murder of government leaders in foreign countries, like Colonel Gaddafi. And look, when we say this, we’re not saying that Colonel Gaddafi is our hero or that we loved everything he did, but he was stopping millions of people passing through his country and entering Europe. And I’m sure that when he was toppled, there were many people within the Israeli regime and many leading jews in America and Europe that were very happy that there was going to be even more migrants headed to Europe.

 

And I believe that the only real way that the world can achieve freedom is for the judeo-American Empire to fall. I don’t know whether you guys agree with that. Obviously have 30 seconds each to sum up, or a minute or whatever you need.

 

Natty: That’s totally correct! And that is the line of, like I said a second ago, real dissidency, and this kind of rightoid, Right-wing, edgy conservatism. Like you said, the judeo-American Empire is the threat, is the problem! And if you’re not willing to say that, if you’re not willing to like cheer on its losses, then you’re not on the same level as you should be. I mean, you’re not where you should be. And I’m sure everyone listening to this is pretty much there, but those are the lines. There’s not a Left, Right, divide. There’s not a third Worldist, whatever it is, divide. It’s just you’re either hoping for this evil entity to fail or you’re not at this point. But, and we’re seeing, hopefully we’re seeing part of it sailing here. We’re going to see it fail more and more.

 

So that’s what I’m looking forward to. Not just that, but the visceral feeling when you, like you said, see a cluster munition raining down on Tel Aviv, feels good too. So enjoy it.

 

Yuro: White people the world over shall not be free until organised jewry is disempowered! Inshallah!

 

Mark Collett: That [chuckling] was the most concise you’ve been all night mate. Superb!

 

So, yeah, I think it’s been a very productive stream this evening.

 

And I think we’ve talked about a lot of things that people would want us to talk about. And without being boastful, I think that tonight we’ve kind of hit on more or less every major point, unless we haven’t.

 

But I think we put a lot of effort, obviously into ensuring that we did hit every major talking point tonight. And this was the, probably, I’d say the most comprehensive coverage of this particular issue that anyone will get. So I’m hoping that you guys enjoyed it. And we are going to do the Superchats now.

 

[2:13:54]

 

So thank you to everyone who has Superchatted. And if you haven’t, there is obviously still time. And remember, if you do send a financial contribution, it’s gratefully received because it’s what allows me to keep doing things like this and doing these streams.

 

Anyway, Mr. Skywalker gave $3. Thank you so much! And he said:

 

“You and Red Ice were definitely correct about ZOG’s superior tactical advantage, which I never doubted. Still Iran and its proxies and have fared better than expected. Landing hits on ZOG’s military assets.”

 

And he goes on with another $3 and said:

 

“It appears ZOG is carpet bombing civilian structures in Iran now, as many military bases and missile sites are up to a thousand feet below ground, very difficult to destroy. Do you think ZOG will use ICBMs?”

 

I think we’ve said that actually that fundamentally we are seeing probably a better sort of defense than people may have initially thought. However, obviously going up against the judeo-American empire is absolutely not an easy thing to do they are doing better than we thought.

 

And interestingly, the Americans are already resorting to these horrific tactics of bombing civilian structures. Do you think Trump would go as far as using an ICBM?

 

Natty: It’s possible. You know, who knows? At every juncture where you think Trump isn’t going to do something, you know, sometimes, well, quite often he will just go ahead and do it. The problem with nukes is, one that’s a line that if you cross has real implications. If you drop a nuke on a country just because you started a war and are then subsequently losing that war,

 

Yuro: If you started a war to stop them having nukes and then when you have lost you use them!

 

Natty: Yeah, it kind of undermines, it’s a massive red line. Like I said, probably implications that none of us even can think about at this stage.

 

The second thing is, nukes, for all this talk of tactical nukes, they’re a surface weapon. You detonate them above ground. So they don’t really, in this war against Iran, they don’t really have like a tactical purpose and they would only be used to destroy, like, surface, weak, soft civilian targets, like cities. I mean, nukes are designed to be used on cities that are all like massed troop build-ups, which Iran doesn’t have. So morally it would be reprehensible and tactically it’d be stupid. Although it would just, it would literally just be against civilians. To use them in this war would be like, against civilian targets.

 

Yuro: Yeah, it wouldn’t benefit them one bit. And there’s no way that Russia and China would not respond to it. And that’s not saying that they would launch nukes themselves, but there would have to be some kind of bigger response from them. To get more actively involved.

 

Mark Collett: And I think Natty hit the real point here. The only time nukes have ever been used are on civilian targets. They are not a weapon that is used really for military sites. There’s all this talk of:

 

“Oh, well, people have got tactical nukes now, and a tactical nuke does this and the fallout’s not as great.”

 

And we’ve heard all of these sort of takes before, but fundamentally the only proven use for a nuke is to be used against a civilian target. That’s just the way it is.

 

And I personally believe that if the Americans did this and took it down that route, it would be this fundamental turning point that I’m not sure the world could recover from that you know, it’s happened obviously twice before and it was horrific what the Americans did to the Japanese. But to do it now and for America to be doing it because they started the war and it wasn’t going their way, I think the world would change in a way that we probably couldn’t actually completely understand right now! But I don’t think it will go nuclear.

 

Thank you so much for the two Superchats, though. Ruins in a Landscape gave $50. Thank you so much for such a generous Superchat. Bay of Kings gave $5. Thank you so much! And said:

 

“Thanks, Mark. It appears Natty’s dropped out.”

 

One of his devices has come unconnected, it says on the screen. I’m sure he’ll be back. Arab Social Nationalist gave $10. Thank you so much! And said:

 

“Thoughts on the spectacle of the Nigerian leader of the opposition, Olukemi Olufuntu Adagoki Badenok and Farage arguing that Starmer hasn’t done enough for the Yanks. There is no opposition in the British establishment. Ignore a whisper of dissent in Parliament. War for jews unites the establishment.”

 

I think this is very interesting. And obviously Badenock and Farage are looking at what got Trump to power. Now, fundamentally, Farage and Badenok are both out of power at the moment and I think they’re both kissing up to Israel as much as they can, hoping that that will be their ticket to a Trump style run at Parliament. And let’s face it, although at the moment Farage is the favourite to win the next general election, that can all change. And he is looking at sort of shoring up his position. But Kemi Badenok is looking at going into a general election where she will be decimated.

 

So it is interesting to see both Badenoch and Farage fighting to see who can be the most philo-semitic on this particular issue.

 

But I’ll say this, and this isn’t meant to be like a cold way to leave the stream, or a black pill at the end or anything of the sort. But there are still an awful lot, and I call them Boomers because they generally are from that sort of age bracket. Now, it’s not to say all Boomers are evil, but there generally is this sort of Boomer mentality of:

 

“Well, bomb them all! Get rid of the Arabs! We need to support Israel! They’re our greatest ally!”

 

And that rhetoric does still appeal to, I would say, a sizable portion of the Boomer population.

 

Natty: Yeah, I agree. And because they don’t really want to think about it and the implications of it. So looks like:

 

“Oh, something else is going on. Well, to hell with them all! Just blow them all up! Bloody Arabs!”

 

And that’s a cultivated mentality. That’s not an accident that people say things like that and think things like that. This callous, cold, bloodthirsty, you know, mentality that’s been instilled in people through, I mean, basically like a real use of the term racism, where it’s:

 

“Yeah, Arabs are like dirty brown people and killing them anywhere is good!”

 

It’s like well, a normal human being, a moral human being doesn’t actually think that way. And if you’ve been led into thinking that some like, cartoon villain version of like, I don’t know, like a Western man, is ridiculous and retarded and immoral, and the people who put that idea in your head have taken a long time to do it, but have succeeded, if you come out making statements like that.

 

Yuro: And to the extent that it is a naturally occurring phenomenon, it’s as a result of having the Pakistani rape gangs that jewish people and organisations brought here and having the Sunni Wahhabi terrorists who are created by the funding of Saudi Arabia and Israel’s allies.

 

[2:22:23]

 

Natty: Oh, yeah, when Israel needed a recruiting ground for ISIS to destabilise Syria, they just used our country. And the overspill where like little girls were getting blown up in concerts or people were getting stabbed on London Bridge, that was exceptional.

 

Yuro: It’s just a bonus to them.

 

Natty: Yeah, that was just like a little side project for them.

 

Mark Collett: Well, thank you so much, guys. We’ll go on to the next Superchat. It’s from Tomorrow’s Victims who gave $5. Thank you so much! Said:

 

“The vast majority of us here in Yank land do not want the stupid war. Cheers to all my UK people.”

 

Thank you so much! Some Guy 14 gave $10. Thank you so much! And he subscribed for $10. Well, that’s much appreciated. Remember, you can subscribe to me over on Entropy and Rumble, and that means you make a monthly donation.

 

And obviously on Entropy you can subscribe for any amount and Rumble is fixed, $5. But on Rumble, we’ve got a good number of subs now, a good number of followers, and if we had sort of 4 or 500 subs, that would just be phenomenal! And obviously it would really help me financially and it wouldn’t really make a massive difference to people as $5 is what, the price of a large can of Red Bull these days. But if enough people did that, it’d make a huge difference to me.

 

We also have one Superchat over on Rumble, only one tonight, and it’s from Archie P007. Thank you so much! Okay, $5. And you said:

 

“I was all in with Trump, the great awakening and all that he has sold his soul for Israeli gold. No one wins a war, only the people suffer always. Follow the money. Trump is Israel first, it seems.”

 

Well, yeah, I mean, I obviously, I completely agree with that. Trump is Israel first. And Trump is someone who is absolutely committed to Israel, I think, in a way that I’m not sure we’ve ever seen before. I don’t think we’ve ever seen a president this committed to the state of Israel, which is obviously interesting in itself to say that, to say we’ve never had a president that is this committed to Israel, but he certainly is.

 

And at the moment, he is proving his loyalty to that nation to an unbelievable point! And whether this works for him in the long run or not, who knows? But I think it’s fair to say that he is risking everything for his loyalty to people who, …

 

And the interesting thing with these people is they did not support him when he was out in the wilderness. One of the interesting things with Trump is when he was saying:

 

“Look, the election was rigged.”

 

Netanyahu was actually the first foreign leader to say to Biden, to congratulate Biden on his victory. Can you remember that? I mean, Trump went mental about that at the time because he thought Netanyahu was his best friend. But it just goes to show, Trump isn’t actually. Well, he doesn’t actually have any principles whatsoever, does he? Trump is actually a guy that the Israelis can kick him, they can treat him like he’s their boy, their little dog. And when it comes down to it, he will take it time and again.

 

Natty: Yeah, I mean the only difference, just to add the only difference is how open it is now. I mean, like I said earlier, the other president have probably done everything to the detriment of their own people on behalf of Israel. But Trump is just open about it and everyone gets it and everyone knows now and he’s just still ploughing ahead with it. So there’s the difference with this one.

 

Mark Collett: Anything to add Yuro?

 

Yuro: No, no, I think we’ve covered most of that already.

 

Mark Collett: Okay, well look, that brings us to the end of the stream.

 

Thank you so much to everyone who has been here and obviously if you haven’t Superchatted and you’re watching this on replay, you can donate anytime you like on replay.

 

And if you do support these streams, especially these long form discussions which take a reasonable amount of time to prepare and we put a lot of effort into, please do consider sending a Superchat and we will keep doing them. Anyway guys, if you want to say good night, we’ll go around the group and then we will wrap things up.

 

[2:26:52]

 

Natty: Night guys. I have been looking at the chat and there’s been a lot of like pretty decent discussion in there. So I appreciate everyone who’s been here and you know, it’s good, it’s good getting all this down and talking about this because a lot of this stuff is beyond the kind of political divide that you see in this country between even nationalists who say things like:

 

“Oh, I don’t care about either side and they can kill each other!”

 

And that’s like the best you can hope for out of supposed Right-wingers and dissidents in this country. But I think a sober analysis and a sober talk about what it all means and what’s happening is worthwhile. So thanks to you two and thanks to the chat for turning up and I’ll see you around.

 

Yuro: Yeah, thanks for having me on. It’s been a good talk with both of you. Obviously we do get a bit of this chat going on with the A-Team, which I’m no longer going to be with because Sam’s back unless I’m a stand-in when someone’s away. But it was good to talk about this stuff. And maybe going forward I will get back into doing some sort of show again on my own. Maybe I’ll revive TASOB. Who knows?

 

Natty: Be very happy if you revived TASOB, buddy. So look forward to it.

 

Mark Collett: Well, look, thank you to both of you, it’s been a great chat. I just want to wrap things up by saying thank you to everybody.

 

Well, thank you first to Natty and Yuro for giving up their evenings. You know, obviously we enjoy doing this. We’re friends in real life and I think we’ve got pretty good chemistry and I think it’s been a pretty entertaining stream. I would also like to say a huge thank you to everyone who donated. Remember, you can donate at any point you wish.

 

And finally, a massive thank you to everybody who tuned in. We had really good attendance night. Lots of people tuning in, lots of people enjoying the stream and a really sort of quick, moving, interesting discussion on both the Odysee and the Rumble chat.

 

So thank you to everyone who participated.

 

Anyway, I won’t be back on Sunday. It was unlikely I’ll be back on Sunday because it was my son’s birthday this week and we’re having a little party for him on Sunday. So that will likely be something that may run on and I don’t really want to be rushing through that to do a Sunday night film review or stream. I probably just want to enjoy just a little bit of family time, which I’m sure no one begrudges me. And I will be doing that.

 

Anyway, I’ll be back on Wednesday for Patriotic Weekly Review. Until then, thank you everybody, good night and look after yourselves.

 

[2:29:32]

 

 

END

top