Monika Schaefer: All right, greetings. Hello everyone. Good day. Good afternoon wherever you are. Today is November 16th, 2024. You are listening to the Republic Broadcasting Network at RepublicBroadcasting.org. This is episode 20 of The Flipside with Monika. I am your host, Monika Schaefer.

And today I am absolutely delighted to have a guest who is a very good friend of mine, Kathleen Dudley. She was born and raised not too far from where I grew up near Edmonton, Alberta, in a small town just north of there, but now is residing in the United States, in New Mexico, in fact, and has been, I think you became an American citizen quite a few years ago.

Before I bring Kathleen on, I’ll just remind the listener that this is listener supported. So if you possibly can support the Republic Broadcasting Network, go to the website@republicbroadcasting.org and you will find the donate button there. And there are different ways of donating, either directly or by supporting the sponsors.

And I always encourage people also to share these shows, tell other people about the Republic Broadcasting Network. There are many good shows on this network and you’re not going to hear this kind of stuff on the mainstream media or what some people call the “Mockingbird Media”. Okay.

And I will also tell people about the chat room. It’s at the flipside w.monica.chatango.com and you can share things there. And I share things there from time to time. And yeah. So I wanted to tell you about that.

Okay. So Kathleen, are you there? Can you hear me?

Kathleen Dudley: I can. And thank you very much, Monika. I’ve been looking forward to this and what a surprise and a privilege and a joy.

Monika Schaefer: Thank you. Well, I’ve been looking forward to this for quite some time. This has been sometime in the making, I think we could see. I’ll just tell the listener a little bit about how we first met. You interviewed me. You were producing some content. You had a YouTube channel and I think you still do, although probably a lot of the videos that were a little bit more in the forbidden territory. You have, I think, an Odysee channel or maybe you can tell us about that in a moment. But where you have most of your content. And you were interviewing me. That’s how we first met.

And then you ended up in your own big battle. It had nothing to do with World War II history, like my big court epic, you know, battles. [chuckling] But I found it quite amusing, to tell you the truth! It was rather amusing. That doesn’t matter what somebody’s trials and tribulations are about somehow there seems to always be a jew in the mix that brings in the Holocaust into it! [chuckling]

And the background to that is that I attended your trial, but it was virtual trial. Everybody was on Zoom and there were a bunch of people visible on the screen. And at some point, one of these people on the other side of things was pointing out to the judge:

“Oh, there’s somebody there on, in the witness in the room here, like on the Zoom screen. Do you know who that is?”

And I can’t remember exactly how they put it, but it was really quite comical, if you ask me, that somehow they managed to bring the Holocaust into it because they were pointing at me, my presence there and that I am, you know, quote, unquote, “a Holocaust denier”.

So this was supposed to smear you by association, which., … Well, there you go. Even though your trial had nothing to do with the Holocaust or World War II history, it was about other things.

But that’s not what we’re here to talk about today. Unless you wanted to share, you know, any background about that, Kathleen, because I know that in your process of going through the court system, you learned a lot! Do you want to talk touch on that at all?

Kathleen Dudley: Well, not unless it comes in indirectly in the rest of what we’re talking about. I think I’d rather stick to our plan, thank you.

Monika Schaefer: Yes, well, that’s the thing, our plan. Actually, Kathleen had approached me a few weeks ago and said:

“Well, I’m really looking forward to when you have a guest on that’s going to explain somebody who’s really an expert on fascism. Who can tell us what is fascism, what is that?”

And here we are today and it’s you and me talking about this subject of fascism because we, we’ve talked about this a little bit and you know, this term “fascist” is a term that is thrown around, bandied about willy nilly, constantly, all the time. And I would guess that 99% of the people who use that term just willy nilly to basically, if somebody’s bad:

“Oh, they’re a fascist!”

Or if some government or politician:

“Oh, that’s a fascist!”

You know. [chuckling] And I don’t think they have a clue what is fascism. So we both kind of dug into that a little bit, although I think you did more than I did.

So that’s what we want to unravel today a little bit. What is that? I mean, is fascism, does that deserve to be used as such a weaponized label that just means something really bad and what do people actually mean by it when they call somebody a fascist? I really think they have no clue. What do you think, Kathleen?

[07:19]

Kathleen Dudley: Well, I tend to agree with you. I think words are weaponized, as we know, and they’re the grimoire, the book of magic spells and incantations. And we’ve seen that you use the word “Trump”, and all of a sudden someone goes ballistic, or you use the word “Nazi” and someone goes ballistic.

But more than that, a picture, an image is created in their mind, and it evokes emotions and there’s no thought. It bypasses the reason. It bypasses the brain. It bypasses the capacity to be logical.

And that’s how words have been used. And they’ve been used that way for hundreds and hundreds of years. And fascism is one of those.

And so when I first talked with you about this, Monika, I said there’s two words, Nazi and fascist. And I said:

“Both of those need to be really torn apart and explained.”

And fascism has been on my radar. And between the two of us, I now have a sense that I understand “fascism”. And I’d like for other people to understand it so that they don’t get caught into that incantation, that spell, that grimoire of the word. Because how we use language expresses our clarity and our understanding of life. And if we aren’t clear with the use of our language, then we’re not clear in the direction in which we walk in life.

So to me, it’s critical. What’s your thought on that?

Monika Schaefer: Absolutely! Before I got a little bit of a deeper understanding of what is fascism, Because I’m still certainly no expert on it, but I do know a little bit more now than I did even just a short while ago. I still had the feeling, though, that people were using it wrongly and that it was just another one of these demonized words like Nazi. A demonized, you know, weaponized word. What does it actually mean?

And so I would say to people, when they use that word, or even people who are in our community of truth tellers and people who seem to know that were being lied to about this and that, but they would still use that word. So to those people, I would say:

“Look, I think that that word has been wrongly vilified and used, even though I myself did not yet know really what it was, but I still had the sense that they shouldn’t be just calling somebody a fascist if in the sense that, oh, that’s bad. You know, they’re bad.”

And so, yeah, it, we do need to stop people in their tracks when they’re using it, when we know that they should know better.

So that’s our mission today, to bring that out a little bit. Why don’t you talk a little bit about. Oh, well, in our, in our discussions we were talking about Ernst Zundel and then who was Ernst Zundel’s mentor? Adrian Arcand. And that’s the man who really helped Ernst Zundel wake up! And in his own words, he felt “born again”, born again to the truth! Adrian Arcand, he is a Canadian, was a Canadian man. He’s no longer alive. That was a while back. And he did, I think it was like a 10 minute talk that we both really liked because he explains fascism. Do you want to tell us a little bit about that?

Kathleen Dudley: Sure. Adrian Arcand was born in 1899 and he died in 1967. He was a politician and a writer and a journalist.

And the interesting thing is, of course, when you look at the jew Wikipedia, you know, he was a “fascist” politician. You know, it’s like name calling. It’s juvenile use of words, because it’s not meant in a descriptive way, it’s meant in a demonizing way.

So when he was interviewed, and I love this interview because it made it very, very clear.

And if you do a deep dive and you go on Wikipedia and you go on to the online dictionaries, the story of what fascism is so convoluted. What he says is:

“Fascism means nationalizing.”

He said it is:

“It’s the control of a nation by its nationals.”

And then you go:

“Oh, what’s a national?”

“So it’s having or expressing strong identification with one’s own nation and vigorous support for its interests, especially to the exclusion or detriment of the interests of other nations.”

So, for example, as a German born woman, while you’re a Canadian born, but you’re of German ancestry, you might have very strong nationalistic identification for Germany and its culture as it was. Would that be correct?

Monika Schaefer: Yes. Basically fascism is nationalism.

And it’s important to distinguish the word nationalism from patriotism, because nationalism means nationhood. And nationhood means your ethnic racial group. This is what you are loyal to this is who you want your country to be, geared towards the benefit of your people, basically.

And so now that really would explain why in our mainstream, you know, weaponized lingo that’s been foisted upon us, that word has been turned into a weaponized label that is just so demonized! Because, I mean, who is it that owns the banks and owns the media? It is jewish. You know, it’s organized jewry. It’s jews who don’t like fascism precisely because it is basically an opposite of their agenda. It’s people working in their nations for their nation. And if your leaders are fascist, that’s a good thing. They are working for our interests in our nation and our nationhood. Back to you, Kathleen.

[14:26]

Kathleen Dudley: Okay.

And so what’s most interesting, too, if we look at what is happening today, to identify as a White woman, to identify with my ancestral origins, is considered very negative. That I could be considered a criminal in one way or another. It’s leading in those directions.

[See: What World-Famous Men Said About the Jews]

Now, one of the things that Adrian Arcand said was that the First World War was a revolt against the high culture and civilization of Germany. And it was to implant communism in Russia. And so that was what the First World War was about. And it was the most strategic place in the world because it was touching Europe, the Near East and Asia.

And then the Second World War, it widened the scope of communism, it spread it, and it smashed down the empires of the Western world. Now high culture is what has been targeted by the Bolsheviks, the jews, both in Russia in the Bolshevik Revolution and World War I and World War II in Germany. And we see today the Christian ethics being absolutely trounced upon.

So one of the things that Adrian Arkan looked at was what was happening right at the time he was in Canada and doing his work as a journalist. Rene Levesque was powerful at that point in time as well. And I remember, as you mentioned, I grew up in Canada. I remember his party. He was hard Left. And he described that he himself was far-Right. And he said, and this is defining fascism in a broader sense. And he’s saying:

“The Right affirms the sum total of tradition, which is made of high culture. And high culture consists of music and the arts and literature and science and mathematics. And it’s about revering these cultural classics.”

And he said:

“It’s also about the existence of God, the existence of a human soul and the dignity of man and freedom, private property and the sacred rights of family, also of free enterprise, the free activity of free men and free markets.”

On the opposite spectrum of socialism, where Rene Levesque was postulating and socialism was defined by the Soviets, it denies God, it denies the human soul, it denies freedom, the dignity of man, it denies the sacred rights of family. It denies free enterprise. It denies private property and private initiative.

So if you take a look at everything on the Left having to do with socialism, which in essence was the precursor to communism, which is Marxism, it’s all negative. And there was no substitution, there was no alternative.

Whereas on the Right, it’s about family, it’s about high culture, it’s about valuing individuality.

And so all we have to do is take a look at, here’s this man who’s been claimed and called a fascist, and he acknowledges that he is, but his values are the values that are of very high morals and ethics. And I would be proud to walk beside and be a part of his legacy, which I feel like I am. And I’m proud to know that fascism, in fact, is a very positive and important word that embodies Christian ethics.

So if you take a look at who’s throwing the daggers at the fascists, it’s the communists! It’s the Marxists! They’re the ones.

And as I was doing my reading and looking at definitions and articles on fascism, the editors or the authors of those articles were, in one case, a Sephardic jew. And who is building Wikipedia on our computers?

So here we have a very clear explanation, in my opinion, of the difference between fascism and communism.

Monika Schaefer: Basically, they’re polar opposites. So fascism, …

Kathleen Dudley: Exactly!

Monika Schaefer: It just sounds to me like fascism is the opposite of communism! And when you say you would be honored to walk beside this man, you’re talking about Adrian Arcand, are you?

Kathleen Dudley: Yes!

Monika Schaefer: And let me just mention that Adrian Arcand spent six years in a concentration camp.

Now, when I heard that, I thought:

“Oh, I just assumed in Europe.”

Like, somehow I didn’t know why. I didn’t know that much about him. I didn’t know why in Europe, but I just thought, well, that’s where these concentration camps were that we all have heard about so much. But, no, he was in a concentration camp in Canada for six years during the war.

Now, the war didn’t last six years, so did he go into the concentration camp? Was he pulled in? You know, was he arrested and thrown in there before the war?

Kathleen Dudley: Yes.

Monika Schaefer: Or did they just keep him? Is that correct?

Kathleen Dudley: I think it was 1940.

Monika Schaefer: Oh. So after the war began. But then they held him in there for six years in a Canadian concentration camp. That blew my mind! I didn’t even know that that existed. Although we’ve all heard about the camps for the Japanese and that. But here was this French-Canadian guy from Quebec, right?

So, yeah, but he was a fascist, which is the polar opposite of communism, and communism is what the Bolsheviks were. And we know that that was overwhelmingly a jewish operation. And even the jews say it themselves basically that:

“Judaism is communism and communism is Judaism.”

So that’s one and the same thing. So we could just call it what it is.

Kathleen Dudley: Right. And so here we do have this name calling, and yet it is actually a compliment if you believe in God, if you believe in the sacredness of family, if you believe in individuality, if you believe in free market enterprise, if you believe in the right to own property.

So why would someone be hurling the word “fascist” against someone with spit and venom, when in fact it’s really an accolade? It’s such a positive characteristic!

And if you look too this has been going on for so long, and fascism originated from my reading in Italy. And Ezra Pound, who most people will know and will be very familiar with his Cantos and his famous poem on usury, Usura. He was an American poet and he had many protege. He had T.S. Eliot and Ernest Hemingway. And my mind goes blank on the others, but there were four Pulitzer Prize winners, and he was never awarded that Pulitzer Prize himself.

But he went to Italy, and during the wars, he was doing broadcasting, exposing the communist spread that was taking place in the Soviet Union as a result of the Bolshevik Revolution that hit in October 1917. And after the war, he was imprisoned by the US military and was kept in an iron cage. And then he was declared insane and put in St. Elizabeth’s Hospital in Washington, D.C. Where he wrote his most famous work, the Cantos. And finally he was released through the help of his friends. One was Ernest Hemingway. But we see how demonized, how threatening words are.

And so if you can take a word and twist it, turn it upside down, flip it, the flipside, right? And if people don’t do the deep dive and really look at, well, what does that word mean, then they become under the spell, that grimoire.

And so it’s our responsibility to pull apart everything that is being used against us so that we can shine light on it and walk proudly, knowing that with fascist beliefs, we are honorable people with integrity.

[25:08]

Monika Schaefer: Well said, Kathleen. That is so well said!

In fact, from now on, when somebody throws that word around, going to say:

“Thank you, I’m a fascist. That’s a wonderful thing to be!”

And then if it’s people who are throwing that word around unknowingly or ignorant of the meaning of it. Because like I said earlier, even people who understand the truth about the “Covidocaust” or about the “Holocaust”, they understand they’re kind of most of the way there in terms of waking up to many of the lies around us.

I mean, I suppose we’re always learning more and more, but they will still bandy about that word. And to them, that would be very effective, especially to them, because it will stop them in their tracks:

“Say what? What do you mean?”

And then it gives us the opportunity to explain this word in the shortest form, you say:

“Well, it’s the opposite of communism.”

And then we can expand on that and wow, that was a wonderful explanation. Yeah, really good!

And I just want to say before the bottom of the hour, and I should have done this at the top of the hour when we began, but I really was just coming off of the previous hour with Frederick C. Blackburn on his Saturday Snack Shack.

And I encourage listeners, if you don’t already tune into his show, you really should because it’s just such a great show and you can always find it in the archives.

So I was a little bit, not completely my brain was still sort of wired on that. But I just wanted to say, Kathleen, a little bit of background on my friend Kathleen. She’s a poet, a singer, a healer, musician with, I think, several instruments, a writer. And you have many talents and skills that I think you should name a few more because I think I only just touched on those things. But the healing really intrigues me. You have a lot of knowledge on healing ourselves, and that is a very, very wonderful and important skill to have. And maybe you can share with people where they can find you if they are seeking healing help, for instance, because I know that you do this as your work.

Kathleen Dudley: Well, thank you, Monika. Yes, I’m a reflexologist. I’ve also studied homeopathy and a lot of herbs and nutrition. And I have a website, it’s katdudley, KATDUDLEY dot com, and you can find me there.

And I’m also a builder of steps and, …

Monika Schaefer: Construction, we’re talking about?

Kathleen Dudley: Yes. And carports. And I love to build as well, so I have a strong intellectual draw, but I love the physical as well. I’m spreading large rock at the moment and rebuilding rock walls, so it helps keep me spry. [chuckling]

Monika Schaefer: That’s wonderful! [chuckling] Yeah. It actually just was so much fun for me to see the things you are building. And I’m thinking:

“Wow, that’s really very nice that you just take this on, you learn how to do it and you obviously must have acquired a few tools and just go at it!”

That’s great!

Kathleen Dudley: Thank you. Before we go to the break, I wanted to mention one thing that Adrian Arcand said in his, in that interview. He said:

“He said there is no anti-semitism. It never existed! He said it is a natural reaction against an assault of anti-gentilism which is non-jewish.”

He said:

“It’s a jewish conspiracy because I read it from jewish authors!”

Monika Schaefer: That’s great! [chuckling] That’s beautiful, Kathleen. Okay, hold on everybody. And we’ll be back in a few minutes.

[29:34]

[ad]

[36:00]

[music]

[36:58]

Monika Schaefer: All right, I’d like to welcome you all back to The Flipside with Monika. And I would like to first of all, give out the numbers. We invite people to call in the second half of the hour.

So the number you can call in is 512-248-8252. That’s 512-248-8252 or 1-800-313-9443. We invite you to join our conversation with Kathleen Dudley and myself. And I’d also like to remind you that if you have the means, if you can possibly support this network because it is listener supported and some older equipment, I know that they’re looking to replace some of their older equipment.

But anyway, during the break, Kathleen and I were kind of laughing about the fact that she had asked me to have a guest that would explain these words, “fascism” and some of these other words.

And I said to her, well, careful what you wish for, [chuckling] because here she is and she’s doing a marvelous job of explaining the fascism and fascist, the whole concept of that.

So, okay, Kathleen, why don’t we carry on with that discussion? And we had mentioned that there are some other words as well that we could go into that perhaps people don’t have really the best understanding of well, one word that came to mind right at the beginning that you mentioned already was “Nazi” and we know there’s a history of that. It was actually a jew who put that word into the lexicon to denigrate the National Socialists. Do you want to talk about that a little bit?

[39:02]

Kathleen Dudley: Well, I haven’t done the deep dive on that.

Monika Schaefer: Okay.

Kathleen Dudley: But one of the things that I found very interesting from Adrian Arcand was that he said that the term “fascism”, when it arose in the 1920s in Italy, the word “Nazism” arose in Germany, but that that had to do with Nazi-lism Nazi-nationalism, and that it was really about nationalistic perspectives expressing strong identification with one’s own nation and vigorous support for its interest. So I was quite surprised by that.

And then also in Spain, there was another term using their Spanish language, which I don’t recall. So that’s really all I can contribute at this moment.

Monika Schaefer: Okay. No, but that’s even just that about the Nazi-lism with the “l” in there. So nationalism. And that is that word that the Bolsheviks, the jews, they don’t like that concept of nationalism. And that would be like fascism. That would be so that’s why those words are so demonized! And anybody that does anything bad these days is called a Nazi, or a fascist. That’s why those terms are so demonized!

But you know that this is something that I am very, very interested in and have talked quite a lot about. My brother Alfred talks about it a lot, is our language and how our language has been so turned against us to compartmentalize our brains, to stop us from thinking straight, to frighten people, to make people think:

“Oh, we can’t talk about that. And we can’t talk about this!”

And make people scared to say anything anymore. And that’s all it is, really.

And so if we can take these words, first of all, to clarify in our heads that they are just weaponized words, and in most cases, they actually have been turned upside down to mean the opposite. Like you illustrated so well with the word fascist.

And then, you know, run with it. When somebody calls you something bad like this, say:

“Thank you. Thank you for noticing!”

It’s surprising how quickly it takes the wind out of their sails. You know, if somebody says:

“Oh, you’re an anti-semite!”

“Oh, thank you. Thank you for noticing. Yeah, you should be too!”

Something like that. [chuckling] Right? So it’s what we do with these epithets thrown at us that we can kind of change the discourse. What do you think about that?

Kathleen Dudley: Well, and people don’t even know that Semites are Arabs.

And so when you say you’re anti-semitic, you’re against the Arabs, well, that doesn’t even make sense because we’re talking about the jews and we’re talking about the Sephardic jews, and we’re talking about the Khazarian jews. We’re talking about. We’re not even talking about the biblical jews because the Hebrews, the descendants of that is so minuscule today.

And so the jews that have evolved to today have moved into countries, have moved into religions, have moved into businesses. They’ve basically taken on the sheep’s clothing that the wolf is wearing. And it’s been done slyly, very cleverly. And so everything has been done with duplicity. And that’s what we’re finding as we unbury the garbled of these words, the grimoire, the confusion.

And so once we find the truth in all of that, then we can shine the light on it. And that is what the rats in the center of the room don’t want. They’ll scurry to the edges.

Monika Schaefer: Yes, they will.

Now, Kathleen, there is something else that you have been doing over the last few months. I think you’ve been doing a lot of reading, and once you started, you just couldn’t get enough. Why don’t you tell us a little bit. What got you started in this direction? I won’t mention. I’ll let you talk about what have you been getting into so deeply reading, reading, reading lately? Tell us, please.

Kathleen Dudley: Okay. Well, I’ve always been a reader, but in January of 2023, I did a deep dive on 19th century and, 20th century writers, which introduced me to Ezra Pound and all of his contemporaries, T.S. Eliot, Robert Frost. And then there were quotes by Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn in that. And I was in the courts at that time.

And so there was tremendous angst and tremendous pressure and assault. And I needed a place to be able to go for truth and for some sense of a spiritual lift. And I was talking to a friend and he had been reading The Gulag Archipelago by Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn.

And I thought:

“Okay, it’s time for me to read him.”

I remember when he was exiled from the Soviet Union, and it’s time, it’s just time. And there are three volumes of the Gulag Archipelago, and I started diving into them.

Now, at that time, I was being threatened with imprisonment. And so I was trying to figure out how this arrest was going to go. And curiously, the first chapter in the first volume of The Gulag Archipelago is called The Arrest. And it was as many a hundred different ways to skin a cat. You know, they came at night. It was always secretively done. Innocent people were taken and they were shipped off to Gulags, they were shipped off to prisons in Siberia. They were separated from family, and the rest of the citizens didn’t know or at various times, and they were threatened and they kept silent. And this went on and on. It went on as a result of the Bolshevik Revolution in 1917. And now Solzhenitsyn was born in 1918, so it was even a year after the revolution. But he was raised in this communist milieu.

[46:29]

Now, his mother was of the Christian Orthodox faith, and his father had been killed when he was in the army. And so he was raised by his mother, and his mother wanted to raise him with Christian values. So he was taught the Russian Orthodox Christianity.

But he became a communist because that was just the way he was programed, along with all of his peers. And he was a writer just by nature, and wanted to be a writer. He knew he wanted to be a writer from the time he was about was very young, but I think about seven years old. He was in the army and he was corresponding with one of his compatriots, and his letter was intercepted and he was thrown into the Gulag under Stalin for speaking against Stalin’s concepts. And he was there for eight years, and then later he was exiled for three years.

And what he did during that time was he observed and he wrote. He was a real man of spiritual life, and he loved humanity, he loved the people, and he loved the Russian people.

And so he managed to develop his memory to such a degree that he memorized everything he wrote, and he memorized everything that other people told him, including writers, verbatim. He could quote them. And he had to store all this in his mind. And he did that whole time, the eight years that he was imprisoned.

And he was one of the very first to expose all of the atrocities of the Soviet Union’s repressive system and that they had been secretly perpetrating against their people. It was upwards of 100 million Christian Russians were murdered under Lenin and Stalin and even Khrushchev, even though that was considered the thaw. But he was then also removed because he was lessening his rule too much.

So Solzhenitsyn wrote these amazing books, his first one that they allowed to be published, because under Communist rule, under these repressive rulings, the censorship doesn’t want anything to move out into another country so that anyone can know what the atrocities are, what is going on. But because Khrushchev did this thaw, he allowed the book called One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich in 1962. And it was the first time a household could sit around the table and read about what had been going on to their people and how they’d been sent to the prisons and how they’ve been tortured and how they’ve been murdered, had they been pulled out of society and destroyed.

And this was it was allowed because Khrushchev thought that this was something that Solzhenitsyn was writing about, about Stalin and Lenin and didn’t realize that it also was being written about him. And it was also under Khrushchev that he was exonerated for his crimes, that he didn’t commit any crimes, but he was still exonerated.

And then he was writing the book called The Gulag Archipelago. And that book was a real deep dive. It’s the one that I read the three volumes of all of the tortures and all of the horrors of the Russian people.

And he had to pass it around on pieces of paper and on transcripts because he was constantly being followed. And it couldn’t get into the authorities hands or he would have been killed. But it did slip into the authorities hands through the secretary. And she was tortured and she ultimately committed suicide because she felt so responsible for the fact that she was the one that allowed the authorities to get this document.

And so he managed to get it out of the Soviet Union to the West. And it was published, and that was in 1973. And as a result of that publication, he was exiled from the Soviet Union.

And ultimately he moved to the United States in 1976, where he wrote the Red Wheel, which was the Russian Revolution of 1917 and dramatized. But this man is one of the most famous and most important Russian writers of modern time. And just his courage to be able to take the words and to honor the lives of all these people who were destroyed in the Gulags and under Stalin’s bloodbath.

And finally, when the Soviet Union collapsed, his wife and he regained their citizenship and in 1990, went back to Moscow, and he lived to quite an old age of 89. His wife is still alive. They have three sons. One of them, Ignat Solzhenitsyn, is a musician and a conductor who lives in the United States.

The other two are in the Soviet Union. But he’s known very famously for his Harvard speech. And I would highly recommend everyone going on YouTube and listening to it, because he’s warning about the dangers of the communist aggression and the weakening of the moral fiber of the West. And he says the materialism is really what has destroyed us in the West.

And I think if we do some reflecting, we can see how that is possible. And it is astonishing! He lived a tremendous life, and I am so grateful to him.

Monika Schaefer: That’s for sure. You know, interestingly enough, my brother Alfred, he was able to get these books from the prison library, The Gulag Archipelago, and he read them in prison. I was quite surprised by that they were available for him to read there. Wow! That’s such an interesting story. But I’m so surprised that when he had these books published, he was exiled for it. I’m kind of surprised they didn’t just, … Well, I suppose it would have put more attention on the books if they had just killed him. Right. Maybe they didn’t want to do that, but they didn’t want to, …

[54:13]

Kathleen Dudley: He was certainly concerned that his family and he were going to be killed. So the fact that they didn’t kill him and they exiled him is probably correct, that it would have brought too much attention because the books had already been published.

Monika Schaefer: Right. He would have been a Martyr. It would have Martyred him, and then even more people would have read the books.

Kathleen Dudley: Yes. Yes!

Monika Schaefer: Yeah. This way they just kind of put him out of the way and hope that it just nobody is much interested in them. I do have the books, and I haven’t read them yet, but you are causing me to want to read them soon. This is always my trouble. I have so many books that I want to read and to find enough time to do so.

But now he also wrote a book, Two Hundred Years Together. Do you know anything about that? Has it been translated into English yet?

Kathleen Dudley: Actually, I just received it in the mail today. And it’s the history, quote, “of the jewish problem in Russia”. And he is writing about what happened prior to the Revolution, the October 1917 Revolution, and what it was like living in Russia with the jews. Because under the czars, you know, up until Nicholas the First, they were excluded from society, and they were very limited. And when Nicholas the First allowed them in, what ended up happening is they grew. They created their capacity to build their Bolshevik Revolution, and they brought all their revolutionaries in from all over the world.

Monika Schaefer: Oh, okay. Thank you know, Kathleen, we do actually have a caller on the line now. So and we only have less than two minutes left, so I would like to invite Mike in Kentucky on line one. Are you there?

Mike: Yeah, I should have called earlier, but stop me if you’ve heard this one:

“We cannot Reform the Bolsheviks, but we can do our best to save them and ourselves from the consequences of their act.”

And that is the opening letter from E. Hewitt, Assistant Secretary, I think it’s the Ministry of Information:

“The Ministry can enter into no correspondence of any kind with regard to this communication, which should only be disclosed to responsible persons.”

And it’s a letter to the clergy asking them for their expression of belief into the allegations against Japan and Germany in order to distract the public’s attention from the doings of the Red Army. 1944. That’s in a book published in 1959 by Edward J. Rosnick called Allied Wartime Diplomacy.

I was going to bring that up on Blackbird9’s thing about how they killed the Russians, I mean, the general who wanted to go after Russia, Patton.

Monika Schaefer: Oh, thank you. Yeah, we just have a few seconds. Do you want to comment on any of that, Kathleen? That’s very interesting.

Kathleen Dudley: Well, I think I’ll leave that for you, Monika.

Monika Schaefer: Yeah, just wait. Well, I can already hear the music, but, Mike, I really appreciate that you called in and yeah, too bad you didn’t call earlier. It sounds very interesting, what you have there, the good information. Thank you, everybody for listening and thank you, Kathleen, for giving us a great talk about fascism. And thank you, Frank, that’s the producer. And thank you most of all the listeners. Bye bye.

Kathleen Dudley: Thank you.

[58:28]

[music]

[58:48]

[ad]

[1:00:00]

END

top

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

RBN Comments

top

(Comments as of 11/17/2024 = 0)

Let me tell You a sad story ! There are no comments yet, but You can be first one to comment this article.

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

See Also

top

Monika Schaefer – The Flipside with Monika – Ep 1 – Intro – Jun 29, 2024 – Transcript

The Flipside with Monika – Ep 2 – Jul 6, 2024 – Transcript

The Flipside with Monika – Ep 03 with Paul Fromm – Jul 13, 2024 – Transcript

Monika Schaefer – The Flipside with Monika – Ep 04 with Oscar – Jul 20, 2024 – Transcript

The Flipside with Monika – Ep 08 with Alfred Schaefer – Aug 17, 2024 – Transcript

The Flipside with Monika – Ep 09 with Grace Eki Oyama – Aug 24, 2024 – Transcript

Monika Schaefer – The Flipside with Monika – Ep 15 with Jürgen Neumann on Ernst Zündel – Oct 12, 2024 – Transcript

The Flipside with Monika – Ep 18 with Jürgen Neumann – Nov 2, 2024 – Transcript

The Flipside with Monika – Ep 20 with Kathleen Dudley – Nov 16, 2024 – Transcript

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

Monika Schaefer: Good evening. Good day. You are listening to The Flip Side with Monika, episode three on the Republic Broadcasting Network. I am your host, Monika Schaefer. It is July 13, 2024.

I am very much looking forward to having a guest this evening. And he is a fellow Canadian. He has been in the trenches, you could say, for years. Actually, for decades. He was aware of really, the big picture of what is going on in this world long before I was! I think I was still playing in the sandbox [chuckling] when he was starting to tell the truth and do some things that got him into some hot water! And I’ll get him to tell his story.

But first, I’m going to just tell you about the summer fundraiser that the RBN is having. The Republic Broadcasting Network. And before I read their blurb about the summer fundraiser, I’d just like to say a word about this sort of thing about fundraising. Please never consider it as “charity”. Think of it more as this is just part of the cost of life. And when we are in an upside down world, then we need to take these things into our own hands.

Now, if we were not in an upside down world and we were living in a world where there were no lies and deceptions from government and from our institutions, then this type of thing would be paid for through our taxes and our, we would be just living a world where the mainstream media would be us! [chuckling]

But it’s not! So think of it as part of the cost of living. Cost of life. Yes.

So I’m just going to read their blurb. Please participate in this fundraising effort to help us get over this financial hump for the next three months. That is, for July, August, and September. Donors who contribute $100 or more within this timeframe may request a unique RBN T-shirt. And the first ten participants will also receive an RBN gift package. This will include an additional classic RBN T-shirt, bumper stickers, and business cards. And thank you for your participation. And T-shirts will be sent after the summer fundraiser is over, October 1. And please do include your shipping information and T-shirt size. And you can donate by telephone at 1800 724 2719, extension three. Or go to the Republicbroadcasting.org/news/Summer-fundraiser and you can find all the information there. There are other ways to donate as well. PayPal or., … Yeah, anyway, I’ll let you sort that out. You could always phone that number. 1800 724 2719, extension three.

Now, to introduce my guest this evening, I’ve mentioned he’s a Canadian and he’s been at this for a long time. Paul Fromm is my guest, and I’m so happy to welcome him.

And just before I get him to say hello, I would just like to tell you that when I was first in the “hot seat”, you can say after I did my video [Sorry Mom, I was Wrong About the Holocaust] and I was starting to endure the wrath of the people in my own community as well as further afield, one of the first things that I was smeared by association, I was smeared by association for I had associated with this man, Paul Fromm! [chuckling] I think it’s quite funny now. I mean, it’s comical!

Unfortunately, we tend to be very much a herd creature, our people in general. We like to be part of the group, the group mentality. It seems to be very important to us in general to be accepted by our group.

Now, that is fine if we’re not infiltrated by an enemy. But it is really a hindrance for us when we have an enemy that moves among us, hiding themselves and doing their business by stealth and lies and deception and tricking us into believing that they are part of our group and they are not!

And I’m just going to give one little story about how powerful that “by association” thing is. And Paul knows all of these characters that I’m going to talk about. He knows them well.

When Arthur Topham was facing the Inquisition and for speech that our enemy does not like, I was putting out the word on social media, Facebook and whatnot, I was saying:

“You’ve got to support this man. It’s about free speech. And even if you don’t agree with everything that he says, it’s really a fight for all of us. Because if he loses this battle, then we all lose!”

Because really think of it as a battle for free speech. Well, then one of my good friends at the time, who I played lots of music with, and he was a very intelligent man. He was a chief forester. So he really was very competent man. But he comes back to me with this. He says:

“Well, I’ve checked out Arthur Topham’s website.”

The radicalpress.com, that he had at the time. And I guess the most recent article there was, he did a very complimentary piece, like an obituary, you could say, for Douglas Christie, who had just died recently at that time. And Douglas, and my friend says:

“Douglas Christie, he defended Ernst Zundel! And now Arthur is writing good things about Douglas Christie! So, no, I’m not going to support this man. Sorry, Monika. No. Done! I’m not!”

So this was like a third degree of association, really. Third degree of association. So a lawyer defends Ernst Zundel. Ernst Zundel, in this man’s eyes, was bad. And then Arthur writes something nice about Doug Christie after Doug Christie dies. And this man, this former friend of mine, does not want to support the court case, or he doesn’t want to support this man, who is really in a big fight. And I was saying:

“You know, listen, support free speech for this.”

So there you go, by association.

[09:07]

So this similar thing happened with me. People were writing things in the local paper in Jasper:

“Oh, she associates with Paul Fromm!”

Talking about me. So in this upside down world, Paul, I would take that as a great compliment.

Now, of course, it’s when we’re still in that world, it just seems, you know, hurtful and whatnot for both you and me. But really, we should both take it as a compliment.

So welcome to The Flip Side with Monika, Paul Fromm! Hello? Are you there? Okay, Paul, do you want to unmute? Perhaps you’re muted now. I see a mute button on Paul’s, …

Hello? Paul? Hmm. Okay. We might have to just maybe figure that out, and I’ll carry on. And then as soon as Paul can get through, I would sure appreciate it if he could let us know. [chuckling]

Well, I’m going to get Paul to tell his story, because he had his own trials and tribulations. He used to be a teacher, I believe, math and English. I might be wrong on that. I’ll have to get him to tell us. But he did upset a certain group of people. That same group of people who is that we’re always up against, the ones we’re not allowed to criticize, lest we be called “anti-semitic”. It’s always them. They’re the ones who are responsible for having put my brother and myself in jail for saying certain things that disagreed with their narrative of World War Two, history, the so-called jewish Holocaust.

Anyway, I’m not exactly sure what it was that Paul was saying at the time, but he was fired from his job. I do know that. And so since then, he’s been hard at work. He’s got several organizations under his name, the CAFE, which is the Canadian Association for Free Expression and C-FAR, I think.

Okay, I’m not getting a clear signal. Are you getting something there?

Paul Fromm: I can hear you.

Monika Schaefer: There you go. You are there. Good! Okay, Paul, would you like to tell a little bit your story?

Paul Fromm: Oh, okay.

Monika Schaefer: I don’t know if you could hear me. Could you hear me?

Paul Fromm: Yeah, I can hear. I heard everything.

Monika Schaefer: Okay, good. So why don’t you carry on and fill in the blanks there. I was just starting to get into it.

Paul Fromm: Okay. Well, I’ve been a long time activist and freedom and patriotic causes going back to about 1965. And I, without going into my whole history, I have to say, and I do this by way of introduction. Well, I have two big issues, free speech and immigration. Not enough free speech and too much immigration!

And that’s what I’ve been pursuing for the better part of five decades. I was very sympathetic to you when you got into all this trouble. And it’s typical of the tactics of our enemy.

And immediately, one of the things that Doug Christie used to say about these so-called “hate charges”. That there’s a process. And it’s defamation, isolate, criminalize! So first of all, the media and others usually egged on by the usual suspects defame you. There are hysterical articles about how horrible you are and so on.

And then the next thing, the goal of that, among other things, is to isolate you. And exactly, exactly what you’re describing happened to you:

“Oh, I won’t help Arthur Topham because you said something nice about Paul Fromm. Or you associated with Paul Fromm.”

And so eventually, [words unclear] your supporters, because your friends or supporters are all intimidated and scared. Now that does not always work, but it’s what’s in place.

So in my own case, I’ve been an activist for a good number of years. I’ve been an English instructor in Peel County for 25 years. And I had a former Director of Education called me an “exemplary teacher”. So there’s never any problem with my teaching. And I kept my politics out of the classroom. I taught English, and I had fairly high standards. And I know I was appreciated because I was regularly called to do night school or summer school. So teachers who are not very good or real screw up, don’t get the invitation. I did. So, yeah, I was a successful professional.

And then in 1991, I went to a meeting of the Dramas [sp] Committee on community and racial relations. And at that meeting, there was a native Indian who was promoting, who was demanding more and more repression, that fascist groups should not be allowed to use facilities for meetings and so on and so on.

And he listed a number of things and then he said, and other measures. So I piped up [words unclear]

Now, I thought that was very funny. And many other people did, when I told the story over the years. What I was saying was:

“How far would you go? Just start [words unclear] free speech.”

Well, anyway, their meeting went nuts, …

Monika Schaefer: Paul, excuse me, can you just repeat what you typed up? Because your connection is not super clear. Not in my ear, anyway. And I just missed. What did you type up that sent them into a fit?

Paul Fromm: Well, no, I didn’t type up. I piped up. I heckled up.

Monika Schaefer: You piped up! I’m sorry. [chuckling] Okay.

Paul Fromm: And I said:

“Scalp them!”

You know, like how far? He was saying, “and other measures”.

And I said:

“Scalp them?”

Question mark. Like:

“How far would you go?”

Anyway, this was quite upsetting.

Monika Schaefer: Yeah.

Paul Fromm: And so I was thrown out of the meeting. And the next day, the Canadian jewish Congress and others started demanding my Board of Education fire me!

[16:55]

Notice there’s nothing I did in the classroom or said in the classroom. On my own time, on my own dime, I made a comment.

Okay, well, this was fought over and finally the Board of Education decided to give me a reprimand that:

“I shouldn’t say things like that and I shouldn’t do it again.”

I never agreed with that. I thought I was on my own time, you know?

Anyway, so by now, though, the dark forces were really gunning for me. So they came across a film about 18 months later that I had of a meeting I’d attended in December of 1990. And it was for the Nationalist Heritage Front, and I had given a speech about freedom of speech.

Anyway, they alleged that somewhere in the corner of the room there was a swastika.

Now, I didn’t put it there, I didn’t waive it and so on, but I gained guilt by association. So now they were really after me! And the Board of Education was so flummoxed that they called upon the Minister of Education to do something, because the Minister of Education had the power in those days to take away your teaching certificate.

Monika Schaefer: You know, Paul, just to pause there, I find that interesting. Oh, somewhere in the room they found a swastika, and you mentioned you didn’t put it there.

Now, aside from the fact that the swastika is, it’s been demonized, and that’s just a really false thing because swastika has always represented something good. But just aside from that, probably it was provocateur that did that, because that’s how they operate. They want to get you, so they’ll do some action that’s like it’s a provocation. And they do it themselves. Like those who want to take you out, probably did that.

But anyway, carry on with your story.

Paul Fromm: Well, that’s possible. So they asked the Minister of Education to take away my teaching certificate.

Now, the Minister of Education at the time was an NDP’er [sp], but he didn’t! He investigated the case.

And apparently there were censorship groups that burst into his office cursing him and swearing and carrying on because he wouldn’t take it away.

Anyway, so what he did was he set up a special committee, sorry, special inquiry under an NDP lawyer who is going to look into me and my case. So that inquiry, which was supposed to be over in a month, ended up extending about, if I recall correctly, about seven months. And they heard from various lobby groups, they heard from a few students, they heard from a few teachers.

And I actually did have some support from a number of other teachers. One who was, I think, an NDP’er. And she said:

“Well, I don’t agree with Paul, but he’s always been a good teacher and he’s never brought his views into the classroom.”

And several others said the same thing.

And I was at that time the most investigated teacher ever in the province of Ontario!

Now I hadn’t molested students or stolen the coffee fund or anything like that! I had expressed my own views on my own time, off school property.

Okay, the inquiry, it was a complicated finding, but it said:

“Well, his remarks didn’t go far enough for him to be fired under the present legislation, but he should be. The legislation should be changed and then he could be fired and then, …”

Anyway, so the board of education didn’t know what to do with me, so they decided they would put me into adult education. And many people said that was the punishment because I would now have to deal with a lot of non-Whites. Well, it wasn’t a punishment! I mean, I didn’t see it as such.

The adults were very motivated to learn. They’d come back to school as adults and they came back because they wanted to get their high school diploma and they wanted to learn! Whereas many of the adolescents, I mean, some of the adolescents didn’t want to learn. They’re going through a rebellious stage and they hate adults. They hate everybody! So I had virtually no trouble with any of the adults, even though over 50% of them were non-White. And I’m supposed to have been made so angry by that. I wasn’t. Things went well.

But finally, we now skip ahead to 1997. So they’ve been after me for six years.

Finally, in 1997, the board voted to fire me. And that’s because the Supreme Court had heard the Malcolm Ross case. He was a teacher in New Brunswick and he had written a number of books, one against abortion, one against the jewish lobby, and so on. Again, on his own time, on his own dime, off school property.

And it was alleged in the human rights theory that he created a “poisoned environment”. And we would hear that more and more:

“Your very existence on this earth creates a poisoned environment!”

And you probably heard that, Monika, in Jasper. Your very being alive, poisons things!

Monika Schaefer: Oh, yes. Oh, yes. This is so interesting, Paul. Yeah. The poisoned environment and the fact that they had to make special, you know, different laws. I mean, it reminded me of Robert Faurisson. For whom they made a special law in France, just for him! It’s just really amazing how they pursued you. And they really had a hard time to fire you because you did your job very well! [chuckling]

You’re the kind of guy they don’t like at all because you’re intelligent, you do your job well, you’re conscientious, but somehow they have to get rid of you because you’re too wise to the situation and you’re seeing things way in advance of most of us, I have to say. Like way before, most of us have seen really what was wrong with this mass immigration and mass immigration from third world countries and whatnot. That it would change the very fabric of our nations. And look at where we are at now! My goodness! And you were really ahead of the of the curveball there on that. But please carry on.

[24:08]

Paul Fromm: Unfortunately, those were the old days and there have been enough cases since then, not just in education, that we have a new form of slavery. Your employer owns you 24 hours a day! It used to be your employer was entitled to seven or 8 hours a day of your work and diligence. And what you did on your own time was your business in more. In many cases now, that’s no longer the situation.

Anyway, so I hired Doug Christie. We had a couple meetings with the Board. And he put up a fantastic fight! And I was supposed to be fired in a week. And we dragged it out for seven weeks.

And finally my union leader said, and the union was backing me at this stage. He said:

“Boy, your lawyer has made some great speeches. He is really powerful! But you’re going to lose.”

I said:

“What do you mean? You just said, I’ve got a great lawyer.”

He says:

“Well, I’ll tell you what. You’re going to lose, because the day they fire you (sorry), the day after they fire you, the phone calls stop!”

Monika Schaefer: The phone calls. What? Sorry?

Paul Fromm: The phone calls stop!

Monika Schaefer: Oh!

Paul Fromm: The pressure. And so in other words, …

Monika Schaefer: The board was getting probably many, many phone calls. And I wouldn’t doubt that there was a big organized lobby that was making these phone calls happen. And I just would venture to say that it was very likely the jewish lobby. They are very organized. That’s just., …

Paul Fromm: It was them!

Anyway, in January of 1997, I was fired!

Now, I’ve had a 25 year career. I had a wife and two small children. That didn’t matter. I was out on my rear end! I applied for unemployment insurance and was turned down because I was “fired for cause”. Well, I said:

“We are in the process of, the union and I, are in the process of aggrieving the firing!”

It didn’t matter.

So we went to the Court of Appeal, and I had a good lawyer, Barbara Kulaszka, or the late Barbara Kulaszka. The government’s Lawyer was an oriental woman. And the judge, I swear, was drunk! And he mocked both lawyers, and in the end, ruled against me.

So I’m unemployed, and although we’re appealing the firing, I have no income. The appeal, nothing goes quickly in Canadian justice. Took about a year and a half, and I lost on a two to one vote by the Arbitration Board. And I did various things to earn a living. And I got back into education with a different board as a substitute teacher. And this would be about seven or eight years later.

And then the Teachers Federation, under complaints, after complaints of the (((usual suspects))), the Teachers Federation, decided they would try to take away my teaching license. So without a teaching license you can’t teach in Ontario. And after a big fight, they did! They voted. They said that I had “consorted”. That was the term, “consorted with disreputable people”, one of them being Representative Dr David Duke. I had been at conferences in the United States, again, all my own time, off school property. And I had “bad friends”, or, I mean “bad acquaintances”. Pretty much what was being said about you and Arthur Topham. You knew bad people, so therefore you’re no good and you deserve no help!

And so that ended my teaching career.

And I had to look for other employment. And it’s a pretty ruthless world! And I learned a lot about human nature.

Monika Schaefer: No doubt! No doubt you did, Paul, as did I. This isolation tactic, and you perfectly said it earlier, that first the defamation and the isolation and then the criminalization!

Paul Fromm: Yeah. Now, because once you’re isolated, it’s easier to take you to court. You’ve got no friends, presumably now, no money, except your own, if you have any. And you know, you’re the ideal victim.

[music playing]

Monika Schaefer: We’re coming up against the bottom of the hour, but please hold on and we’ll be right back after these messages.

Thank you very much for listening.

[29:28]

[ad]

[36:00]

[music]

[37:00]

Monika Schaefer: Okay, I think we’ll like to welcome you back to The Flipside with Monika and our guest, Paul Fromm. And we have a little bit more to discuss and talk about, and then we would like to take callers in the last 15 minutes of the show. So the number for that is 512 248 8252 or toll free 1800 313 9443.

Now, Paul, you were just going to tell us a story about your association or what they perceived as your association with the KKK. Why don’t you tell us what you had in mind there.

Paul Fromm: A radical Leftist author at the time dealt with the so-called Right in Canada and did a profile on me. And she called me a sort of a Fred McMurray character. You know, shirt and tie, gentle spoken, button down, and a good teacher. Okay.

But when it came time for my, … When they were trying to take away my teaching certificate, one of the allegations by one of my former department heads was:

“Well, the rumor was I was a member of the Ku Klux Klan.”

And so when I had her on the witness stand, I said:

“Well, okay. Would that concern you?”

She said:

“Well, yes.”

I said:

“Well, where did you get the information?”

“Well, it was sort of general knowledge.”

I said:

“Come on, you’re university educated. You know the scientific method. I mean, you have to prove things. Well, what was the proof?”

“Oh, well, it was generally known.”

And I said:

“Okay, you thought that was the case. And you saw me every day in the English department office. Why didn’t you ever ask me? I mean, ‘is it true you’re a member of the Klan?’.”

“Oh, well, people were afraid of you.”

I said:

“Why was that? Did I ever threaten you?”

“No.”

“Did I ever threaten anybody else around the school?”

“Well, no.”

“Did I threaten the students?”

“Well, no.”

“So I said, nobody ever threatened you had this concern or belief, but you never asked me!”

Monika Schaefer: Isn’t that something!

Paul Fromm: And I thought:

“Honest to God, these people are disgusting!”

You know?

Monika Schaefer: Well, that’s, … I mean, I could think of many examples of similar stories like that wherever they could have just asked a simple question. Like the judge in Germany at one of my bail hearings, when afterwards, the justification for keeping me in jail was longer than our meeting itself, or it took longer to read it than the meeting took itself. And there were some ridiculous assumptions they made that I thought:

“Well, they could have just asked me that!”

But they didn’t. They just have their preconceived agenda, or their notion. And besides which, I’ll just say this, Paul, about the KKK. It’s another one of those things that, my goodness, have we ever been lied to about that whole organization! Not that I want to get into that now. I would be going down a whole another rabbit trail for our hour now.

But it’s just another one of those things that we’ve been really, really deceived about the nature of that organization and the history and whatnot, and what they did and what it was about.

So, yeah, just to put that. But there you go. They didn’t even ask you if you were part of it, but they just assumed you were. And that’s it. Verdict is made, and then, …

Paul Fromm: The fix was in. I was never going to win that hearing anyway, but I certainly landed a lot of, … Messed these witnesses up pretty well. And even through the help of Dave Lindsay, who is a sort of he doesn’t like being called a paralegal, because legally he’s not. But he probably knows more about the law than most lawyers anyway.

Monika Schaefer: Yes.

Paul Fromm: I was told at one point it would cost., … The hearing was supposed to go on for about 20 some days, and it would cost about $1,000 a day for the transcript. And there’s no way I could afford it. By this time, the union was no longer supporting me. So my entire defense was out of my own pocket.

Well, Dave said:

“We will challenge that before the committee on the basis that the Magna Carta says that ‘justice shall not be bought or sold’.”

And we knocked them on their rear ends with that argument!:

“Look, if I’m not allowed to have the transcript, if I have to pay for it and I can’t afford it, justice is being denied to me!”

Well, that absolutely flummoxed them! And in the end, I got my transcript free!

So we won a few. Maybe I didn’t win the main battle, but it was a great fight. Oh, yes!

And at one of the sessions, two members of the jewish Defense League [JDL, not the ADL, but similar], they were picketing the hearing that day. I mean, God knows why! They wanted me gone. But okay, that’s what the hearing was about.

So the two members jumped into this elevator as I got in and they tried to attack me! And two metro police were in the elevator. They did it right in front of the cops and the cops restrained them, so they never landed the blow on me. And yeah, yeah, it was, as they said back in those days, a hairy time!

Monika Schaefer: Oh, my goodness! Yeah.

And so, okay, so thanks for telling us about your story. Basically, I’m sure there, we could talk for hours about it and we still wouldn’t have heard all the interesting details about it.

But then, you know what I find so admirable is then what you’ve been doing for the last several decades with the Canadian Association for Free Expression and with C-FAR. What does C-FAR stand for?

Paul Fromm: It stands for Citizens for Foreign Aid Reform. But our major endeavor is publishing the Canadian Immigration Hotline. Our major issue is [word unclear] immigration.

Monika Schaefer: Right. And then you’ve also assisted and been involved, I think, to some degree or other, with many speech crime trials in Canada. And Arthur Tophams, that’s where I first met you face to face. And I know you were involved in many others. And there are current political prisoners. The two that come to my mind, and there might be more, but I’m not sure right now. But Leslie Bory, who is in prison in Ontario, and it’s probably the worst prison in Canada, it sounds like the conditions are just horrendous!

And then there’s Brad Love in northern Alberta. And he’s going to come out of, and yeah, … I hear some music, but it’s for a different show there! [chuckling] Okay. That’s it! It’s taken care of thanks.

Yeah, so we could talk a little bit about both of them. I had thought about reading excerpts, but I probably should dedicate a whole show to reading some excerpts out of their letters. I’m in correspondence with both of them. Brad Love is soon coming out. Like, I think in just a few days, maybe in a week from now or so. he did just a little tiny blurb here when he was writing, this was back in, let’s see, May. And there were lots of fires.

And so he was a bit concerned about his home. Because eight years ago he lost everything. And he says:

“Please, not again, Lord. But my landlord says all is well up there. Yet, still I’m nervous. I’d call the Mayor up there, but he would call the cops on me or he called the cops on me in 2020. I’d call the newspaper. But yeah, the same thing I kid you not! Oh, yeah. Radio station as well. And two MP’s. Should I continue?”

So [chuckling] you see, he’s in jail for writing letters and making phone calls to these representatives that are supposed to be available for us, the citizens! But that’s what he’s in jail for, because I guess they feel that he is pestering them too much.

And then there’s Leslie Bory, who has been in jail now for 16 months plus. And he has not yet been formally charged. Is that correct, Paul? Can you talk a little bit about that? And then we’ll take some callers before we reach the top of the hour.

[46:37]

Paul Fromm: The great abuses of the Canadian justice system is the remand system.

Now, you have a right, if you’re accused of a crime, charged with a crime, to get reasonable bail. That is a right. And it can only be canceled for very serious reasons.

Now, we, without naming names, but summarizing, there are a number of instances recently of people even, who’ve been accused of murder, who are out on bail, armed robbery, shooting people, blah, blah, blah, out on bail!

But political dissidents, like one of the leaders of the truckers Freedom Convoy, Tamara Lich, she’d been in jail for 57 days, denied bail, and when she finally did get bail, she was virtually a prisoner in her own home, not allowed on the Internet, etcetera. Political dissidents have trouble getting bail. And that was Leslie Bory. Leslie had his own little television program on the Internet, I think it was called Brantford TV. And he took some pretty strong stands about, about jews, about police, and so on.

And so he did a broadcast on February 11th of 2023. Four days later, …

Monika Schaefer: Two days later, I believe.

Paul Fromm: Yeah, two days later the police show up armed, to the job he held in a workshop, and guns pointed. The guy was unarmed.

Monika Schaefer: He said he had a lunch kit in one hand and keys in the other hand, and they took him down, you know, SWAT team, like. Yeah, like a dangerous criminal style!

Paul Fromm: The police were raiding his home. They stole his computer and various towers, and his wife was taken off in handcuffs, put in a police cruiser. They put those spike strips across the street, blocked the street off. The woman is unarmed! And she was never charged. There was nothing to charge her with. But anyway, …

Monika Schaefer: So it’s to make a big scene, isn’t it, to show the neighborhood:

“There’s a very dangerous man living here!”

I mean, they did that to me. They came with their flashing lights, two of their, you know, reds and blues vehicles. And I lived like half a block from the RCMP station in Jasper, and yet they drove over with their lights going full bore. And I lived in a co-op there. So dense housing and so that all the neighbors could:

“See what a dangerous person lives here!”

[chuckling]

Paul Fromm: What did she do!:

“Oh, my God! Are our dogs even safe around her?”

But so it was a high impact takedown, and he was charged with three counts of uttering threats against groups, not individuals.

And then later he was charged with one count under the hate law:

“The willful promotion of hate against a privileged group.”

In this case, jews. And one count of:

“Willfully promoting genocide.”

And, okay, all these are non-violent offenses.

Monika Schaefer: If I could just interject, Paul. He’s the messenger. The long and the short of it is that he is the messenger. I say don’t shoot the messenger!

I mean, this is how it is right now.

And we do have a caller on the line, but if you’d like to just complete that thought briefly, we’ll take the call.

Paul Fromm: Anyway. He’s basically in there for running his mouth in a politically incorrect way.

Monika Schaefer: Right.

Paul Fromm: He had bad thoughts as opposed to people who get bail who did bad things, or I should say, do bad things, anyway.

Monika Schaefer: Yeah. The irony is he could be in jail already, sitting in jail longer than what the charge would merit, as in the he’s already, … Like, they won’t let him out until he’s already served the time. That even if he’s guilty of some crime, like, you know what I mean? Like, they just hold him there.

Paul Fromm: He probably already has. Anyway, that was February 14, 2023. Despite numerous attempts to get bail, they have failed. Bail denied. He remains there in warehouse. And there is a very large number of people in Canada, particularly in Ontario, who are essentially being warehoused. They call it “remand”. They’re not given bail, and they’re just there in bad conditions in a prison week after week.

He is now being in for over 500 days. We’ve had six protests outside the prison to support him, and this is a real injustice. His alleged crime are bad words and bad thoughts! He hasn’t hurt anybody. But the system fears the thinker far more than they do the guy that goes and beats someone.

Monika Schaefer: That is the key, Paul! The system that is composed of the criminals. The criminals are running the show. They fear the speech. You know, the truth more than anything else, because that is exactly what will undermine their power!

[52:33]

Paul Fromm: If your audience has ever read Alexander Solzhenitsyn. He described the conditions in the prison camps, the Gulags, and yes, things were not very good for anybody. But killers and rapists and robbers were not treated as badly as the political prisoners. That incident is punished far more!

Monika Schaefer: This is what we’re seeing now. Mr Producer, could you bring in Larkin from Texas? Because we just have five minutes remaining and we’d like to., … He’s been waiting for a while there. Are you there, Lark?

Lark: I am. Thanks, Monika.

Monika Schaefer: Go ahead.

Lark: And how are you, Paul? Paul, I must say that I’ve long wanted to talk to you. Quickly. Are you familiar with Sam Dixon?

Paul Fromm: Oh, yeah. Great friend of mine.

Lark: Yeah. Maybe you could talk to him sometime. He did a keynote address on behalf of Richard Spencer and his group a dozen years ago and you can find it online. It was called America the God that Failed. And in the first couple. In the first couple of minutes, Mr Dixon describes himself as a communitarian.

So this is an important word that I want to bring to your attention because I’ve been researching this for 20 years. You know, I learned quite a bit about what you are confronting by a Professor, the late Doctor Harrell Rome.

Paul Fromm: Oh, yes, I knew him years ago. Yes.

Lark: Yeah. His stuff is still to be found on the Internet. But and this is for you too, Monika.

The truth is, you guys are running into what’s called R2P, or Responsibility to Protect. And this is a part and parcel of communitarian law.

Now, all law enforcement in America since the Patriot Act post 9/11 has been communitarian law enforcement. And it’s taken hold of the courts. Don’t forget that on day 9/11, 2001, it was a Canadian that was captain of the ship there at NORAD in Colorado Springs, Colorado. They basically were part of the command structure.

So the point is that a lot of Canadian history, as we all know, has been tied to the hip with the events that occurred in America over time. And we’ve heard talk about the North American Union and stuff like that. Well, this is actually occurring right on our watch.

But here’s why it called. If you do a search, it’s called COREVALUES, all capped. One word. COREVALUES. It was published in 2013. I’ve already supplied a link to the board op for your benefit, Monika and Paul.

Monika Schaefer: Thank you.

Lark: And yeah, if you guys look at that, you’re going to get at the root of how it is that you’re being railroaded and essentially being harmed by the justice system. And because we have simply not been made aware, we were never sent the memo that the new law of the entire world in a hyper connected time is the same law as the European Union, because that’s the legal undergirding. And that law in the European Union is known as Communitarian Law. So I’ve dropped you a few breadcrumbs. You can always reach out to me if you ever want to talk. But this is what’s at the root of what has happened to you, Paul.

Paul Fromm: So you’ll have to give us a contact.

Monika Schaefer: Thank you, Lark, for that call. Excellent call! And I do see the link there, so maybe, Paul, you can see it as well. We can use that link before we lose after the end of the call here. And we just have about a minute left. But thank you again, Lark, for the call. Excellent information.

So, Paul, would you like to tell people where they can find your work, your newsletters online, that kind of thing? Go ahead.

Paul Fromm: Yes. Well, first of all, if you want to contact me and get samples of my newsletters, email me at Paul@paulfromm.com. That’s Paulfromm.com. The free speech website is CAFE. Cafe.nfs.host.com. Or go online for the Canadian Association for Free Expression and you’ll get the contact there.

Monika Schaefer: Paul, 10 seconds. What about any other words to take us out?

Paul Fromm: It’s really important that you support the people who are in prison, the political prisoners. Get the address from Monika or me and drop them a note.

Monika Schaefer: Freespeechmonika.com has the political prisoner addresses. Thank you so much! Thank you, Paul, for coming on our show. And thank you, Mr Producer, for your excellent work. And we’ll see you next week.

[58:20]

[music]

[58:48]

[ad]

[1:00:00]

END

top

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

RBN Comments

top

(Comments as of 7/14/2024 = 0)

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

See Also

top

Monika Schaefer – The Flipside with Monika – Ep 1 – Intro – Jun 29, 2024 – Transcript

The Flipside with Monika – Ep 2 – Jul 6, 2024 – Transcript

The Flipside with Monika – Ep 03 with Paul Fromm – Jul 13, 2024 – Transcript

The Flipside with Monika – Ep 08 with Alfred Schaefer – Aug 17, 2024 – Transcript

Monika Schaefer – The Flipside with Monika – Ep 15 with Jürgen Neumann on Ernst Zündel – Oct 12, 2024 – Transcript

Joel Davis: Live. It is the 11 July 2024, another episode of the Joel and Blair Show. I know I have promised to change the name of the show and we will change the name of the show! And we will develop the show! But let us cook. We still cooking up the new idea. We want to, when we make the brand change, we want to stick the landing and make it actually interesting. We don’t want to just chop and change names and chop and change formats. We want to transition to a new paradigm in a way that actually feels like a new paradigm.

So in the meantime, you’re getting The Joel and Blair Show, and it’s a pretty good show and it’s constantly growing. Seems like we’ve got a solid viewer base, a lot of positive feedback.

So you’re going to take what you got for now and you’re going to be happy with it. We only want to change it if we can change it for the better.

But how you doing, Blair? See you got the FED post shirt on. Although I did say that the microphone kind of covers up the tee, so it looks like it says “error”.

Blair Cottrell: This is a band. Just so everyone knows. I’m pretty sure this was an Australian hardcore band, maybe. I kind of inherited this shirt from somebody else. So and I just thought it was kind of funny. I’ve had people remark in public how they find it intimidating, but it’s just like a nice baggy shirt I wear at home. So don’t get the wrong idea by this shirt. I’m not encouraging anything. [chuckling]

Of course, we’re not allowed to do that. But how are you? How are you going, mate? We did a pretty intense leg session at the gym last night. I’d say relative to my usual leg sessions, 50% intensity. And Joel joined us. How are you feeling?

Joel Davis: Yeah, I feel fine. You know, I have a residual knee injury and, yeah, after doing that leg session, we really isolated the quads. I realised I should have been doing more quad isolation and weighted lunges. If I’d been doing that for the last few months, I’m sure my knee would be in much better shape than it is so I feel good, though, that I found an exercise that I think will help because, yeah, my knees are pretty ripped up.

I got hit by a car when I was a teenager and had a pretty bad knee injury. And it did heal and I have never re-injured it since, but it’s never been 100%. And because that’s my front leg when I’m kickboxing, it tends to get kicked a lot and so a lot of pressure goes on that knee because anyone who knows about kickboxing knows that your front leg cops the brunt of the kicks, and it means your front leg gets more conditioned because it gets used to getting kicked.

But every time you’ve got your weight on your front foot and you get kicked in the kind of thigh area, well, that’s a lot of pressure on the knee joint and then that repeatedly getting cracked over and over and over again! When I finally took a break from sparring all the time and allowed my knee to kind of breathe, because when you’re sparring regularly and getting kicked in the leg all the time, you’re kind of just used to leg pain and you just don’t think too much of it.

But then when I started focusing more on lifting for the wintertime and doing squats, I was really feeling not stable in my left knee in the squats. So I did appreciate, because the last few times we went to the gym, we just did very Blair Cottrell workouts of just spamming bicep curls and just getting like a really chest, … What a chest! [chuckling]

Blair Cottrell: For the record, for the record, I do proper workouts, like bodybuilding workouts. I don’t just do bicep curls all the time. So and people know that anyone who’s gone through sessions with me. I consider myself to be a knowledgeable professional, right.

Joel Davis: Oh you are!

Blair Cottrell: That’s why I market myself as a personal trainer.

Joel Davis: You are, but you also just do shitloads of chest and biceps for aesthetics. And you have like a massive chest and biceps as a result! [chuckling] Hey, that’s cool! There’s nothing wrong with that.

But, you know, we’ve been doing that a lot. And thing is, another point is during the week I’ve been doing bench press and overhead press and do dips and stuff like that. So it’s kind of like I’m just doing a lot of the exercises that I do anyway on other nights.

So yeah, then one night a week that we aim to train together, I think it would be nice to do legs more because I think that’s where my body actually needs the rehab of like a really because as you said:

“You are knowledgeable.”

It is good going to the gym with Blair because, you know, your shit and you can give good advice. And someone like me, who’s just starting out there’s a lot of little details about lifting that can really make a big difference. Like when, it’s not just about lifting, it’s not just about the mentality of just going hard.

There’s also a technique aspect. So I try to soak up, when I’m new to something, I like to soak up the knowledge of experienced people. That’s how you learn. So you and Tom, actually, because Tom used to be an Olympic lifter. Very, very good to have friends like you guys that know your shit at the gym, because it really helps when you got people who know what they’re talking about and actually have experience and have injured themselves doing dumb shit when they were younger and learnt from mistakes and things like that.

[05:16]

Blair Cottrell: Well, that’s intelligent too. It’s intelligent to be able to acknowledge when someone else knows more about something than you do and to listen from them and learn. Some people are so low IQ, they don’t., … They kind of lack the humility. Is that what you would call it? To actually learn from others? They like to just act like they’re the experts in everything, especially on things they know nothing about. I find most ordinary people are like that and it can be a bit frustrating.

But regarding, someone said in the comments BPC 157, which is, … I’m not sure what the legality is surrounding that compound. I’m pretty sure it’s not the illegal, but it’s also not available through prescription either. It’s this grey area supplement that, to my understanding, consists of a series of amino acids, an amino acid complex which in certain animal studies has been shown to regenerate connective tissue, specifically tendon tissue, faster, I think. Someone’s recommending that for your knee. Maybe we could try that. But that’s something we’ll explore further down the track. And I’m just throwing this out there, guys. I’ve got a lot of messages to get through in my DM’s, which I’ve been getting a lot lately regarding online coaching and personal training.

So if you’re waiting for me to reply, please be patient and I’ll get back to you when I can. The streams, my online activity seems to have generated just a bit more attention, more interest in my services, and I want to get across to everyone. I want to make sure I get back to everyone. And I will get back to you.

So if you’re waiting, you won’t be waiting much longer.

Joel Davis: Yeah. And for those that don’t know, just the plug Blair, he does offer., … You can kind of get in contact with him on Telegram. Probably the easiest place. And it’s just @BlairCotrell, right to DM you?

Blair Cottrell: Yeah, yeah. Did I just mute myself?

Joel Davis: No, you’re not muted.

Blair Cottrell: Yeah, it’s just at my full name, no spaces. And, what are my actual thoughts? Have I used BPC 157? Yeah, I did use it. I did localised injections twice a day.

I can’t remember the dose. I think it may have been between 200 and 350 micrograms. Close to the side of the injury, just beneath the skin when I ruptured my pectoral tendon. The problem is that I’m not really sure what to compare it to because I’ve never had an injury like that before. So how do I know if the BBC 157 actually accelerated my recovery or not? I don’t know. But I did make a full recovery in about six months. And I don’t know whether that’s faster than usual. I tend to recover pretty quickly from injuries anyway and I’ve never really had an injury that serious.

So I do think it helps. That’s my feeling. But I don’t know for sure. But I can tell you, interestingly, the same is true for TB 500, too, which is a different peptide. That’s arguably producing similar results to BPC 157. I won’t harp on about this too long because a lot of people probably aren’t interested in this. But it definitely lowered inflammation. Inflammation in my body. Like I get redness in my face, inflamed joints, tendons around the joints. I noticed that that subsided significantly when I was doing these peptides. Couldn’t really afford to continue to do them long term, not doing them anymore.

And there is some evidence that suggests consistent use over a period of a year or longer. You can start to get diminishing results. Like it doesn’t really work anymore, which is true for most synthetic compounds. The body starts to become accustomed to them. But BPC 157 is a synthetic copy of a natural substance that’s made in your gut, and it does contribute to the restoration of connective tissue and lowering inflammation. And I can say that it definitely lowers inflammation.

So anyway, that’s enough about bodybuilding and pharmaceutical enhancements. What’s been going on in the realm of Australian news or world news? Because we cover a range of news, don’t we, each week? What have you got for us, mate?

Joel Davis: Yeah, so, I mean, on the show tonight, I wanted to talk about, because we had been talking about the lead up to the election in Britain, that obviously happened last weekend.

We also have elections in France, which were interesting. Developments around American politics with Trump disavowing Project 2025. And I find all of this interesting not because of:

“Oh, it’s just like, interesting news!”

Which it is, but also for the implications for populist Right-wing politics in general. I think there’s something that we can take away from all of those experiences when thinking about Australian politics.

So I wanted to get into a discussion of some of those subjects, but then also I wanted to get into a discussion around the jewish community and global jewry trying to advance an even more strict censorship regime. I think in particular, in response to the really negative response to recent actions by the Israeli state, around the world. Its popularity feels like it’s at the lowest point that I can remember in my life, at least in the last, you know, 10, 15 years.

Blair Cottrell: Would you say Israel was ever a truly popular nation state, though? It doesn’t feel like there was any authentic support or popularity for Israel. It feels like they just threw a lot of money around and had a lot of influence.

[10:49]

Joel Davis: No, I disagree. I think particularly in America, the Evangelical Christians, they loved it! They got trained to love Israel. And when Right-wingers, so you notice this with boomers. Boomers and Gen-X is like, that, are conservatives that vote for the Liberal Party. They watch Sky News, they listen to 2GB if they’re in Sydney, or 3AW, or whatever it is down here in Melbourne, or that kind of Right-wing talk back radio, the legacy Right-wing media. Because all of that is ridiculously philo-semitic and pro-Israel in particular. And then particularly also if they go to church. Obviously, boomers, they’re more likely to go to church and things like that. Like if they go to a kind of Evangelical Protestant church or something, then they’ve been bombarded with pro-Israel propaganda for decades by “trusted sources”, the people that seem to be on their team, on Team Christian, on Team conservative, which they identify with politically.

And so they see Israel as something that they should support as well:

“It’s the only democracy in the Middle East and judeo Christian values!”

And also if they watch American conservative media, which a lot of Australians do, if they, you know, see things by Ben Shapiro or some other equivalent figure, it’s the same thing.

Blair Cottrell: Let me ask you.

Joel Davis: Yeah.

Blair Cottrell: Are there actually any shared values between the jews and the Christians? Or is Judeo-Christian just a psyop?

Joel Davis: Judeo-Christian as a notion is a psyop. Because, I mean, if we look at Christian history, Christians and jews definitely did not see themselves as on the same team as getting along. We have Christians kicking jews out of their countries, out of their kingdoms, out of their cities, over and over again throughout European history. You know, you’ve got so many great artists and philosophers and theologians and, just high ranking members of the Church and so on, that were very critical of jews. And Catholics in general, I would say, on average, are more critical of jews, but you could say Protestants as well.

Well, I mean, Martin Luther, the first Protestant, if you will, the last book that he wrote was called “On the Jews and Their Lies”. And, it’s a pretty anti-semitic book. [chuckling]

So there’s a long history of anti-jewish views that have been held by people across Christendom. I mean, jews did not have the same political rights as Christian Europeans until modernity. Like the liberation of the jews, was like a hot button political issue in the 18th and 19th century. The idea that:

“Should we give jews equal rights to the rest of us? Hmm.”

It was actually, like, a contentious issue.

And then, of course, we know what happened in the 20th century and so on.

So this idea that jews and Christians always got along is just plainly false! You know, jews themselves, they have got some European blood in them, but they are mixed race. They are semitic people. They are not Europeans. They’re not pure Europeans. They’re a foreign race that has interbred with some Europeans. So they aren’t the same race as us.

And I think the values of Judaism, like rabbinical Judaism, that they practice, are clearly antithetical. I mean, first of all, it’s a supremacist religion. The Talmud very directly denigrates Christians. I believe it says in the Talmud that Jesus Christ is burning in a pit of excrement in hell! You know, it blasphemes against many tenets of the Christian religion.

Blair Cottrell: What do you have to say, though? What do you have to say to some jews who refute the Talmud and hold to the Torah? Because there are jews like that. Are they still living a lifestyle and believing [words unclear] Christianity?

Joel Davis: Well, that’s not a very conventional opinion. It’s like taking a sect, a small sect of Christians that almost no Christians believe in and saying:

“Well, what about these Christians?”

It’s like, well, you know, that’s not the prevailing attitude of the, … And also, there’s a lot of atheist jews. As well, that’s a bigger deal to deal with, …

Blair Cottrell: It could be said that the sort of the anti-Christian heart being black towards the Europeans and the Christians, that results in the kind of passages that are in the Talmud suggesting that Mother Mary, the mother of Christ, was a whore and that Christ is boiling in hot excrement in hell. These are expressions of a disdain that comes from the ethnicity, that comes from the character of the people themselves. It’s not the religion that’s the problem. It’s the people! Right? The expressions, the hatred, the disdain for outsiders, that’s what’s being expressed.

Joel Davis: Yeah, it’s an ethno-religion.

So you can’t really divide one from the other, the jewish religion. Just like Germanic Paganism, it clearly says a lot about the nature of Germanic people. Like, if you read the Eddas and you go:

“Hmm, it makes sense that Swedes and Germans and Anglo Saxons, and so on, would have a God like Odin and a God like Thor, a God like Freyr, like these archetypes, these stories, the character of this religion, it fits with what we know about our people.”

And I think the same is true about the jewish religion.

Blair Cottrell: It does seem like the jews sort of prey on the naivety and the tolerance of Christians and Europeans. Well, we all know this to be the case, but I’m just spelling it out for the audience and someone who might be new to this, but I don’t think we should delve too deep into a discussion about theology and religion, that tends to get a bit nuanced. We’ll probably, like, move on from this subject when you’re ready, I think.

Joel Davis: Yeah. Well, I was just going to introduce another subject. I want to talk about the censorship. There was an article that was written that mentioned you. I want to talk about that.

But before we talk about that, let’s talk about some of the these elections in Europe. And you probably, do you know what Project 2025 is, Blair? Do you probably don’t really follow American politics closely enough.

I’m not sure if you do.

[17:15]

Blair Cottrell: Has it got something to do with some new reset effort, like a lockdown or something? I’ve heard theories about that.

Joel Davis: No. So what Project 2025 is, … So there’s, the biggest conservative think tank, I believe, in the United States is called The Heritage Foundation. And Project 2025 was like a like a series of proposals that they created to say:

“Well, if Trump gets elected president at the next election, here’s our plan for how we’re going to, like, fix America.”

Or whatever. Right. And it had some pretty good stuff in there, to be honest. Like, when you look through it, you’re like:

“Well, if they actually implemented this would be the first time a conservative government ever actually did anything that I can remember of substance in living memory.”

You know, mass deportation of illegals, firing, you know, massive swathes of the current bureaucracy, like firing all the people in the FBI, firing all the people at the State Department, firing all the people at the Justice Department and replacing them with Right-wing people and just trying to wholesale, like, change the power structure in the American government!

Because what a lot of people noticed when Trump got in last time was that basically the American government was still run by Left-wingers, even though you had a nominally Right-wing president. The actual architectural, …

Blair Cottrell: The Deep State is what he called it.

Joel Davis: Yeah, yeah. But just, yeah, that’s just like there’s so many massive, like, particularly with the American government, there’s so many massive departments.

Blair Cottrell: But that’s what happens when you’re a democracy and you sort of allow and tolerate all these so-called differences of opinion that are even hostile to democracy fundamentally, or the idea of everyone having an opinion. Like, the point is you end up with all these sleeper agents that are in the institutions. This happens over a period of a few decades. Then they spring to action during points of political crises. And it doesn’t really matter who’s the King, who’s the president, who’s the prime minister, those bureaucrats, those sleeper agents are still going to run the country. Right? And you’re kind of stuck with them! Once they’re in there, there’s not really an efficient way to get them out.

The only way to actually reverse the damage that’s done is to start educating a new generation again in a positive, patriotic, nationalistic direction, to eventually replace those sleeper agents with people who aren’t going to destroy the country and hope that the country doesn’t get destroyed in the meantime. Right?

Joel Davis: Yeah.

So anyway, just to explain this, I think for the, because I think it may be a lot of Australians might not know about this. Like, this was cooked up by, as I said, the number one conservative think tank in the United States, The Heritage Foundation. I believe when Reagan got elected in the eighties, there were, like, Heritage Foundation documents given out to everyone who got staffed in his entire administration about how to carry out his administration.

So that gives you a kind of idea of how powerful these guys are. And there were so many people involved in creating this project and working with this project who were in the Trump administration last time. And everyone thinks he’s going to be in the Trump administration this time. And it was basically planning and readying staffing so that when Trump got in, they could come along and say:

“Here, we’ve already assembled a team for you to hire into all these different positions so they can go and, like, take control of the entire all the institutions of the American government and bring it under conservative control for the first time in forever, basically.”

But it wasn’t just about taking over all these different government departments. You know, it says on the Wikipedia page, it says here:

“The plan proposes taking partisan control of the Department of Justice, the FBI, the Department of Commerce, blah, blah, blah, dismantling the Department of Homeland Security.”

Blair Cottrell: Joel, what does that mean, “taking partisan control”? What does that mean exactly?

Joel Davis: It just means firing everyone because right now the FBI is run by Leftists and the Department of Justice is run by Leftists.

So the Department of Justice was going after, … Because these are supposed to be, in principle, neutral institutions, but they aren’t. No institution is neutral. It’s either run by Left-wingers or it’s run by Right-wingers. Like, that’s just how it is. That’s true about every political institution.

Blair Cottrell: Very true.

Joel Davis: And basically every political institution is run by Left-wingers because conservatives have said:

“Well, shouldn’t these institutions be neutral?”

And Left-wingers are like:

“Let’s take them over and use them against our political enemies.”

So when one side stays neutral while the other side tries to actually use power, the side that wants to use power wins against the cucks that want to stay neutral, which is why conservatives always lose.

And finally, conservatives are saying:

“You know what? How about we fucking take control instead of having our enemies control these institutions?”

Because they noticed when they had the Black Lives Matter riots in the United States, basically the Department of Justice didn’t go after any of the rioters even though they burned down all these American cities. Antifa is running around America when they’re with literal guns strapped to them, … Imagine if like, a White nationalist group organised like Antifa and would armed marching through the streets in full tactical gear with military grade weapons.

[22:34]

Blair Cottrell: But there was still a Right-wing kid that did exactly the same thing. What was his name? The kid that shot those Anti-fascists?

Joel Davis: Carl Rittenhouse. Yeah. But he wasn’t part of any organisation. He was just like some kid that showed up.

Blair Cottrell: Yeah. Was that what I was gonna say? It was kind of like cool to see, it wasn’t cool to see people get shot. It was cool to see him actually get off on self defense.

Joel Davis: It was cool to see people get shot! The people he shot, one of them was jewish. They were fucking., … One of them was like a jewish paedophile. I think two of them were paedophiles.

Blair Cottrell: Yeah, I forgot about jewish, …

Joel Davis: Like, he killed people that needed to die. Like, it was based that he shot them and it was good that he got off. He himself has done a lot of cringe stuff since that, but whatever. He killed the jewish paedophile, let him have a win!

But anyway, the Department of Justice is obviously run by Leftists, because they won’t go after Left-wingers for stuff that they would absolutely throw the book at Right-wingers for doing. Like with the January 6th thing, they were locking all these people up. But Left-wingers, you know, occupy government buildings in their protests all the time.

Blair Cottrell: And they get, that’s enough consequence when the Leftists are in power on an institutional level, of course they’re going to overlook crimes and unethical activities that their own supporters and philosophical comrades are engaged in. And we would probably do the same if we had institutional power. Right?

Joel Davis: So that was the idea.

So the idea was like, have a, we put Right-wingers in charge of these organisations and they start using them to go after Antifa and going after Left-wing groups and BLM, rather than going after Right-wing groups.

Blair Cottrell: The unethical activities we would engage in that would get overlooked. I think they’d be a lot more based than what the Anti-fascists do. Like, there’d be a lot more in your face confrontation and a lot less petty backstabbing and like little shitty terror efforts like burning cars or smashing windows and stuff like that. I can’t imagine that people like me who hold to my philosophy would be engaging in acts like that. They’d kind of be more upper cuts and less backstabbing, which would be nice, a nice change on a fringe political level, in my opinion.

Joel Davis: Yeah. But just going through this, you know, it has like some random stuff that, like, it’s like whatever it’s talking about cutting funding to Medicare or Medicaid or something. But it says here as well:

“Trying to criminalise pornography, removing all legal protections against discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity, terminating diversity, equity and inclusion programs, ending affirmative action, and having the DOJ prosecute, quote, anti-White racism. It also recommends the arrest, detention, and deportation of undocumented immigrants living in the US by using the military to capture and place them in internment camps.”

So, I mean, all that sounds quite good, right?

Blair Cottrell: Where does this plan come from? Does this come from the Internet? Or is it someone in the Trump administration has written this?

Joel Davis: I said, The Heritage Foundation, which is like the biggest think tank in Washington that’s affiliated with conservatism, I think, or one of the biggest think tanks.

And a lot of the people involved in the plan are people that projected to be involved in the Trump campaign. And they’re trying to actively start the campaign now. Anyway, they’ve been cooking this up for years. And people, I’ve seen a lot of people who are pro-Trump, like people like Thultide and so on, and saying:

“Well, you know whatever the problems are with Trump, this sounds awesome! This is a good reason to vote for him, right? This plan sounds really awesome!”

And that’s you can kind of see the argument. However Trump came out, … And Leftists have been freaking out about this. Leftists have been like:

“Oh, my God, Trump is going to institute a fascist dictatorship. This is going to be horrible. We have to defeat Trump!”

And so on.

But anyway, no one really cares. The Leftist cried about it, but no one, like Right-wingers, will think that it’s awesome! So Trump’s doing incredibly well in the polls. Biden we talked about it. You know, he had a horrible debate. Everyone thinks that he’s done. People aren’t even sure if he’s even going to make it to the election or if you’ll have to get replaced with somebody else. And it looks like Trump is going to win the election.

And then Trump decides to come out and say:

“I have nothing to do with Project 2025!”

This is, even though he obviously did, people in, his, people very close to him obviously did have something to do with it. But he’s decided to come out and make it clear to the public that, as I said, he has nothing to do with, he disavowed it twice, distanced himself from it, said he’ll have nothing to do with it.

And then also reports then came out in the media saying, in the Right-wing media saying that a lot of the people that have been associated with the project are now being blacklisted from the Trump administration. So they won’t be able to work for the Trump administration. And instead, some other agenda or plan that is being proposed by another element of the conservative movement, which is way more cucked, is now being endorsed by the Trump campaign.

And a lot of people in America who are, or of a pro-White, more radical Right persuasion that are kind of Trump supporters, are basically they’re freaking out over this. They’re saying, like:

“If Project 2025 gets rejected in favour of a more centrist plan, well, isn’t that convenient? All this Zionist money came in. Hundreds of millions of dollars came in from Zionist. Trump got bought off, and now he’s cucking, even though he doesn’t have to cuck, he’s on track to win!”

And, yeah, I think it shows the anti-Trump people were right all along, that jewish money overrides any plans that anyone who was in the conservative movement that was trying, …

[28:23]

Blair Cottrell: Is it just money? Because Trump has this reputation of being someone who can’t be bought. But you don’t always influence people or control people just through money. You do it through having information about them. You do it through blackmail. You do it through extortion.

Joel Davis: Yes.

Blair Cottrell: What do they know about Trump? What’s Trump involved in? What’s Trump worried about?

Joel Davis: I mean, these are good questions.

Blair Cottrell: I mean, why would Trump [words unclear] Project 2025? Like, what reasons does he have not to support it? What’s he worried about? These are questions that need to be answered.

Joel Davis: Yeah, he married off his daughter to a jew.

And, yeah, it was funny, there was this video that I saw the other day of, it was Joe Biden after he gave a speech. And there were all these people in the crowd. There was a black woman and a bunch of White ladies standing around the black woman. And then Biden was hugging all the White ladies.

And then just the black lady goes to hug him, and he just goes to the White lady as if she doesn’t exist. And the black lady’s just standing there just really sad.

Blair Cottrell: Yeah, but wasn’t Biden, like, notoriously racist when he was younger?

Joel Davis: Yeah, exactly! I was like, Biden is more racist than Trump! Where Trump has got a long track record of being very supportive of blacks and gays! And when Trump was president the first time, what did he do for White people? He did nothing for White people! But he bent over backwards for jews and for blacks and for gays. He was the first ever US president elected who supported gay marriage, by the way. So maybe Trump all along actually just kind of isn’t really Right-wing. And he just said some kind of edgy stuff to get himself elected at one point.

And the whole thing is a scam! You know, there’s also that angle to look at here.

But obviously, he’s getting advised by people who are saying:

“You’ve got to disavow this because it’s going to look bad and it’s going to potentially lose us the election.”

Blair Cottrell: The people around him, I think, have chipped away at him. I think he went in with good intentions, he went into a snake pit with good intentions. He got bitten a lot. I think he’s been worn down. I think his spirit has been, how should I say, just diluted. I don’t think he was the same man he was when he was younger as a result of just the amount of chaos, harassment that he’s being exposed to.

And I think it’s gotten to him a little bit. And maybe that’s why he softened his position. But maybe you’re right. Maybe his position was never that hard. Maybe from the beginning, he just wanted power for power’s sake. But, I don’t know.

I feel like there was an element of authenticity motivating Trump from the beginning, but I don’t know if I still see that now.

Joel Davis: Yeah. What made it cool in 2015 was he didn’t seem like a politician. He seemed like a genuine outsider who just kind of barged his way into politics and was kind of breaking the paradigm.

Whereas now he feels like just another politician. He’s just another politician now. Now he’s had almost a ten year career in politics, and he’s just become part of the system. He’s just another system politician. And his policies are more or less standard, Right-wing policies. You know, he isn’t really anything that, … Like, even the conservative movement seems to be. More elements of it are more based than he is. Like, The Heritage Foundation is outflanking Trump to the Right. Trump is like:

“Whoa! This Heritage Foundation plan is a little too radical for me!”

The Heritage Foundation is just like, as I said, the biggest conservative think tank in Washington. This is hardly, they’re not political outsiders, they’re political insiders on the Right.

So, yeah, like, it’s pretty disappointing to see. But I think this is a problem that we will perpetually see with a lot of these populist politicians, is that a lot of them are all rhetoric. But very little substance. They aren’t really political power players. They are just good marketers. They’re good at marketing themselves. They’ll do edgy things in order to establish a brand, an outsider brand, but they don’t actually have strong political convictions or an actual plan for what to do with political power, once they can get some of it that can meaningfully change society.

It’s just about mobilising people, like voters behind them. They’re just really good campaigners. Trump is a good campaigner. He’s not really a good statesman. Like he showed when he was president last time, that he wasn’t really capable of accomplishing very much at all!

And it seems like that’s going to be what we get again. He probably will become president. Yeah, I don’t know if you want to comment on that?

[33:06]

Blair Cottrell: I’ve got nothing on that specifically.

Joel Davis: Yeah, but I guess moving on. There was an election in France. It wasn’t for the presidency, but just for the, what they call the National Assembly, which is like the same thing as, like the House of Representatives here, I guess. And the so-called “far-Right” party, which aren’t particularly far-Right. They’re basically like the French version of One Nation. They’re about similar kind of policies to One Nation, maybe even. I don’t even know if they’re even as edgy as one nation.

Anyway, they got about 40% of the vote, which was their best ever result, but all the other parties formed an alliance against them, so they lost. And it was quite interesting to see how even the conservative Party in France, like the centre Right party, chose to side with communists, literal communists, in a big coalition, as opposed to the far-Right. So it shows the so-called “far-Right”, they’re not even far-Right, they’re just populist Right. Yeah, it would have been considered Left-wing 50 years ago with their policies.

But anyway, the so-called centre Right party sided, as I said, with literal communists against them.

And I think it’s quite instructive to show what conservatives truly are.

Blair Cottrell: It’s actually, it’s also instructive or demonstrating what’s going to continue to happen throughout Europe and European extension colonies in elections. When an actual nationalistic party, I’m not suggesting that’s what the party was in France. I don’t know anything about French politics. But when some party that is far-Right is actually getting popular enough to be elected, all the other rats will team up against it and make sure that it doesn’t get power.

So I suppose in politics in other countries, that needs to be taken into account. And maybe the far-Right parties need to look at making temporary alliances with other parties to prevent this happening or to try to prevent it happening. I don’t know what the solution is, but I can see something similar to this kind of happens in Australian electoral process where we have this system of preferencing, where the party you vote for or even the independent that you’d vote for may just preference your votes to a major party and it funnels your votes back into other directions you didn’t want them to actually go in.

And I think that’s a way that they circumvent certain people from getting positions of power here in Australia. That probably happens to some degree and it’s going to continue happening around the world. That’s the point. So it needs to be taken into consideration by anyone who’s playing the official political game.

Joel Davis: Yeah, I think in Austria, the so-called “far-Right” party, which are actually probably better. They’re called the Freedom Party. They’re probably better than Front Nationale. I’m sorry, it’s not Front Nationale, it’s called National Rally. Marine Le Pen’s party. The old party was called Front Nationale. That was established by her father that she led and then basically disbanded and replaced with the more cucked version.

Yeah. The Freedom Party in Austria, they do have remigration on their proposal platform. They are, I think, polling very well. They’re polling around, give or take 30% of the popular vote. And the conservatives, I think are polling around, 20%.

So I don’t know when the next Austrian election is, but it’s very possible that they could form a government together.

And I think they have before. So in Austria, the centre Right will actually work with the populist Right to create a government, it seems. Although I guess we’ll see what happens when they have an election. But that’s a relatively minor country.

But in a lot of the other countries that are more consequential, like in Germany, everyone is allied together basically against the AfD. And we see the same kind of thing happening in France.

So the far-Right, it’s basically the so-called “far-Right”, which isn’t far-Right. It’s like populist Right, against everyone!

And I think that’s really what politics is, I think. Either you stand for making the country Whiter, you stand against all the forces that stand for making the country browner, more or less even.

Blair Cottrell: It is ethnic nationalism, European ethnic nationalism, against the whole system. That’s what it all comes down to!

Joel Davis: Yeah, I think that what happened in France really reveals that. Even though, as I said, they aren’t actually proper ethno-nationalists. But nevertheless, they’re being treated as though they are, and they are being supported by many ethno-nationalists, as well, the only option on the table to vote for:

“Well, at least they might do something about all the immigrants. They might slow the immigrants down, they might send some of them back.”

Similar to the reasons why people voted for the Reform Party in Britain. And that was the other election that happened recently, consequential election.

And the Reform Party didn’t do as well as they were polling. They were polling up over 20% a week out of the, from the election. I think they only got 14% of the vote, which is still pretty good for them. It was their best ever performance. Well, you know, for them or any of their, like, predecessor parties, like UKIP. And so they, I guess they would, when the election was announced, 14%, they probably would have bit your hand off for that. But it looked like they could have done much better. But they had a really bad final week. We talked about on the show last week how they started cucking, the media started putting them on the defensive.

And it’s similar to the Trump thing. Like the Left-wing media somehow put Trump on the defensive when they didn’t, when he didn’t need to go on the defensive. But it’s this pussy cucked to the centre mentality that so many conservatives have.

And I think the Reform Party did the same thing. Instead of doubling down and holding firm, they cucked to the Left and they lost momentum. They didn’t show strength and conviction.

[39:04]

Blair Cottrell: It’s the fear of being extreme! The fear of being considered extreme, labelled extreme.

But I think politicians, activists, everyone, needs to overcome that fear. It’s just a word. Words are just vibrations and winds we send out through the air. Words of wind, says George RR Martin in his classic series, Song of Ice and Fire. That’s all! Words are just vibrations, and they produce a certain effect in certain people.

But you can immunise yourself against the effect words have on you. I just don’t know why people are so afraid of words. It’s never made sense to me. That’s the power of the word, I suppose. Something we definitely need to overcome.

Joel Davis: I think what is undervalued in politics is the power of conviction! When you have complete 100% conviction in your beliefs, where you see yourself as righteous and justified, and you therefore disregard the attacks of the enemy. The Left-wing does not change its policies and behave differently in order to satisfy Right-wing attacks. You know, if the Right-wing press says, whatever Right-wingers say about the Left, the Left-wing does not care! Because they think that Right-wingers are all evil racists! So what the hell would they care about their opinion for? They don’t. They have no respect for our opinion.

Whereas like, the Right-wing in the more mainstream sense, still fears the Left. It still shows that it is the junior partner, that it is the submissive partner over and over again by when the mainstream media attacks them, which is really, the Left-wing is attacking them because the mainstream media has an obvious Left-wing bias. You know, they submit, they’re constantly trying to justify themselves and rationalise themselves and play things down and so on.

Blair Cottrell: They should be responding aggressively.

Joel Davis: Yeah.

Blair Cottrell: When someone is attacking you with words, “racist, extremist”, you don’t explain why you’re not those things. You attack them in return. Right? And there’s plenty of ways to attack them. You can accuse them of being rapists by proxy because they’re inviting people into the country who rape and murder! So you just call them rapist murderers! Immigrant supporters, like, call them paedophiles! Call them extremists in a different sense.

Like, you’ve got to return fire when you’re attacked with these kind of slander labels and terms. You can’t be defensive. As soon as you start explaining yourself, you put yourself in the weaker position. Right? Because who do you explain yourself to, typically? I’ve been through this a few times, but we’ll go through it again.

You explain yourself to someone who’s in authority over you. Police officers when they pull you over, your teachers when they ask you what you’re doing in classroom, your parents when they’re asking, where are you going? These people and characters, they have power over you.

And so they have the right to demand an explanation. Leftists, bureaucrats in institutions, journalists, they have no right to demand any explanation from you. And you don’t need to explain or apologise or compromise with them! When they attack you attack them back! I’ve actually stressed the importance of having our own words that we use to return fire when we’re attacked with certain words.

And I’ve explored it just in some effort. But what you say about “conviction” I see as “authenticity”. Authentically believing, is the most extremely powerful thing that we can incorporate into our philosophy. We can’t be tentative. We can’t be unsure. We can’t be too scared of consequences. No, we need to authentically actually believe, regardless of consequences! Then the words, the vigor, the passion will come to us and we’ll be able to respond, return fire with enough bite to have the same or greater effect with our words, as the words have on us! Words like “racist” and “extremist”.

The problem is, we’re not going to be able to come up with the Right attack words and responses until we incorporate that authentic belief, that vigor, that passion, that’s totally disregarding consequences and actually believing that this is the purpose of life. This is the way forward, this is the right way. And that over there is the enemy! Right. We need to really get that fundamentalist if we’re going to start winning, even in the word game.

Joel Davis: Yeah, I talked about this in my opinion piece in The Noticer that was published last week, about how when the Right allows the Left to attack them and cancel members on the Right, basically the Left convinces the right to cancel their own fighters. The people who say things that piss off the Left are the fighters! The people on the Right who are taking the rhetorical fight, who are actual true believers, who aren’t just pure career politicians that are very careful about what they say and how they behave in order to not catch the ire of the enemy. They’re people that would actually be willing to take the fight to the enemy that actually have some conviction. And those are the ones that the Left go after and force the right to cancel.

And so the Right institutionally is left with no fighters! It’s left with a bunch of cucks! It’s left with a bunch of careerists! Of people who are just basically there to market themselves and to try and get a position, get elected for the sake of getting elected, not to actually do anything with, …

[44:46]

Blair Cottrell: It’s like an enemy, kind of like, it’s like a military enemy air striking all your strategic and fundamental military bases, so that all that’s left is villages and peasants.

Joel Davis: Like, imagine if we said:

“Oh, that guy on the left, he loves gays and blacks and he wants to fill this country up with brown people and he loves jews!”

And like, from our Right-wing perspective, that’s actually a series of insults. But a Left-winger would say:

“Absolutely!”

So when the Left-winger says to us:

“Oh, he’s a racist, he’s a nationalist! He wants to put White people first and so on.”

You should say [chuckling]:

“Absolutely, I do!”

Because that’s the reason why someone is voting for National Rally in France or voting for Reform Party in Britain is because they want to keep France, White! They want to keep Britain, White! That’s ultimately what it’s about. And a lot of people won’t admit it and the politicians won’t directly say it, but that’s actually what it’s about! And you can dress it up with whatever optics you want. That is really what it’s about.

When the Left-wing says “you’re a racist”, what they’re saying is:

“You’re trying to make the country Whiter. You’re trying to stand up for the native White population of the country!”

And then they go:

“No, no, no! We respect everyone, as long as they come here legally. No matter what colour of your skin, everyone should have the same rights!”

And so on.

Immediately, what you have done is you have denied the actual reason why anyone is voting for! You’re completely backing down from, …

Blair Cottrell: You’re compromising!

Joel Davis: Yeah.

Blair Cottrell: And you never compromise in politics. You never apologise! You never explain! And you do not compromise under any circumstances!

Joel Davis: I understand, if they don’t want to be too, I got to say, if they don’t want to be too explicit, I can understand that. Like, they go radical, but then just don’t, … Some things are best left unsaid. You don’t have to say everything.

And I think a lot of these people would do better if they didn’t say everything.

Blair Cottrell: It’s wise to always say less than necessary.

Joel Davis: Yeah.

Blair Cottrell: If you’re someone who’s skillful with the word, then you’ll always want to say more. But it always pays to say less and to have people waiting for more from you and seeking more from. You’re always better off saying less than too much, especially in politics or in any realm of influence. The less you say, the more valuable your words are. Kind of like currency, right? The more money there is in circulation in any country, the less valuable the money is. Or the nation’s currency is because of there’s so much of it. Words are much the same. The more you use, the more you devalue what you have to say.

So, and this is useful on an individual level as well. If you’re trying to relate to other people, if you’re trying to get a girlfriend, you know, sometimes you need to say less.

Joel Davis: Yeah. A lot of people need to lurk more and say less. I think that I definitely agree with that.

But you know, this also relates to this was my take on Telegram, and this relates to what I was driving at a bit earlier about the changing attitudes around the jews. Because studies have been done in this and show that young Right-wingers are way less pro-Israel than older Right-wingers. It’s because younger Right-wingers spend time on the Internet and develop their political opinions on the Internet. And the Internet isn’t as controlled by the jews as the legacy forms of media.

And so you can get jew-critical Right-wing discourse on the Internet that you don’t get in the mainstream media. But boomers aren’t on the Internet, so they don’t know about any of that. Their thought patterns about politics are set by legacy mainstream media. And so they have legacy mainstream media opinions.

And the same thing is true in broad strokes. I think, in Britain, the young people mostly voted for the Left, but young people that voted for the Right, they voted more for the Reform Party, way more than they voted for the Tories. But the reverse was true for older voters.

And so the older 55 plus Right-wing voters in Britain, they still came out and voted for the Tories. And that’s how the Tories basically were able to get more votes than Reform.

So what I said on Telegram was, I don’t know if there’s really a way to reach the boomers. I think basically we’d have to wait for them to die, because I don’t think that they have the capacity to transition to the new form of media that would enable them to, as a matter en masse, as a generation, to transform their thinking into a new paradigm.

Whereas young people, because they’re online the, …

Blair Cottrell: The lukewarm disposition of boomers will die with them, and the new generations will be naturally more radical as a result of the circumstances around us. Right?

[49:32]

Joel Davis: Yeah, it’s the circumstances, but I think it’s also the media diet, because people’s political opinions and tastes are set by the political media that they consume. If you’re developing your political opinions through social media rather than mainstream media, well, that’s going to be a completely different experience.

And so I think the generational gap that we see, and it also works the same for the Left. Like, the young Leftists are more radical than older Leftists because, you know, Left-wing discourse also gets more radical online than it does on television or something. Young people don’t watch television. Young people don’t listen to the radio, they don’t read newspapers, and so that doesn’t determine their political belief.

And it would be a great thing when mainstream media dies legacy, mainstream media dies with the boomers, and we can wipe away that whole paradigm of politics and all the voting patterns that correspond to that.

Unfortunately, by the time that happens, White people will be pretty close to a minority, and about half of White people will be Leftists.

And so we’re going to be fighting an uphill battle. But that’s literally, that’s how the cards have been dealt. It isn’t over! If we can get the healthy half of young Whites onto Team Racism, get them organised, that’s still an incredibly powerful political faction that can determine its own destiny and win back dignity and power for our people.

So that, to me, is what the political project is.

It’s not going to be about winning the next election or something. It’s going to be a multi decade project of trying to win over the culture, over our generation and the younger generations, and change the way in which White people think about politics and get us to start collectivizing and organising around that new paradigm. And the conditions around us are only going to keep getting worse and worse and making it more and more necessary.

So that’s in our favour, in terms of, it’s not really in our favour. It’s against us. But it’s in the favour of us developing this form of politics that we represent.

Blair Cottrell: And it’s not just politics. Politics and society, they overlap a lot. And I think the change needs to be social just as much as it needs to be political. So people need to change their lifestyles, attitudes, their approach to life, their perspective of the world itself and of themselves. All of this changes to be more in line with ethnic nationalism.

And this is the counterculture. Counterculture has an effect on the people socially, not just on the political strata. Everyone changes their whole worldview, and it changes gradually, fundamentally.

But are we ready to move on to the next subject? I think you wanted to bring up an article?

Joel Davis: Yeah, I just also got a Superchat from Gustavus Vasa said:

“How do we donate to the New Chair for Blair Fund?”

Maybe you need to make a chair, …

Blair Cottrell: How do you know? How do I have an uncomfortable chair? I must look uncomfortable. Like, how does he know? You can’t even see the chair. That’s very., … How do you call it? I’m pretty tired at the moment. It’s very perceptive of you to notice. [chuckling]

Joel Davis: Yeah, well, we are noticers. Uh, we are a community of noticers.

But I’m going to pull up this article that actually, it mentioned you posted it on your Telegram earlier in the week. I think this is something interesting for us to analyze.

So this is in the Herald Sun.

Blair Cottrell: Sorry, continue.

Joel Davis: Yeah, I’ll just read some of the article, and then I’m keen to get your take on it because, I mean, it mentions you. So:

“Police investigating potential charges against Hash Tayeh., …”

I don’t know how to say this brown person’s name, ..:

“For inciting serious contempt for jews. Leading pro-Palestinian activist Hash Tayeh could face rare hate crime charges with his actions compared to that of far-Right extremist Blair Cottrell.”

And here’s a picture of him. I guess, I think he has a burger shop. I think this is the guy that, …

Blair Cottrell: Did his burger shop get blown up or something?

Joel Davis: Yeah, I think this is the guy that got his burger shop firebombed. Yeah. I don’t think the investigation, …

Blair Cottrell: If you are watching this and you don’t know the circumstances, it had something to do with pro-Israel, pro-Palestinian activists clashing. This guy had a burger shop. He was pro-Palestinian. His burger shop got firebombed. I think it was in the night, I’m assuming, but I’m not sure the details. But the circumstances, the how should I call it, relationship between the Palestinians and the Israeli supporters in Australia is currently burning hot! And it’s got the government anxious. There’s just recently been, … And I think you might bring this article up later as well. There’s a new bureaucrat with a new position, a jewish woman.

I can’t remember her name. I think it might be Jill something, but she’s been appointed by the Prime Minister to stop criticism of Israel.

Basically combat “anti-semitism”, so they say. But really it’s just any criticism of Israel is going to be censored, targeted and stopped on her watch!

Joel Davis: Not just of Israel! Also just jews in general.

Blair Cottrell: Yeah, I suppose. And she’s paid for, … Her position, salary is going to be paid by working class Australians, whether they like it or not! Right? And not to be too niche or exclusive, the Prime Minister said:

“He’s also going to create a position, the exact same position, but to combat Islamophobia.”

He hasn’t named anyone for this position yet. But I thought to myself:

“Well, where’s the person who’s going to be combating anti-White racism? Where’s the person who’s going to be combating anti-Asian racism? If you’re going to do this for a couple of races, you probably need to do it for all races!”

But that’s obviously not going to happen. But it goes to show, …

Joel Davis: Well, the anti-Asian one might get added.

I mean, I’m sure if they push for that hard enough, they might be able to get it. Or the anti-Indian racism or something. I’m holding my breath for the anti-White racism Commissar!

[55:42]

Blair Cottrell: But you ust got to appreciate the irony that the majority of the working class Australian citizenry, they’re Whites! And they’re going to be paying the salary of a person from a foreign race who’s in a government position preventing criticism of her race, when they themselves don’t even have anyone in government doing that for them! White people don’t have anyone who’s trying to curb or reduce anti-White racism. It’s actually not even recognised! If you try to bring up anti-White racism on a government level in Australia, you’ll be laughed at, and probably just thrown out. So it’s just an ironic, sad situation! But I digress.

Joel Davis: That was actually the next story I was going to bring up after this, but I’ll still bring it up. Because actually I have something to say about that as well.

But I want to get through this because I want to get your thoughts specifically on this and then we can segue into that.

So anyway, they’re going up to this guy for so-called hate crimes, but I believe it’s just for speech. And says here:

“For inciting serious contempt for jews. And it is understood senior police are examining strong parallels between Mr Tayeh’s (whatever his name is) activity in organising and attending protests and that of far-Right extremist Blair Cottrell.”

Now, you were the only person that I think has ever, … Well, it says here:

“Cottrell was in 2017 the first Victorian ever convicted under the Racial Vilification Act for inciting serious contempt for Muslims. He later unsuccessfully appealed the conviction with the decision by county court Chief Judge Peter Kidd. Considered a blueprint for future prosecutions anyway.”

So other than them going after you with this law, I don’t think they’ve really gone after anyone. Maybe, you know, of them going after someone else?

Blair Cottrell: There’s two other people who were charged alongside me. Neil Erickson, close colleague and friend of mine, actually, Neil Erickson. And Christopher Shortas, who was also a colleague of mine and an activist at the time.

So there were three of us that were actually charged. I was the only one to appeal the initial conviction and take it to a higher court to try to have the conviction overturned. That’s why it’s kind of attached to me.

And also the media likes to dramatically oversimplify things.

And so when they bring this charge up, they just bring my face up and my name, I suppose.

Joel Davis: But since that incident, all those years ago, I don’t think anyone else has been convicted under, …

Blair Cottrell: No, they haven’t. They haven’t. No.

Joel Davis: So you’re basically, you were like the guinea pig, and now they’re finally going after somebody else. Although I don’t think he’s actually been charged, I think there’s just pressure mounting from the jews to charge him. So I’m sure he will be charged.

Blair Cottrell: I think this may have come from a tweet. There’s a jewish character on X who has been complaining that I was charged with this specific offence. Because the police are saying that the Palestinian activists aren’t doing anything wrong. There’s nothing they can really charge them with. They’re not breaking the law.

But there’s a jewish character on X, as I said, who’s been using my conviction as an example of how some of these Palestinian protesters could be charged.

And I think finally, some journalists might have picked up on those tweets, those X posts, and that’s what’s caused this article to pop up. That’s what’s motivated him to write it doesn’t seem like there’s that much in it. As you said, no one’s actually being charged. It’s sort of just an article.

I think the most valuable thing that comes from this article, in my opinion, is how much it details the amount of pressure jewish lobby groups can put, not just on politicians, but on the police, to influence how they’re charging people and why. It’s like the police aren’t even free to charge people at their own discretion. They need to be instructed on how to charge people and what to charge them with by jewish lobby groups! People loyal to a foreign nation and supporting a foreign nation are essentially controlling state police, telling them what to do.

Because there’s various different examples how jewish politicians, lobbyists and businessmen are doing exactly that! And those examples are given in that article. Which is really profound information, and that should get people’s ears burning, eyes paying attention.

But anyway, I won’t carry on too much about how the law works in Australia because I don’t want to get too deep into that it’s kind of boring.

But what I will say is, yes, I was among the first people one of the three to be charged with, … The charge they’ve mentioned, but they actually didn’t word it correctly. Again, the media oversimplify things and actually make the reality of what’s actually happening, obscure.

I was not charged with inciting anything, and it was never proved that I incited anything against anyone. That’s not what I was charged with. It’s a lot worse than that! I was charged with:

“Intent to incite, ridicule, revulsion, or serious contempt for a specific class of people, namely Muslims.”

That was the exact wording of the charge. Think about that for a second. Not inciting, “intent to incite”! That means the prosecution in my case did not have to prove that I had actually incited anything. What did they have to prove? They had to prove, they had to go inside my mind, my subconscious, and prove that I wanted to incite people to feel feelings of revulsion or hold contempt towards Muslims. That was the purpose behind my protests at the time. And they successfully convinced the judge of that.

[1:01:30]

The judge decided that I was guilty through inference, they call it means through his own special reasoning. Being an impressive judge, member of the legal bureaucracy, he’s in a position where he can just decide that I’m lying and the prosecution is telling the truth, and then I’m guilty. That’s how it all went down. It sounds ridiculous, but that’s how it all went down. That’s the truth!

And if they do charge this guy, this Palestinian activist, with the same charges they hit me with, there isn’t any good defense against it. There’s no precedent case where there was a good defense against it.

My defense was that it wasn’t actually my intent to incite, ridicule or revulsion of anyone. My intent was to promote a protest. Because the exact action or activity I was engaged in with my colleagues, that led to me being charged, we were trying to protest a mosque development in Bendigo, a rural Victorian town in Australia. It was early days, and we were focusing on local matters, and we made a dummy out of pillows and we beheaded the dummy, like did a makeshift Islamic style beheading, which still happens in Islamic countries. And there was some fake blood, and we kind of thought it was amusing. But the whole point was to try to drum up support for the protest against the mosque development. Right? That was the point of the stunt. But we were charged for that stunt!

And as I said, the prosecution convinced the chief judge of the county court in Victoria that it was my intent during that stunt to incite revulsion, ridicule, or serious contempt for Muslim people. I said, as I told you just before, I said:

“That wasn’t my intent. My intent was to promote a protest.”

The protest that did take place, and it was quite popular, actually. A couple of thousand people attended. Had the local government a little bit worried, actually, especially the Mayor at the time, Peter Cox, who had his finger in the pie with this mosque and was set to make a bit of money from it, actually. And there’s a lot of details about that I won’t get into, like that we told to the people at the time. We brought this to the attention of the public and the local government, the media, they really didn’t like it! Right?

So that’s the story behind that. And the worrying thing is, it’s a pretty awful precedent and there is no defense against it, as I said. But no one came to my defense when I was charged. It wasn’t like these legal academics who understood that this was a step too far for the prosecution, which it’s not like they came to support me. There was no media support. There was no one saying:

“He’s being discriminated against because of his beliefs.”

Nothing like that. I had one sympathetic lawyer named John Bolton who travelled down to Victoria from Queensland and represented me when he could. Right. I still paid him here and there, but most of the time, like, I didn’t have a lot of money because I was trying to raise funds from my supporters.

And the last element of the story, the last aspect of the story, if you’re interested, still, is, while I was trying to defend myself from this charge and overturn the conviction, my bank accounts got shut down. And I was censored from Twitter and Facebook at the same time. So I wasn’t able to inform my supporters of what was happening in the courts. I wasn’t able to raise money to continue paying the court fees, to continue paying my lawyer. I was blacklisted while I was trying to defend myself in a so-called democracy.

And that’s why I wasn’t able to overturn the conviction, in the end. I just had to accept it because I had no money and I had no way of communicating with my supporters at the time, people who are actually interested in the case and following it was a real eye opener, let me say, as to how things actually work in this so-called fucking democracy in Australia!

Joel Davis: Yeah, I mean, it’s also just a ridiculous law.

I mean, the idea that you can’t have contempt, what contempt means is that you basically don’t care about, you don’t consider someone as something that you should care about. Um, what? Like, so it’s illegal to not care about Muslims, or it’s illegal to not care about jews, or it’s illegal to think that other people, or encourage other people to not care about a particular group? So you legally have to care about all of these groups? But of course you don’t have to care about Whites. It’s only these minority groups. But yeah, it’s ridiculous! Like, why do you have to care about identity groups?

Blair Cottrell: But it’s only one. That’s only one element of the charge to the other words are, like I said, if the other words in the charge were “intent to incite revulsion or ridicule”. Ridicule is literally was making fun!

You can’t think about making fun of someone even if they are actually ridiculous! You can’t think about making fun of them and use carrier service without breaking the law.

Joel Davis: You can’t find something disgusting? Like, why not? I mean, it’s a human emotion. You know, it’s illegal to find jews or Muslims disgusting? Why is it illegal?

Blair Cottrell: But it’s not. The point is that was not even what was in my mind at the time. That’s not why I was performing this protest.

Joel Davis: It’s just a ridiculous law, though.

[1:07:07]

Blair Cottrell: Yeah. We just got approached by a local group of mums from this rural state town in Victoria, and they had all this information about this mosque development and all these, you know, shifty politicians with family members in construction who are going to be making a lot of money out of it. They brought all this to our attention and we’re like:

“Hey, we should expose this. We should go to Bendigo and start some activism against this.”

And this was the result. Intent to incite, ridicule, revulsion. What’s the other one? Serious contempt or something.

I can’t remember the exact wording now, I’ve said it too many times, but the result was I got charged with a “thought crime”. I got charged with a fucking thought crime for protesting against a mosque development that the local community did not want! And they approached us and asked us for help with it, because we had some reach on Facebook at the time.

That’s the whole story, man. And I’ve been through it a few times. It’s one of those things that just kind of got swept under the rug. Because I was so censored, I couldn’t tell anyone about it as it was happening.

And now it’s old news, and so no one cares. It’s just a legal precedent that exists now so they can use it again against someone else. That means. And they’re looking at using it against this Hash guy. But what’s he actually done? They say:

“Oh, they’re comparing his activity to extremist Blair Cottrell!”

Well, what did I actually do that was so extremist? Go to some protests, talk on the Internet. What’s he doing that’s so “extremist”? Well, he doesn’t like Israel, and he’s protesting against Israel. And they say specifically in the details what they’re comparing his activity to, which apparently relates to “extremist Blair Cottrell” is organising and attending protests. That’s what’s got their knickers in a knot! Oh he’s organising and attending protests! How dare he! [word unclear] crime. It’s the same attitude that state police had towards me back in the day.

But interestingly, last comment I’ll make on the whole story, because we’ll move on. We’ve been talking about it for a little while now. Interestingly, you can see that the pressure to use this law against this Palestinian activist is coming from jewish lobbyists, businessmen, and groups and individuals that want him charged. Right.

The first time I showed up to Magistrates Courthouse in Melbourne to answer for this charge, one of the first ever mentions. And I distinctly remember this, I made sure I logged it because it was something I didn’t expect to see. Not so brazenly, anyway. About three or four jewish characters with the what are they called? The little hats on their heads, kippers or yarmulkes? They were in suits, and they were in the courtroom with the prosecution handing them papers! And the prosecution was sitting there saying nothing and nodding as though being instructed!

And then these jewish characters. And this was right before my case. This was in preparation. The prosecution was in preparation for my case, for this thought crime.

And then those jewish characters left the room, and I never saw them again throughout the process of the entire proceedings, all the way up to the county court three years later, I never saw them again.

But I thought:

“What’s that about? Where are they from? What are they doing giving paperwork to the prosecution? And why is the prosecution acting as though they’re being instructed by them?”

So maybe back in 2017, when I was charged, the same characters that are pressuring police to use these charges now, were the same groups and lobbyists who were actually introducing this law in the first place and wanted to set the precedent! Maybe it was the same groups, the same jewish lobbyists? I don’t know. I just remember that’s what I saw.

Joel Davis: Speaking of jewish lobbyists on the story that you mentioned earlier from The Noticer dot news, best news site in Australia:

“Australia appoints jewish lawyer as first, quote, ‘special envoy’ to combat anti-semitism.”

This is her here, named Jillian Segal, or Seagull. I don’t know exactly how you say it either. She’s:

“Been named Australia’s first special envoy to combat anti-semitism. Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, he said on Tuesday the appointment had been made as part of, quote, ‘ongoing efforts to preserve social cohesion’ and said the government would soon name a special envoy on Islamophobia.”

I actually replied to this tweet and got more likes than he did. Yeah, suck shit, Albanese! Every time I reply to you on Twitter, I get more likes than you. I think I ratioed him a whole bunch of times, now. It’s quite funny. I’m sure he’s seen it.

I remember the first time I did it, actually. He went on the radio in Adelaide and was crying about it. He didn’t cry about me directly, but he said:

“Oh on social media, the horrible things that people say! And I try not to look at it, but I. But I still check it. And when I check it, I just get horrified at all the horrible racist and misogynist things I see!”

It was just the day after I said something to him which blew up. So, I like to think that he saw that and got triggered by it.

Anyway quMs Segal was born in South Africa before moving to Australia, where she attended exclusive Sydney private school. Kambala. Is a former Deputy Chancellor of the University of New South Wales, served on the National Australia Bank Board, and was president of the Executive Council of Australian jewry.”

So, yeah, she was a jewish banker and, yeah, literally, head honcho of the Executive Council of Australian jewry. She will serve a three year term and report directly to the prime minister and the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs, who she will advise on the issue of anti-semitism.”

So in a way, she’s kind of like a jewish Voice to the government.

[1:12:48]

Blair Cottrell: The three year term is interesting. The three year term suggests that perhaps they hope to have anti-semitism sort of “dealt and done with” in the next three years. They hope to introduce the necessary laws, censorship and pressure to have it all done with within the next three years.

Joel Davis: Yeah, I don’t know. Maybe it’s ust a rolling three year thing and yeah, anyway, she said, quote, as special. Sorry, Albanese said, quote:

“As special envoy Ms Segal will listen to and engage with jewish Australians, the wider Australian community, religious discrimination experts in all levels of government, on the most effective way to combat anti-semitism. Ms Segal will attend the World jewish Congress in Argentina next week in her role as special envoy, alongside other special envoys to combat anti-semitism from around the world.”

So this also indicates, … Is quite interesting. So Australia’s not the only country appointing these special envoys. Everyone, apparently all countries are doing, all around the world and they’re all going to go and meet at the World jewish Congress to talk about how they can basically change the laws of every country in the world to ban criticism of jews!

And part of that criticism will undoubtedly be positing the idea that there is an international jewish cabal that tries to control governments and censor and shut down free speech to prevent criticism of this very fact!

So it’s kind of ironic. You can’t even point out the very thing that they’re doing, because of the very thing that they’re doing.

Blair Cottrell: Like, doesn’t that just verify that they’re doing what you’re accusing them of doing. That’s the point.

But it’s actually exciting, Joel! It’s exciting because this level of tyranny and control always produces a strong backlash! Like this kind of tyranny produces and feeds its own opposition massively! So it’s exciting stuff!

Joel Davis: I like to hope. So I mean, unfortunately they have a lot of this kind of control in some European countries and I haven’t really seen the same backlash.

So, I don’t know, we’ll see. Maybe they’re overstepping the mark at the moment.

Also, I got a Superchat on Odysee from Operation Werewolf. He just sent a Roman. And hail to you sir.

But yeah, continuing on with this article:

“Many Australians criticised Mr Albanese’s appointment of Miss Segal on social media, pointing out there was no such position to combat anti-White racism or Anglophobia.”

As Blair said earlier:

“Someone called Hays Media group said, ‘will you be setting up one to combat Christophobia? Is discrimination against Christians an issue for your government? Do White Australians get a representative to sit at the table for the social cohesion discussions? Asked another.’.”

Blair Cottrell: No, is the answer. No, they do not! [chuckling] They’re not “chosen” enough.

Joel Davis: Yeah. Anyway the jews, they seem, you know what’s interesting as well is that the Attorney General [Mark Alfred Dreyfus] is jewish.

So the guy in charge of, basically the executive branch of the government pertaining to legal prosecution, is a jew! And it says here at the end of the article:

“He is preparing a Hate Speech Bill that will criminalise serious vilification based on race, sexuality, gender, disability, and religion, government sources revealed in May.”

So we’ve already got laws on the books that they’ve gone after you with. They’re probably not happy with those laws. They want to make the laws tougher, an said I wouldn’t be surprised if they end up trying to come after us at some point. I would not be surprised at all! And I say, bring it on! And we’ll see you in court. It’ll be very interesting to see.

Blair Cottrell: I’ve got no faith in due process.

Joel Davis: Neither do I.

Blair Cottrell: I’m contemptuous of court these days. I do have contempt for court these days. But, yeah, I don’t know if I would still go. I’ve always said that if I was summoned to court again for some sort of hate speech charge, I just wouldn’t show up. And when the police came to get me, if I was, if some order was drawn up for me to be arrested or something, I’ll just fight them. Fuck it! I’m at that point where I’m just sick of it, man! I’m sick of having my speech and thoughts controlled! And I’m just ready to defend myself physically from any intervention to prevent me from having the opinions that I have.

So just leave me alone! I recommend you leave me alone. [chuckling] If you’re thinking about intervening in my life in a legal way, if you’re one of those people.

Joel Davis: Well, now that you’ve said that, when they come to arrest you, I’m sure they’ll send, …

Blair Cottrell: Actually, yeah, on a live stream, not a wise thing to say on a live stream was it? Yeah, I can’t really take it back now. And I’m not doing anything illegal anyway, so I’m pretty, uh. As you guys know, I’m, uh, I wouldn’t say careful, but I’m articulate. I word things in a way that’s like not gonna get me into any serious trouble. So I think anyway.

But the problem with these laws that they’re talking about introducing, it doesn’t matter how fair and articulate you are. If you’re criticising the jews in any way, shape or form, the jewish community, Israel! They’ll come for you, and you’ll go to jail! Which is what this guy right here is about to say.

Joel Davis: Yeah, so this is the president of the World Jewish Congress, who we’ve got to have a jew sent as a special envoy by the Australian government to go and meet with. And this is the kind of thing that goes on at these World Jewish Congresses.

[1:18:42]

President of the World Jewish Congress: All world leaders, all politicians must lead in this effort. Words are not enough! Political speeches are not enough! Laws must be passed, severe, tough, real laws that will put these hate mongers away in prison for a long time! [applause]

Blair Cottrell: Why does everyone there look like a corpse? Everyone there is really old man! Jews should be more scared of death than they are of anti-semitism. They’ve got a lot more to worry about than anti-semitism, such as whether or not their hearts are going to still be beating in the morning! [chuckling]

Joel Davis: Yeah, yeah. Well, yeah, jews don’t age well. You know, sometimes younger jews, they look just like Whites, some of them, if they’re a little mixed, but then as they get older, they just become more and more jewish.

Blair Cottrell: That’s what happens when you don’t work out. It’s what happens when you don’t have, …

Joel Davis: What, you just become more and more jewish? You stop working out. [chuckling]

Blair Cottrell: Yeah, pretty much. You don’t work out, you become more jewish! Let’s just, let’s just leave it at that’s a good line.

Joel Davis: [chuckling] It was pretty funny. Yeah. Well, I think we more or less covered that subject.

I mean, I guess an interesting thing to analyze, though, is how the jews going to play this? Because they do have an interesting kind of complexity in how they navigate the Israel issue in combination with their relation to kind of pro-White elements. People like us, we’re not out on the street marching for Palestine. We aren’t waving Palestinian flags. We don’t really care about Palestine. We hate Israel! We don’t want to be giving them money or support or anything. We don’t have any love for the jews. We don’t want jews in our country. We don’t want jews in positions of power in our country, for sure!

But we oppose jews from a pro-White perspective, whereas you’ve got Leftists like communists and so on, and the Muslim diaspora in Australia, out on the streets going hard against Israel. Left-wing voters are very anti-Israel because, you know, they’ve been telling, the jews just spent last year telling all the Left-wingers in Australia how bad settler colonialism is and the poor Aboriginals, and how the land was stolen off the Aboriginals, and now they’re trying to come out and say:

“That them stealing the land of the Palestinians is totally different, though, bro! It’s totally legit. Like, it’s nothing like what the Anglos did, stealing the land off the abos, that was bad! But when we steal land off the Palestinians, that’s great! When we genocide Palestinians, that’s really because the Holocaust!”

And a lot of these Leftists don’t buy it. You know, a lot of Leftists don’t buy it. They like they agree, they’re good little goys that agree that:

“When a more powerful race comes in and takes over land from a less powerful race, that’s a bad thing! ?”

And so they are opposed to Israel and obviously the Muslims are opposed to Israel because the victims in this situation are Muslims. And so they have solidarity with their own group, as you’d expect. And the jews really helped to bring all these Muslims in [to Australia].

So they’ve created this problem where the Right-wing, they kind of need in order to defend Israel, because the Left-wing, the Labor government that’s in right now, they really are trying to play both sides. They’re trying to keep the Muslims and the jews happy and they’re giving a little bit to each side.

But as we talked about on the show last week, the Muslims are getting really agitated by how pro-jewish the Labor Party is, and they’re talking about breaking a way to start their own party. The Greens are very pro-Palestine. Many elements of the Labor Party are very pro-Palestine and kind of getting forced to toe the party line by the establishment and their voters are very pro-Palestine.

In fact, Australia in general, I think the majority of Australians that have been polled think we should recognise the Palestinian state and don’t agree with the aggression of Israel’s actions toward the Palestinians. So Israel is not winning the optics war in Australia or anywhere really in the world. They aren’t popular, and they really aren’t popular with young people, brown or White.

And so they probably don’t want to then go to war against White nationalists right now. If they start trying to take us on and start attacking the Whiteman, they’re going to be attacking maybe the last friend that they have, which is the Whiteman! Because it seems like all these non-Whites don’t really have any love for Israel except for maybe the Indians who love Israel because they hate Pakistan and they hate Muslims on account of being Hindu. So they side with the jews. But outside of them, they’re not really getting much love from any of these other minority demographics.

A lot of young White people are very Leftist. They’re very pro-Palestinian. Or if they’re on the Right, maybe they’re just straight up anti-semitic like us. And so do they really want to be seen going after you, me, someone like Tom, people who the Right-wing White Australians might actually sympathize with and say:

“Hey, wait a second. I thought the jews were supposed to be on Team Western Civilisation and we were going after the Muslims, but now they are going after our side.”

[1:24:12]

Blair Cottrell: I do see your point, but I’m really not sure. I’m really not sure if they have any legitimate fear. Maybe they do consider things optically from some angle, but there’s always going to be members of their community that get very upset by comments like someone such, if someone such as yourself has made, someone like Tom, and they’re going to kind of go out on a whim and put pressure on police and that kind of thing. As we’re seeing with this Palestinian activists.

It’s my opinion that the Palestinian activists in Australia are currently just a lot louder than ethnic nationalists, and as a result, well, Palestinians, I suppose, are still ethnic nationalists of a certain type. There’s Palestinian nationalists. I’m talking about White Australian nationalists. They’re louder than us, and so they’re just attracting more attention. In my opinion once they’re out of the picture, we’ll be in the scope again, but we’ll just, we’ll see. Time will tell. I can’t be sure.

Joel Davis: Yeah, time will tell. I’m not saying, I’m not making a prediction. I’m saying this is the problem, the bind that they’re in. If they try to go after us and after, you know, communists and Muslims, all at the same time, they kind of risk running out of allies. They kind of risk really isolating themselves. So I welcome them to try it out and see how it goes. Because and maybe that’s why Israel is so aggressive right now.

Blair Cottrell: I don’t think Joel’s had a stint in court for any hate speech charge charge or anything political yet. Joel hasn’t been through the years of turmoil. So Joel’s excited!

Joel Davis: I was talking about this other day.

Blair Cottrell: Joel wants to have a crack!

Joel Davis: I’m fine with going to jail. I got a lot of reading to do. Can do push ups, and I’ll just read so many philosophy books. So I’ll come out with all these notebooks filled with essays, or write like a book in there or something.

Blair Cottrell: Yeah, you really would too. Even I did that. Like, I just wrote with a pen and paper, and I had so much or so many rather junk notes that I came out with that I didn’t know what to do with. And I did a lot of reading, too.

But I think every man could benefit from going to prison at least once in his lifetime.

The solitude, the time you get to spend reading the books you’ve always wanted to read and thinking about things, just understanding yourself better and why you do what you do, why you think the way you do you get so much time to do that. And you just formulate a much better understanding of everything. Just that solitude, very important to men, I think. Well, everyone’s different. But in my opinion, it benefited me. It seemed to benefit Tom Sewell as well. Like, he came out a lot wiser.

And I think it would benefit you too.

However, it is a waste of time still! You can still use your time wisely out here in society. It’s just more difficult because there’s more distractions.

Joel Davis: Obviously, I want to be in society. I want to be with my friends. I want to be doing my activism. I want to make White babies. I got tuff to do!

But, you know, at the end of the day, if the enemy wants to put me in a room, isolate me in a room for six months, or a year, if that’s something that I have to go through as part of my struggle, if that’s part of the load that I have to bear, the cross I have to bear in this life, I’ve made my peace with it already. I have zero fear!

I’m not going to go to jail on purpose. I’m going to try, … But I’m also not going to fucking submit to the fucking ZOG tyranny. If they’re going to put me in jail for having an opinion and turn me into a Martyr and turn me into a hero and give me a chance to go and write a book or something, and so I can have free food and free meals, and I have to go to work for six months, be my fucking guest! A year or whatever it fucking is.

Blair Cottrell: It’s wise to operate on the presumption that you’re not going to jail, and I don’t think you will, to be honest.

But look, it’s like, …

Joel Davis: I’m just saying I’m not afraid of these laws they want to bring.

Blair Cottrell: It’s definitely a good attitude to have. It links back into what we were talking about before when I said:

“You can’t be held back by fear of consequence!”

You have to believe in what you believe in! You have to give yourself to it entirely in order to generate the passion that’s necessary to win!

Joel Davis: Yeah, yeah. It just, the cards that are dealt will be dealt. It is what it is.

Maybe we should go through some Superchats.

But anyway, yeah, I think also, before we get to the Superchats, I just want to impress upon this point, I think the jews are in a bit of an optical bind, because if they want to have war on behalf of Israel in the Middle East, they, ZOG might actually want us to go to war with China. As we mentioned on the show before. They want us to be go at the Muslims, they want us to go at the communists that hate Israel and so on.

If they want their ethno-state defended, they want their empire defended. They’re going to need to let White men have some dignity and express some racism. You can’t have all of these things.

And then in addition to that, be like:

“Fuck White people! Racism is horrible and the most evil thing in the world!”

And completely deny any expression of pro-White sentiment or White Identity. It just simply won’t work!

So they’re going to have to, basically, something’s got to give! The contradictions of the jewish tyranny, they’re too much! They can’t keep subsisting like this forever. Eventually, something’s got to give. The dam is going to break in one direction or another. So I’m just prophesying that and I’m just gonna help accelerate that dam breaking! I’m just gonna play my role in stretching the jewish tyranny out until it cracks! Because I don’t see it as a stable system.

And I don’t think they do either, which is why they’ve been very frenetic lately. Israel’s been making a lot of aggressive actions. I think they feel like:

“When the boomers die, we might not necessarily be able to count on when maybe America’s economy collapses or something. We might not be able to count on the West to defend us. And so we better make hay while the sun shines!”

And that’s probably, probably why they’re ratcheting things up and going more aggressive, both with their tyrannical reforms in Western countries and with Israeli aggression in the Middle East. So put Trump in, try and do another ZOG war or something. You know, I can definitely see that being on the jewish playbook for the coming years.

Blair Cottrell: Yeah, it’s good observation, and I generally agree. We had a Superchat earlier on in the show, which I saved because I didn’t want to forget about it.

Joel Davis: The feminism one?

Blair Cottrell: Yeah. Who said that?

Joel Davis: It’s from White Power. White Power said, at what point? Oh, you want to read it? You read it.

Blair Cottrell: Yeah, I just copied it here, but I forgot to put down the name of the person who asked it. But it says:

“At what point do you feel the women’s rights, feminism movement, went too far? Is there any aspect of feminism that you are in support of?”

All right, well, I think it went too far. The moments it suggested that women were conscious, independently thinking beings.

And I’m not trying to be condescending here. [Joel chuckles] Hey, listen, I’m not trying to be condescending. This is very true of women. Generally speaking. There’s always outliers. You get women who are more conscientious [conscious] than instinctual.

But fundamentally, women are more instinctual. Meaning they’re motivated by instincts, not by conscientious [conscious] thought. Men are conscientious [conscious] or more conscientious [conscious] on average. Meaning they’re thinking about what they want to do, what they want to say, and they’re deciding based on a series of nuances and choices. They’re not entirely motivated by instinct. Men can go against their instinct. This is why women can be the process of approaching women and sparking interest in them, romantic interests. It can be mapped out as though you’re hunting venison. Because venison is an instinctual animal. It can only react in a certain set of ways. It can only run this fast and in these directions at any given moment, depending on its environment and so forth.

But the point is that women are much the same. They’re always going to respond or react in a certain series of ways based on what their instinct is programming them to do in certain circumstance. Right? And so women getting the vote, women being in politics, women running businesses, or being promoted into positions like that, it was wrong, because they don’t think the way men do they don’t think conscientiously [consciously], they think instinctively. And they’re motivated by instinct, by feeling, by survival, by vengeance, wrath, stuff like that. Stuff that’s really not, how should I say, part of a pragmatic, conscientious [conscious] thought process.

And basically that contributes, I think to the, what I suppose you could describe as the gradual downfall of Western civilisation. Women being considered equal to men or at least thinking like men do. Women don’t think the way men do. In a lot of cases, women don’t think much at all! Right.

Well, they might feel that they think a lot, but they’re thinking based on instincts rather than conscientious [conscious] observation or independent thought. And that’s not, I’m not actually trying to take anything away from women. I kind of admire it in a way. I think that’s why women don’t kill themselves most of the time, because it’s in their instinct to survive, usually for the purposes of having and raising children and protecting those children.

But the point is, the reason women don’t kill themselves as much as men do is because their instinct is protecting them from doing that. Men kill themselves because they’re seeing things for what they are and they’re thinking about things based on their conscientious [conscious] thought process. Cold observation. Right.

So that’s my opinion. That’s when feminism went too far.

And I think feminism went too far from the very beginning, in that sense, I don’t think there ever should have been a feminism. It was ridiculous from the start!

Joel Davis: Blair, have you ever read Otto Weininger’s Sex and Character*?

[* Weininger, Otto, 1880-1903. Sex & Character: Https:// archive.org/details/sexcharacter00wein/page/seven/mode/2up]

Blair Cottrell: No, but it sounds interesting.

Joel Davis: Yeah. I think you might appreciate that book. I could send you a link, actually, to the audiobook later, if you into it. I got an audiobook version of it. It actually seemed to detail, there may be some analogous ideas to what you express in your own words there, but far more fleshed out.

Anyway, that’s a little book I recommend. It’s an interesting book. I’m not saying I co-sign on everything that’s in the book, but it is a very interesting book.

But when it comes to the issue of feminism, …

Blair Cottrell: What made you think of that book? Was there something in there that was contained in the book, something that I said?

[1:35:14]

Joel Davis: Yeah. Well basically, Otto Weininger, it’s quite provocative. He basically argues that he doesn’t think women have souls. [chuckling] They don’t have transcendent and they don’t have the capacity for transcendent kind of like self awareness and subjectivity and therefore, like conscientious ethics, and that they are pure instinct.

Blair Cottrell: In an extreme sense. Like I said, there’s always outliers wherever you get some women who, …

Joel Davis: He also says in the book, he says in the book that he’s talking about the Platonic archetype of woman and man and that like most people actually have, most like there’s no pure, pure masculine man or pure feminine woman, but that all women have aspects of masculinity and all men have aspects of femininity in their personalities, …

Blair Cottrell: I’m a living example. Even though I’m a living example of what you were just saying. Because even though I, you know, ostensibly I seem quite masculine and I’m understood as being very masculine, I have a somewhat feminine nature because I’m more intuitive than most men. And the reason I have this understanding of women being instinctual creatures is because I can relate to it somewhat. I’m a survivalist myself. I always want to survive. I would never hurt or kill myself, for example. But I’ve always been able to understand women on a slightly deeper level than most men can. And I think it’s because part of my nature is feminine.

If you look at my astrological chart, it’s almost entirely feminine. There’s a couple of masculine placements, but it’s almost all feminine. That doesn’t make me female! It just means that I’m kind of tapped into the world of instinct and intuition slightly more than most men would be, I think anyway. I feel different on different days, so it’s hard to map it out exactly.

Joel Davis: Yeah. I mean, you’re in touch with your emotions, and you’re kind of like nurturing as well. Oh, you have like a nurturing quality, kind of like, which you could say is like a maternal quality.

Blair Cottrell: You’re saying that in my presence you feel cared for, is that what you’re saying, Joel? That’s nice.

Joel Davis: Well, yeah, you do. Yeah, you do a lot of little things. You are considerate like that. So, yeah, it’s not necessarily a bad trait. I don’t criticising you. It’s a good trait, you know?

But, yeah, Otto Weiningers, he kind of he, again, I don’t co-sign on all of his theories. Uh, he basically was a jewish incel that that ended up committing suicide after writing this book. And he has an interesting, like, part of it where he talks about how the jewish race is spiritually feminine. Yeah, [chuckling] there’s some interesting aspects to the book, and he tries to kind of set up a philosophical case to kind of substantiate his point. He draws a lot from, like, Kantian, like a, kind of like a Kantian Schopenhauerian interpretation of what subjectivity is and what ethics is, and then basically denies that women would have the Kantian transcendental unity of our perception in full faculty.

And he articulates what he thinks of as genius. He says most men don’t have much genius at all, but that genius is a quality that the great men have. And he sees, like philosophers and artists as the truly great men. And that genius is the capacity to perceive the transcendent and to articulate the transcendent, whether it be as an artist, or a philosopher.

And that he says, basically, that woman doesn’t have capacity for genius, [chuckling] that genius is masculine. It’s a pretty provocative thesis. But with intellectual books, it’s not about whether you agree or disagree. It’s about considering the ideas and thinking about the arguments and, just considering the perspective and comparing it to other perspectives. And I think, you know, so whether you find that idea offensive or not, I think it’s an interesting book to read. Nevertheless, it is a very provocative and engaging book.

But he also talks about there being, like, two archetypes of the feminine. And when Julius Evola, in The Metaphysics of Sex, when he talks about Otto Weininger’s work, he kind of rejects the way that he categorizes women as either meeting the archetype of the mother or the prostitute. Evola says this is a very misogynistic framing and reductive framing, and that a better framing would be the mother and the lover as opposed to the mother and [chuckling] the prostitute. But Otto Weiniger, as I said, he was.

Blair Cottrell: Yeah, but I would say that’s a very feminist perspective. Evola’s perspective was very feminist.

Joel Davis: I don’t know. I mean, maybe. Yeah, you could say that. Otto Weiniger, though, like, he was an aesthetic. He thought that, like, sexuality was itself that sex was kind of immoral. You know, he had this kind of Schopenhauerian asceticism, and he ended up blowing his brains out. And he was a jew. So, …

Blair Cottrell: It doesn’t sound like he enjoyed his life very much. [chuckling]

Joel Davis: Yeah, exactly! [chuckling]

But nevertheless the maternal archetype, he says, of the feminine, Otto Weininger he says that the maternal archetype, … And again, these are pure archetypes, he says most women have aspects of both, to varying degrees. But he said:

“A woman that is more of a maternal woman, a motherly woman, that she will actually enjoy sex more because basically, she is in touch with the race. She is the Guardian of the race, and she’ll probably get pregnant at a young age. She won’t be too picky about her man, and she will take great pleasure in cucking and in having a big family and being a mother, and she’ll treat her husband in a nurturing, motherly way, be happy to cook for him and take care of him in the kind of conventional, domestic way, and that she’ll take great pleasure in matchmaking. Once she is married herself, she’ll be very interested in trying to match all the younger women up with men and so that they breed, because she basically is the spirit of the race in a kind of pure instinctual form, that’s the perpetuation of the race. And that she’ll have a certain kind of heroic quality, that she’d be willing to do anything for her children, to defend her children from any and all threats.”

But Otto Weininger said he doesn’t actually respect this that much, even though the way I just said it, it seems pretty respectable, because he says that:

“It’s animalistic, that there’s animals that exhibit all of these traits.”

And he says:

“In a way, the prostitute is maybe a higher form of woman because there’s no equivalent in the animal species. But that the prostitute is kind of like a cowardly figure that is that gets more pleasure out of attention from men than the actual act of sex or the act of reproduction., …”

Blair Cottrell: You see a lot of that!

Joel Davis: And yeah:

“Collecting a massive amount of simps, and catching the eyes of men and being enjoyed as an object of desire, as an end of itself, …”

[1:42:31]

Blair Cottrell: That spirit, the spirit of the prostitute, …

Joel Davis: That’s feminism!

Blair Cottrell: Possesses women of the modern era, doesn’t it? That’s just basically summing up, …

Joel Davis: That’s why I brought this up! Because I think the problem with feminism is that feminism does not celebrate the woman as mother. And I don’t agree with Otto Vinegar. I think the maternal, … I have more respect for the motherly archetype than he does. But he doesn’t have respect for race. He does say pro-Aryan stuff and anti-jewish stuff. He’s a self-hating jew, but he’s ultimately, like a Schopenhauerian ascetic. And for those who don’t know about Schopenhauer’s philosophy, I’ll just briefly mention.

A key idea in Schopenhauer’s philosophy is the idea of the “will to life”. Schopenhauer says that basically, we have, within the self, we have the capacity for a pure subjectivity, which is purely rational, purely disinterested, isn’t led around by the will, which can behold, like a great work of art or mystical insight about God, and that this is what is noble and what is grand in man, in mankind, but that basically, we get sucked out of that mode of subjectivity and redirected out of that mode of subjectivity by the will to life, which is compelling us to go out into the world and breed, go out in the world, have material success, elevate one social position, pair off with a woman and perpetuate the species. Because the will to life is like the force of the race that is within us and directing us away from our transcendent nature, which is pure subjectivity, which is purely immaterial. And it’s trying to drive us into the material world, because the will to life has its own agenda, which is the continuation of the race.

And Schopenhauer kind of has contempt for the “will to life”. He sees it as a lower, animalistic nature. And his philosophy is about how to get beyond it and basically achieve deep mystical insight and artistic appreciation totally independently of this force, of the life force, which he sees as kind of the enemy in his philosophy. And he. Schopenhauer was very misogynistic himself. He wrote a paper called “On Woman”, which is one of the most misogynistic pieces of philosophy ever written, where he basically really denigrates women and advocates for polygamy and wife beating and so on.

Blair Cottrell: And this guy shot himself, right?

Joel Davis: No. Otto Weiniger. I don’t know if he shot himself. He killed himself. Schopenhauer did not shoot himself. No. But Schopenhauer was a massive influence on Otto Weininger. Schopenhauer was a massive influence on a lot of people. He was one of Hitler’s favourite philosophers. Nietzsche really built off Schopenhauer, and he really ended up turning on Schopenhauer and criticising a lot of his ideas. Schopenhauer was a massive influence on Richard Wagner. So he’s a very important figure in history of Germane culture.

But anyway, he was also very influential on Weininger.

And the reason why I’d bring that up is Because Weininger shares that view, that the life force, he doesn’t respect it. He sees it as a lower, earthly, material nature. And he is a Christian mystic who basically wants to get away from the material world and sexuality and so on, and move towards God, move towards the transcendent, which he sees as kind of antithetically opposed to it.

Blair Cottrell: Yeah, …

Joel Davis: I don’t like that kind of worldview. I disagree with that worldview. So I view the motherly instinct in the woman as actually something that’s quite beautiful. And I see the perpetuation of the race as something that’s quite beautiful.

Blair Cottrell: The race is material. So as a racial, …

Joel Davis: I don’t think it is just material.

Blair Cottrell: Yeah, but material things and life. It’s kind of all we have while we’re here. That’s all that’s tangible anyway. And I don’t think, like, seeking death is a wise thing to do, because what that philosophy kind of entails is that death isn’t a bad thing because death would theoretically move you on from the decadence of materialism and that kind of thing and worldliness. And I kind of understand that in a way.

But I also think that we’re here for a reason. I think it’s not easy to get here. I think it’s not wise to seek death, because even if reincarnation is a real thing and you do find your way back here eventually, it’s not guaranteed, and I think it’s quite difficult to do. So while you’re here, you really want to make the most of it! It’s not easy to get here. Don’t seek death. That’s how I feel. It’s what my intuition tells me.

[1:47:20]

Joel Davis: Yeah, I think it’s pretty natural to not seek death. It’s pretty rare that someone. That someone commits suicide.

But also, I just don’t like the harsh duality between spirit and nature. I think God created nature with purpose and that spirit and nature are imbued with one another. I don’t think putting them in opposition to one another is healthy at all! I think it’s actually very destructive in both directions.

But anyway, the point, though, is that I think what feminism is is this prostitute archetype, the liberation of woman as, and ironically, as object of desire in a certain sense, and as a free agent to basically extricate herself from maternal duties and to extricate herself from maternity as such, and instead to become just something that can be frivolously enjoyed without any kind of larger meaning. The disconnection of woman from the race, the disconnection from women from family, from blood, from, I think, an actual purpose.

And a lot of women think that:

“Oh, I’m being liberated now, I can go and build a career!”

And so on.

Like, what for? I mean, the reason why men are building careers, …

Blair Cottrell: Then you die. Then you die, and you leave it all behind.

So what’s the point?

Joel Davis: The reason why men are building careers is because they’re trying to create wealth to pass down to their family. They’re trying to participate in the advancement of their race. They’re trying to participate in the advancement of their nation.

Blair Cottrell: I think women project their own motivations onto men.

What I mean by that is women think men want power in the corporate or business world just for power’s sake, because that’s how women think. But that’s not true. Men don’t seek out, no guy wants to be a CEO, just be a CEO. You know, he want, as you said, he’s doing it for a reason. And that reason trickles down to family, always!

Joel Davis: Yeah, well, in general. I mean, there might be some outliers, but those people would be, would be psychopaths. Those people would be seriously defective and living a nihilistic and meaningless life. There’d be like, a Patrick Bateman or something, like someone who’s just seeking status out of this kind of sociopathic desire to, like, dominate over others and ascend, like meaningless social hierarchies without any overarching purpose or meaning. No that is, that’s actually disgusting!

So yeah, and I think, and feminists have no respect for maternity. They have no respect for, they view it degrading to be a mother in the home. I think it’s more degrading to be a man, having to go out and work as a ZOG slave for 8 hours a day plus, five days a week, and then come home and pay for, and you’re basically like, you’re kind of enslaved to your wife. If your wife’s at home and you’re out working, and then you come home, and then your wife gets to spend all your money while she’s basically at home, just like in the house that you pay for, enjoying the benefits of your labour, …

Blair Cottrell: But she spends your money for food for you. Like, she’s buying stuff for you.

Joel Davis: Yeah. No, of course, it’s for the family.

But in a certain, you could look at it in a certain sense of, like you’re kind of serving her in on a certain level. She’s the aristocrat of leisure, …

Blair Cottrell: I know what you are saying.

Joel Davis: But of course, then she’s supposed to serve you. She’s supposed to take care of you. She’s supposed to massage you and love and affectionate, nurturing, and so then it’s all kind of even. Take care of your children.

Blair Cottrell: The irony of it is that women had it so much better then. And we were, women went in a position where they had so much more time, freedom and leisure, and all they had to do was just cook a meal every now and then and keep the place clean. They didn’t have to go out and bust their arse with some company and pay tax, and overheads and licensing and registration and mortgages and so forth.

So this goes to show that through the correct application of words or propaganda, you can literally make people believe anything. You can make women believe that becoming a wage slave for ZOG is liberation. Like, I see women standing on the street holding these stop slow signs in the rain or in summer heat on 38 C degree days, completely covered, because that’s company legislation, or what do you call it, policy. You can’t expose any skin to the sun because you might get skin cancer. And we can’t have people suing the company. So even on the hottest days of the year, down here in Australia, they’re completely covered in jackets and long pants and hats, and they’re standing there for 9 hours a day in that heat, that sun, stop slow sign on the “lollipop”, we call it down here on road traffic.

And I think to myself as I drive past these women:

“Do you feel liberated? Do you feel liberated? [chuckling] Seriously?”

Joel Davis: And yeah, I think you will never, as a woman, you will never really experience love that is truly meaningful outside of the context of, like husband and children. You know, outside of that, you are just an object of pleasure. Like, you don’t have any deeper meaning than that you can only become more than that through becoming a wife and a mother. Then you become the Guardian of the blood of, you become the Guardian of the race. When someone is the mother of your children, it’s not the same thing as when they’re your girlfriend. And when someone’s your mother, I mean, she literally gives you life, you know, there’s, that’s a different kind of love. She nurtures you into existence. It’s a special kind of Bond that no other Bond can really measure up to.

So, yeah, ultimately that’s way more satisfying and dignified than any career path or, yeah, being admired for having nice tits or whatever, because you’re down at the gym dressed like a hoe, bending over in front of men or something. And they’re looking at your butt, …

Blair Cottrell: The woman with three healthy children has achieved so much more than the woman with 100,000 Instagram followers or the lawyer or the established media bureaucrat. The woman with children who are healthy, she’s achieved so much more.

Well, let’s close the subject to move on. I had someone who just reposted his Superchat because I missed it. Its Mr Anglo, he says:

“I, as an Englishman, deeply envy Aussies for having you three soldier like trio. We in the UK lack hardened men like you, Blair and Sewell.”

Well, thanks, mate! That’s very kind of you to say:

“Would you guys agree that the beating heart of world jewry is in the UK?”

I would say it’s in America. What do you think, Joe?

Joel Davis: Yeah, definitely transplanted to America.

I mean, there was probably a time it transplanted from Amsterdam to London after the Glorious Revolution, but then, yeah, then it really established itself in the United States, particularly in New York, but also Hollywood and DC. The main centres of power in the United States. Incredibly jewish. But I know from being in Manhattan, there’s a shitload of jews there! The place feels really jewish.

I mean, even the accent of how none jewish Whites talk that come from New York, it has like Yiddish elements to it. That’s how, …

Blair Cottrell: Give an example of the accent. Can you give it to us?

Joel Davis: I don’t want to try.

Blair Cottrell: Yeah, I’m walking here! Come on! [chuckling]

Joel Davis: That was pretty bad. I don’t want to do. [chuckling] I don’t do it on stream to us. I don’t know, maybe someone’s in the chat. Hey, send me a Superchat if you want me to do it. I’ll do it for. I’ll do it like in the spirit of Judaism, send me your shekels and I’ll do my New York accent. No, Ivoryan said, …

Blair Cottrell: Joel’s dancing for shekels! [chuckling]

Joel Davis: [chuckling] Ivoryan said:

“Would you ever interview Thomas Rousseau on your show?”

Well, we’ve interviewed Thomas Rousseau on this show twice, actually, already!
But that was when we were still on YouTube. You might find them floating around an Odysee or something. If you can’t find it, let me know. Maybe I need to re-upload some stuff that got lost when YouTube got banned. So let me know if you guys struggle to find it. But I think it’s on Odysee.

But yeah, we interviewed him twice. He is a friend of the show. We do support Thomas. We do support Patriot Front. I’m talked to quite a few members of Patriot Front online. They’re all great guys. I admire what they do. We all respect what they do.

Obviously, we do things differently in Australia than how they do things.

But, you know, they’re pretty impressive, I think, in the way that they’re able to conduct successful street marches at a decent scale. Good numbers, cool uniforms. Thomas is a really good guy and all power to them! They’re getting out there and trying to do something.

“What do you think of flash demonstrations as a way to control public discourse?”

Do you want to answer that and give you just a general opinion on Patriot Front?

Blair Cottrell: Yeah, I was going to say that I love the guys at Patriot Front and what they’re doing. They very well put together, very professional. They seem really organised. And Thomas seems like a capable, respected leader.

And I was really happy to be involved in the first interview we did with him. I don’t think I did the second as well. I can’t remember.

Joel Davis: Yeah, I think the second one was me and Tom, and like Tom Sewell and Thomas Rousseau, whereas the first one, I think, was you and I and Rousseau.

Blair Cottrell: Flash demonstrations is a way to control public discourse? It all depends on the kind of media framing and resources you have to control the narrative after the demonstrations.

I mean, the demonstration is only one piece of the puzzle. Very quickly, after the demonstration, if you think your work’s done when the demonstration is done, you don’t know politics. You have to get to work, you know, doubly as hard after the demonstration to frame the narrative, to make sure people understand what happened from your perspective, and to get your propaganda out there to combat the sort of slander and hostile propaganda that’s going to be bombarded against you by all the major publications. The enemy has more resources than us, but we have the truth on our side. So we actually need to do less work!

But we still need to work hard enough to frame a narrative after a flash demonstration or events. If we don’t put in the work to do that, most people don’t actually attend the event. Right? Most people don’t go there and see for themselves what’s going on. So if most people get their information only from the enemy, then that’s what they’re going to believe.

So that’s my opinion of those flash demonstrations. You really need to put in the work to frame the narrative afterwards. If you’re not going to do that, there’s not much point doing the demonstration in the first place.

[1:58:50]

Joel Davis: Yeah, yeah. I thought Rousseau did quite well when he got interviewed on, I can’t remember the name of the guy. Patrick Bette David, I think he’s like a Persian immigrant to the United States who’s insinuated himself into the American conservative movement. But he has millions of followers on YouTube. I hadn’t really seen much from him before, other than I think he took a shot at Ben Shapiro, which went viral, which kind of interesting, I guess. I think he was taking a shot at the at the jews from a Christian kind of perspective, because I think he’s a Christian.

Anyway, he interviewed Thomas Rousseau, and he actually ended up being quite hostile towards him through that interview. Obviously, he felt personally slighted by Thomas Rousseau being a White nationalist. And I don’t know if Thomas would agree with that categorisation. He would probably call himself an “American nationalist”. But then he also qualifies it by saying:

“The American nation is of the European race.”

So, you know, he’s a White nationalist, I think, by most people’s definitions.

Blair Cottrell: Joel. Skeletor Two. Sorry to interrupt you with this. I just have to get this in there and see how you respond. Skeletor Two sends $50.

Thank you very much. And he says:

“Joel, sing an Alison Chain song in a New York jewish accent. You gotta sing at least one line from a song.”

Joel Davis: I have no idea! How the hell could you? I don’t know how to sing in New York. I could maybe try to talk in New York. I don’t know how to sing it.

Blair Cottrell: The first song that’s coming up is called “Love, Hate, Love”. And the first line in the lyric is:

“I tried to love you. I thought I could.”

Come on, you’ve got to sing that. “I tried to love you. I thought I could”.

Joel Davis: I honestly don’t know how to do that it’s beyond me.

Blair Cottrell: Come on, you just got $50! You said if someone paid you would do it.

Joel Davis: I didn’t say I would start singing in New York accent! I said I could imitate a New York accent.

Blair Cottrell: Here’s the deal! You don’t have to sing it. Just say it. “I tried to love you. I thought I could.”

Joel Davis: [chuckling] That’s hard one, because usually when I do a New York accent, I say shit like:

“Oh, I toook my dooog for a waalk to get a hot doog. And, hey, I’m waalking here!”

You know, like that kind of shit! Like I don’t know how to say just anything in New York. I’ve got catch-phrases.

Blair Cottrell: I’m just glad we got you to do the accent at all!

Joel Davis: Sorry. All right. Yeah.

Blair Cottrell: I’m happy.

Joel Davis: So asking me to sing in New Yorker I don’t even know how to do that. I’m sorry.

Blair Cottrell: It would have been hard. Hey, to be honest, it would have been hard. I can’t even, like. I would try it, but I can’t even, like, think of how I would sing that in a New York accent. That’s a whole different ballpark of linguistics.

Joel Davis: Yeah. Because, like, when New Yorkers sing, they don’t have an accent anymore! They just sound normal! Like, they only have an accent when they talk. That doesn’t translate to singing, as far as I know.

Blair Cottrell: Yeah. Actually, even poems, even Englishmen, when they sing, they sometimes sound American, I’ve noticed. What’s with that?

Joel Davis: Well, it’s just everyone who speaks English kind of sounds the same when they sing, whether you’re Irish or Scottish or American or Australian or whatever. There’s certain exceptions, like, if you think of certain English singers who really kind of have a strong, like, you think of Johnny Rotten from the Sex Pistols, or the guy from Oasis or something, like, they’ve got a really, like. Or the guy from Blur. They’ve got, like, a really, like, English, like, Damon Alban, I think his name is. The guy who was also the singer of Gorillaz. They’ve got a really, like, quintessentially English style of singing. They’ve got this, like, attitude through how they sing. Or even, you could even say, maybe even John Lennon from the Beatles. He kind of has a little bit of a twang that represents that scouser accent.

But with those exceptions put to one side, generally speaking, accents don’t come through in most styles of singing, only if it’s really played up. So yeah that’s my observation. Maybe people can disagree.

On the subject of, there was one more Superchat here. It says, someone attacked you, Blair. He said:

“Why does Blair like androgynous looking females wearing hoodies?”

Blair Cottrell: Oh, no, no, no! Wait, wait, wait! That wasn’t our Superchat. That was just something I put in the.

Joel Davis: You got triggered?

Blair Cottrell: I wanted to know what they meant by that. I was like:

“Has this person seen me with someone?”

Like, what are they, …

Joel Davis: How do they know? Yeah, how do they know? Do you even like, why do, …

Blair Cottrell: Why do I like females, androgynous females wearing hoodies? And I think it was in relation to the hoodie that I was wearing last time belonging to a female.

But I resolved the problem in the comments section. I just got a little bit more information on what that person was actually asking, but it wasn’t a Superchat, so it doesn’t get airtime.

Joel Davis: Thor 91 Centre sent an O7. Like, you know, one of these.

Blair Cottrell: So, yeah, salute. Salutations!

Joel Davis: But yeah, people are saying Blair’s kind of suss for being pro-hoodie.

Blair Cottrell: In what way?

Like I’ve said before that I don’t mind strong looking women. Strong looking women. Again, when you’re as big as I am, even the big women still seem like normal women. Right?

And I’m not just saying I’m a huge guy. I’m not trying to blow my own trumpet, but there is reasoning behind it. A strong looking woman is going to give you strong children. I don’t want to frail woman. I don’t want a little girl. I want a girl that’s got, like, strong legs, strong arms, bit of muscle. So then the child I have is going to have good muscular genetics. Pretty much simple mathematics, isn’t it?

Joel Davis: Yeah. That’s totally not gay! [chuckling]

Blair Cottrell: I’m a known appreciator of women, so I’m not explaining myself here. Just spitting facts, man! [chuckling]

Joel Davis: [chuckling] Necromantic on Odysee sent a Roman.

And then this guy on Odysee, he sent less than 0.01 of the Odysee crypto dollars that are worth less than a dollar.

So he basically sent, like, not even a cent.

So that’s kind of funny. But we’ll read out your Superchat anyway. [chuckling] Secure the Future of Our People, said:

“Thoughts on the Lucas Gage situation? Sam Parker is doing a good job mounting a defense and made Elon respond. Maybe Twitter Spaces and campaigns are the way to bring Tom back to?”

Okay, so thoughts on the Lucas Gage situation? I don’t know if Blair is even aware of the Lucas Gage situation. He was temporarily banned, but I saw that he got restored. He hasn’t posted yet, so I don’t know if he’s locked out of his account. But Musk basically said that he would be banned for six months for inciting violence against jews.

And the example that he gave was:

“Could be construed as him calling for jews to be expelled or removed from society or expelled from America.”

I don’t think that’s the same thing as inciting violence, because the only way in which that could actually be carried out would be with the state. And I think, therefore, it falls into the purview of a political opinion. And everything that the state does in a certain sense, is backed by violence. Like, if you don’t pay your taxes and the state comes to forcibly seize your assets, does that mean that advocating for income taxes means that you’re inciting violence against people who won’t pay taxes? No! I don’t think advocating for mass deportations of a particular group is inciting violence. I think it’s a political opinion.

So you’re advocating for something the state would do. I think, therefore, it’s should fall under the category of political speech. He’s not saying individuals should just go out in-groups of ten and engage in terroristic violence against people or something. He’s clearly not implying that with what was posted.

So I thought that was kind of bullshit from Musk.

And I think if he was speaking similarly about any other group other than jews, maybe it would have been overlooked. But the jews have extra protections than everybody else for obvious reasons. So that was my thoughts on that situation.

But, yeah, obviously it’s good to pressure Musk. I thought it was good to see Musk getting hounded by people. Because the thing is, it’s like, whether you like Lucas or not, I don’t agree with Lucas Gage on quite a few things. Tom and I, …

Blair Cottrell: Did you guys, didn’t you have him on a show and had a discussion with him, didn’t you?

Joel Davis: Yeah, we did. Tom and I did a show with him. When was this? Now I’m trying to think. I think it was like six months ago almost.

And also I had a Twitter space maybe a month or two after that, and he jumped on. And we disagreed on some things.

So I don’t see eye to eye on Lucas on everything, but he kind of goes for that big tent anti-semitism, bring everyone together against the jews approach. I don’t think that’s correct. I talked about on the show many times. I believe in bringing White people together for our own interests.

And we have enemies as a people, but it’s primarily about coming together for our own interests. I don’t want to ally with a bunch of brown and black people against jews. I want to ally with White people for White people. And that’s the basic fundamental distinction.

But anyway, nevertheless, I think he should have free political speech. Definitely! I think it’s good that he, … I mean, I’m not a fan of jews, so I don’t really have a problem with him criticising jews. A lot of what he says about jews is obviously quite accurate.

So I don’t see him as, like, an enemy or anything. I just don’t agree with his approach. But he says a lot of things I agree with. Sometimes he posts, like, Hitler speeches on Twitter to millions of views and things like that. And he backed me up after I debated Drew Pavlou, and he said:

“I did great in the debate.”

And he does say pro-White stuff as well. So, it’s not like he never says pro-White stuff. I just don’t agree with everything he says. But you don’t have to agree with everything that anyone, … I don’t agree with everything that almost anyone says. But they shouldn’t be banned from Twitter, particularly when the jews want someone banned for anti-semitism or it’s an unfair application of the rules, in my view. I think we should defend them even if we don’t ideologically agree with them on all points, because we want the maximum amount of pressure to be placed for there to be free political speech on Twitter over anything controversial. Because everything that we say is controversial. So we want political speech which is controversial protected across the board. Particularly if it’s associated with anti-semitism or racism or anything like that.

So I think it’s good that Musk got pressured, and I think it’s good to see him trying to explain himself to people on the timeline, justify himself. And, yeah, I don’t know if we can build up enough pressure to get Tom reinstated.

Also, I think Tom still hasn’t actually appealed his band. I think maybe if he appeals it, it might actually be successful, because the band seemed like bullshit! And I think he’s just taking a break from Twitter or something. As far as I know, he actually hasn’t had an appeal rejected yet. He hasn’t lodged the appeal, so he should. He should appeal first, and that might work.

But in order to be able to put pressure on Musk to respond, you have to be a pretty high profile figure internationally. Lucas Gage has 300,000 followers. He regularly has tweets that get millions of views. He really does a really good job of getting a lot of attention on Twitter. So because he can get so much attention on Twitter, it’s a bigger deal when he gets banned or someone like Nick Fuentes gets banned just because of the sheer quantity of attention. The attention on people like us just isn’t at that same quantity.

So it’s a lot harder to get Musk to respond to anyone, because he doesn’t really feel the pressure from us down here in Australia like he feels it, …

[2:11:45]

Blair Cottrell: Well, he would be a busy guy. He’d be a really busy guy. So getting into his field of vision, even just for a moment, you’d need to be a pretty significant character to do that. Otherwise, you could just fluke it. Maybe.

But we’ve had another Superchat from Whitler 88 Lose. Maybe I’m saying that wrong, but he says, he’s asking you, Joel:

“How would a fair and moderated debate between Fuentes and Peterson go?”

I’ve got to say, that sounds really interesting. Fuentes and, what’s his name? Jordan Peterson. I think Fuentes. I think Nick would have him in a corner. I really think he would. I think Peterson would do his best to try to skillfully talk his way out of that corner.

And so that’s why I think it would be interesting to watch.

Joel Davis: Yeah, obviously, it would be an interesting event. I mean, because they’d pretty, …

Blair Cottrell: I don’t think Peterson would do it. Peterson wouldn’t risk it.

Joel Davis: No!

Blair Cottrell: He has too much to lose.

Joel Davis: I think he’s already publicly stated that he has no interest in doing it. But it would be interesting, because the debate would be mostly about jews and anti-semitism, and Peterson would be trying to psychologically diagnose the pathologies of Nick’s mind and why he’s a hateful anti-semite! And Nick would probably start attacking Jordan Peterson and the fact that he’s a philo-semite and the fact that his wife kind of looks jewish.

That’s the thing. I want to put that out there. Does anyone know if his wife has jewish ancestry? Because I saw a clip of her speaking recently, and she had a jewy look to her face, and I think their daughter looks kind of jewy as well. I don’t think Jordan Peterson has any jewish ancestry. He looks very Anglo-Celtic to me. You know, he’s just Anglo-Celtic Canadian. But his wife really does have that look. And maybe it’s not true, but if anyone has any information, send it my way, because I’m curious if he’s married in with a jewish bloodline. That would really explain his philo-semitism.

Blair Cottrell: He’s definitely come across the jewish question, because he’s quoted Solzhenitsyn. Is it Solzhenitsyn, is that how you say it?

Joel Davis: Yeah.

Blair Cottrell: Yeah. He’s quoted his books and then just casually dismissed this other book, what’s it called? Certain amount of years together. Solzhenitsyn.

Joel Davis: Yeah. That’s like 500 years ago or something [200 Years Together].

Blair Cottrell: Yeah. But that’s specifically about the jewish role in Soviet communism and the Gulags. And Peterson has written a forward., … [words unclear] Yeah, I think it’s like not just the jewish role in Soviet communism, but the jewish role in the execution of the Tsar, the revolution, and the events leading up to that in the decades preceding. And the Gulag Archipelago. Is that how you say it?

Joel Davis: Archipelago?

Blair Cottrell: Archipelago. You can tell that I read because I pronounce words how they sound, but I wasn’t actually educated in the language by a professional, so I do that quite a lot. You’ll have to forgive me. But Jordan Peterson has written a foreword in those publications.

But then when he was asked, I remember specifically during a certain interview, it may have been when he was in Australia, actually, years ago, when he was on the Griff Train, which I suppose he’s still on to some degree, making busts of himself! He actually sells busts of himself on his website! I’m not kidding! Like little plaster busts. He was asked specifically about Solzhenitsyn’s other book, Two Hundred Years Together. And when he was asked about it, he paused, he took a sip of his water. He continued to look at the floor for a few moments, and he just said, he shook his head and said:

“I can’t do it! I can’t comment on that!”

Joel Davis: Yeah, I remember that.

Blair Cottrell: That was his reaction to being questioned directly about the jewish question. So he knows, but he doesn’t touch on it.

And so that’s why he’s got no interest in obviously debating or speaking with Fuentes, because he would have to talk about it and he doesn’t want to risk it.

Joel Davis: Not only is he a massive philo-semite, I mean, he’s like literally done sit down interviews with Benjamin Netanyahu and talking about justifications for the Israeli state. He works for Ben Shapiro at the Daily Wire now. Like, he is so plugged in with jews, it’s crazy!

And I don’t know about all of his historical connections, but it seemed like he was promoted when he blew up as a de-radicalisation op because he’s talking about Nietzsche and Carl Jung and a lot of these subject matters, intellectual subject matters that budding Right-wingers would be interested in, and tried to redirect energy into this kind of anti-collectivist, classical liberal kind of angle, Judeo-Christian morality angle and so on.

So it definitely seemed like, he’s obviously a conservative, like a pro-jewish conservative by the contemporary definition of what the conservative now believes, which isn’t actually really conservative of anything. But we know this.

But I think he was actively promoted, probably as a de-radicalisation op, and then it probably was working to a certain extent. And he would proudly boast of how:

“Oh, I led people away from the Alt-Right and brought them back to classical liberalism.”

And things like that, when he was on the kind of ascent.

But then I think he lost a lot of legitimacy by putting himself forward as this great psychologist and the dad that you never had and all this kind of stuff.

And then he had a total mental breakdown. He was abusing psychological medication, …

Blair Cottrell: Combination of benzos and anti-psychs. I think he was addicted to., … He first he started becoming addicted to Valium and then started hitting harder stuff.

I read a really interesting report that basically encapsulated the series of events which led to his spiral downward. And he went to Russia and got some experimental therapy that his daughter encouraged him to get. And it actually made him a lot worse, I think. And I don’t know, I can’t remember all the stages of his decline, but I know that the guy has seriously struggled with prescription medication, …

Joel Davis: I’m sorry, his daughter is a whore.

Blair Cottrell: She was hanging around with Andrew Tate for a while just for attention, but I don’t know the story myself.

Joel Davis: Posing in underwear on the Internet and things like that.

Blair Cottrell: Like most women these days. I mean, most women, you can find pictures, …

Joel Davis: No!

Blair Cottrell: In their underwear on the Internet. It’s just how things are now. [chuckling]

Joel Davis: But I don’t think that’s actually true. I think maybe it’s like 40% of women, and then there’s like, 60, so she’s in the 40% more whorish women, you know, at the very least. [chuckling]

Blair Cottrell: Anyway, that’s probably true.

Joel Davis: Probably a reason why a lot of them don’t have underwear pictures on the Internet is because they’re too fat to look good in the underwear pictures. I don’t know.

Blair Cottrell: Hey, wait. The women who are taking antidepressants, for some reason, their inhibitions are affected by the antidepressants and they’re still getting around in skimpy outfits, even though they’re very overweight, and they don’t seem to feel like there’s a problem with it. I don’t know whether it’s a combination of that kind of “body positivity” movement that’s going on, but I definitely think it’s influenced by the SSRI’s. Antidepressants just make people less ashamed of themselves. They make people do things they wouldn’t usually do because they’d be too anxious or ashamed. So weaker inhibitions, obviously, are a result of that.

Joel Davis: Yeah.

But anyway, Peterson is a joke! I mean, he had that period where he kept bursting into tears all the time, and, like, I think a lot of people got wise to him just being one of these babblers. He’s the dumb person, smart person! Like, he has a way of saying nothing and making it seem really sophisticated, if you’re a fucking midwit! And, yeah, he just spent all this time clamouring for Internet censorship and demanding, like, abolishing anonymity online, and now he’s clamouring for the censorship of anti-semites with his whore daughter. And that was what his argument with Nick Fuentes was about earlier in the week.

But he’s supposed to be this classical liberal, free speech guy, who is all about individualism. But when anonymous trolls are attacking him on the Internet for being a mess and a philo-semite, or when people are saying things critical of jews on the Internet, now, all of a sudden he becomes an authoritarian, just like his supposed enemies.

So his supposed political enemies on the left that he rose to prominence by refusing to comply with, you know, compelled speech to refer to transgender people or something like, he took an easy double-you on an issue that everyone agrees with, which is the trans issue and free speech, but he won’t actually apply it. When it gets hard, when it gets to, like, affecting him personally or affecting the jews, then all of a sudden, now he’s just basically a communist.

Blair Cottrell: Much like. Much like Ben Shapiro. Ben Shapiro did the same thing, took the easy double-you on basic trans questions, built some notoriety, and basically same result now, too.

But I think Peterson’s time in the sun is definitely done.

I’ve got to go. Something’s come up, and I’ve got to shuffle off. We’ve been streaming for almost two and a half hours. There’s a couple more Superchats to go through, guys, which Joel will go through before he finishes up.

Joel Davis: Oh, yeah.

Blair Cottrell: Because you got to read the Superchats. I think there might only be one more from Rumble.

Joel Davis: There’s also a couple from Entropy that I’ll touch on that with, …

Blair Cottrell: Stay with Joel. Stay with Joel. He’ll read up your Superchats and finish up the stream. But it was good to see you all or be with you all. I can’t see you. But I will be here again next week and we’ll continue the conversation, get into the news. I’ll see you then. See you guys!

[2:22:12]

Joel Davis: Okay, so Mr Anglo said, referring back to my previous Superchat, He sent the Superchat asking about, is the UK the world centre of jewry, the beating heart of world jury? He asked, he said:

“Referring back to my previous Superchat, I believe I worded it wrong. Do you guys think the UK is the most far-Left anti-White nation in all of the English speaking world, or would Canada or the EU win?”

I mean, it’s pretty bad in Canada, it’s pretty bad in Britain. I think the Police State in Britain, the way that it treats White nationalists is probably as bad as it gets, in the Anglo-sphere. It probably could be even worse in Germany.

But in the Anglo-sphere, I think Britain is about as bad as it gets. They got the strictest laws on speech, on political speech, and they are willing to go harder, the state, to kind of prosecute and put people in jail, as we’ve seen with people like Sam Melia getting five [two] years prison. What was it, two years? I can’t remember if, I think he got two years prison over stickers. And other people getting five and seven year sentences over, just basically engaging in White nationalist political activism.

So, yeah, I don’t think we see that kind of thing in the other Anglo-sphere countries at that level. Like, people have gone to jail, but not those kind of sentences that you get in Britain. And just that kind of that tendency of someone will get drunk and make an edgy, racist tweet on Twitter and maybe not even be that political, and they get knocked on the door from the cops. You know, that doesn’t happen in Australia, not yet. So I don’t think that even happens in Canada.

So I think Britain probably is about as bad as it gets in that respect.

But the mass immigration, the negrophilia, and so on. It’s pretty bad, but it’s all pretty bad. I don’t know. It’s kind of like a pointless question. It’s kind of fucked everywhere. Australia by per capita, I think we were taking more immigrants over the last two years than even Britain was.

So we’re getting browner faster than even Britain is so it depends which way you want to slice it. I think the Australian population is probably more Right-wing, on average, than the British population. But that’s partly because one of the most Right-wing demographics, the most nationalist demographics in Australia is all the immigrants from Britain. They’re more Right-wing than, on average, than native born populations.

So there’s a certain amount of White flight to Australia perhaps, that we’re benefiting from.

Anyway, I don’t know if that answers your question, but that’s what I got for you. On Entropy. Slavic Luckovic. Well, he also asked on here:

“How would a moderated debate go between Fuentes and Peterson?”

We answered that. He also said:

“Joel, do you think Lucas Gages retarded sperging is to any benefit in the counter-semitic movement?”

You know, I think sometimes he can be a little bit hysterical, which is kind of ironic. It’s kind of like almost the way that, like, a hysterical jew can kind of over exaggerate to the point that it’s harder to take them seriously.

And I think maybe if he chilled a little bit and explained his points, a lot of people would find that more persuasive.

But, you know, he’s got a bigger following than me.

So obviously he’s playing to some market, but some people argue that he’s playing to maybe a less sophisticated market with some of his antics. You know, so I’m someone who engages in antics. I get criticised for being too edgy. But so, who am I to talk?

But I think being edgy has its benefits. I don’t think the problem is edge. I think it’s just about you’re putting yourself forward in having an intelligent point. And I don’t think hysteria plays well. I think you want to stay calm. You can show passion. But when you, like, when everyone was sending all the pizzas to his house and he was like:

“The jews are sending pizza deliveries to my house!”

I think that was kind of the wrong reaction. [chuckling] He just kind of invited more., … For those who don’t know, like last week, there was a big story on Twitter, was kind of basically Lucas Gage getting all these prank pizza deliveries, and then he started complaining about it on Twitter, and then people messing with him started messing with him even harder!

And then they started, like, swatting him, where they called the cops on him. And they kept sending around guys to check, fix gas leaks and just calling any kind of random, like, home call services to his house. And he ended up getting his Social Security number doxxed somehow. And, yeah, it ended up getting way out of hand.

And obviously that harassment is way out of hand, but he almost kind of invited it on himself by freaking out so much over the pizza deliveries, which was kind of comical. And obviously, then his enemies took it too far and made him, like, I think, a genuine victim. And he had to get his family to move out of his house. And he’s had to, like, freeze all of his bank accounts and credit cards or something because people were trying to fraudulently take out loans in his name or something.

I don’t know. It sounded like he got pretty wild that he was getting arrested by cops over, people calling, claiming that he was beating his wife or something as a prank. I don’t know exactly all the details, but it got way out of hand.

But, yeah, I think when you, like:

“Oh the jews are sending so many pizza deliveries to my house!”

Like you kind of make yourself into a meme and just invite., … When someone is pranking you, if you react to it publicly, you’re giving them what they want. That gives them, like, a satisfaction! That encourages them to do it more because they want to see how you’re going to react next. If you don’t react at all, then they don’t get any fun! If they don’t get any fun, everyone gets bored and moves on. Yeah, it’s a [word unclear] lesson from all of that.

But I don’t want to hit, punch the man too much while he’s down. I think I like him! I think he’s a good guy! When I spoke to him, as I said:

“Don’t see eye to eye on everything, but I think his heart’s in the right place. I think he’s trying to do something that he thinks will work, that will benefit the White race in his own way.”

You know, I think he’s a good natured person at the end of the day, so I wish him well!

Also Slavic Luckovic said:

“Does Nick’s superpower of making White nationalism mainstream, even with other races, have any benefit other than them platforming and pushing his talking points?”

Well, I don’t know if I would say that Nick makes White nationalism mainstream, because it seems as though Nick’s primary framework that he presents is a kind of anti-semitic, Catholic, American civic nationalism, kind of like those things mixed together, but then also like a pro-White sentiment. That seems to be the formula. It’s not really White nationalism. I don’t think he would agree with the label of being called a White nationalist. I don’t think he would identify with that label.

I think he accepts a kind of multiracial America, but just wants to preserve a White majority and Christian religion. And he plays upon that loyalty to then differentiate. I don’t want to use the phrase “plays upon”, but he appeals to that loyalty to that American Christian identity as a way to differentiate jews on religious lines and say:

“Well, these people need to be marginalised and maybe even removed from America because they’re a hostile, alien element that aren’t in sync with the Christian, White, black, or Hispanic populations of America.”

I think he tries to appeal a little bit to that. But then at the same time, he says we should preserve the White majority.

So, is that White nationalist or not? I don’t know. You can decide.

As for the getting the support of non-Whites, I think, generally speaking, if you have to adapt your position in order to appeal to non-Whites, and ultimately what you’re doing is you’re trying to advance the cause of White racial consciousness, well, you’re basically sacrificing the White racial consciousness, the purity of that position, in order to appeal to non-Whites, which is exactly the problem! The problem is that Whites have basically sacrificed our identity in general to be inclusive to non-Whites within our societies.

So I don’t agree with that. But he has a different view than me because I don’t think that’s his primary commitment. I think his primary commitment is religious, not racialist. So he has a different framework of priorities than what I have, and so he acts accordingly.

But do I think he’s a positive force in politics? Absolutely! Because he does a really good job at basically sitting on the edge of the conservative movement and feeding them more radical talking points. Not just on jews, but just in general, just kind of reactionary, fascist, far-Right opinions, authoritarianism, race realism, the idea that Whites need to develop a racial consciousness, that Whites need to think racially about politics. He does introduce a lot of good ideas on the fringe of the conservative movement that is positive, that helps people.

You know, there’s a lot of people that are in this movement where their first point of contact, they were like a conservative or something, or just vaguely Right leaning. And then they encountered Nick Fuentes, and that started them down the journey towards becoming someone like us. So I think we see the evidence of that.

But I really don’t care so much about whether blacks become pro-White or anti-semitic, or whether brown immigrants to the United States become anti-semitic. I care about whether White people wake up to these realities, these racial realities. Insofar as Nick facilitates that, I think it’s great! And I don’t really see as much value with the non-Whites.

I think spiritually, if you have a movement, like I said:

“That’s conciliatory to non-White elements, that’s inclusive towards non-White elements.”

You don’t really have a movement that is creating the full mentality that is necessary. Which is a mentality that is pro-White first and foremost, that is kind of exclusivist, where Whites start differentiating themselves from the multiracial society around them and building our own internal community and culture and identity completely distinctly from the other non-White races.

[2:34:29]

Now, does that mean, I think, that we can never have any kind of productive relationship with non-White races? No, I don’t think so. I think there could be circumstances in which that would make sense. But I don’t think those circumstances are really going to come into being politically until Whites have kind of collectivised, until Whites are actually a faction that is organised around our White Identity, and we have White leaders that represent White people. Then we would have the collective power to demand respect from other groups, and we’d have someone that could, or a group of people that could actually speak on behalf of our race in a credible way. Because our race would be racially conscious and organised.

So, to me, that’s objective number one! We have to get the White race organised, and all other objectives are just secondary to that primary objective, to me. So I think that’s probably the main difference between his viewpoint and my viewpoint. There you go.

Staltis Stead:

“Great to see you guys getting recognition from active clubs in the United States. What are your thoughts on how the positives and negatives of each of the activist groups in the USA, practice, optics, etcetera?”

I don’t have the dossier on all the different active clubs in America. You know, I see stuff online, but I don’t really know everything that everyone is doing.

So I don’t have, like, these developed opinions on all the different active clubs and all the activism that they’ve done and how good their recruiting is going and all the rest of it.

So I can’t really give you a full spectrum answer. But I see a lot of active, like, random active club guys from different cities. I don’t know if they’re Patriot Front affiliated or not. Some of them seem to be, some of them aren’t. I don’t know exactly how the architecture all works over there. And I have good, good things to say about it. I see it seems to be growing. There seems to be more and more people rocking up to training. The network seems to be expanding. Patriot Front seem to have a lot of members in particular. I already stated before, I’m a fan of what they do, …

So yeah, but all the other organisations, I don’t really know too much about them, so I can’t really comment.

Jake 313 said:

“Here’s a bit of Australian trivia. Who was the first Australian that coined the now popular scum term ‘multiculturalism’? Here’s a hint. He was an ex prime minister, and the state he came from started with a V. In order to see the future, you must know your past.”

I didn’t actually know who coined the term “multiculturalism”. I guess you can let me know who it is.

Jake 313 also said:

“I think for the last 30 to 40 years, the level of psychological subversion inflicted upon the public has been an extreme one. It’s been entirely against Whites. The government cries ‘racism’ whilst promoting racist ideals such as diversity hiring.”

Yeah, well, that’s clear and obvious.

So, I guess that’s pretty much all the Superchats.

So I guess we’ll end the show there.

Hope everyone enjoyed the show. Thanks for watching, and, yeah, we’ll see you all next week for another episode. And maybe Tom will be back. He’s had a lot on lately, so hasn’t been on the show as much.

And we will transform the name of the show soon. We will be The Joel and Blair Show no longer. I don’t think it’s really appropriate, considering how much Tom contributes to the show. But also, it’s just. It was just kind of like a placeholder name. We want to have a name that conveys, like, an idea as opposed to just our names. So, things are coming. Things are cooking. I hope you enjoyed the show.

We’ll see you next week. Bon voyage!

[2:38:36]

END

top

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

Odysee Comments

top

(Comments as of 7/12/2024 = 285)

@DanTheOracle
9 hours ago

@Crazy_Cat_Gentleman
nah they are polynesian savages no better than the niggers or abos tbh……..

1
0

@BMC1488
5 hours ago
Good stream as always. White Power! o/

1
0

@Crazy_Cat_Gentleman
9 hours ago
NZ took more than double in proportion to existing population than Canada, I found it strange only Canada was highlighted.

1
0
danzimmons
9 hours ago
Blair needs to knock up 2005 Gina Carrano

0
1

@DanTheOracle
9 hours ago
thje abos were brought out by the dutch and genocided the pigmys……

1
0

@DanTheOracle
9 hours ago

@DawnBrowning
yea shitskins who have never given anything to humanity

1
0

@DanTheOracle
9 hours ago
every other race only advances by how much White dna they can steal….. the only race that suffers by non white admix is Whites

1
0

@DanTheOracle
9 hours ago
the only pure race are Whites

1
0
Dawn Browning
8 hours ago
White tail spiders are also awful. I got bitten taking the washing off the line. 2 X finger inflammation. A week at the docs, twice a day, making my arse cheeks look like antibiotic pin cushions fixed it.

@Crazy_Cat_Gentleman
8 hours ago

@david_smith
Rand says many things.

@david_smith
8 hours ago

@Crazy_Cat_Gentleman
Rand says huntsman spiders are harmless, my mates dog is still recovering 4 days after a bite

@Crazy_Cat_Gentleman
8 hours ago

@david_smith
yes

@david_smith
8 hours ago
fukwit*

@david_smith
8 hours ago

@Crazy_Cat_Gentleman
NJP is nit a thing, Rand is a fukit

Dawn Browning
8 hours ago
JoelLove Love to all you Beautifuls MWAH

@Crazy_Cat_Gentleman
8 hours ago
Tom’s great (All three of you are!) I’m glad he’s included.

DOLO
8 hours ago
o/

@CampsLindburgh
8 hours ago
o/

Svxdrifter
8 hours ago
o/

@Crazy_Cat_Gentleman
8 hours ago
o/

@david_smith
8 hours ago
Vitlam?

@Crazy_Cat_Gentleman
8 hours ago

@joeldavis
When do you think the guys at TRS/NJP are going to give a positive presentation on you guy so

@Randbot
will also have a positive opinion of you great guys.

Dawn Browning
8 hours ago

@MagicManintheSky
It’s not clear that she will spend any time in jail.

@david_smith
8 hours ago
With some gayness*

MagicManintheSky
8 hours ago

Dawn Browning
9 hours ago
Cheers MMS

MagicManintheSky
9 hours ago

@DawnBrowning
https://www.msn.com/en-xl/news/other/german-nazi-grandma-ursula-haverbeck-95-convicted-again-for-holocaust-denial/ar-BB1oX8Ne

Dawn Browning
9 hours ago
I was wondering if Elon was trying to protect Gage at one point

@david_smith
9 hours ago
Italians hate when you send them better pizza

@david_smith
9 hours ago
He is just low IQ, pretty simple

@david_smith
9 hours ago
Canada is introducing retrospective laws

@Crazy_Cat_Gentleman
9 hours ago
Such is life under the global jewish tyranny.

Dawn Browning
9 hours ago
Has Ursula actually been incarcerated?

MagicManintheSky
9 hours ago
Germany Ursula Haverbeck

Dawn Browning
9 hours ago
2 years SAM MELIA

@david_smith
9 hours ago
It is very froidian

Dawn Browning
9 hours ago
Blair

@Crazy_Cat_Gentleman
9 hours ago
We need anonymity in political discussions for the same reason we vote anonymously; the fucking jews get violent when you try to be reasonable and realistic (white).

@david_smith
9 hours ago
He is happy to talk about dreaming of eating his grandmothers muff

Dawn Browning
9 hours ago
Yup. 2 of my female clients were on SSRIs. Not only were they degenerate, they redecorated every 6 months.

MagicManintheSky
9 hours ago

@DawnBrowning
o/

@david_smith
9 hours ago
Carnivore diet is good, being a traitor who wants to eat your grandmas muff is not.

@Crazy_Cat_Gentleman
9 hours ago

@david_smith
:rofl:

ThinRedLine
9 hours ago
JP is a wreck

Dawn Browning
9 hours ago

@MagicManintheSky
GTSY

@david_smith
9 hours ago

@Crazy_Cat_Gentleman
Blair is a human, not a kiwi

ThinRedLine
9 hours ago
I often get his videos pushed to me on youtube

MagicManintheSky
9 hours ago
https://www.ncregister.com/interview/tammy-peterson-conversion-story

@Crazy_Cat_Gentleman
9 hours ago
I know Blairs struggle well, It took years to stop saying pot-ten-ch o-me-ter rather than pot-om-me-ter as I read the word for years before I heard it ever spoken. Euler is another I still will mistakenly say You-ler rather than oil-ler

@david_smith
9 hours ago
It was prior to Trump election they started pushing Jordan Peterson. He was in UN meetings etc.

@david_smith
9 hours ago
maybe 8 yearsthinking about it

Dawn Browning
9 hours ago
200 years is frightful

@david_smith
9 hours ago
He was always a globalist lefty zionist, promoted on artificially youtube for over 10 years

DOLO
9 hours ago
Excellent book

Dawn Browning
9 hours ago

@DanTheOracle
True, Mr Perfect. When the time comes, I’ll politely bow out. Until then, you’ll have to bear the likes of my awakened nature along with the confrontations that you & I will also face. We have tough times ahead. You more so than me.

ThinRedLine
9 hours ago
200 years together

BOILING-FROG
9 hours ago
200

DOLO
9 hours ago
200

@whiterabbit
9 hours ago
jewy lol

@david_smith
9 hours ago
Beeata

ThinRedLine
9 hours ago
good point Joel

@fantastic_journey
9 hours ago
Peterson has to be on the lying side. Therefore his job is much tougher

@david_smith
9 hours ago
Jesse lee Peterson would get oral sex from Nick

@DanTheOracle
9 hours ago
rage against the system

@DanTheOracle
9 hours ago

@Crazy_Cat_Gentleman
based right wing anarchy…..

@Crazy_Cat_Gentleman
9 hours ago
No one is above criticism. That’s the problem, they are doing the antithesis of this.

@DanTheOracle
9 hours ago

@Crazy_Cat_Gentleman
poast dm?

BOILING-FROG
9 hours ago
from kissing tbe wall to kissing koshrr ass

@david_smith
9 hours ago
I meant to say I would fight with Blair for viking women,not against him

@Crazy_Cat_Gentleman
9 hours ago
I always find this funny, as if Musk has the time to care for Cage enough to personally click the ban button.

ThinRedLine
9 hours ago

@Crazy_Cat_Gentleman
so true

@david_smith
9 hours ago
Based, I will fight Blair for viking women anyday

@Crazy_Cat_Gentleman
9 hours ago
Hoodies are white as fuck as long as they are made from Mammoth skin

DOLO
9 hours ago
Blair wants a sheildmaiden

danzimmons
9 hours ago
just got a rumble notification, did i miss another live

@david_smith
9 hours ago
Camping is in tents

@david_smith
9 hours ago
singing is for normies

@DanTheOracle
9 hours ago

@DawnBrowning
yea i know… he is a shitskin nigger…….. why are you even in this chats when everyone here would banish you from any of our countries?

Dawn Browning
9 hours ago
Irish shanties don’t sound English

@Crazy_Cat_Gentleman
9 hours ago
Say “You’ll be hearing from my lawyer” in (((New York))) accent.

Dawn Browning
9 hours ago

@DanTheOracle
Hubby’s not Aus Aboriginal

BOILING-FROG
9 hours ago
JEW IT JEW IT JEW It JEW IT

@david_smith
9 hours ago
Imagine living in the closett for $000 a month

Dawn Browning
9 hours ago
OMG. Is this BPP sending these request?

@david_smith
9 hours ago
shot*

@david_smith
9 hours ago
No the first sot Ben Shapiro took that went viral

Dawn Browning
9 hours ago
Patrick looked promising TBH

@DanTheOracle
9 hours ago

@DawnBrowning
they arent abos..
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_Mungo_remains

ThinRedLine
9 hours ago
he did well

Dawn Browning
9 hours ago

@DanTheOracle
Are you talking about Aboriginals?

Dawn Browning
9 hours ago

@Crazy_Cat_Gentleman
Top comment

@david_smith
9 hours ago
Blair honorary TRS now

BOILING-FROG
9 hours ago
nosy and whiny

@DanTheOracle
9 hours ago

@DawnBrowning
you know your people used to cook their 2nd child because they couldnt look after more than one child and their own fathers raped their own children…

ThinRedLine
9 hours ago
york

ThinRedLine
9 hours ago
New yorj

@david_smith
9 hours ago
or they tasted bad

Dawn Browning
9 hours ago

@DanTheOracle
Stick.

@david_smith
9 hours ago
Polynesians could navigate, they also didn’t want to live near abos

@DanTheOracle
9 hours ago
my people walked on another planet…….. youre cant even form a working country……..

@Crazy_Cat_Gentleman
9 hours ago
Men and women are naturally complimentary, the two of you pair bond and work for building a home and family. But the fucking Jews fucked that shit up, they made men and women oppositional, they ripped women out of the home and chained them to an office desk where they are taxed and subject to usury

@DanTheOracle
9 hours ago
name me even a single discovery or invention by any of them?

Dawn Browning
9 hours ago

@DanTheOracle
Polynesian ancient genetics include Brazil & Chinese Asia.

@DanTheOracle
9 hours ago

@Crazy_Cat_Gentleman
0/

@Crazy_Cat_Gentleman
9 hours ago
the only pure race are Whites –

@DanTheOracle
fucking based

DeliciousCookies
9 hours ago
he was an anti-natalist

@Crazy_Cat_Gentleman
9 hours ago

@DanTheOracle
Ask Dawn.

@DanTheOracle
9 hours ago

@DawnBrowning
as far as i understand it they have always been mixed…

Dawn Browning
9 hours ago
Not that Dawn

@david_smith
9 hours ago
Shoppenhower got up at the crack of Dawn

Dawn Browning
9 hours ago

@DanTheOracle
There are NO non-miscegenated Maori any more. I think the last pure died in the 1960’s.

@Crazy_Cat_Gentleman
9 hours ago

@DanTheOracle
Moari are highly Europeanised due to early race mixing propaganda from Jews who made there way here from England. It’s a bit of a bugger as you don’t know what you’re going to get when you met one. Some are absolutely great honest hard working intelligent and some well mongrel mob.

Dawn Browning
9 hours ago

@Crazy_Cat_Gentleman
You have other valuable skills. You earn the snags & meat.

@david_smith
9 hours ago
I thought that was just spear fishing

Dawn Browning
9 hours ago

@Crazy_Cat_Gentleman
They won’t let me go with them as I always smell too nice, which puts the wildlife off, apparently. I’m happy with that!

@DanTheOracle
9 hours ago
you cant even do it without misapropriating White culture…..

@DanTheOracle
9 hours ago

@DawnBrowning
dry aging hunting bounty is a european thing…

Dawn Browning
9 hours ago

@david_smith
LOL

@Crazy_Cat_Gentleman
9 hours ago

@DawnBrowning
I get it from white mates who hunt. Not my cup of tea for a fun time out, but I dare not complain as I get suasages and steaks.

@david_smith
9 hours ago

@DawnBrowning
Amazing culture, did you try the trditional long pork?

Dawn Browning
9 hours ago

@Crazy_Cat_Gentleman
Best breakfast I had was 5 day matured venison caught by a Maori.

@Crazy_Cat_Gentleman
9 hours ago
NZ was the first country to have women voting. Guess who was behind that (the media lies, it was not Kate Sheppard)
https://i.desu.si/iJgwULsz.png

@sparkofspirit
9 hours ago
feminism is jewish

@Crazy_Cat_Gentleman
9 hours ago
Venison stop running when you blow their neck apart with a 308 (deer hunting is a popular sport in nz)

Dawn Browning
9 hours ago
Us women are 108th on the Chess Ratings, tut tut

@david_smith
9 hours ago
Italians were White then, some still are

@Dan

@sparkofspirit
9 hours ago
lol

Dawn Browning
9 hours ago
BLAIR!!!!!!

@DanTheOracle
10 hours ago

@david_smith
its actually fascist.. the first natural farming methods were advanced by the italians from memory

DeliciousCookies
10 hours ago
perhaps you should be afraid of these laws since they target you directly. You protest child story hour at some library, but they appoint someone that targets freedom of speech directly and you guys don’t do shit. Kinda sad

@david_smith
10 hours ago
permaculture is White

ThinRedLine
10 hours ago

@DanTheOracle
o/

@DanTheOracle
10 hours ago

@TheThinRedLine
o/

ThinRedLine
10 hours ago

@DanTheOracle
devon is great

Dawn Browning
10 hours ago

@DanTheOracle
To think I worked on a team who rewired the LSE in the 80’s & taught them how to use vampire taps & fax cards. Meh. I’m into seeds, chooks, propagation & grandchildren these days. Good things.

@DanTheOracle
10 hours ago

@TheThinRedLine
LOL oh yea that was why i said it… love devon

ThinRedLine
10 hours ago

@DanTheOracle
It was some Jews in a clip he uses saying half a million dollars

DeliciousCookies
10 hours ago
lol you can read books in solitude without going to prison too

@david_smith
10 hours ago
Write yo eassay man

@DanTheOracle
10 hours ago

@Crazy_Cat_Gentleman
skidwaffen

WaffleStake
10 hours ago
we need to prepare legal defence funds now

@Crazy_Cat_Gentleman
10 hours ago

@DawnBrowning
I can only drive a manual. Automatics stop suddenly with tire smoke and skid marks when I try to change gear

@DanTheOracle
10 hours ago

@TheThinRedLine
idont know what that is in relation to… maybe i missed something

DeliciousCookies
10 hours ago
nah buddy you’re missing the point, the jews couldn’t care less about the muslims in aus. They’re just being used to push laws to gag whites protesting against jewish control

Secure the future of our people
10 hours ago

@DawnBrowning
??

@DanTheOracle
10 hours ago

@DawnBrowning
LOOOL. fair enough

ThinRedLine
10 hours ago

@DanTheOracle
Blackpilled

Dawn Browning
10 hours ago
Has Lucas’ naughty chair been reduced?

Secure the future of our people
10 hours ago
<0.01
Thoughts on the Lucas Gage situation? Sam Parker is doing good job on mounting a defense and made Elon response. Maybe twitter spaces and campaigns are the way to bring Tom back too.

@DanTheOracle
10 hours ago

@Nekromantik
o/

Nekromantik
10 hours ago
$25.00
o/

Dawn Browning
10 hours ago

@DanTheOracle
I can only drive an automatic.

@DanTheOracle
10 hours ago

@WaffleStake
(((half a million dollars))) LOL.

Secure the future of our people
10 hours ago
Thoughts on the Lucas Gage situation?

WaffleStake
10 hours ago
ONE HUNDRED DOLLARS!!!

@CampsLindburgh
10 hours ago
John Travolta

Dawn Browning
10 hours ago
Clash: Go Straight to Hell

ThinRedLine
10 hours ago
evil Goblins

@DanTheOracle
10 hours ago

@DawnBrowning
hey fren… i think im the only one whos commented on your community page… youre probably just looking at your notifs?

@david_smith
10 hours ago
Australia is always White, it is just losing ground

Dawn Browning
10 hours ago
OMG Blair, step back with one foot. at least. It will change.

@Crazy_Cat_Gentleman
10 hours ago

@david_smith

DeliciousCookies
10 hours ago
60% at best

DeliciousCookies
10 hours ago
total bs

DeliciousCookies
10 hours ago
whitest lol, get out ur village dude

@DanTheOracle
10 hours ago
2016 aussie census saw australia as some 95% white still… even the latest one in 2022/23 i forget still saw as both as massively White

DeliciousCookies
10 hours ago
not really aus is not that white at all lol

@david_smith
10 hours ago
Three drunks enter the chat I get to the bar first and beat both of you

@DanTheOracle

@Crazy_Cat_Gentleman

Dawn Browning
10 hours ago
Strong Cities & ISD have been a little quiet lately.

@DanTheOracle
10 hours ago

@KellogsCrunchTime
actually both are the least cucked… we were both the Whitest countries which is why the jews have been trying to flood us the most

DeliciousCookies
10 hours ago
wonder which country is more cucked australia or canada…think they’re both tied for first atm

@Crazy_Cat_Gentleman
10 hours ago

@DanTheOracle
They stick their fingers in all the pies.

@DanTheOracle
10 hours ago

@david_smith
ok its late here.. and im just shitposting for the most part lol

@Crazy_Cat_Gentleman
10 hours ago

@DanTheOracle
Exactly.

@david_smith
10 hours ago

@DanTheOracle
It was a light hearted joke, mostly

@DanTheOracle
10 hours ago

@Crazy_Cat_Gentleman
yea because the very term (((athiesm))) is a trap to pull you back into jewish religions… the meaning of the word is that you “disbelieve in any gods” including the ones i just made up in my mind right now… its a trap to pull you back into judaism…

DeliciousCookies
10 hours ago
so you boys are running on limited time on these platform highly likely. This bitch is here to pressure the platforms to ‘shut it down’

@DasRite
10 hours ago
is there such a thing as a ‘Jewish Australian’?

Dawn Browning
10 hours ago
No, 3 years is a standard contract

DeliciousCookies
10 hours ago
The process to recruit for this position likely started months ago…meaning all this was planned. jews used the palestine protest to justify this

@DanTheOracle
10 hours ago

@david_smith
well no, you said (((atheists run the chat)))… atheism is yet another judeo-christian trap where anyone that dosnt believe in the jewish god is somehow evil…

@Starving_Autist
10 hours ago
Jewish groups in the USA file unsolicited “amicus curiae” briefs with the court as a way of pushing their agenda in the legal system through establishing judicial precedent.

@Crazy_Cat_Gentleman
10 hours ago

@DanTheOracle
The (((New Atheist))) movement was poised too, as I used to say to them So you’re telling me because there’s no god it is okay to ass fuck 100 men in a month spreading disease and filth everywhere? What kind of logic is that!

@david_smith
10 hours ago

@DanTheOracle
you tagged the wrong guy

Dawn Browning
10 hours ago

@DanTheOracle
Found it. It looks like I have 50+ others to as well.

@DanTheOracle
10 hours ago

@david_smith
(((judeo-christians))) have only flourished when the jews in government forced it on my White people and you genocited my people……….

DeliciousCookies
10 hours ago
in aus if you raise your arm the wrong way you can get arrested. How’s that democracy working out for ya :laughing_1:

DOLO
10 hours ago

@burneraccount
o/

Operation Werewolf
10 hours ago
$100.00
0/

@david_smith
10 hours ago
Atheists run chat

@Crazy_Cat_Gentleman
10 hours ago

@DanTheOracle
Yes.

@Darthnigus
10 hours ago
Oy vey goy it’s another shoah

WaffleStake
10 hours ago
Jewish contempt for Palestinians isn’t prosecuted

@DanTheOracle
10 hours ago
the problem was that we went more towards (((god)))

DeliciousCookies
10 hours ago
This Jillian jew lady will shut down online speech on exposing jews, so it’ll be illegal to even talk about this at all.

@KnavishDave
10 hours ago
anti semitism sounds like a justifiable reaction to semitism

@DanTheOracle
10 hours ago
we had the White australia policy… and rejected jews and shitskins without (((god)))

@DanTheOracle
10 hours ago
(((god)))

@david_smith
10 hours ago
God*

DeliciousCookies
10 hours ago
Well since you don’t have any god given rights in the country, the state can make anything up to arrest you. That’s the problem with australia.

@DanTheOracle
10 hours ago
lol

@DanTheOracle
10 hours ago

@Crazy_Cat_Gentleman
i barely have the time to deal with my own shit… let alone be up on all the lore

@david_smith
10 hours ago
If they are combating, does that mean we can use reason in defense?

@Crazy_Cat_Gentleman
10 hours ago
And I thoroughly enjoyed it.

@Crazy_Cat_Gentleman
10 hours ago

@DawnBrowning

@DanTheOracle
It started in the chat of

@All-I’m-Sayin’
‘s stream that morning.

@DanTheOracle
10 hours ago

@DawnBrowning
lol yea everyone does… you would/should have got a notif of it

Dawn Browning
10 hours ago

@DanTheOracle
I have a community page? Hang on…..

WaffleStake
10 hours ago
if the situation Blair just outlined doesn’t describe foreign occupation, I don’t know what does

@DanTheOracle
10 hours ago

@Crazy_Cat_Gentleman
oh jesus fuck…. i missed all of that…..

Dawn Browning
10 hours ago

@Crazy_Cat_Gentleman
Oh, I’m glad that I missed those interactions

@DanTheOracle
10 hours ago

@DawnBrowning
hey fren. i put a question on your community page a few days ago, maybe you missed it? or maybe you just didnt want to answer it? feel free to delete it if you just dont want to answer it, i was just curious.

@Crazy_Cat_Gentleman
10 hours ago

@DawnBrowning
LOL. I should probably explain

@WHITESUNITEWORLDWIDE
isn’t quite right in the head and at times will stir up shit, he was telling me to act like a nigger and think with ‘muh dick’ and knock up any random woman like he did…. and it escalated from there.

@david_smith
10 hours ago
I suport jewish tranny frfrnc

Dawn Browning
10 hours ago

@Crazy_Cat_Gentleman
Oh, I get it now. You do some great info streams. I’ve learnt so much. All I want for Christmas is a soldering kit *heehee

WaffleStake
10 hours ago
the position should be renamed Gunt Guard for Zionism

ThinRedLine
10 hours ago
kebab shop I would think

DOLO
10 hours ago
inciting serious contempt lol

ThinRedLine
10 hours ago

@DasRite
also their programming is too deep, there are exception though

@BigTechExodus
10 hours ago
selling burgers is dangerous business

@DasRite
10 hours ago
Burgers look shithouse.

@Starving_Autist
10 hours ago
Fair guess lol

@DasRite
10 hours ago
You can never redpill boomers. They don’t have the tech ‘know how’ to find non mainstream information.

ThinRedLine
10 hours ago
Odin helps him noticing

DeliciousCookies
10 hours ago
what do you guys know about this new antisemitism envoy Jillian Segal. Who is she? Seems like a south African jew lawyer, but not sure.

ThinRedLine
10 hours ago
If we could get 20 % (rehaps even less) of all Whites genuine on our side I believe we would win

WaffleStake
10 hours ago
to circle back to the early point about humility and learning

WaffleStake
10 hours ago
boomers are extremely arrogant which prevents them from learning anything

@Crazy_Cat_Gentleman
10 hours ago

@DawnBrowning
LOL do understand that little stream was over an argument with

@WHITESUNITEWORLDWIDE
where I said I don’t want to be a degenerate just to have bastard children like you and he in turn tried to twist what I had said to mean mixed race children.

Dawn Browning
10 hours ago
You won’t find definitions of many modern day words in pre-2000 printed dictionaries.

DOLO
10 hours ago

@TheThinRedLine
Based

DOLO
10 hours ago
abracadabra, I create as I speak

@LordVividColours
10 hours ago
words can speak truth to tyranny

ThinRedLine
10 hours ago

@DOLO
a very cool fact, Le Pen himself was a paratrooper and I think he saw action in Algeria

@PURPLE_GIRAFFE
10 hours ago
Blair w it comes down to each person taking individual responsibility for the future of their race

DOLO
10 hours ago
SS Charlemagne was the last SS unit to be fighting in Berlin i believe.

Vettekid1488
10 hours ago
don’t gaslight me bro

DOLO
10 hours ago
One of the founding member was a former member of the Waffen SS. SS Charlemagne

Dawn Browning
10 hours ago
Intellectually vs physically, as per usual.

Vettekid1488
10 hours ago
hahah

ThinRedLine
10 hours ago

@vettekid407
Probably

Ziohazard
11 hours ago
Deporting illegals won’t change anything

Ziohazard
11 hours ago
America is 50% White

Vettekid1488
11 hours ago
pipe dream

DOLO
11 hours ago
Sounds like the trust the plan bros

@LordVividColours
11 hours ago
Federally Mandated White Nepotism. Noice

Ziohazard
11 hours ago
Kyle Rittenhouse is jewish

DOLO
11 hours ago

@whiterabbit
Is there any other type?

Vettekid1488
11 hours ago
yeah too bad he was guarding a car lot owned my Indians smh q

@whiterabbit
11 hours ago
3 pedo jews

Vettekid1488
11 hours ago
we’re under a Bolshevik talmudic oligarchic plutocracy qq

Vettekid1488
10 hours ago

@TheThinRedLine
maybe he’s kicking some commie ass

@PURPLE_GIRAFFE
10 hours ago
Is anyone surprised they lost? politics is setup to be all about influence and money, jewish money and influence.

DOLO
10 hours ago
Absolute classic conservatism

ThinRedLine
10 hours ago
Where is Thomas ?

Dawn Browning
10 hours ago
Who owns the TV? Come on…

Dawn Browning
10 hours ago
Don’t be soft, Joel. Trump had his TV shows for how long before he stood?

Vettekid1488
10 hours ago
he’s a typical rich capitalist… he admitted gave money to the clintons to pay for access … humidity hired little brown people to work in his hotels etc. he didn’t fool me

@LordVividColours
10 hours ago
I wanna take shrooms and try to find Hyperborea

Aussie
11 hours ago
thanks lad for the live stream together as Australians we will be stronger

@PURPLE_GIRAFFE
11 hours ago
Biden circe 1985: “We already have a nigger mayor and we don’t need another nigger bigshot,

DOLO
11 hours ago
Big Mike

@LordVividColours
11 hours ago
Obama is married to a man

DOLO
11 hours ago
Trump is a spiritual wigger. King of the wigger republic

Dawn Browning
11 hours ago
Didn’t all the real estate agents downgrade the value of Trump’s properties?

DOLO
11 hours ago
I thought that was Bidens best performance yet

Ziohazard
11 hours ago
We need to deport all the blacks

Dawn Browning
11 hours ago
The injuries were ironic re Rittenhouse.

Vettekid1488
11 hours ago
we need to deport the tiny hat people

@PURPLE_GIRAFFE
11 hours ago
Some people are made into symbols, symbols that represent more radical views
relative to what those individuals actually believe. Rittenhouse, Trump, etc… These people wont save you only you can.

@LordVividColours
11 hours ago
America is “””White””” not White

Dawn Browning
11 hours ago

@vettekid407
Are you the drunk bloke who was recently in Poland checking out bunkers & stealing relics?

Patton Was Right
11 hours ago
only took him 30 years to figure it out

MatthewHayden
11 hours ago
work on mobility first and build from there

Patton Was Right
11 hours ago
Martin Luther

Dawn Browning
11 hours ago

@vettekid407
Your muscle memory is still there, just go easy & keep up as much as is safe.

MatthewHayden
11 hours ago
good evening all I hope everyone is well

@katana17
11 hours ago
Yeah okay now.

Dawn Browning
11 hours ago

@katana17
All good here

@katana17
11 hours ago
Sound is right down for both of you.

@katana17
11 hours ago
Sound is right down.

Vettekid1488
11 hours ago
I had 17″ upper arms now I’m an old dude

Vettekid1488
11 hours ago
im jacked as fuck on White Fucking Power

@katana17
11 hours ago

@noncosmopolitain
Cheers

Indo-European
11 hours ago
Thanks Katana

@katana17
13 hours ago
Something to do while waiting?
Have a look at last week’s show. Here’s the transcript for “Joel Davis – Muslims to Create Their Own Party as “Extremism Experts” Cry About US to the Media – Jul 4, 2024”.
https://katana17.com/2024/07/05/joel-davis-muslims-to-create-their-own-party-as-extremism-expert

0
0

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

See Also

top

[00:00]

Emma Webb: Hello everyone. How am I supposed to follow that? I don’t have a Powerpoint presentation, or any videos. But I do want to start by saying that I am extremely honoured to be speaking in between Konstantin [Konstantin Kisin] and Eric [Eric Kaufmann]. So I’m going to begin by telling a short story.

In 793, when England wasn’t England yet, and was still made up of a series of kingdoms, it was invaded by the Danes. Starting in Northumbria, one by one, the Kingdoms fell, until just one was left. Wessex. Ruled by Alfred the Great.

When the Danes suddenly attacked the royal stronghold at Chippenham in 1878 [878], Alfred was forced to flee with a tiny band of men, hiding in the marshes of Somerset. All was lost! Alfred had imagined an England. An England united under one crown. And now, he was in a boggy marsh, a king without a kingdom. And it was during this time that he had a dream, or a vision, apparently, of Saint Cuspert of the Northumbrian Saint, encouraging him not to give up.

And from that position of almost total defeat, he did what Alfred did best. He organized! From the marshes he planned the retaking of Wessex, and ultimately of England. He raised the fears [?] of the shires. And in the seventh week after Easter – so not long from now – he won a decisive battle at Eddington in Wiltshire.

Alfred was not a physically strong man. In fact, he was plagued by debilitating illness. But he thought not in terms of his own lifetime, but in generations, even centuries. The system of [word unclear] he established still Mark the geography of our landscape today, as “boroughs”. His grandson Athelstan was crowned Rex Anglorum, king of England.

England could have been extinguished ingloriously that day, in those marshes. Instead one man’s imagination, ingenuity, organization, and courage, and the willingness of those who rallied to his call, snatched England away from a very different fate.

Well over a millennia later in 1945, a man was arrested in the Soviet Union for writing derogatory comments about Joseph Stalin in private letters to a friend. He was accused of founding a hostile organization and was taken to Lubyanka prison in Moscow. And eventually hauled off to the gulag. Between 1958 and 1967 he wrote The Gulag Archipelago. And a year later it was smuggled out of the USSR and went on to sell more than 30 million copies, in 35 languages!

Now, in the 2020s another of Solzhenitsyn’s works [Two hundred Years Together] has struck a chord in our own time. And it’s no wonder why. His short essay, Live Not By Lies [1974] in which he urges fellow Soviets not to comply with the lies of the regime.

People supported the lies to protect their families and livelihoods. And who could blame them?:

“They put whoever they want on trial.”

He wrote:

“And brand the healthy as mentally ill. The people feel helpless. They ask themselves, ‘but what can we do to stop it? We haven’t the strength’.”

Solzhenitsyn, in his wisdom and experience, tells us that the simplest and most accessible key to our liberation is the personal non-participation in lies:

“The personal non-participation in lies!”

That’s his instruction. Never knowingly support lies! Why am I telling you these stories? And I’ve been asked today to speak about resisting “woke”. And, in my opinion, it’s deserving of a better description. And Eric Kaufman has a much better description and term for it.

Some have suggested that there’s an element of “mass formation psychosis” in what we’ve been seeing. That it’s a form of collectivist hysteria, like that was seen in 17th century Salem, or in 1930s Germany, perhaps?