Ernst Zundel: You are listening to Another Voice of Freedom broadcast financed through the free will donations of listeners like yourself. I’m Ernst Zundel, your host and moderator. The opinions expressed by our guests or in editorials and stories are always those of the originators. We believe that personal opinions freely expressed are not a danger to any democratic society. We don’t have to agree with any or all of the opinions expressed by others. We owe it to ourselves, however, to listen, to evaluate, and to possibly learn something new or different in the process. You may reach us at 206 Carlton Street Toronto, Ontario, Canada, M5A 2L1. Telephone 1492-29850 [Note: All contact details out of date].

 

And now we have another interesting program for you.

 

I’m Ernst Zundel with Another Voice of Freedom program. A number of our listeners from around the country, and some even as far away as Europe, have contacted us about our recent programs relating to D-Day and the period in Europe after D-Day, and some of our revisionist viewpoints that we hold on this topic. Well, some of them complained that I, in my programs had not spelled out in more detail what the Second World War was all about and how it came about.

 

So let me try to give it a layman’s overview. Nothing academic, just a layman’s overview. The Germans in the First World War were defeated by a coalition of forces, and the German government under the Weimar Republic was asked to sign a treaty in Versailles. And one of the stipulations of that treaty was that the Germans had to declare themselves solely responsible for the First World War.

 

And of course, with the loss of Germany’s territories in the east, coupled with this slap in the face for the entire German nation, who knew that they had not been solely responsible for this tragedy, which was the First World War. This meant there was a fertile soil for nationalists, or even extreme nationalists to agitate against the existing order of things.

 

Germany, you must understand, was under some form of Allied tutelage, was under military occupation in some regions. Germany was condemned to pay reparations, huge amounts of reparations which were to only run out in the year 1988! I want to repeat that these massive billions of dollars worth of gold marks of reparations the Germans were to pay to the Allies, were to be running till the year 1988. That was reparations the Germans had to pay for the First World War.

 

The reason why I’m stressing that is because, of course, it bankrupted the German nation, led to hyperinflation where people were paid three times a day, mornings, noon and night, because the money devalued between breakfast and lunch, sometimes by millions of marks!

 

And so when men were receiving their paycheck, they didn’t go and bring a wallet at the end of the week, they usually brought a basket.

 

And finally, some of the store and shop owners paid their people every single evening, because hyperinflation was running away with the currency in Germany.

 

My own mother, a very simple young girl, said that she worked for a whole month and at the end of the month, all she could buy with her earnings for that month in 1923, was a stamp with which to send a postcard to her parents. That is what the situation was!

 

In that situation, Adolf Hitler, a very gifted young orator in Germany, started his struggle for power. And he struggled against those who had signed this shameful treaty in Versailles and against those who had imposed it on Germany. And he found increasing resonance amongst the German population. At first the working people, finally an ever increasing number amongst Germany’s students, then amongst the more middle classes, and finally even amongst the intelligentsia, meaning Professors, doctors, dentists, lawyers and so on.

 

Then Adolf Hitler democratically moved into the Reichstag, and because his party was the party that had Garnered most votes in a coalition with other nationalist forces, finally became the government of Germany in 1933, on 30 January.

 

While Hitler was struggling for power, he had said over and over in thousands of speeches and talks and articles in his party newspaper and so on, and many of his Members of Parliament, the Reichstag at that time said to the German population:

 

“Understand that a vote for National Socialism does not mean a change of government in Germany.”

 

In other words, it’s not a change of administration. It’s not the Democrats being replaced by the Republicans, or in the Canadian context, the Liberals replacing the Conservatives. He said:

 

“What you are doing with this election, it is a plebiscite on which way Germany is going to go.”

 

In other words, there are going to be some fundamental changes in German society. And he had outlined them to the German population quite openly and quite freely, what he thought Germany should look like in the 1930s. The Germans were not sucked into or conned into voting for yet another politician who had made all kinds of promises that he wasn’t going to keep.

 

My own mother and my own father, who had been unemployed for four years by the time Adolf Hitler finally did come to power, said that they had tried the Conservatives, they had voted for the Catholic Party, the Christian Center Party, they had even voted for the Social Democratic Party. Other Germans, disgusted by all this party wrangling voted for the Communist Party.

 

And there was a polarization of political opinion and political action and the political spectrum in Germany in the 1930s between the extreme Left and, yes, the extreme nationalist Right.

 

Hitler represented the Right, the forces of the Right, and together with a number of smaller parties, finally did form the government, as I said. And he was hardly in power when an international boycott was called against Germany.

 

And the reason why I’m mentioning this is because in the next few programs, we are going to take a look exactly at what happened in “Nazi Germany”, the way the popular press calls it, or National Socialist Germany, in Hitler’s Germany after he came to power.

 

[07:46]

 

Let me just say to you that in studying this period of time, I found that Germany was in a terribly shocking state! And that, for instance, in the state of Thuringia, which is in the east, the budget for social welfare was two thirds of the state’s budget was eaten up by social welfare. Two thirds. You can imagine, that means so many people were unemployed, were on the dole, were half employed and so on. A state cannot function with this kind of budget. And so a crisis was looming large in Germany.

 

Also, the foreign currency reserves of Germany had gone down to such a level that when the German economics minister mentioned this to the new government, Hitler was alarmed. It was down to some 480 million marks, which, for a trading nation like Germany that depended on financing exports and so on, it was virtually the death knell. Germany was, to all intents and purposes, bankrupt!

 

How to get out of this situation was what dominated the mind of the new government. And during this particular time, there were rumors around the world that they were going to be preventive wars. There was going to be an invasion of Germany either by France or by Poland or by both governments.

 

Now, at the time, these two countries were, in a European context, superpowers. You must understand that the Treaty of Versailles condemned the German government to a force of professional soldiers of 100,000 people, just 100,000 men! That meant the entire German armed forces could fit into the Berlin soccer stadium.

 

Now, picture that. The Berlin soccer stadium. The only weapons that they had were machine guns. When they were practicing with tanks, they were bicycles with cardboard cutouts made to look like tanks. Because Germany was the only totally disarmed country and it was forced to disarm under the Treaty of Versailles. Hitler knew all this. In other words, he was in absolutely no position to threaten anybody! Others were threatening his government.

 

And suddenly there were these news from North America that the jewish community in North America was Calling for an international boycott against Germany! There was a man called Samuel Untermeyer, who had gone to Amsterdam for a conference. And when he returned to the United States, he gave a nationally broadcast radio program in which he called for a holy war against Germany, a national boycott.

 

And naturally, Hitler’s ambassadors and consular officials reported that back to Germany. So did the media. Hitler was alarmed! Here was the threat of military invasion, economic strangulation. Inside Germany the communists were restive. And so Hitler did what other German Chancellors had done before him, perfectly Democratic measure to call out some kind of an Emergency Measures Act. In Canada, we would call it the War Measures Act.

 

Into this period fell a fire that was started by apparently a communist, or a man with communist leadings called Van der Lubbe, who tried to burn down the Reichstag, meaning the German Parliament. Apparently as some kind of a note to other Leftists, to start simultaneously all over Germany similar activities and to try to have an overthrow of the German government.

 

Now, I know that in Allied propaganda, Hermann Goering is supposedly himself having carried a canister of gasoline through some secret tunnels into the Reichstag, and he’s supposed to have had a kind of a hand in burning down the Reichstag. Well, perfectly independent people and historical commissions and inquiries by independent historians during, before, during and after the war have come to the conclusion that, in effect, the Nazis did not torch the Reichstag! That it was a canard put out by communist and Leftist propaganda.

 

Hitler used this as his means of introducing draconian repressive measures inside Germany, outlawing political parties, political movements, arrest without habeas corpus and so on. It was a typical emergency measure act!

 

Now, I want you immediately to understand this is not to excuse Adolf Hitler and him breaking the civil rights of Germans. I am just trying to explain to you that this is nothing new in European history, certainly absolutely nothing new of the period. And in Canada, as late as 1972, we had what they called “the invoking of the War Measures Act”.

 

Actually, it was earlier still, during the FLQ crisis, the Front des Liberation Qui Pequoi, which was a Leftist group that was blowing up mailboxes, the stock market building and so on. And the Canadian government, in perfect peacetime, prosperous, not surrounded by enemies that were trying to invade our country here, imposed a War Measures Act. I lived there during the time in Quebec, and I can assure you here is what happened.

 

Hundreds, many, many, many hundreds of French-Canadian activists who had been politically vocal in wanting to have separation between Quebec and the rest of the country were rounded up at night. 4:00, 5:00, 3:00 o’clock in the morning. And they were arrested without any legal representation. They were put into sports arenas, meaning concentrated into the same kind of area that Hitler would take his dissidents and so on in the early 30s.

 

They were kept in there. Some of them were kept in jails in Canada without having the rights that we normally have to be brought before a judge speedily and so on, because the War Measures act had declared a national emergency, saying that there was imminent danger to the survival of Canada as a society and as a state. And then your civil rights went out the window.

 

Well, that’s exactly what happened to Germans in the Hitler era, as soon as Adolf Hitler came to power, because there was this perceived threat to the German state, the overthrow of the German government. And Hitler invoked what he called the Enabling Act, where he spelled out what his moves were going to be.

 

And so Germany, that moment, became somewhat of a dictatorship. True, there were elections and there were plebiscites later on, but ultimately, Hitler governed Germany under this kind of draconian enabling legislation, which allowed him to forbid parties and movements and seize newspapers, outlaw publishing houses and stuff like this, very much the way the West German state has been doing in the last six to seven months.

 

[15:26]

 

And again, Germany has no threat of invasion. Germany has no threat that the state is going to be overthrown. Yet the ruling clique in power in Germany says:

 

“Oh, we have got political dissidents here that are getting entirely too testy. They are having these big marches of 4, 5, 10,000 people. Our police forces can no longer control them, meaning they cannot cow them into silence. And even 10,000 policemen last fall could not prevent a march in honor of Rudolf Hess, for instance. And so therefore, we are going to pass this draconian legislation.”

 

Which they tried to do recently on the 20th of June with their what they call crime bill. But the German Parliament, at that time, the Upper House, at least voted down this draconian law.

 

Well, in Hitler’s Germany they did not, because National Socialism at that time, as I said, had the superior numbers. And so Germany began to rebuild under those measures with limited freedoms, restricted freedom of expression. And Hitler managed by all kinds of means, which we are going to cover in future programs, to prevent the invasion by France and by Poland, to prevent the boycott from crippling and destroying the German economy. And Adolf Hitler and his government went on and governed Germany in peace time for another six years.

 

And by the year 1936, we are able already to absorb all the millions and millions of unemployed in Germany and the surrounding countries. Two million people worked as guest workers in Germany in 1937 and 38, at a time when the rest of Europe was, and America, may I say, and Canada was still very much suffering under a depression!

 

Hitler’s Germany was like a beautifully tended garden surrounded by a bunch of gardens full of weeds.

 

And of course, the envy of the people who tilled the gardens, meaning the governments of the particular day, was rife everywhere! Not the people. For instance, Hitler had this program where he was going to [actually did] send hard working miners and farmers and so on these cruise ships to distant places in North Africa, in Egypt, in Greece or in Norway.

 

And it was such a hit with the working people of Europe that ordinary people could actually go on cruises that England forbade the landing of these German cruise ships in British ports! Because rather than giving their own working people such a break, they found it much easier just to restrict German ships from landing and not getting British workers envious.

 

What I’m saying to you is Hitler made Germany prosper! He made the trains run on time. Things hummed in Germany. Germany broke all kinds of records on the ground, in the air, with cars, with planes. National Socialist Germany in peacetime was a progressive, thriving country. And the people that lived there during that particular time apparently kind of allowed this restricted freedom that they couldn’t have different opinions and so on. They traded social security, financial security, bread and butter stuff over freedom.

 

It has always troubled me that that’s the way it was, but that’s the way it was. I personally am far more of a believer in individualism and freedom than that particular generation. But the Germans, after all, if the majority does rule by their majority, and by constantly reaffirming Hitler in power and his government decided that was the way they were perfectly willing to live, who am I to say in 1994 that they didn’t have the right to do that?

 

Now, why did the war break out? Because apparently Hitler was a sworn enemy of Marxism, Communism, then called Bolshevism. And Europe had these Bolshevik uprisings, especially in Hungary, Romania. Also in the east, especially in Russia, where a lot of blood was spilled, where hundreds of thousands, millions we know today, tens of millions of people were butchered in the most gruesome way, worked to death in the Gulag, worked to death while building canals through mosquito infested swamps and so on.

 

Today, now that the archives are open and the mass graves are being found in the Crimea and in the Ukraine and in Russia proper. Mass graves that hold 200, 240, 300,000 people and we have only just scratched the surface.

 

So the Bolsheviks who were in the east, armed to the teeth, had always said that they believed in world revolution and they were appealing to the workers around the world in uprising after uprising.

 

I know, I’ve got a book in my bookshelves here about a communist uprising in Brazil. Then we had the communist uprising in Spain. It was known at that time in Europe that communism was a huge threat to Western values and Western civilization.

 

Adolf Hitler was a strong opponent of Marxism. He considered it almost like an evil religion. And when President Ford, and later on much more so President Reagan and President Nixon before them had certain anti-communist statements made, President Reagan was the one that coined the phrase “the evil empire”. Well, let me tell you, Adolf Hitler had called Bolshevism and the Soviet Union “an evil empire” already in 1920s! And had initiated policies to contain the evil empire in the late 1930s. Making what he called the anti-Comintern pact with Italy, Japan and Germany.

 

[22:05]

 

And he also knew from his intelligence services that Russia [Soviet Union], armed to the teeth as they were, were pulling together troops at the Eastern border.

 

And so he knew that they were going to attack Germany and Western Europe. How did he know? Because the German armed forces and the German spy system against communism worked. They had lots and lots of ethnic Europeans in the east who were siding with the German government. And so their information was excellent!

 

But when Hitler finally ended up in this terrible tragedy with Poland, which France and England used as a declaration, as the reason for a declaration of war against Germany, Hitler knew that he had to quickly finish the continental powers in a kind of a pre-emptive quick strike in order to keep his back free, because he knew that the Soviet Union was arming and ready and rearing to go and invade Germany from the East. Germany didn’t have enough land, enough depth, geopolitically speaking, geographically speaking, to absorb the massive invasion forces which were then beginning to build up on her Eastern Frontier.

 

And so, luckily for Germany, France was subdued quickly, Holland and Belgium also. And Hitler could now turn his attention to the east. By now, his air force, using the very latest in technology, high altitude planes, quite similar to the later the very famous U2 spy planes which Francis Gary Powers used to fly over the Soviet Union. Hitler had similar planes, not quite as sophisticated, of course, but he could penetrate with his reconnaissance airplanes, flying at tremendously high altitudes for the first time using pressurized cabins, way into the heartland of Russia.

 

How do we know it? Because we have books about it. One man has been on my mailing list for three decades. His name is George Pemler. George Pemler, P E M L E R. He has written a book called, Der Flug zum Don, published by Drufel publishing house in Germany, in which he details and shows with all kinds of photographs the massive build-up of Soviet forces on the German border.

 

 

And so Hitler knew that he was not strong enough to just merely defend himself against Russia. And so they decided to pre-emptorily strike at the build-up of the Soviet forces very much the way Israel did in a repeat policy. And many people said, using a copycat plan against the Arab world in 1967 with exactly the same results. The Israelis attacked air fields in Egypt, in Syria and in other places, in Jordan, destroying the planes on the ground. They attacked missile batteries, destroying them on the ground.

 

And once they were silenced, then the ground forces, Israel’s tank forces, could sweep through the desert, driving the Arab forces before them into the desert. And ultimately Israel scored a stunning defeat in a very, very short war called the Six Day War.

 

Hitler’s forces did exactly the same thing in 1941 in the east. And the German air force that was opposed by over 14,000 Soviet planes knocked down over 12,500 planes or bombed them underground within the first two weeks of the war. The German air force at that time had less than 4,000 3,750 planes. The same could be said for ground forces, tank forces and so on. It was not German massive armor that won this. It was superior German generalship and planning. And also the elandes, the spirit of the German troops.

 

However, they were unable to deliver a knockout blow against the Soviet Union, which the world had expected. Basically, we know today because of treason in German ranks! Treason was the reason for Hitler not winning the war against the Soviet Union. And this is why Germany got stuck in the east!

 

And this is why these huge battles of attrition in Stalingrad, where over 300,000 German men marched into Stalingrad and where only 6,000 of them came back after the Second World War from Stalin’s Gulag. 96,000 prisoners were taken. About 90,000 of them vanished!

 

And you wonder why there were so few planes, so few troops, so few tanks in the West. Well, I tell you, they were in the east defending Europe, Western Europe against the Soviet onslaught, against the hordes of the evil empire, as President Reagan would have called it.

 

And so Europe’s men, we have to remember that, the Hungarians, the Slovakians, the many Polish volunteers, Ukrainian volunteers, Danish, Dutch volunteers. Alone in Denmark, four times as many people were serving in the SS in the German armed forces of Danish nationality than were serving in the Danish armed forces and police! This is an incredible statistic which very few people know.

 

[See: The Epic Story of the Waffen SS – Leon Degrelle]

 

So Hitler’s Germany was defending Europe’s interest in the east. And this is why the Allies had such an easy time in the West. This is why the there were only 270 operational tanks and only 375 planes to meet the Allies’ 12,000 planes in the West. They were bleeding to death in the east for Europe. And so look at it in the context of a German or of Germany. The Germans defended Europe and European style civilization against Soviet Bolshevism.

 

And so this was the reason that I should have given you before we went into Normandy.

 

However, the next series of programs that you’re going to hear have to do largely with Israel and German jewish relations. And I think it is timely because very, very little has been said about this period in history and the German side of it.

 

I am Ernst Zundel speaking for The Voice of Freedom. Yes, I am a son of the Germans using the facilities of North American radio stations and the freedom guaranteed to me by the United States, Constitution, by the Canadian Bill of Rights, or the other way around, to bring you dissident or different information. And all I’m asking you is. You don’t have to believe me. Just open up your mind to our German viewpoint and our Germans.

 

We are located at 206 Carlton street in Toronto, Ontario, Canada. Our postal code is M5A 2L1. Our telephone 416-922-9850 [Note: All contact details out of date]. Thank you very much.

 

Ernst Zundel here thanking you for your support.

 

[29:34]

 

 

END

top

 

 

 

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

 

Odysee Comments

top

(Comments as of 4/2/2025 = )

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

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

 

 

Monika Schaefer – The Flipside with Monika – Ep 24 – Prof Tony Hall – Dec 21, 2024 – Transcript

The Flipside with Monika – Ep 27 – Germar Rudolf – Jan 18, 2025 – Transcript

The Flipside with Monika – Ep 36 with Jürgen Neumann on Ernst Zundel – Mar 22, 2025

 

 

 

 

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

An Open Letter to New Jersey’s Governor

Historians or Hoaxers?

House of Orwell

Misha: Surviving with Wolves or …

Bradley Smith’s Smith Report # 1

The Liberation of the Camps: Facts vs. Lies

The Plum Cake

 

 

 

Auschwitz: Myths and Facts

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

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

The Holocaust Lie — Made in America

Probing the Holocaust: The Horror Explained — TRANSCRIPT

Jim Rizoli Interviews Prof Robert Faurisson, Oct 2015 — TRANSCRIPT

Holocaust Eyewitnesses: Is the Testimony Reliable?

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

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

 

 

Amazion Bans 100s of Holocaust Revisionist Books!

AUSCHWITZ – A Personal Account by Thies Christophersen

Jim Rizoli Interviews Bradley Smith — TRANSCRIPT

London Forum – Alfred Schaefer – Psychological Warfare – TRANSCRIPT

The Realist Report Interviews Eric Hunt — TRANSCRIPT

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

Red Ice Radio: Nicholas Kollerstrom — TRANSCRIPT

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

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

 

 

 

 

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

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

Damien Richardson: Welcome back to Damienrichardson.online where we are continuing, definitely today we’re continuing to have the difficult conversations. We’re talking to retired academic Frank Salter. Once we hear the title of the book that he’s recently published with a colleague of his, Harry Richardson. I think we might wonder whether he actually retired if he was thrown out of academia because the name of the book is Anglophobia, the Unrecognized Hatred.

 

Frank Salter, welcome to the show.

 

Frank Salter: Nice, nice to be here.

 

Damien Richardson: Now, Frank, what prepossessed you to even be to begin to write a book with that title?

 

Frank Salter: Well, what began it was I received a 6,000 word email, in effect from my co-author Harry Richardson. And he said:

 

“I’ve got an idea for an article.”

 

We thought it would be maybe about that long, 6,000 words. It went to almost ten times that.

 

And he had this argument, which is the structure of the book, which is talking about everyone else can have their home country but not us. Anglo Australians and all other European nations are not permitted to have their own country where they remain the super majority. Not just a 51% majority, but an 85, a 90% majority, which most other peoples aspire to. They might not have it, but they aspire to it. They can lobby for it, they can agitate for it and they’re not called Nazis. Right?

 

So territory is homeland is a basic one, or control of immigration and so on and so forth.

 

And I thought this is rhetorically really powerful.

 

So between us, his concept of the book became a book project, took us a year. And with my academic training together, it was a great combination. And we came up with this book that I think covers a lot of the sensitive areas.

 

Damien Richardson: The book was only recently published, wasn’t it?

 

Frank Salter: Yeah, earlier this year [2023]

 

Damien Richardson: Earlier this year. How’s it been received in academic circles and also by the broader public?

 

Frank Salter: Not one review! It’s just been ignored, except on the dissident side of politics. It’s dissident Right. It’s been acknowledged, been reviewed. It was published initially in Quadrant magazine, which is Australia’s premiere intellectual magazine for conservatives. Quadrant magazine’s been running for 50, 60 years.

 

So it was published in a huge, you know, series, four long articles with other part of the book.

 

So that was good. And we had good responses from readers there.

 

But in academe, no, I think I can’t think of one review.

 

Damien Richardson: So why is it being ignored? Talk us through that process. Why would it be ignored? You have fine credentials, you worked overseas, as part of academia as well as in Australia, as well as your colleague, so why would it be ignored?

 

Frank Salter: Well, for the same reason that I could not find a job in Australia! I had to work overseas at a research Institute in Europe for 20 years. I couldn’t find work in Australia. Why? Because my field of study, it’s not Right-wing or anything, but I study human nature and how that underpins political systems.

 

So I’m a political scientist trained at Sydney University, PhD, Griffith University in Brisbane. My doctoral dissertation was published by Oxford University Press. You can’t do better than that. And my supervisor, [chuckling] my Professor said:

 

“You’ve got it. You’re home and hosed, Frank. You’re home and hosed! This is it!”

 

I mean, if Oxford publishes your PhD dissertation, you can just sort of name your position. It’s great!

 

No chance! I had just no chance. And for that same reason, the book is just ignored. Books on the Right are just ignored.

 

Damien Richardson: So it proves your thesis in many respects, doesn’t it?

 

Frank Salter: It does. It does!

 

Damien Richardson: And what is your thesis?

 

Frank Salter: That there’s been a Cultural Revolution which became manifest, it started earlier, but it became manifest in the 1960s with the student rebellions across the West. And then went through the 1970s. It’s called the Counterculture. I mean, it was pretty easy to notice. And it was called a Cultural Revolution, but it went much deeper.

 

And what it reflected was a change in cultural elites right through the West’s history and the history of other countries. Their intellectual elites have reflected, have belonged to the people, they’ve been part of the people, they’ve come from the people often, and they haven’t critiqued or sought to tear down the basic society, the structure of society and so on.

 

They’ve actually been loyal to it, although critical here and there, of course, being intellectuals got to be critical of something, I suppose. But they wouldn’t want to tear down the whole structure. That changed.

 

Now there’s a literature on this. Eric Kaufman, for example, his 2004 book, The Rise and Fall of Anglo America. Eric Kaufman, still alive, valuable colleague, Harvard University Press. This is mainstream academy.

 

And he pointed out that by the 1950s, the cosmopolitan Left had captured elite American universities. The American university system at the top, not the bottom of it. There is like two or 3,000 American universities, most of them low powered two year colleges. But the elite ones, Princeton, Harvard and the big state systems, those universities were in effect captured by the late 1950s.

 

Ten years later, you have the student uprising, hating America, hating its history, hating their ancestors! Which really peaked in the 1970s. And people look back and they think:

 

“Oh, yeah, that’s interesting. But it’s gone now.”

 

No, it’s not gone! The rebels are now Professors! The rebels became the Professors. The rebels change the curriculum so that our school system now in Australia, this trickled down to Australia, because all these academic disciplines are global.

 

So you have the Society for Political Science, for example, has international connections. They’re all linked.

 

[07:15]

 

Damien Richardson: As a result of our connection to the US Empire, because we’re part of that empire, a suzerain, I would say of the American empire, and as a result, that Civil Rights Movement that you talk about, that really took hold in the sixties, then we got it, by Corollary, to just to maintain, to be part of that empire. Is that right?

 

Frank Salter: Yeah, I think there is a connection, but it’s deeper than that there are civilizational connections. So Australia was traditionally connected with Britain, and Britain had the peak academic bodies, and then Australian universities would hire them.

 

Now, as we matured, we trained up our own academics. Fine. But any serious scientific or academic discipline will be global, will be international, because it doesn’t matter who comes up with an idea. It can be black skinned, White skin, could be Asian, could be whatever. If it’s truth, it’s truth! If it’s science, it’s science! So these disciplines are fundamentally international in their outlook.

 

And so when you have dominant metropolitan powers, such as Britain during its Empire days or America during its empire days, it has tremendous ability to capture that, to influence the overall flavor of disciplines and also of culture.

 

So America also was a major, the global major exporter of popular culture, Hollywood, musical culture, and so on.

 

And part of that, Britain became part of that power structure. So these ideas flowed down. So Australian, for example, Australian immigration policy has roughly remained in sync with American immigration policy.

 

So America opened its doors to third world immigration in 1965, a piece of legislation which dismantled what they had in place, which basically forged, made America what it was, which is an extension of European civilization. 1965, that was dismantled. In Australia, it was 1969.

 

So there’s been a rough correspondence.

 

Why? Because these trends are international. And it’s not just because of who is currently in power in America. It’s deeper than that it’s more Deep State. It’s more Deep State, or establishment power involved.

 

Damien Richardson: Yeah, because it’s not party political then, is it at all? Because the 69 would have been a Liberal prime minister in Australia.

 

Frank Salter: Exactly!

 

Damien Richardson: [Harold] Holt. Yes, to brought about this cultural change.

 

Frank Salter: Exactly! So it began mildly, and then it became more and more radical, and you had Whitlam. And already Whitlam’s 72 to 75 were his years. Already he introduced political multiculturalism as the official ideology, which from then on, more and more governed immigration policy and also domestic ethnic policy.

 

Who’s on top? What is the ethnic hierarchy? Well, it wasn’t us on top anymore, I can tell you! [chuckling] It flipped the hierarchy to be minority centric!

 

Damien Richardson: So the White Anglo Saxon Protestant was on top previous to this cultural shift. You’re saying that occurred post Second World War?

 

Frank Salter: Yeah, and this was the case from the beginning. The Australian immigration policy made Australia. It forged what we are, our basic identity, which is at its heart, its Anglo, but in the broader sense of being Western civilization and so on.

 

So it encompasses Irish, encompasses Scottish, and goes beyond the British Isles to people from a broad European background.

 

Now, we had a shock to the system in the mid-19th century during the gold rushes, when there was, for a time, unrestricted Chinese immigration. And the Chinese being what they are, hardworking, studious, and they went overseas. There was a gold rush. Why wouldn’t they? But it didn’t work out culturally. It was a disaster, actually, culturally! And that really shocked the six colonies because several of them had their own gold rushes at different times. It was a shock!

 

And so when the Federation movement began in the 1890s and then culminated in 1901 with the Commonwealth being created, the first piece of legislation, the first was the Restrictive Immigration Act. That was the first, the most important thing that they had on the table. And they said:

 

“Well, obviously, we must have, …”

 

The point wasn’t, as the Left would say:

 

“Oh, it’s Anglo supremacism!”

 

The point was assimilation. That was the point! The point was to bring people in who would readily assimilate.

 

And in the great speeches leading up to Federation and immediately after Federation, they pointed at the United States as a negative example of where not to go if you want to have a cohesive country. They pointed to the civil war. They pointed to slavery, the terrible conflict over freeing the black slaves. And this terrible conflict, which killed 600,000 Americans, it was. Tore America apart during the civil war in the 1860s. And they said:

 

“We don’t want that!”

 

So they were determined. So Australian immigration policy can be taken back, actually taken back, right to Arthur Phillips, the first governor, or Hunter immediately after him. When it was put to him:

 

“Listen, we need more women. Let’s bring in some women from the Pacific islands, from the South Pacific. We can find lots of women there!”

 

And [chuckling] he said:

 

“No, I think we’ll do it ourselves. I think we can bring women.”

 

If he’d made a different decision, our history would be different. We’d now be a different people.

 

Damien Richardson: We’ll be paying a lot more reparations to another group of people, too. [chuckling] At this particular point in time.

 

That Restrictive Immigration Act that you’re talking about now is, there’s no subtlety or no understanding of where it’s actually come from historically, like you’ve just talked us through. It’s just used, it’s weaponized now against the nation as just being inherently “racist” from its inception.

 

Frank Salter: Exactly! And what is not taught is that this goes back to some pretty wise people contributed to that policy. My favorite, I have two favorites. One is the great English scholar, what was his name? John Stuart Mill. The father of liberalism, by the way.

 

Damien Richardson: On liberty. Yes.

 

Frank Salter: Yeah. And the father of women’s rights. He wrote the first major essay on saying:

 

“This is outrageous, that women don’t have the vote!”

 

And so on.

 

So he was a really fundamental pioneer of liberalism. He wrote another book that the Left never talks about, [chuckling] which was called On Nationality. I think it was called On Nationality. And he said:

 

“You know, if you want to have a cohesive country, you need to have it formed from people of the same background.”

 

And you put it differently. He approached it from the point of view of individual rights, which you’d expect a liberal to do. What would a person with liberty choose? And he said:

 

“If you just look at the world, what people choose to do is live among their own kind. They choose that.”

 

And by the way, that’s true in Australia, now! It’s true in every multicultural society. You get people clustering! Clustering together! Not because they’re whipped there, but because they choose! They want it. They live among comfortable people.

 

Now, as intermarriage happens, that blurs, of course, and you get integration happening. But sometimes you don’t get integration happening. Like the American racial scene is a disaster! Because the intermarriage rate between black and white, it’s there, but it’s very low, at a very low standard.

 

Damien Richardson: So you talk about these things. What explains the inconsistencies? Because I think of many instances now, like India seems to remain predominantly Indian. There seems to be no problem with that. I guess they would point to the British Raj and they would use that as an excuse to say, you know:

 

“Look what happened when we let you guys in.”

 

Japan remains ostensibly Japanese.

 

And of course, the nation state you’re not allowed to talk about is made as ethnocentric as Israel, and that seems to maintain its ethnic identity without a problem.

 

So why is it a problem, as you outline right from the get go, that a White nation cannot identify itself as being such? Where’s that inconsistency coming from, that hypocrisy?

 

[16:43]

 

Frank Salter: I’m not sure, I’m not sure.

 

But this is a field of academic research that’s ongoing. I’m not sure, but I have some insights, I think. Some facts we can point at.

 

To begin with, multiculturalism is a “mongrel theory” or is a “mongrel movement”. I’m using that term advisedly, because we’ll call it an unholy alliance between the far-Left, radical, (((cosmopolitan))) Left.

 

On the one side. And they’re the master, the power center.

 

But they have as clients, minorities, typically immigrant minorities, but sometimes indigenous minorities. That’s the truth in Australia as well.

 

So multiculturalism is a combine of the far-Left and the far tribal Right, but limited to minorities.

 

Now how can such contradiction hold together? And the reason it holds together is they have a common enemy. Who’s that? It’s us! It’s Western nations who have brought in immigrants. And it’s based on a partly on a Marxist, fundamental Marxist critique of the West, of Western nations. Globalists and globalism is a strong thread in this. Globalism is opposed to borders per se. It’s opposed to identity, religious, cultural, ethnic, it’s opposed to all that it’s saying:

 

“It’s the brotherhood of man and sisterhood of mankind, utopia.”

 

So the utopia is:

 

“Oh, we’ll have a world government, and once we’ve had that, and once everyone’s mixed together and no borders, no more war! War will go! We won’t have any more war!”

 

So you have Mr Brown, the ex-head of the Australian Greens, for example, has been repeatedly calling for a “Global government”.

 

Damien Richardson: Yes

 

Frank Salter: Without thinking:

 

“What is in the interests of the Australian people?”

 

And the last thing we want is a global government elected on proportional representation.

 

Because if I lived in the third world, the first thing I would vote for is stripping Australia of its wealth and spreading it across, around the third world.

 

Of course, of course that’s what I want.

 

These Western societies, not all Western. Japan has done the same. South Korea has done the same. So Singapore has done the same. Have created a law governed basically with human rights, civil rights, tremendously wealthy, generous welfare systems. These are attractive societies. And other people are naturally they’re envious. They’re envious of that. And they want to be there if they can. Many of them want to be there.

 

I think a figure of something close to a billion people around the world want to move to the West, that would like to move to a Western country.

 

Damien Richardson: It’s an impossibility, isn’t it?

 

Frank Salter: No! It’s absolutely possible!

 

Damien Richardson: To have a billion people move to the West and for it to maintain its sense of self.

 

Frank Salter: Oh, you’ve added, you’ve added some conditions there! Yeah. Absolutely agree with you. It’s impossible if one wants to preserve the West.

 

But if you set that aside, as our cultural elites do, because our elites are not., … Our elites are, in effect, hostile. I think they’re more cold than hostile. They just don’t care. They don’t have a sense of identity.

 

There’s a great book written in Britain about ten years ago called The Somewheres and the Anywheres, that the fundamental divide in politics is between people who identify with the local.

 

Damien Richardson: Yes

 

Frank Salter: Identify as Australians or poms, or they identify as Germans or Hungarians or Chinese or whatever it might be.

 

And then you have this very small (((elite))), the 1% who could be anywhere.

 

[20:49]

 

Damien Richardson: Cosmopolitan, urban elite, internationalist in their understanding of place and location. Yeah.

 

Frank Salter: Exactly! And they send their children to whatever, international schools. And they’re so wealthy these people, are typically billionaires, or with wealth in the hundreds of millions. But not only they are financially secure, not only their children are financially secure, as the money trickles down, their grandchildren and great grandchildren will be financially secure! So they feel, and they live in gated suburbs. The children go to private elite schools.

 

So these are the modern citizens of the world. Basically they don’t care about anyone.

 

Damien Richardson: So it’s a new feudalism, isn’t it? It’s a new feudalistic class!

 

Frank Salter: Yeah, absolutely! So it’s becoming a mainstream view in the United States political science discipline, now that America has not been a democracy for quite some time. It’s a plutocracy.

 

Damien Richardson: And you talk about the Civil Rights Movement, you talk about it coming to Australia, particularly born in the US and coming to Australia around 69. Harold Holt is the so-called conservative prime minister, Liberal [Party] at the time.

 

So is democracy a shame? Is it just, there’s a bureaucratic global elite that is actually in control? It makes absolutely no difference who you would vote for, it’s just window dressing. It’s just a pretense to democracy, because it’s going to dominate no matter what this urban global elite want to happen. And it’s rolling out, as you say, rightly, across the West. It doesn’t matter who’s in power?

 

Frank Salter: I think there’s a lot of truth in that. I wouldn’t go that far, but I’m in that direction. I think that it’s getting that way. For example, it does matter who we vote for. There’s Left globalists and there’s Right globalists. The Right globalists are these very wealthy billionaires and so on.

 

The Left globalists are the Marxist, neo-Marxian, utopian thinkers. So it does matter who you vote for.

 

For example, just to give one recent example, in Australia, if one voted Labor, if Labour had continued to rule from Keating [Paul-Labor Party] on, the boats would not have been stopped. Labor was slow to drag themselves kicking and screaming to the realization:

 

“We must stop the boat people.”

 

Howard [John-Liberal Party], to his credit, to stopped that. Howard still in effect, a globalist, though. Because the legal immigration policy was flooding Australia, creating all these minority communities that didn’t have to be there. So he was a disaster for Australia! But a disaster of a different kind to Labor. You see what I mean?

 

Damien Richardson: But the trajectory was still the same. There was still an increase in net immigration to Australia under Howard from what had happened previously. You even say under Keating.

 

Frank Salter: Exactly! And what’s missing in all these policy areas is the “majority founding nation perspective”.

 

So that is blocked out in the West. By the way, not in India, where the Hindu nationalists have been ruling for many years now with Modi as their prime minister. Not in China, which has realized that Marxism is just rubbish and they’re moving to legitimize their rule, rather dictatorial rule, with ethno-nationalism.

 

Damien Richardson: Is it a National Socialist country, China?

 

Frank Salter: Yeah!

 

Damien Richardson: With the Han Chinese as the pre-eminent, …

 

Frank Salter: Yeah. The problem with using a term like that is you conjure up Nazi Germany and it gets, you know, it confuses the issue. But one might argue, technically they’re National Socialists. But that term itself is loaded. It has a lot of baggage. But they’re an ethnic nationalist, authoritarian government.

 

And Australia is not forming its immigration policy according to what they are. Australia’s immigration policy is being conducted as if we know nothing about ethnicity or nationalism! As if we know nothing! We know a lot! The social sciences have come a long way.

 

We know, for example, that ethnocultural, especially religious as well, diversity is negative. There are serious costs to social cohesion and to economic growth of diversity! But you wouldn’t know that if you look at Australian government policy, you wouldn’t know that they talk about the “joy of diversity”. They talk about “diversity as our strength”. That’s a complete lie! That’s a complete lie!

 

We know diversity is costly. And in the end, it lowers the threshold to civil war.

 

So there have been illustrious studies done by political scientists, have shown again and again, diversity is a risk factor for civil war, for breakdown and so on.

 

Civil conflict!

 

Damien Richardson: I’ve heard some people say that that’s potential for the US in particular, for there to be Civil War 2.0. Is that something you could envision happening?

 

Frank Salter: Well, it’s absolutely horrific if it happened! A way to approach it from a Political Science perspective would be the break-up of the United States. Is the United States heading in the direction of a break-up? And it is in that direction.

 

But I think there are tremendous barriers to a real civil war getting underway.

 

But its heading in that direction. For example, and it’s not just America. Around the West, trust in the government is just collapsing. Trust in the major political parties is falling away.

 

So in Australia, the major political parties have never enjoyed a lower, never had a lower support from the population. All these minor parties popping up, right. People are just losing confidence, losing trust in the government. I think belatedly. They should have lost his trust 50 years ago when it became obvious that the nation was no longer favored by the broader political system. Instead, minorities are being favored.

 

[27:25]

 

Damien Richardson: But it’s an impossibility to lose faith in it because what can you do? There’s a compulsory voting system and if you don’t vote, you’re outside of the system anyway.

 

So the system still continues on as a result. Because through the two party preferred system, it’s almost an impossibility to bring about any realistic change. And because weaponization of the media, of the corporate media, it won’t allow any voices to operate outside of the very particular Overton Window it creates.

 

That’s why your book is being ignored. And that’s why this conversation we’re having now, if it was to ever gain any mainstream traction, we would be dismissed as being “fascists”!

 

Frank Salter: I think you’re wrong, … Luckily! I think you’re wrong, gladly!

 

Damien Richardson: Yeah.

 

Frank Salter: What you just said is based on a lot of unfortunate facts.

 

But there’s another side to it. That the solution is not political, it’s cultural. Because what we’re suffering is the downstream effect of a Cultural Revolution in the sixties and seventies. So it’s cultural.

 

Next we have the Internet. So technological change has made it more and more difficult for elites to monopolize the means of cultural production and distribution against Marxism.

 

Damien Richardson: And that’s a real concern to them. That’s what their Misinformation, Disinformation Bill’s about, I’m sure.

 

Frank Salter: Absolutely, absolutely!

 

Now, one thing that’s fascinating is the closer we, especially the Anglo-sphere, comes to the majority being demographically submerged, so we can’t fight back politically because we’ll be in the minority. In America, it’s in 20 years time. 20 years time, they’re predicted to be minority White.

 

And Australia, we keep such poor records, it’s not difficult to know what the ethnic proportions are. But we’re on a similar track, I’d say maybe a bit longer. In Britain, it’s not as bad.

 

What’s strange is that the closer we get to that submergence and that final defeat, the more totalitarian the establishment’s becoming. We get these draconian laws coming in! With these so-called, it’s ironic, “Human Rights Commissions”! It’s quite ironic, Human Rights Commission. What are they there for?

 

Basically to crush the free speech of the majority! They’re essentially an anti-free speech organization!

 

Damien Richardson: Or the anti-White, aren’t they, in their underpinnings?

 

Frank Salter: Especially White! Especially White. They’re there to crush!

 

So why is that? Why are they becoming more draconian? And how can it be that every major social media company was on the side of, for example, the Covid lockdowns? They censored anyone, any Dissident Voices saying:

 

“Oh, hold on, what about the antivirals? Couldn’t we use it? Just use well tested antiviral?”

 

“No, no! You’re a terrorist! You’re a denier!”

 

You know, why is it happening now? And I don’t know why. But just to speculate. It could be that because they have the power, they’re doing it.

 

But that doesn’t explain. Elon Musk is a standout because he’s taken over Twitter time now. He’s taken it over and he wants more free speech in that area.

 

But why is he a standout? Why aren’t social media companies across the political spectrum? What you would expect. Some on the left, some on the Right, some of the most clustering in the middle. No, they’re all on the cosmopolitan Left! Censoring patriots, censoring people with different views on Covid or whatever the topic might be. How can that work?

 

Damien Richardson: Elon Musk is in a battle at the moment, isn’t he? With the ADL, the Anti-Defamation League, which is a jewish organization. And they’ve really gone after Musk because he’s opened up the people that can now engage with his social media platform, Twitter, now known as X. Platform X. That’s a really seminal fight, isn’t it? That’s a fight I would have never seen happening, even four or five years ago. That someone would take on the power of something like the Anti-Defamation League.

 

Frank Salter: Yeah, I prefer to call it the “DL”. The Defamation League. That’s what they define, destroy people’s careers and lives. They’re basically a hate group. ADL is a hate group!

 

Damien Richardson: That’s what they do now, isn’t it? They weaponize, … Take away your livelihood, …

 

Frank Salter: People don’t realize, that, for example, the de-banking movement, who was it? The, who’s the who’s the politician in the UK was just de-banked?

 

Damien Richardson: Oh, yeah, Nigel Farage.

 

Frank Salter: Yeah.

 

Frank Salter: But he’s just the latest.

 

Damien Richardson: He’s the tip of the iceberg as someone, that one that they’re willing to actually talk about. But there’s others have been de-banked, including Australian dissidents, for many years before now.

 

Frank Salter: One might not agree with their politics, but it’s typically on the Right. They don’t debank (((cosmopolitans))), they don’t debank people on the left, they don’t debank feminists, LGBTQI plus, whatever it might be! No, no! They wouldn’t be de-banked. It’s only patriots and people on the Right. Others on the Right.

 

But about the ADL, they’re not much of a jewish organization anymore, I can tell you. They have in the leadership, there’s severe criticizms of Israel. From their cosmopolitan perspective. Israel does not really have a right to exist as a jewish state. And if it’s not a jewish state, it’s really the whole Zionist mission has been frustrated. So Israel is also suffering from., … And it’s ironic because there’s a jewish contingent on the left. I understand that. But they’re often not friendly to Israel at all!

 

Damien Richardson: Jonathan Greenblatt heads it, doesn’t he?

 

[33:36]

 

Frank Salter: Jonathan Greenblatt! He’s no great friend of Israel, if you ask me. I don’t see that.

 

So they’ve become rogue in a way. They were initially a jewish organization, but they’ve become rogue. They’re not really friendly to Israel. Israel can only survive by controlling its borders, its immigration policy, for example. And making sure that they have a super majority within the country, not 100% majority, but a large majority.

 

The same thing goes for Hungary, for China, for Australia, for any country! If the state does not reflect the interests of the majority. Protecting minority rights, of course, that’s liberal democracy. You protect everyone’s individual rights. But group rights should be protected. The majority founding group should be protected, it seems to me.

 

And that’s what’s changed in Australia and America and Britain and across the West. The state apparatus has, since the 1970s, say, not supported the interests of the majority.

 

Now that’s an incredible statement! Because what would you expect in a democracy? Rule of the majority! With minority rights protected. That makes it a liberal democracy, not just democracy. Democracy can be savage, democracy can be unpleasant.

 

But if you have liberal democracy, you have individual rights protected constitutionally and legally. Separated, …

 

Damien Richardson: Equality under the rule of law. Equality under the rule of law.

 

Frank Salter: But that doesn’t mean that you can ignore the interests of the majority. Then it’s not even democratic anymore!

 

So this is what’s happened. And we need to somehow take back our countries and find a way to reverse this Cultural Revolution that’s occurred, where that has given us hostile elites!

 

Damien Richardson: How can that happen? How could it happen that the majority would be subsumed by a minority and the minority would have a whip hand, morally end up having a whip hand? It’s only because of the compliance of the majority, isn’t it?

 

So somehow it’s been weaponized against us through the institutions, particularly through education, where you feel a sense of guilt. They pick on Australia particularly and probably get to talking about The Voice debate that’s upon at the moment. The guilt that we’re given for our inhabitation of this landmass in the first place.

 

But somehow anyone that comes post Second World War is okay. They’re forgiven for inhabiting the land mass, but those with any antecedents before the Second World War are not forgiven.

 

Frank Salter: Exactly! And it’s universal.

 

So when I was living in Europe, my colleagues in Europe couldn’t believe. They said:

 

“Yeah. But France is especially evil because we had the we had the empire!”

 

Damien Richardson: Yes.

 

Frank Salter: Or the Germans would say:

 

“No, no, no! You’re okay. But we had the Holocaust in World War Two!”

 

And I said to them:

 

“Guys, you’re not special! We’re all in the same boat. In Australia we have the Aborigines, we have this. We were colonialists and we had the White Australia Policy! The White Australia Policy!”

 

And they looked at me, and I said:

 

“You’re not special. Every country, the majority, is demonized!”

 

Now, how can that be? Is Europe such an evil place, that uniquely evil? All the European countries must be replaced by other people! That’s the implication.

 

Damien Richardson: And that’s why the other people want to go there in the first place! Because inherently evil, that they can’t wait to get out of their own country and come potentially to start a new life with more prosperity in a Western democracy.

 

Frank Salter: That’s right. That’s right. I don’t know the answer to all this, but there are some strange things happening. You ask me how? Well, I can give some micro information on that.

 

For example, let’s consider, say, two prime ministers, Malcolm Fraser [Liberal Party PM 1975 to 1983] and Bob Hawke [Labor Party PM 1983 to 1991], absolutely instrumental in installing multiculturalism against the wishes of the Australian people.

 

Whenever the Australian people were polled:

 

“Would you want more Asian immigration?”

 

Or whatever it might be. And they said:

 

“Well, no, we’d actually prefer to remain who we are, actually.”

 

There was no great hatred involved, just normal human ethnocentrism! Ethnocentrism is an adaptive psychological state. It’s where you’re self regarding. You like your own children, doesn’t mean you hate other children. You just like you care mostly for your own children and for your own family.

 

And then it goes out to your neighbors and so on to your nation. It doesn’t mean you hate other people.

 

And if you don’t think that way, you can’t invest in anyone!

 

Because if you’re giving to the world, what does that mean actually, to give money to the world? It means nothing! It’s incredibly, incredibly selfish, in fact! Because you give to no one!

 

So Bob Hawke once admitted in an interview, he said:

 

“Look, it would have been impossible to establish multiculturalism, a nation, of non-White immigration, if both parties had not co-operated.”

 

Cooperation of the parties, a bipartisan policy. Before him, Malcolm Fraser, who many on the left see as some sort of hard Right figure. The guy was a, in effect, a neo-Marxist! He was a traitor to his class. He was a traitor to his country, in effect.

 

And he wrote in his memoirs, he said:

 

“I don’t believe the Australian people should be permitted to vote on immigration, because they always get it wrong! They just get it wrong! They get it wrong! Why can’t they be like me?”

 

Bob Hawke came along and gave us a famous speech, the Bicentenary. The tall ships are about to sail into Sydney Harbour, right? 200 years since 1788. So 26 January, the prime minister of the country stands up and gives this great speech and he said:

 

“There is no ethnic hierarchy in Australia. How do we define an Australian? There’s no ethnic hierarchy.”

 

“Ethnic hierarchy”, hat’s a really ugly, loaded term. What he meant was, what is Australian identity? And he said:

Damien Richardson: Unusual! Not a great cohort. Not a huge cohort. [chuckling]

 

Frank Salter: And say he falls in love with The Country Doctor, with A Country Practice, or whatever it might be.

 

Damien Richardson: Oh, yes, yes, yes, sir.

 

Frank Salter: Just imagine that. And he thinks:

 

“Wow, what a great country! I feel a real commitment to Australia!”

 

According to our prime minister, he’s an Australian. But contrast him with an Australian who’s not happy with some area of our policy, like our stance towards immigration laws.

 

Damien Richardson: Say, for example, … [chuckling]

 

Frank Salter: A lot of Australians are unhappy with current policy. And Bob Hook might say:

 

“Well, you’re not an Australian. You’re not an Australian! You don’t feel a commitment to Australia!”

 

But the person from Inner Mongolia is an Australian.

 

So the reason I’m reminded of this speech, because I hate to admit that I was alive at the time, but sees.

 

Damien Richardson: So was I Very young. Very young.

 

Frank Salter: [chuckling] Yeah. An interview given by John Howard recently, like three weeks ago, in which he referred to that speech and said:

 

“Yeah, everything he said was true.”

 

So John Howard did not have the intellectual nous to think this through for himself.

 

Now, how can that be? Well, the problem with this sort of micro approach of looking at this little example and what he said and what she said, is that it can miss the big picture.

 

The big picture is that every prime minister since Gough Whitlam [Labor Party PM 1972 to 1975] has basically been minority centric, has put minorities first, for example, in immigration policy. Every one! They can’t all have had bad character. It can’t be:

 

“Yeah, but he was selfish or he was nasty or he was a recovering alcoholic or he was haughty!”

 

No! There must be some systemic reason for it. There must be some, … And it’s to do with the Cultural Revolution. Again, it comes back to culture.

 

Damien Richardson: And it comes back to that globalist enterprise that we talked about earlier on. And it comes back to legacy for people that particularly say, Howard, for example, who got into so much trouble over the apology, etcetera, refused to apologize. Indigenous people turning their backs, painted in the media very much as being a racist, etcetera. Now think of his legacy. His legacy will be painted within the apparatus of state, which demands a multiethnic understanding of the West!

 

Frank Salter: Yeah.

 

So, I mean, if a politician wants to survive and work his or her way up through a major political party, there’s going to be screening, screening, along the lines you just stated. And if they get it wrong too often, they’ve got no future. They’ve got no future.

 

Damien Richardson: Well, they have no future within the political structure itself. It’s very clever, because there’s someone, you’ll have a colleague that can use it and weaponize it against you, to get rid of you as a potential opponent within the apparatus, whether it’s the Liberal Party, Labor Party, Greens, wherever, it makes no difference.

 

Frank Salter: Yeah, yeah. It’s a savage system!

 

Now, this can’t be explained without understanding the role of the media. The media have been very important. That’s why there’s such battles going on now, like Musk taking over Twitter and so on, we were discussing.

 

So this is another aspect that is not fully explained from my point of view. But the facts are there, that without the co-operation of the mainstream media, which began as just newspapers. The mainstream media was once just newspapers and there were very few universities, this sort of thing with that level of book reading and so on.

 

So it was the newspapers. And then you got newspapers and radio. And the newspapers, radio and television from the 1940s, fifties on. Why were they on side with this?

 

Well, one, from that theory of corporatism, corporate globalism, it sort of makes sense, that the big media companies were all bought by large global corporations.

 

Damien Richardson: They’re owned by them, they’re an extension of them, they’re an arm of them.

 

Frank Salter: I think the solution is going to be in that direction of corporate ownership and so on.

 

And this is why we’re having such turmoil right now, because the Internet has upset that power structure. To some extent.

 

Damien Richardson: To some extent. Because you get banned off the Internet very, very readily, very quickly.

 

Frank Salter: Exactly! And they began to look for ways to control access to the Internet from an early, … They realized this was a danger to them, and they began looking for ways of controlling that.

 

So again, along this line, which is sort of neo-Marxist, by the way, it’s sort of focusing on economic processes. So they began looking at that and buying up the major media companies, the major social media companies, I mean, big tech and so on.

 

So, the example of Musk is the exception that proves a rule. The example of these thousands upon thousands of small scale media, … Oh, such as yourself. You’re using this medium to get around this censorship and so on.

 

They’re the exceptions that sort of prove the rule, in a way.

 

Damien Richardson: Musk is an interesting figure, isn’t he? Because he wants to neuro link us all, he wants to microchip humanity.

 

Frank Salter: Well, I don’t know whether he likes to, but he’s got this corporation that’s working in that direction.

 

[46:19]

 

Damien Richardson: I’ll just say we’ve been here before, haven’t we? Like as a culture, Australia, there was a huge antipathy between Protestantism and Catholicism. Catholics need not apply for government jobs for a long period of time. Somehow we’ve seemed to have moved to a point beyond that. Is it a possibility. Like:

 

“Oh, what are we talking about with this? Because Australia is a multi-ethnic state now, you can’t unbake the souffle.”

 

Is there a possibility for us to move forward as a cohesive entity? Are you saying that demands a predominantly Anglo population and therefore that’s the defining identity of that community?

 

Frank Salter: Yeah, my approach is different. And in Anglo-phobia book, the position we take in that is the reality is, as you say, we have a diverse Australia, so that’s the reality. So Australia after World War Two 98 percent Anglo-Celtic. Was 98%. There was some lingering friction between the Irish Catholics and the Protestants, yes, and so on.

 

But that’s largely been overcome. Perhaps not in the New South Wales Labor Right, but it’s still largely overcome. That’s not the case anymore. So we’ve been diversified.

 

Now, because the nation is so diverse, one can’t talk about a single united interest always applying in Australia.

 

So, for example, in immigration policy, one might argue immigration policy should reflect the interests of the nation as a whole. Okay? That sounds noble. That sounds noble, and I support that.

 

But also, it’s difficult to have immigration policy without it favoring one group over another.

 

So, for example, every group wants access from its own group. Chinese, Australians, we don’t want discrimination against Chinese immigrants, Burmese, Greek, whatever it might be. Well, they can’t all be pleased! Unless we have an open door policy. We have an open door policy, it’s suicide for Australia! But if we do begin to restrict it, well, however we do restrict, it’s going to favor one group over another.

 

So what I think is necessary as a starting position is for Anglo Australians. And that’s a very broad category. It’s very broad. Anyone who’s assimilating into the mainstream Australian identity is for them to say, what about us? What about us? All these policies, multiculturalism, open door immigration policy has been formulated without our input!

 

In fact, the result of opinion polls, have just been ignored! They’ve just been ignored. There’s willful ignoring of Anglo interests in Australia!

 

And I think if Anglos are brought into the multicultural system, which theoretically is Democratic and fair, theoretically, multiculturalism says:

 

“Well, people should be able to express their own interests.”

 

Damien Richardson: Yeah

 

Frank Salter: That sounds reasonable. People should be able to vote and lobby according to their own interests and the interests of their religious or cultural community. Yes, that seems fair. Why shouldn’t they be able to do that?

 

But in reality, that’s not, … In reality, they say:

 

“Yes for all, except one, the Australian majority, except one group, can’t talk!”

 

Damien Richardson: But as you say, it’s happening globally, it’s happening in Europe and it’s happening in the US, it’s happening in New Zealand, I’m sure Canada here. Is it a fantasy in some respects, what you’re suggesting? Because power is power, and power will need an enemy, and power will vilify whoever it’s taking its power from. And now globalist structure is taking power from those former holders of that power, which is those communities, those Anglo Saxon, Celtic, western European communities.

 

Frank Salter: Yeah, look, I think the reality is we have oligopoly. We are an oligopoly globally. Rule of the rich, the rule of the powerful, of the elite. But we can’t stop resisting! We can’t stop resisting! Democracy was born going back to Magna Carta and so on.

 

Democracy was born by little people finding their champion, like the Catholic Church. The church in Britain helped Magna Carta in 1215. So different elites said:

 

“Yeah, we also have a problem with the King, with absolute power of the King.

 

We also have a problem with making rules up as he goes along. So we want rule of law.”

 

This sort of thing. So it’s always a struggle. It’s always a struggle. And we’ve had it so good in Australia and other Anglophone countries for so long that it’s been just taken. Taken for granted:

 

“Oh, yeah, it’s a free country!”

 

When I was a little boy, you say:

 

“You can’t do that!”

 

“It’s a free country!”

 

It was a free country. By historical comparison, the freest countries that have ever existed. But that had only come about through struggle, through fighting for our rights.

 

And now we’re technologically equipped with the Internet and so on, to establish our own parallel institutions, which I think is a very important movement taking place. And why not, in principle, create or influence our own banks? Banks that do stand by freedom of speech and freedom of association.

 

Damien Richardson: Is that happening?

 

Frank Salter: It’s actually happening.

 

Damien Richardson: People are building their own banking institutions?

 

Frank Salter: That’s beginning. The example I’ve come across is, what’s that? An American social media website. I’m so sorry. It escaped my mind!

 

Damien Richardson: That’s okay.

 

Frank Salter: It’s a Christian website. And I hear that this is a trend, very slow, but it is happening. So the parallel institutions are being set up. Jordan Peterson. Someone as famous as people will have heard of Jordan Peterson. He’s setting up his own university.

 

Damien Richardson: Yes.

 

Frank Salter: And there’s more than him. It’s not just him. There are others doing this, because they realize universities are critical to our survival. The survival of freedom. Absolutely!

 

Damien Richardson: That’ll be co-opted by the power structure as it is now, won’t it, and give you the pretense of there being alternative? But the power source will not allow an alternative power source to exist.

 

[53:32]

 

Frank Salter: Not necessarily. Not necessarily. I wouldn’t be too black pilled about it. A great term. I wouldn’t be too black pilled.

 

Of course, that is a trend, and one should keep a sharp eye for that happening. Co-option, of course, but it doesn’t have to be that way. I think the key thing to do is to raise consciousness. To raise consciousness, people need to be aware of who they are, of where they came from, of their history.

 

And it’s very much like back in the early days of the Civil Rights Movement in America, when black agitators, blacks who wanted their people to have civil rights, normal citizen rights, talked about raising consciousness, talking about history. It’s okay to be black. We have our own history. We have our own interests. Don’t be put down by this hegemonic White structure.

 

Now, that’s going back 1910, 1920, when you had Jim Crow.

 

So there was, in fact, there was oppression of black America and the Civil Rights Movement reversed that.

 

So I think we should never give up the fight for freedom.

 

Damien Richardson: That Civil Rights Movement’s now been weaponized as against White majority populations, though, hasn’t it?

 

Frank Salter: It has, it has! But America being what it is, which is a rule of law country and a democracy, tremendous strides were made by black Americans overcoming Jim Crow. Many of them did it by simply migrating out of the south, and they moved to the big cities and the big industrial cities in the north. And amazing pioneers such as Henry Ford would employ anyone at the same wage, anyone! That’s why they flocked, for example, to Detroit and so on, New York and other places. And they used whatever strategy they could and they made great strides.

 

And so you had a black middle class developing, and you had their own newspapers. Very important black newspapers developed. So they’d receive reliable news about themselves and about their, …

 

Damien Richardson: From an ethnic perspective.

 

Frank Salter: From an ethnic perspective. And in that, …

 

Damien Richardson: It comes back to a race all the time, doesn’t it? We’re not allowed to talk about race, but it comes back to race all the time.

 

Frank Salter: Well, it’s not just race. It can be culture, it can be especially important, …

 

Damien Richardson: Well, that’s part of it, …

 

Frank Salter: But no, race is, … Religion’s not part of race. These are different ways to form communities. Ethnicity is important, but it’s not unique. It’s not the only, …

 

Damien Richardson: But I grew up in an Irish Catholic tradition and I was struck when I went to Spain how it was still Catholic, but it was very different culturally. It was very different culturally because of the mores of that community, which I would say did come down to how they interpreted it through race, through that Christian tradition.

 

Frank Salter: Did you just say that they interpreted it through Christian tradition?

 

Damien Richardson: They interpreted the same, ostensibly the same Christian tradition. Catholic, Christian. But I grew up in an Irish Catholic understanding interpretation of it, which was very different than the Spanish interpretation of it was.

 

Frank Salter: How did race come into that?

 

Damien Richardson: Well, I just say it would be their cultural, their racial understanding of who they are, how they express themselves. There is a bio-spirit to a Spanish community which is different than the bio-spirit of an Irish community.

 

Frank Salter: Yeah, yeah. Well, Irish in Australia formed its attitudes as a diaspora. In Spain they’re in their ancient homeland.

 

So that’s one difference. And also., …

 

Damien Richardson: Sure, but I’m sure if you went to Ireland, you would see there’ll be a huge difference between Irish Catholicism and Spanish Catholicism, even in their homeland.

 

Frank Salter: Yeah, it could be.

 

And I think one pointed aspect, let’s bring this religious aspect back to the topic, connect it even more closely. The pastoral duty of the Church is up for grabs. It’s been changing and I think being undermined for the last 70 years. The Catholic Church once respected and promoted the ethnic interests of its people.

 

So the Catholic Church has always cared for the individual. It’s cared for the family, very much. Right. It’s cared for the local, for the clan, the extended family, and it cared for the local community.

 

So, for example, if a city was being besieged by barbarians or by the neighboring nation, the city was being besieged. And behind its medieval wall, … You go, in Europe, they all had these medieval walls. The church was not saying:

 

“Open the Gates! It’s the brotherhood of mankind! Open up! We’re all the same. Everyone’s the same!”

 

Damien Richardson: But we’ve evolved now! We’ve evolved, Frank. We’ve evolved to a new point, a new man, a new understanding!

 

Frank Salter: What they said was:

 

“God is on your side and it’s right for you to defend your city against the barbarians or against the next city state. It’s right!”

 

And there was excesses in that direction, of course, but they were basically loyal.

 

And you can see that within the framework of the pastoral duty of the Church, which serves different layers of interests from individual to family to nation to ethnic group. That’s all gone now! There’s no pastoral duty by the mainstream church, by many minorities, but not the mainstream churches, especially my own, the Church of England, Anglicans. There’s no sense of pastoral duty to the nation.

 

Instead, they’ve adopted a minority centric perspective of critiquing! They’ve taken on board this critique of majority cultures, which is insane! It’s madness!

 

Damien Richardson: It’s part of the institutionalization of the West, isn’t it really? The same structures that controlling organized religion, as any other department we’ve already covered.

 

Frank Salter: And all these Bishops go through the same university system, by the way, they’re subject to the same indoctrination.

 

[1:00:21]

 

Damien Richardson: I just want to, because we could be here for another hour. It’s such an engrossing conversation. Clash of civilization. There’s so much going on.

 

But before we do, because I know soon we’ve got the vote in Australia for recognising an indigenous voice to Parliament and I know you’ve written an article on behalf of the British-Australian Community, which is your website as well, the BAC, I might add. What’s the name of the it’s actually a book you’ve written. What’s the name of the book?

 

Frank Salter: The book is The Voice to Parliament: A Statement on Behalf of the British-Australian Community by Frank Salter.

 

Damien Richardson: So, Frank, that’s a very countercultural thing to say, that a voice to Parliament should have a statement on behalf of the British-Australian community.

 

Can you just talk us through that? And what you see resulting in at the referendum on the 14th of this month.

 

Frank Salter: The one extraordinary thing about this whole Voice process, developing the referendum questions and all the rest of it, if you go back and look at the different deliberative bodies, the different consultative bodies, and so on, that were formed beginning in 2011, I think. 2011, 12.

 

Damien Richardson: Under Julie Gillard [Labor Party PM 2010 to 2013]. [chuckling]

 

Frank Salter: Under Julie Gillard. They have, of course, representatives of the indigenous people, Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders.

 

Of course they have people who are loyal members of those communities. Not only loyal members, but leaders of those local communities coming and saying:

 

“What’s in our interest? My people want this, we want this. These are our interests.”

 

Completely appropriate.

 

They had a lot of White supporters of those. Of those, also understandable.

 

They didn’t have one representative of the Anglo majority, not one! They had lots of Anglos, but they didn’t have one person who was there saying:

 

“I feel sympathy for the indigenous people, of course, I wouldn’t be here otherwise. But I represent the interests of Anglo Australia.”

 

Not one! And I’ve traced it back to 2011, 12. It’s extraordinary!

 

And so this whole thing has been formulated as if Anglo Australia is not in crisis! As if Anglo Australia is just still the boss and it’s a White run society. No, no! Since 1970, roughly, as we’ve been, as we were discussing earlier, immigration policy and multicultural policy has been run against the White majority! We’ve been marginalized! We’ve been vilified in the education! Our children are being vilified, are being taught to hate their own history, to hate their own ancestors. And now we’re being asked:

 

“Oh, you should vote for a special powers being given to an advisory body in the Constitution.”

 

Extraordinary! As if we don’t exist, as if we have no interests.

 

So I wrote this book, it’s a short book, looking at this systematically, looking at the whole Voice proposal from an Anglo perspective.

 

In other words, yes, I’m concerned about what’s good for Indigenous Australians, my fellow citizens, of course, but also keeping in the back of my mind, and is it good for the Anglos? And no one talks about that!

 

Damien Richardson: No reviews on that book either, I can imagine. [chuckling]

 

Frank Salter: The closest to it is Jacinta Price, who calls herself a Celtic indigenous person. A Celtic Aboriginal person, she proudly says:

 

“Well, my father has Celtic background.”

 

In other words, Anglo:

 

“And my mother is indigenous.”

 

So she comes closest to that. I think Warren Mundine also has talked about this.

 

Damien Richardson: It’s interesting, something I know. I read a chapter from the book and you talked about the dispossession of Anglo institutions. It’s really just such a counter cultural concept that Anglos might even feel like they are being dispossessed. Because what we hear all the time, of course, is that indigenous Australians were dispossessed.

 

Frank Salter: Yes, well, they were dispossessed. But then, luckily for them, though, they were integrated into a culture that was leading the world in forming liberal democracy.

 

So, you know, that Aboriginal, in most of Australia, Aboriginal men, because initially it was male male suffrage, they got the vote before Englishmen got it in England! Well, before! Like mid 19, mid 19th century that you had in New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia, Tasmania. Not Queensland, Queensland and Western Australia, as the frontier states were delayed, that was delayed.

 

But in most of Australia they got the vote before British men and women got it in Britain.

 

So it was good for them. But the dispossession that’s been taking place as a result of the Cultural Revolution of the sixties and seventies. I have a chapter called Our Stolen Commonwealth. Our stolen Commonwealth. And what do I mean by that?

 

Well, just what I’ve been saying, the Anglo nation. First the six Anglo colonies, and then they gave rise to the Commonwealth in 1901. They were set up explicitly to benefit the majority. These are Democratic societies, and they were overwhelmingly Anglo societies, so naturally they wanted to survive and continue their traditions and their identity.

 

The Commonwealth was set up explicitly to serve the interests of the nation, which was an Anglo nation. That was reversed by 1970! That was reversed! In effect the Commonwealth has been stolen from us, in effect, and it’s now operating against our interests.

 

And I define the Commonwealth not just as government institutions, but as the ABC, for example, SBS, public broadcasting. Since the late 1960s, …

 

Damien Richardson: All the institutions, I would say, Frank

 

Frank Salter: All major institutions, have joined this Deep State apparatus, and, in effect, they’re operating against the interests of the majority.

 

[1:07:27]

 

Damien Richardson: It’s interesting, and we’ve been going for a while, so I’ll try to wrap it up. But I saw a speech the other day by Noel Pearson at the Press Club, where he made this claim. And he spoke to “multicultural” Australia, meaning not “settler” Australia, and he called, quite deliberately, “settler Australia”, being those mob, he would say, from the UK. And he said to multicultural Australia:

 

“I want to ask you this question. Who do you side with in this debate, as far as The Voice is concerned, do you consider yourself going to be an honorary settler somehow? Because, I tell you, a lot of you are the wrong color.”

 

I couldn’t believe what I was hearing! He didn’t sort of get much opprobrium in the mainstream, because the mainstream would never want to be seen to criticize someone indigenous. And of that state stature. A man, too, has made himself a millionaire out of the largesse of taxpayers expense. It was an extraordinary claim to make. And really, if you start to boil it down, since he’s asked the question, I would say:

 

“Well, actually, those people of different color that have come to this nation have come this nation expressly to live by what was bequeathed to them by that settler culture, not to come and live as hunters and gatherers might have lived in this idealized picture of Indigenous Australia!”

 

Frank Salter: Yeah

 

Damien Richardson: I think Noel himself seems very comfortable living like a settler, too, I might add!

 

Frank Salter: And receiving $500 million investment over the last 15 years.

 

Damien Richardson: Is he relying on the fact that he knows no one will have the gumption to make that claim? He’s relying on. We have been silenced through the multicultural instrumentalities that we’ve already talked about?

 

Frank Salter: Yeah, he’s arisen, his career, his reputation is arisen, sheltered in sort of the sheltered workshop of the multicultural system. So he’s a creature, in my view, a creature of the multicultural establishment.

 

But Warren Mundine is not. Jacinta Price are not. They’re actually free thinking. They have their, … I don’t agree with everything they say, but these are independent individuals far more able to sustain a rational conversation and so on.

 

Pearson talks ideology. And he begins preaching immediately and he can barely talk! And how did someone like that gain such a high reputation? Was because the Sydney Morning Herald, the Melbourne Age, the ABC, SBS [Special Broadcating Service] treat him as some sort of paragon. It’s absurd!

 

The man has made vulgar, racist remarks about White people, really vulgar. The man has said:

 

“I don’t think Anzac Day is appropriate because we should focus on my people’s suffering, not on the suffering of Anzacs.”

 

Damien Richardson: Well, a lot of these people would have been Anzacs too, as a matter of fact.

 

Frank Salter: Exactly, exactly! Aborigines have been participating more and more in the nation. I see them as a core group in the Australian national identity. But Pearson has been given this platform. He writes a note, he has these extraordinary media platforms to express his point of view, but he’s actually, when you listen to what he’s saying, it’s not pleasant.

 

Damien Richardson: You see now, too, that the conservative Right salivating over the idea of Jacinta Price someday being the first indigenous female prime minister. Janet Olbrixen wrote an opinion piece in the Australian recently saying such.

 

Frank Salter: Well, after watching her perform over the last month or two, I tend to agree. I think she’s actually prime minister material. There’s not all that much talent on the coalition side. And she just comes across as authentic, as able to think on her feet.

 

For example, her speech, become famous speech now to the Canberra Press Gallery about a week or two ago. And she said, her opening remarks she said:

 

“My husband’s sitting over there. And I do mean husband, not partner!”

 

Damien Richardson: Yes, yes.

 

Frank Salter: Immediately there was a cheer went up across Australia. We’re sick of this ideological language that’s being forced on you! She meant her husband, not her partner!

 

Damien Richardson: She went further too, and she talked about the oppression. She said:

 

“I’ve got it really badly if you’re saying I’m oppressed because I’m indigenous.”

 

And she said:

 

“Well, at least I wasn’t bequeathed to a man much older than me that I might have been under tribal law at the age of 14 or something.”

 

And she went on to say, too:

 

“And I’ve been doubly oppressed because my convict ancestors were also oppressed to come here in the first place!”

 

You could hear crickets in the media establishment.

 

Frank Salter: So funny. They’re just, … Like the ABC has become., … It’s so appalling! The main change with them is not ideological, because the news and current affairs was captured by the Marxist left in the late sixties, and the Science Show was captured by the Marxist left around the same time. What has changed is their subtlety. They used to sort of cover it a bit and make gestures to being balanced. That’s all gone. It’s amazing! It’s blatant. It’s blatant now.

 

And the same with our education system, with the curriculum. The national curriculum was captured by the neo-Marxist Left decades ago and that’s trickled down to the state curricula now. So it’s really, really poor.

 

Damien Richardson: And there’s been no defence against it from neo-liberalism on the other side, has there been? Because that’s just been about the bottom line, the bottom dollar, sell as much as you can. We’ve sold our soul to material wealth in many respects.

 

Frank Salter: Yeah. And they’re friendlier towards Right-wing globalism, which is corporate based.

 

So that’s their weakness.

 

Also, they receive all their funding from these people, so they’re not going to criticize them very much.

 

So again, on the Right you have Right globalism, on the left you have Left globalism. And the two sort of nudge, nudge, wink, wink, sort of they get along, they sort of get along.

 

But I urge Australians to look at the whole indigenous issue, including The Voice referendum, which comes up in nine days or something, and look at it from different perspectives. But look at it also from an Anglo perspective, from the perspective of mainstream Australia. And what we don’t want, for example, is to destroy and complicate our system of government, which is magnificent. It’s one of the things that sets Australia apart. We have the rule of law, we have representative democracy, we have division of powers and so on. And this would be compromised.

 

[1:14:42]

 

Damien Richardson: That’s just another irony of Pearson’s speech, isn’t it, that:

 

“Well, I want an indigenous voice to Parliament, but I don’t want anything that the settlers, ..!”

 

What? The incongruity is just extraordinary!

 

Frank Salter: I don’t look on myself as a settler. You know, I had a convict ancestor in Van Diemen’s Land. So for many generations, my family’s been here, I don’t think of myself, …

 

Damien Richardson: But even if we take his language on face value, what he means is “what came here?” Well, that was the Parliament. The Parliament that now “I want a specific voice to” is not of indigenous origin, although you would say it is because we’re indigenous!

 

Oh, this argument could go on and on and on! We’ve had such a good chat, too, Frank. I’m just aware of time, and I want people to stay to the end of this podcast.

 

So I think, do you want to just tell us where people can find you so they can find out more of this detail? We may well have you back to continue this conversation, perhaps post the referendum.

 

Frank Salter: That’d be fun. People can just Google, just a general search for British-Australian Community. And we have a website, which is the BritishAustralianCommunity.com dot au.

 

And then they can search for, … You go to Quadrant online. Go to Quadrant Online. There’s a Quadrant website and just do a search for “Salter”, and up will come all my articles, because I have a series of articles on the original, ten years ago, on the original attempt by Pearson to have a constitutional recognition. That was his big thing back then. So there’s critique of that.

 

So you’ll find resources.

 

One thing you’ll find is that this book as a PDF. It’s a free download so you can get access to the book.

 

I’d also go to YouTube. We have three videos out on YouTube. Search for British-Australian Community and it will come up. We have two on Anglophobia and we have one on The Voice. And there’ll be many more coming up, by the way, many more in the next months.

 

Damien Richardson: It’s good that you’re getting culture out there because I think this process was so far behind the eight ball as in understanding what’s happening to the culture, the attack that’s on it, the manifold attacks that are on it, that you almost need to reinvigorate what the understanding of the culture was in the first place.

 

So Frank Salter, co-author of Anglophobia: The Unrecognized Hatred, thanks so much for joining me at Damienrichardson dot online.

 

Frank Salter: It’s been a pleasure, Damien.

 

Damien Richardson: You can listen to more great podcasts on my website, damianrichardson dot online. Also follow me on Facebook and I’d love to hear your thoughts@facebook.com. Damienrichardson28 don’t forget to give this video a like. Remember to share and comment, to join the conversation and have your say.

 

[1:17:50]

 

 

END

top

 

 

 

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

 

YouTube Comments

top

(Comments as of 6/22/2024 = 0)

 

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

See Also

top

 

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

 

Odysee Comments

top

(Comments as of 6/18/2024 = 126)

GusinLanzarote Alt Right
10 hours ago
Back in the 90s Boomer world as a young Air Cadet- I would have been shocked by this argument; any suggestion to me & my school pals that my Grandad in his RAF uniform & my school fellows grandad’s were anything less than heroes who had fought evil would have been heresy. But now looking at the decaying Britain around us we can see it is 100% on point & had all our grandad’s been shown the future- that they would fight off a possible German invasion so we could be over run by those a thousand times more foreign & hostile; then they would never have bothered. Neutrality in WW2 would have preserved a GREAT homogenous powerful Britain- instead of creating a 3rd rate bankrupt multicultural LGBT feminazi cesspit- a neutral Britain could have sat by whilst 2 evil dictators bled each other dry & even mediated to prevent some atrocities- like the 3 million Soviet POWs starved/ murdered; we could have offered to hold them in work camps in our Empire for the duration. How we put this argument is VERY important- it is a winning argument but if we do like that Thomas bloke in Oz & say “my grandad/ your grandad serving in WW2 were criminals & Nazi Germany was perfect/ flawless” all you do is scare Normies especially Boomers away; Mark has hit the right tone here.

mzaks
1 day ago
Nazi Germany Should NOT have Gone to War with Poland

0
3

@Aeneid88
1 day ago
Why are you turning off the dislikes what is this youtube?

2
0

@Deanfranjek
1 day ago
Hitler saw this mess in Europe today then. Germany should stand proud today .

1
0
silverbullet
2 days ago

0
1
Anonymous
2 days ago
Without WW2 this wouldn’t have been happening:
https://open.lbry.com/@AbeScott:b/Germany-Muslim-Stabs-Police-And-Germans:d

0
1

@Gundobar
2 days ago
Sherlock Holmes says: absolutely true

0
1
Anonymous
2 days ago(edited)
Churchill was bought and paid for by a clandestine group known as “The focus” made up of wealthy Jews and trade unionists. Headed by Robert Waley-Cohen, they gave Churchill £40,000 in 1936, (equivalent to £2 million today). This is why Churchill was banging the drums for war, along with the Jewish minister for war, Isaac Hore-Belisha.
A good book on Hitler’s peace offers to Britain is “What the world rejected: Hitler’s peace offers 1933-1940” by Dr Friedrich Stevie. Silverbullet2008bb

2
1

@Euclid
2 days ago
A brilliant and concise summary of the biggest crime of getting Britain into war with Germany with the resulting disastrous consequences for white civilization. An absolute tragedy. When I was at school we were shown loads of film footage of WW2. But it used to bug me that no one ever explained why we got into war with Germany in the first place (of course the same applies with WW1). What were the real reasons for doing this. I used to ask myself whether it could have been avoided, thus saving millions of lives. Only in relatively recent times the truth began to surface and made more readily available, and we now know who the truly evil enemy is. They even now trying the same tactic in Ukraine.

4
0
Hide replies
GusinLanzarote Alt Right
10 hours ago
Imagine the MILLIONS of GREAT Britons/ other Europeans who have NEVER existed because their ancestors-often the bravest died in WW1 & WW2. An absolute tragedy we have lost such genetic material- I’d happily sit in second place for such folk to lead us.

1
0
Cone of Silence
2 days ago
well said Mark.

Sunscarred
2 days ago
Churchill should have died in a jail, raped to death in South Africa.

4
1
Hide replies
GusinLanzarote Alt Right
10 hours ago
without any alcohol provided for the old sot!

Hide replies
Sunscarred
10 hours ago
the only karmic justice that worthless, fat dumpster fire obtained was being voted out and britain being flooded with mongrels. “Keep England white” was his campaign slogan, but he did instigate both world wars that costed 2 generations of the best and bravest men of his nation. The british empire may have just endured if he just concerned himself with the British empire’s holdings instead of trying wipe out potential threats.

1
0
Viceroy
2 days ago
I’ve said similar things at times, but counterfactual history can have a variety of different outcomes. If the British Empire hadn’t entered the war it’s most likely the Nazis would have defeated their continental opponents, and then they would have attacked and likely defeated the British. The idea that the Nazis would have been content just to dominate the continent and leave Britain alone is far fetched.
It wasn’t wrong for the British to oppose the Nazis. The problem is subsequent generations sold out on the things that the Brits of the 1940s fought for.
Anyway, WW2 is really a continuation of WW1. That’s the war we should have avoided.

1
4
Viceroy
2 days ago
So, will you be voting for Reform in the upcoming election Mark?

1
2

@xero
2 days ago
Britain shouldn’t have remained neutral they should have helped Germany fight the USSR

5
0
Graham Playing Games
2 days ago
People focus on the Atomic bombs, but a lot of people probably don’t know that there were huge firebombing campaigns in Japan, like on Tokyo. 80 000-100 000 people are estimated to have been killed in Tokyo.

4
0
Fancy
3 days ago
everyone should watch hellstorm. good to show normal people to red pill them

6
0
Fancy
3 days ago
In the book The Unknown Warriors
by Nicholas Pringle the old soldiers them selfs said it was not worth it and if had the choice again would not have gone. AND CAN YOU BLAME THEM

4
0
Nationalist Geographic (Mini-Hyph)
3 days ago
“Our bond with Europe is a bond of race and not of political ideology,” claimed Lindbergh. “It is the European race we must preserve; political progress will follow. Racial strength is vital—politics a luxury. If the white race is ever . . . threatened, it may then be time for us to take our part in its protection, to fight side by side with the English, French, and Germans, but not with one against the other for our mutual destruction.” – Charles Lindbergh

4
0
HeliRides4AntiWhites
3 days ago
Our based Austrian painter uncle actually wanted peace with England and viewed the English with great reverence. It’s too bad Churchill was just a bloodthirsty warmonger who wanted nothing more than to lay waste to the continent in exchange for jew gold

4
0

@clintwayne
3 days ago
Excellent reasoned argument by Mark and reading the comments makes me happy so many get it.
Its up to all of us to spread the truth, its crucial.

4
0

@MaybeNextTime
3 days ago
D-Day and WW2 Explained 2 minutes long-

Swesurvivor
3 days ago
Thank you Mark for the video. Greetings from Sweden

3
0

@Spectromancer
3 days ago
This comment was slimed to death. (Click to view)

1
5
ThinRedLine
3 days ago
Great video Mark

3
0
ThinRedLine
3 days ago
Looking at the world today would you say the good guys won WWII

6
0
ThinRedLine
3 days ago
Ian Grippin (RF) was right

3
0
MagicManintheSky
3 days ago
Bottom line. It’s the Jews who are to blame for our misery.

5
0
MagicManintheSky
3 days ago
The Second World War was engineered by International Jewry because Hitler rejected Jewish usury, corruption and the Jews financial stranglehold over the nation.

11
0
All political expressiveness is flatulence; censor a fart and it will come back as thunder.
3 days ago
Mark: serious request…. I would love to see a historically focused video from you, debating the question: should John Amory have been hanged? This question should send all nationalists into a quandry. The argument ‘against’ would surely be based on Amory’s commitment to an ethical view of nationalism based on opposition to globalist plutocracy. The argument ‘for’ would be based straightforwardly on the commonsense principle of ‘my country right or wrong’. I’m still not sure what to conclude. I would value your thoughts enormously.

Kelema90
3 days ago

1
0
JamesL
3 days ago
…and Mark’s done it yet again – hit the nail squarely on the head.

8
0

@Grumpole
3 days ago
Germany never wanted war with anyone, he just wanted the purveyors of usury kicked out and when he did the jews declared war on Germany. This is a historical fact that few acknowledge.

14
1
Hide replies
0KT0BER
3 days ago
It’s easy enough to find archived press that says exactly that even though NYT have disappeared their archive.
“Friday, March 24, 1933 – Judea Declares War on Germany”

8
0
Show reply

@DiesIrae
3 days ago
An excellent presentation.

3
0

@ItWasMadeUp
3 days ago
Great stuff, this sort of thing should be on television.

12
0

@VikingN64
3 days ago
Well said my brother! 100% Correct and true!!

16
0
Gr8SergeisGhost
3 days ago
Definitely gives us insight into Ukraine’s tragic future.

12
0
Hide replies
ThinRedLine
3 days ago
good point

3
0
Lars Agerbæk Odyssæus
3 days ago
I also think Japan influenced America and Britain decision on fighting Germany.

0
7
Lars Agerbæk Odyssæus
3 days ago
I’m not so sure that the losses were so numerous on the western front in the beginning of the war. And I don’t believe the Sovietunion was that murderous after the second world war.
I think most murdering by communism after the war happened in China. I could be wrong though.

0
9
Lars Agerbæk Odyssæus
3 days ago
Goebbels did celebrate the fall of the British Empire in his will.

3
0
Hide replies
CelticPerspective
3 days ago
It’s easy to see why he’d be happy that the British destroyed themselves while they destroyed Germany, their destruction of Germany was what destroyed them as well. Both would still be standing if Britain didn’t start war with Germany.

5
0
Lars Agerbæk Odyssæus
3 days ago
if Great Britain had accepted peace with Germany. The Sovietunionen would probably have been destroyed or at least become an external battlefield as Hitler imagined in the coffee table book.
If Germany had gained control over the resources of Russia I think Hitler would eventually have tried to conquer England – and if successful America too.
Great Britain didn’t declare war on Germany in defense of democracy. It declared war on Germany in self defense.

2
11
Hide replies
CelticPerspective
3 days ago
That’s impossible to know, and sounds incredibly unlikely. There’d be no reason to be aggressive toward Anglo nations, especially if he had already achieved his war aims in the East. If anything the Americans and British would be incentivised to be friendly to Germany, but that’s impossible to know as well.

3
0
AurigaBooks
3 days ago
How Hitler and NS Germany became J Woke.

5
1

@AlbionForever
3 days ago
Reminder that Churchill had all of his debts wiped by a clique of London bankers called “The Focus”, in exchange for him waging war on Germany.
https://ihr.org/journal/v07p498_Okeefe.html

29
0
Yuri Knew
3 days ago
Well said

4
0
The Awakened Saxon
3 days ago
From the James Forrestal Diaries (former US Secretary for Navy and Secretary of Defence) 7th December 1945. ‘Played golf today with Joe Kennedy [Joseph P. Kennedy, who was Roosevelt’s Ambassador to Great Britain in the years immediately before the war]. I asked him about his conversations with Roosevelt and Neville Chamberlain from 1938 on.
He said Chamberlain’s position in 1938 was that England had nothing with which to fight and that she could not risk going to war with Hitler.
Kennedy’s view: That Hitler would have fought Russia without any later conflict with England if it had not been for Bullitt’s [William C. Bullitt, then Ambassador to France] urging on Roosevelt in the summer of 1939 that the Germans must be faced down about Poland; neither the French nor the British would have made Poland a cause of war if it had not been for the constant needling from Washington.
Bullitt, he said, kept telling Roosevelt that the Germans wouldn’t fight, Kennedy that they would, and that they would overrun Europe. Chamberlain, he says, stated that ‘ America and the world Jews had forced England into the war.’

8
0
Hide replies
MagicManintheSky
3 days ago
The Jewnited States of Jewmurica.

2
0
Avalon
3 days ago
If Windrush were needed to rebuild why was there no record of them being invited in Hansard. Why did the government send a million £10 poms to Australia?

2
0
d
3 days ago
Britain was Jewish controlled for far too long.
Ww2 was just the nail in the coffin for Europeans and their civilization.
The cabal that controlled Churchill, plunged the continent into a war that ended with the eradication of European civilization and the triumph the regime that is currently ruining our race, homelands, culture and future.

38
0
Hide replies
MajesticCasual
3 days ago
Elon once said “You have said the actual truth”

12
0
ThinRedLine
3 days ago
since the “glorious” revolution

2
0
Hide replies
d
3 days ago
I dare say since their civil war.
After the parliamentarians won, Jews were allowed back in the Island.
They were forbidden to enter for almost 400 years since the days of Edward the first.
Jewish money lenders that backed the parliamentarians. Many of them from Netherlands.

6
0
Hide replies
ThinRedLine
3 days ago
true they came in to Britain there but their power really after the revolution

3
0
Hide replies
MagicManintheSky
3 days ago
The ‘French’ revolution like the ‘Russian’ revolution was Jewish in origin.

2
0

@Esoteric_Bowdenite
14 hours ago
Jews are not the central power of all history.

MagicManintheSky
3 days ago
Britain STILL IS Jewish-controlled.

14
1
Show 2 replies

@Esoteric_Bowdenite
3 days ago
Nothing is or has ever been Jewish controlled, we are leftist traitor controlled. Leftists exist because of civilisational, spiritual and genetic decay. Jews are a weak slave race who have never controlled anything other than positions of usury granted to them by white traitor leftists.

3
21
Hide replies

@K19
17 hours ago
Oh, I see. You are an anti-White spastic retard… Or perhaps, you are fully aware that you are lying, meaning you are a disgusting vermin.

1
0
Hide replies

@Esoteric_Bowdenite
14 hours ago
Thanks for the pro-White solidarity, very inspiring.

@Esoteric_Bowdenite
14 hours ago
There are so many pathetic triggered hate-worshippers of Jews in the comments with no rational argument, who think that Jews have conquered us because they are stronger. This is an emasculated view. Jewish usury is a major issue, but is just a symptom; treachery is the source, and if you cannot see this then the problem will never be solved.

1
0

@BritishGammon
3 days ago
Britain declared war on Germany to come to the aid of Poland.
The “fighting the horrible Nazi” stuff was made up much later.

11
0
Hide replies
Htrac
3 days ago
Actually it was because Churchill wanted to destroy Germany, because their economic success showed what a country can do without the Rothschild owned central banks. Churchill’s financial backers demanded that Germany be destroyed and they wanted the US brought into the war too.

24
0
Hide replies
NatSoc209
3 days ago
Churchill was in major debt before WW2 and it was a jew who paid his debts. They owned him.

10
0

@BritishGammon
3 days ago
Exactly. But the official reason was to come to the defence of Poland, which we know was a lie.

4
0
Handy Channel
2 days ago
Chamberlain was PM when war was declared, not Churchill.

1
0
Mike Forester
3 days ago(edited)
Aid? What aid did Britain give Poland? British power-politics used Poland as a pawn to get IN the war, to have a reason to declare war and don’t be considered the aggressor.

15
0
Hide replies

@BritishGammon
3 days ago
Exactly. And at the end of the war Churchill gave Poland to the commies….some aid!

5
0

@RoryHerbert
3 days ago
But Britain never declared war on Russia when they invaded Poland a week or so later. I’ve never heard a convincing argument about that one.

11
0
Hide replies
Handy Channel
2 days ago
Declaring war on the USSR in 1939 would have been suicide. Britain and the USSR entered the cold war after WW2.

1
0
MagicManintheSky
3 days ago
Judeo-Britain set Poland (and anti-Prussian atrocities) up as a trap to draw Germany into a war that it did not seek.

2
0
Hide replies
Handy Channel
2 days ago
In “Hitler’s War” David Irving confirms that Hitler’s motivation for invading Poland was lebensraum. Hitler says as much in Mein Kampf. The 1920 NSDAP platform also states it.

1
1
Hide replies
mzaks
1 day ago
Also, the “atrocities” were largely fabricated for propaganda.
https://www.bitchute.com/video/eGaNuErtNHDF/

1
0
silverbullet
2 days ago
The Anglo-Polish military alliance was made in March 1939, just the same time as the Polish started to massacre the German minority in Poland. It also contained a secret protocol that stated Britain would only come to Poland’s aid if Poland was attacked by Germany. Any other country could have attacked Poland and Britain would have done nothing. This is not how true allies act. When the Soviet Union invaded Poland a few weeks after Germany no war was declared against them. Also, before WW2 was even over in Europe, Churchill, Roosevelt and Stalin met at Yalta and Poland was given over to the Soviet Union. This proves Britain had no interest in protecting Polish independence, the whole thing was a set up so that an excuse could be made to attack Germany.

2
0
Hide replies

@BritishGammon
1 day ago
The more I learn about this the more convinced I am that Britain fought the wrong enemy.

2
0

@bagelsandloxism
3 days ago(edited)
The “cold war” was a (((hoax)))
and so was the fall of communism
see Anatoly Golitsyn (The Peristroika Deception, New Lies For Old)
pretty much the whole world is under (((communism))) now

17
0
Hide replies
d
3 days ago
I’d agree.
The entire world is thoroughly Bolshevized.

8
0

@bagelsandloxism
3 days ago
NONE of the allies should have because the Austrian painter was right

60
0
Hide replies

@Esoteric_Bowdenite
3 days ago
Hitler brewed the second part of the worldwide European civil war more than any allied politician when he kept invading countries, and should not be mythologised as a saviour of the European races. Yes, of course the treacherous allied politicians should not have declared a war against their interests, but that does not excuse the arrogant and ultimately fatal actions of the other side.

4
17
Hide replies
mzaks
2 days ago
Unfortunately, people are easily trapped in binary thinking. They assume “If Jews are bad then Hitler was good for fighting them”. They have actually internalized the mainstream narrative, just taking the opposite position. In reality, dealing with “The Jews” was quite low on Hitler’s list of priorities. His primary goal was expanding German land territory at the expense of other European nations. The meme documentaries like Europa and TGSNT get them emotionally invested in the “Hitler good” narrative, so stating facts which contradict their narrative gets them emotionally triggered.

4
7
Hide replies
Abrahamic Matrix Destroyer
2 days ago
Well said.

5
0
Hide replies
DOLO
2 days ago
What was good about what he said here?

Handy Channel
2 days ago
Yes, the “Hitler good” trend in nationalism is ignorant and discredits us.

3
1

@MaybeNextTime
2 days ago
I bet You believe the Arch Duke Ferdinand was killed by a Bosnian too.

1
0
silverbullet
2 days ago

1
0
Hide replies
mzaks
2 days ago
“I have done everything within my power”
Except, you know, not ordering the armed forces into other countries.
The Allies actually gave Hitler an ultimatum to start withdrawing from Poland within a couple days, but Hitler ignored this, so they declared war.
It was entirely within Hitler’s power to avoid the war but he chose not to due to his Lebensraum ambitions.

1
1
Hide replies

@Gundobar
1 day ago
you should educate yourself a little about freemason Władysław Raczkiewicz. At least you should try, I know it will be very very hard for you

Hide replies
mzaks
1 day ago
What’s your point? How is he relevant to this discussion?

Hide replies

@Gundobar
1 day ago
lol, there is a reason you want to conceal Władysław Raczkiewicz

Hide replies
mzaks
1 day ago
I’m literally asking why you think this person is relevant.

Hide replies

@Gundobar
1 day ago
you know why or you’re even dumber than I thought

d
14 hours ago
Judeo-Bolsheviks invaded Poland from the east and have already invaded or conquered much of eastern Europe.
(((Britain))) declared war on Germany.
Your “arguments’ are ludicrous.
By the way, Great Britain used to have an empire that controlled 1/4 of the earth’s surface. They were the LAST nation justified to declare war on the basis of expansionism.

Hide replies
mzaks
4 hours ago
Soviets invaded weeks after the Nazis. Their later expansion to the Baltics and Finland was only made possible by Hitler’s disruption of the political landscape in Europe. Inter-war Europe was basically united against the Soviets, but then Hitler made his regime the more immediate threat, giving Stalin the opportunity to make his moves. The Cold War with the Soviets remained once the Nazi threat was neutralized.
Germany was the defeated power in WW1. Peace was made on the terms of the victor. The Versailles terms were very lenient, and weren’t enforced effectively. Germany was allowed to re-arm because the Allies saw that Germany could serve as a bulwark against the Soviets. The Allies tolerated Hitler’s land-grabbing, but they drew a red line at bloodshed – warning Hitler for months that invading Poland would result in their declaration of war. Hitler decided to cross that line. In so doing, he made forfeit the WW1 peace. Britain had no choice but to declare war. Not doing so would have cost them their credibility on the world stage and only delay the inevitable clash between Germany and the Allies to when Germany would be stronger.
Less

Hide replies
d
3 hours ago(edited)
“soviets invaded weeks after the Nazis” .
Is this suppose to be an “argument” ?
“cold war’ ! Yes right, “cold war”. You mean the same “cold war” that began with the “British” and the “Americans” giving away half of Europe to their Soviet buddies. The same eastern Europe that supposedly went to ww2 for?
“Britain had no choice but to declare war”. I like how Britain had no choice even after numerous peace offers by Adolf Hitler. But had plenty of choice when it came to the Judeo-Soviets invading Finland and half of eastern Europe.
Yes, the “British” were so preoccupied with salvaging their “world image” that they went to war against a regime and a leader that was a declared friend of their empire. A war that cost them that same empire…
By the way, since we are hinging the entire “conversation” on the Polish issue. Try to research about the “secret’ negotiations between the Polish authorities and Roosevelt and how the latter was agitating them to not negotiate with Germany and declare war.
And then how the Jewish Bolshevik Litvinov went to England in order to arrange the Lend-Lease program on behalf of the Soviet regime with the other Jew, Morgentau who was the secretary of treasury of the USA.
The question is, why are you commenting in a channel like this, regurgitating the ludicrous, mainstream Jewish talking points aimed at the average person that has no idea what actually happened during ww2?
What are you trying to achieve here? This is beyond ridiculous.
Less

d
1 day ago

@Esoteric_Bowdenite
Yeah, right COHEN, your “arguments” are so “convincing”, everyone believes that you are actually a pro White European nationalist…

4
1
Just Grifting and Gaming
23 hours ago
you do realize the soviets invaded loads of people starting with the 1920 Polish war? and instigated civil wars?
Youre assigning blame to the wrong people. Clown

1
0
Euroicism
1 day ago
Britain should have entered WW2 but we should have joined the other team.

4
0
Mike Forester
3 days ago(edited)
0:55
Thing is, with Britain (and the Commonwealth by extension) being neutral in the Polish-German war of 1939, there never would’ve been a World War to begin with. The minority, Danzig and Corridor question would’ve been solved probably even diplomatically with Poland never receiving Cart Blanche from London.
With this in mind, there never would’ve been a Soviet invasion on Sept. 17th 1939 and thus no west-shift of the deployment area that later became grounds for Germany to preemptivly strike against USSR.
So yes: Britain had all the leverage to literally prevent the 2nd great Brother War and maybe even the handle to build a decisive Central-Western European front against Stalinistic Bolshevism, which would’ve made the shifty Georgian gangster think twice.

32
0
Hide replies
Blankeon
3 days ago
Correct. WW2 would have been a war against Communism instead of a World War.

24
0
mzaks
3 days ago
Except Danzig was a false pretense for Hitler’s intervention in Poland, just as Sudetenland was a false pretense for his intervention in Czechoslovakia. Hitler wanted the land and said so many times himself:
A few days later, on May 23, Hitler delivered a four-hour speech to his Commanders in Chief in his cavernous study. He stood at a lectern and addressed altogether a dozen officers seated in three rows: Raeder, Milch, Brauchitsch, and Keitel formed the front row (Göring was away), and their chiefs of staff and adjutants the two other rows. Hitler stated once again that Danzig was not his ultimate objective – that would be to secure Lebensraum in the east to feed Germany’s eighty million inhabitants. ‘If fate forces us to fight in the west,’ Hitler told them, ‘it will be just as well if first we possess more in the east.’ This was why he had decided to ‘take on Poland at the first suitable opportunity.’ His immediate purpose now, he explained, would be to isolate Poland. ‘It is of crucial importance that we succeed in isolating her.’
p.177 of ‘Hitler’s War’
Less

1
9
Hide replies
Handy Channel
2 days ago
I agree mzaks – Hitler was an expansionist madman and not the sweet dindunuffin idol that many nationalists appear to believe in.

1
2
Hide replies

@Gundobar
1 day ago
found the unit 8200

@Gundobar
1 day ago
you stupid?

2
1
Mike Forester
1 day ago(edited)
Let me guess, you’re a Polack, init?
First of all: Danzig is German clay, the entire city, from its Hanseatic origin up to 1939 was German. So there’s no “pretext”.
Polish government mobilised its army on March 29th 1939 and deployed the combat capable divisions against Danzig, still under League of Nations mandate, and East Prussia — that’s the casus belli right there.
Oh, and Poland took its slice of pie too from the failing chimera state of “Czechoslovakia”, didn’t they?
The ultimate objective was TO SAVE THE GERMAN PEOPLE from Polish atrocities, murder, “polonisation” under the muzzle, dispossession of their ancestral homesteads and to NULLIFY the shameful treaty of Versailles, which included to bring home those territories and its German people who were unlawfully ripped from the Reich.

1
0
Hide replies
mzaks
1 day ago
“deployed the combat capable divisions against Danzig”
Sounds like an interesting alternate history, but in reality things were peaceful in Danzig, though tense, until Hitler’s invasion.

The so-called Polish atrocities are largely fictitious.
Supposedly 58,000 dead or missing, there should be 5-10x as many who made it out alive – where is the evidence of their existence? Where were the refugee camps? Where are the photos and footage of those refugees? Surely the Nazis would record the sufferings of their co-ethnics for propaganda effect?
https://www.bitchute.com/video/eGaNuErtNHDF/
And of course, Hitler’s actions speak for themselves. If Danzig was the motivation, why invade and hold lands which had no German population and were never historically German? (As agreed with Stalin in the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact). Then Hitler invades Russia, further proving his motivation was taking land.
Martinez has documented Hitler’s Lebensraum ambitions here. I would like to see you refute what he presents, but it’s not going to happen.

You must have a really low estimation of Hitler as a world leader if you think he would risk millions of Germans – the entire Reich – in a World War, to capture a city and some few hundred thousand Germans.
Less

1
1
Hide replies
Handy Channel
23 hours ago
I’m really enjoying your comments and links mzaks, thanks.
I wonder if this pro-Hitler signalling is what anti-Europeans want – it completely discredits us morally. It seems like atomwaffen tier retardation to normies.

1
1
Hide replies
mzaks
21 hours ago
Thank you.
Yes, I’m thinking it is so. Hitler divides Whites and unites Jews.

0
1
Mike Forester
6 hours ago(edited)
1/2
Sounds like an interesting alternate history … things were peaceful
You have no understanding of the term mobilisation and military deployment, do you? It’s utterly irrelevant what the situation in a city is when it comes to quite literally provoking a war by mobilising and deploying combat ready troops.
atrocities are largely fictitious.
Violence and murder stood at the end of a long line of malicious acts to oust the German population that has settled between Danzig and Uppler-Silesia for centuries. Starting with the restitution of the Polish nation state by Entente Powers snorting on the map and drawing up a Poland that utterly missed (or did by design) disregard any ethnic borders, be it German or Ukrainian for that matter. Already in 1923 apprx. 500,000 ethnic Germans were harassed, dispossessed and forcefully evicted and fled their ancestral home. German language was forbidden as official language in majority German populated territories (violation of bilateral minority treaties), community buildings and newspapers seized, ruinous taxes burdened on German communities, German owned businesses systematically boycotted, social clubs and associations banned, revoking of business-licences, closing of German schools.
photos and footage
You’re a funny guy. We are talking about things happening 1) outside of the grasp of NSDAP in rural Silesia and West-Prussia and 2) covering a time range between 1921-1939. How many normal folk could afford a Leica Model C in 1932?
Surely the Nazis would record the sufferings of their co-ethnics for propaganda effect?
Of course they did. You’re just too dumb to perform historic research
https://archive.org/details/Auswaertiges-Amt-Weissbuch-2/mode/2up
(Yes, it’s in German. Why should it be in any other language?)
Less

Hide replies
mzaks
3 hours ago
You think moving troops within your own territory is “provoking war”? Well, I guess you would need to think so to cope with Hitler’s insanity.
If you apply the same level of scrutiny to the Nazi claims of atrocity against ethnic Germans as you do with the Holocaust, you will find that the evidence does not fare well. There is clear evidence of Nazis fabricating incidents – even David Irving confirms this. Why would they fake things if there were real atrocities?
Germany’s eastern border was drawn carefully with respect to the ethnic majorities living there.
Sure, there were islands of Germans, but not much else could be done with these settlement patterns.
https://i.pinimg.com/originals/b3/3d/63/b33d632d31bf9c6d1a4c7e839b236c83.jpg
Even if the persecution of Ethnic Germans in Poland was real, Hitler could have simply evacuated them and avoided a World War. Funny enough he agreed to do this with Mussolini in the disputed South Tyrol territory. Of course, South Tyrol was not in-between him and his Intended Lebensraum in Russia, while Poland was.
Less

Mike Forester
6 hours ago(edited)
2/2
If Danzig was the motivation, why invade and hold lands which had no German population
Danzig, as I wrote in the OP, was but one of several factors. Polish government rejected numerous offers to settle the crisis diplomatically and for both parties to safe face on the geopolitical chessboard.
The last offer was sent to Polish minister for foreign affairs, Beck, on 8/31/1939 at 9 p.m. … the reception of the note was rejected!
This was months after above mentioned Polish mobilisation documented here:
https://archive.org/details/Auswaertiges-Amt-Weissbuch-2/page/n263/mode/2up?view=theater
To make it abundantly clear: Mobilisation means “resolve to conduct war”. War means both warring parties try to occupy the enemy’s territory. And to be blunt: After the capitulation of France, Germany offered peace to Britain, yet again, and suggested to retreat from ethnic Polish territory.
Molotov-Ribbentrop pact
That’s a downright Huffpost-tier interpretation of geostrategic agreements. Agreements are formed as strategic quasi insurances. Mind you, before that agreement the Entente nations tried to close a similar deal with USSR against Germany, but Stalin wanted the war happening in the West, exhausting its future enemies’ armed forces.
muh Lebensraum
Did you even read “Mein Kampf”? The infamous paragraphs about “stopping the endless trek to the west…” is in the next to last chapter of Vol. II that was finished ca. 1926-28. In 1926 USSR existed 4 years, after a devastating civil war. Hitler, as well as many political leaders, assumed that this Communist state would collapse sooner or later, leaving a (cultural and) territorial vacuum to be filled by German hegemony. Time proved him to be wrong, and in 1937 Stalin was at the height of his power. So the reasons for a preemptive strike against Red Army were primarily military-strategic
Less

Hide replies
mzaks
3 hours ago
Hitler gave a speech in Berlin on 26 September 1938 and declared that the Sudetenland was “the last territorial demand I have to make in Europe”. He also stated that he had told Chamberlain, “I have assured him further that, and this I repeat here before you, once this issue has been resolved, there will no longer be any further territorial problems for Germany in Europe!”
A few months later, Hitler ordered his forces beyond the Sudeten territories, invaded Prague and the rest of the Czech lands, nearly sparking war then.
Why would Poland, or anyone else negotiate with Hitler after he had so proved that his negotiations were in bad faith?
Do you have any evidence that Hitler actually believed he was making a preemptive strike before an impending Soviet invasion? I haven’t seen any, while there are mounds of evidence as Martinez presented that Hitler’s motive was taking the land.
Less

GusinLanzarote Alt Right
10 hours ago
Danzig was 95% German- it was a reasonable request.

2
0

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

See Also

top

 

 

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

Mark Collett — Christmas Adverts – Multicultural Propaganda — TRANSCRIPT

Mark Collett — What We Must Do To Win — TRANSCRIPT

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

 

 

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

Organized jewry Did 9/11

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

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

The Realist Report with Christopher Bollyn – Sep 2018 — TRANSCRIPT

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

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

 

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

PDF Download

top

Total words in transcript = 1624

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

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

 

Version History

top

Version 5:

Version 4:

Version 3:

Version 2:

Version 1: Thu, Jun 20, 2024 — Published post. Includes Odysee comments (126).

Alex Jones: So your husband, Samuel Melia, is literally a thought criminal out of 1984. This precedent is so dangerous! And that’s exactly why it’s not getting any media coverage, is they want to quietly just put us in their modern gulags.

 

Laura Towler: But basically, Sam was convicted. It’s a very strange crime, but he was convicted for his “intentions” behind publishing these stickers.

 

So the prosecution said:

 

“Every single sticker is legal.”

 

So the messages on all the stickers are legal. They also said that:

 

“The truth is no defense in court.”

 

So if you can prove that all of the stickers are true, that doesn’t matter.

 

And they also said, the third thing, is that there’s no evidence of any crimes or any racial hatred being stirred up because of these stickers. He was literally convicted for his “intentions”, his “thoughts” behind publishing these stickers.

 

And what they did was they took things from our house and they went through tens of thousands of private messages of Sam and tried to build up a profile of him and then presented that in court and said:

 

“This guy is a really bad guy! He needs to go to prison.”

 

Alex Jones: Laura Towler is Sam Melia’s wife over in the UK, just sentenced to two years in prison over anti-immigration stickers, and a mom to a two year old girl with another baby on the way in six weeks.

 

She’s also the deputy leader of Patriotic Alternative, which is Britain’s largest and most active nationalist organisation. Patrioticalternative.org. UK, Telegram. She is a Patriotic Alternative official.

 

Western civilisation is under attack. White people are under attack. I love everybody! I’m not Adolf Hitler!

 

But when the Left mobilises the 93% of the world that’s not White, to then say White people are bad and we have 20 to one black on White crime in the big cities, ten to one in the rural areas. It’s not the majority of black folks, but it’s a very active minority that’s attacking us. And the FBI and the ADL fight like the devil to cover that up. It needs to be repudiated. If we had 20 to one White on black crime, I’d be against it.

 

And her husband put out stickers that I agree with almost all of them, a few., … I don’t try to make the whole thing jewish or whatever, but he has that right to say that and do that. If a lot of the main refugee groups are Leftist jewish organisations. Even it wasn’t true he has a right, but it’s true!

 

So this is so dangerous! And you say:

 

“Well, that’s the UK!”

 

Everything you see in the EU, in the UK, remember they had the deputy head of the EU six months ago? I played the clip like 30 times. And she’s sitting there talking to members of the US Congress at the Davos group. She says:

 

“Oh, you’re going to be shutting your free speech down soon, too, right?”

 

They’re like:

 

“Yes!”

 

So you can say what you want about Elon Musk, but he’s opened up stuff way more than everywhere else. So we’re thankful for what we’re getting there.

 

[03:16]

 

But Samuel Melia, … We will roll some B-roll of him going into court. Then he was sentenced and his wife came out, made a statement. I’m going to post her statement on the real Alex Jones on X. Also posted Infowars.com.

 

But she’s live with us now. Samuel Melia, that’s spelled M-E-L-I-A:

 

“Far-Right activist jailed after sticker campaign.”

 

I want to show you these stickers, says things like, “They seek conquest, not asylum.” And it shows the image of the illegals running across. “Why are jews censoring free speech?” I mean, it is the ADL groups doing that it’s not all the jews, but they have a right to say it, whether it’s true or not.

 

So. Again, you could say:

 

“Well, he’s putting up swastikas!”

 

Which he’s not. You take his right to do that, we all lose our rights:

“Ask not what jews can do for your country. Ask what your country can do for jews.”

 

And again, the average jew doesn’t support this in my view.

 

But what I’m saying is, it doesn’t matter. This guy should not serve two years in prison for this, because he put the stickers online for people to put out. Here’s some of the other ones I wanted to show the, quote, most incinerary ones first. “Tired of the anti-White propaganda?” “diversity, proximity war.” And it just goes on from there. Here’s another one. “They have to go back.” “White, privileged” crossed out “excellence”. Remember, TV viewers, like:

 

“Why are you narrating it? We can see it.”

 

We’re on hundreds of radio stations.

 

So this is what he’s spending two years in jail for. “Import the third world. Become the third world”. I sent you guys some video of Mali in Africa. Let’s roll some of that. Here’s some more. Because he’s got two years in prison for posting this online. “We’re more than a passport. Blood and soil.” Well, yeah, you try to go to Nigeria and create a White majority, you’re going to be thrown out, you’ll be killed. “Mass immigration is White genocide.”

 

Well, I mean, it’d be one thing if we had open borders and the Left and Hollywood wasn’t saying:

 

“White people are inherently evil and bad.”

 

And:

 

“Being White is inherently bad and we’re inherently evil.”

 

This is going on.

 

[05:39]

 

So the backlash is here. And I want to keep it focused on the New World Order and the globalists trying to divide everybody. I don’t hate anybody k　but at the same time, I’m not going to be politically correct and ignore all this is going on because we are all, I don’t care what colour you are, because it’ll be, if you’re anti-war, if you’re against monopolies, whatever it is, they’re setting a precedent, just like with Julian Assange, to put you under the jail if you tell the truth!

 

So we’re all Samuel Melia now!

 

Joining us is his wife, mother, also about to give birch another baby. We appreciate her, Laura Tower. And you can find her at patrioticalternative.org.uk. And whether you agree with her or disagree or agree with some and disagree with some, like I do with some of the stickers, it doesn’t matter. You should support it. Remember, the old ACLU would go out and support the KKK rallying or whoever, and the Nazis, usually they were actually ADL operatives that came out, but these people are not even on that spectrum. And there’s her husband facing two years.

 

So I’m going to try to shut up till we go to break. We’ll come back. We got plenty of time this hour. This is a big deal to start wherever you want, how your husband’s doing, what he really did, what’s happening in the UK. But thank you so much, Laura, for joining us and speaking out for your political prisoner husband.

 

Laura Towler: Oh, well, thank you so much for inviting me on, Alex, and raising awareness of this issue.

 

There’s been quite a bit of silence in Britain from the mainstream news outlets regarding the sentencing.

 

And I’m not sure if it’s because they know that it’s very heavy handed, so they don’t want to raise awareness of it. But basically, Sam was convicted. It’s a very strange crime, but he was convicted for his “intentions” behind publishing these stickers.

 

So the prosecution said:

 

“Every single sticker is legal.”

 

So the messages on all the stickers are legal. They also said that:

 

“The truth is no defense in court.”

 

So if you can prove that all of the stickers are true. That doesn’t matter.

 

And they also said the, third thing is that:

 

“There’s no evidence of any crimes or any racial hatred being stirred up because of these stickers.”

 

He was literally convicted for his intentions, his thoughts behind publishing these stickers.

 

And what they did was they took things from our house, and they went through tens of thousands of private messages of Sam and tried to build up a profile of him and then presented that in court and said:

 

“This guy is a really bad guy. He needs to go to prison!”

 

And they sentenced him for two years in custody with immediate effect. Which is just heartbreaking for us because we have a two year old girl, we have a toddler, but we’re also having another baby in five and a half weeks. And Sam will miss her birth. He will miss her first smile and her first laugh. He’ll miss experiencing her learning to crawl. All these special moments that you can’t get back, even if we do manage to get it overturned in the future.

 

[08:30]

 

So it is literal thought crime. It’s his intentions, his thoughts behind publishing stickers. It’s just a travesty! And it’s so good to get so much support from nationalist and patriotic people across the world. And thank you for helping to raise awareness of this.

 

Alex Jones: Oh, we’re all in this together. So your husband, Samuel Melia, is literally a thought criminal out of 1984! This precedent is so dangerous, and that’s exactly why it’s not getting any media coverage, is they want to quietly just put us in their modern Gulags.

 

Laura Towler: Yeah, well, when the judge sentenced him, he sentenced him for two years, and he said:

 

“I do have the ability to suspend that sentence.”

 

Which would mean you don’t actually go into custody. You’re at home. But if you misbehave again, I’ll send you down. He said:

 

“I do have the ability to suspend your sentence, but I’m not going to because I want this to act as a deterrent to other people with the same beliefs.”

 

So he’s literally admitted in court that he’s sent into prison to deter other people from being the same as Sam.

 

Alex Jones: And I love the part about the stickers aren’t illegal because they can’t admit that they’re trying to ban free speech in your country, the birthplace of, …

 

Laura Towler: I’m really glad that you introduced some of the more “controversial” stickers because there were stickers that said things like, “Love your nation, reject White guilt.” “It’s okay to be White”. There were stickers about abortion. There were stickers about the LGBT community, about saving native species and the environment. There were stickers about Covid. And there was one saying, like, I think it said something like, “Pubs closed, borders open!” Like, if you’re locking us down and not allowing people to go to work and destroying businesses, why are the borders open?

 

Alex Jones: Well, let me ask you this, Laura, because this is a “Streisand effect”. This is backfiring already. Where do we go to find your husband’s stickers in total? And we’ll just put them on screen while you’re talking. Where’s the best place?

 

Laura Towler: Well, I’m a bit scared to share them.

 

Alex Jones: Oh, because you’ll get put in jail. Oh, wow! You’re in such a free country!

 

Laura Towler: However, if you go to Telegram, it was called The Hundred-Handers. And the Telegram channel is still up. So if you want to go to The Hundred-Handers Telegram channel, you can go and see all of the stickers. There’s 310 stickers in total.

 

Alex Jones: The Hundred-Handers group.

 

Laura Towler: Yeah, it’s The Hundred-Handers.

 

Alex Jones: The Hundred-Handers on Telegram. And maybe I’ll get arrested by the UK if I ever go back.

 

Laura Towler: You might get banned!

 

Alex Jones: Because I’m going to show these. Everybody has a right to see these. Wow!

 

[11:00]

 

And then there you are. And I understand it. You’re not in a free country, you’re afraid to even tell us where we can see what he’s been put in jail for two years. That is literally Kafka-esque in 1984! You’re not even allowed to discuss why the Ministry of Truth has disappeared him. Where is your husband right now?

 

Laura Towler: He’s in prison! He’s in prison in Leeds. He got took down straight away on Friday. Luckily, his cellmate had some credit on his card, so he was able to phone me on. I think it was Sunday that he phoned me. And he just let me know that he was okay.

 

But now I haven’t heard from him since because they’re processing him through the system. He has to get my number confirmed. He has to allow his credit to sort of go onto his account and all that kind of stuff.

 

So I haven’t heard from him since Sunday. I am worried, but I think that’s probably natural. I’m pretty sure he’s okay. Yeah. Just waiting to get a phone call from him, really. But he’s in prison.

 

Alex Jones: Of course they built Covid centres all over the country. I know he was an activist against that they built them all over every Western country. They’re now saying in Australia, the UK, when the next lockdown comes, if you criticise it, they’re going to lock you up for your speech.

 

So they’re building political prisoner camps all over the Western world right under our noses and normalizing it by throwing your husband in jail for posting stickers online!

 

Laura Towler: Well, that’s the problem with these laws. They’re written in such an ambiguous way that’s open to interpretation, so they can pick and choose who they go after. There are, like, far-Left groups like Antifa and stuff which literally put stickers up about murdering Tories, “Kill your local racist.” “Kill your local fascist”. They don’t know what fascism is.

 

But these people don’t get targeted by the police. The police can pick and choose the individuals that they want to persecute. And because my husband is a White advocate, he’s a White person who advocates for our people and he criticises the government, they’ve gone after him.

 

Alex Jones: I was telling the crew that they should pull up Justin Trudeau in Canada. He’s got legislation he’s trying to ram through where you get life in prison for a hate crime, including speech.

 

Laura Towler: I have seen looks. It just looks terrifying!

 

Yeah, I mean, our laws are getting tighter and tighter and tighter over here. Rishi Sunak actually gave a speech, our prime minister, on Friday evening after Sam’s conviction, and he was talking about coming down tough on Islamist extremists and far-Right extremists. I mean, did he mean, people like Sam? Are they going to toughen up law so that he can do even less, so that we’re not allowed to go out and protest all this?

 

[13:39]

 

Alex Jones: Well, that’s how it’s, … Look, they invade Ireland, they invade England, they invade Scotland. Even got your first minister in Scotland saying:

 

“We’re too White. Scotland’s bad! White people are bad!”

 

And so it’s the UN, the globalists, bringing in the brown people and then training them to hate the White people. I mean, it’d be one thing if he’s brought them in, but then didn’t teach everybody White people are bad. It literally is like Hitler in reverse! It’s racial politics run by the Left because they know 93% of the world’s not White. So they look at the numbers and say:

 

“We’ll just be anti-White now and then make our political movement anti-White!”

 

It’s insane! It’s so evil!

 

Laura Towler: Yeah, well, all of the main political leaders in Britain are foreign. Ireland, Scotland. We’ve got Rishi Sunak in 10 Downing Street, the Mayor of London, who I’m sure you’re familiar with, Sadiq Khan. We don’t actually have an English, or a British representative at one of those senior positions. And you’re not allowed to talk about it unless you’re celebrating it!

 

So if I say “British people are becoming a minority” and I’m against it, I’m a bad person. But if the Guardian newspaper publishes an article saying:

 

“The last days of a White world!”

 

And they celebrate it, it’s a good thing!

 

So you can only talk about demographic change if you’re in favour of it.

 

Alex Jones: I mean, it really is Replacement Migration. That’s an official UN policy. But I have clips of the ADL saying, and different EU officials. If you talk about replacement migration:

 

“That’s hate speech. We want to arrest you!”

 

It’s the UN plan to depopulate the Western world. So I wonder why the Left is openly anti-White, anti-Christian? Because they are.

 

Laura Towler: There’s a lot of social pressures in Britain. I’m not sure if it’s the same in the States, but there is a lot of social pressure over here. And people are very scared of words like “racism”.

 

I mean, Sam’s trial was a jury trial, and on that jury there were three foreign people and nine White people. So eight British people and one Polish woman. And just the pressure to argue for quote, unquote, “racism” in front of a foreigner must have just been too much for them. But people are so terrified over here of the word “racism” and speaking out.

 

And that’s why I want people to just raise awareness of what’s going to Sam and going on with Sam, and just push back against it and say, there’s nothing wrong with these stickers, because hopefully it will embolden more people to say, …

 

Alex Jones: Absolutely! And let’s look here. Here’s some photos that are online of the stickers your husband put out that others got and posted. “Smash fascism.” All that stuff’s fine.

 

[16:12]

 

But then somebody else puts “Capitalism plus communism, two faces of the same shekel.” And then somebody goes:

 

“Oh, shekel’s from Israel, so you can’t say that!”

 

Look, look, either everybody has their free speech or nobody has it, folks! And I’ve been forced to, quote, “be more radical”, not because I hate any group or [word unclear] after any group, but because literally all over the Western world, White people are being demonised as the devil, just as jews were in Nazi Germany. And we shouldn’t sit here and take it, folks! I don’t care what your background is. Black, White, old, young, nobody should be taking this crap! And the intimidation and the communists and the globalists using race as a way to intimidate people needs to end. We need to move the Overton Window back to what Bill Maher said years ago:

 

“Everybody gets to speak!”

 

You don’t get to ban Alex Jones. Everybody gets to speak.

 

Laura Towler: Yeah, I mean, there are probably things that you and I disagree on, probably quite a few things. But if I went out and I saw a sticker promoting communism, I wouldn’t phone the police over it. I might take it down, but I wouldn’t phone the police over it.

 

And if people want to promote open borders and immigration and all this other stuff, I think that they should have the ability to. I think that we should have open and adult and mature discussions about these issues instead of sending people to prison. It’s okay to disagree with somebody. But I think that everybody should believe that people have the right to share their opinions, especially when he’s not encouraging violence or anything. It’s literally just saying:

 

“This is a problem I’ve identified and I’m against it.”

 

When they silence topics like this, all they’re doing is pushing them underground. People are not going to change their minds about it.

 

Alex Jones: Laura, we got to go to break. Laura Tower@patrioticalternative.org uk I was about to go there next. They wanted to put him in jail for prison to send a message, but now they don’t want it covered because it backfired. We’ll talk about that paradox.

 

[18:12]

 

[Ad]

 

[19:11]

 

This is not a standalone case that we’re talking about right now. Two years in jail for posting online stickers that people can print off. The case of Samuel Melia and his wife with a two year old baby girl and a baby, five and a half weeks out. Two years in prison for his intent to expose the invasion of the UK run by the UN and the globalists to bring in a political permanent underclass, they can brainwash and be anti-White. They’re the ones creating the racism, the classism. They’re the ones doing this. The clash of civilisations! We have all the footage of a year and a half ago. There’s so many. A woman prayed 50 yards across the street from an abortion clinic, silently arrested!

 

So if you stabbed people, you got out of jail the next day in the UK. Yeah. Here’s the footage. Go ahead and roll the audio of this.

 

Police: What are you here for today?

 

Woman: [words unclear] here?

 

Police: Why here, of all places? I know you don’t live nearby.

 

Woman: But this is an abortion centre.

 

Police: Okay. That’s why you’re standing here? Are you part of the protest?

 

Woman: No.

 

Police: Are you praying?

 

Woman: I might be praying in my head.

 

Police: So I’ll ask you once more. Will you voluntarily come with us now to the police station for me to ask you some questions about today and other days where there are allegations that you’ve broken public spaces protection?

 

Woman: If I’ve got a choice, then no.

 

Police: Okay, well, then you’re under arrest. On account of suspicion of failing to comply with the public spaces protection order, which is under the Antisocial Behavior Commons BC Act 2014. I’ll caution you again, you do not have to say anything. It may harm your defense if you do mention when questioned, something which you later on in court say may be given. Do you understand the caution?

 

Woman: I do.

 

Alex Jones:

 

“Our silent thoughts and nobody’s business. Catholic woman who was twice arrested for silently praying near abortion clinic says she fears police are becoming ideologically driven, and she vows to carry on doing it on a weekly basis.”

 

I can show you the footage of the highly decorated Special Air Services fella. This is two years ago. There’s hundreds of examples. I could just think of myself. There’s thousands of arrests every month. They brag about it. He put on Twitter at the time, an image of if you put the trans flag together, four of them, it makes a swastika. Arrested! Last time I checked, he was in jail for a long time. So dangerous.

 

So Laura Tower is pregnant. She already has a two year old girl with her husband, who’s a political prisoner. Samuel Melia. You made a lot of great points. I was interrupting and jumping in, but just starting over, going back to the so-called trial, the judge, his intent, his thought crime. And then I’m going to try to give you the floor here for 10, 15 minutes or so to just tell everybody what you want to say. You’re a really smart lady. You got the floor.

 

[22:12]

 

Laura Towler: Okay. [chuckling] I’m not really sure where to start. But, yeah, like I said at the start, I was shocked when the verdict came and I was shocked when the sentencing came. And every day it just becomes more and more and more surreal and I become more and more and more angry at it! Because like I said at the start, everything on the stickers was legal. All of that text is legal. In addition to it:

 

“The truth is, no defense in court.”

 

Is what they said.

 

And then they said that no crimes had been committed because of these stickers. It is literally his “intentions” behind these stickers, which he’s gone to prison for. And we can deal with it. And whatever they throw at us, we can handle. But the saddest part is him being disconnected from his children, missing the birth of his second child and missing all those special milestones that happen in the first six to eight months or so. we want to push back against it.

 

What I would ask people to do is, if they’re watching this and they disagree with what’s happened to Sam, if you could continue to raise awareness about his case and kick up a fuss about it. If you’re in Britain, if you could contact your local MP about it. We are looking at if there’s a possibility of appealing the verdict, and also if there’s the possibility of pursuing legal action against the police. We are speaking to legal professionals on that.

 

But if, you know, anyone that can help with that regard, obviously that would be brilliant!

 

But what I would really like people to do is become involved in something. If you’re against this anti-White narrative that is pushed on us regularly and consistently, become involved with an organisation in your country. In Britain, and with Patriotic Alternative. We’re a British advocacy group that stands up for the interests of British people. We do a lot of community building. We’re involved in the electoral route as well. We raise awareness and act as a pressure group. It’s an absolutely fantastic group! It’s Britain’s largest and most active nationalist organisation, patrioticalternative.org.uk.

 

I will also say that everybody at Patriotic Alternative is still suspended from Twitter or X. Myself, my husband, Sam. PA’s leader, Matt Collett is still suspended. If you can pressure Elon Musk potentially to allow us back on. We were all suspended on the same day at the same time and never given a reason why. When we appeal it, the appeal just gets quietly shut down. And they just don’t respond to us. If you could get us back on there, it would allow us to continue spreading Sam’s story and also defend ourselves because there are a lot of lives going around about Sam at the moment. And to be able to debunk them and actually get his story out there, that would be brilliant! Thank you.

 

[24:47]

 

Alex Jones: That is the worst part, because I’ve experienced it for five years. Being banned everywhere. You’re not just taken off-line, you can’t defend yourself and they can make up anything they want. They steal your identity.

 

Laura Towler: Yeah, exactly! And a Patriotic Alternative, we’re lied about constantly all the time. We’ve been going for over four years now and the press will put out an article about us and it’ll just be complete lies! And we can’t respond to it at all! And they’ll turn comments off on the article so that nobody can reply to it. And it just means that they’re allowed to misrepresent you.

 

So when people hear about you for the first time, it’s something that’s not true and then they build this impression about you in their head. I just think that freedom of speech for all citizens is so important. And like we’ve know during this interview, you might not agree with everything that Sam said, but he wasn’t telling people to go out and kill people or attack people or anything like that. He was just sharing his opinions and he has the right to do that.

 

Alex Jones: Well, what’s happening is more and more people across the political spectrum and the racial spectrum, when they see the corporate media and the system attack somebody, they know they’re good, or they know something’s being hidden. So it’s gotten so bad now that people see someone being demonised and it backfires.

 

I’ll go back to that question I had before the break. The judge said:

 

“I want to put you in jail for two years. Put you in prison for two years for your speech, for your thoughts, literally, for your intent, for putting out these stickers that the public could go see and print and use if they chose to do it.”

 

But there’s almost no coverage in the UK of this because it’s so embarrassing! So they want their cake and eat it, too. They want to intimidate people, but then not have it be in the news. And we’re not going to let that happen. That’s why stories like this are so important!

 

Laura Towler: Yeah, I mean, they all publicized when he got the guilty verdict, they all publicized it, but with the sentencing, it’s been quiet. I think there’s been maybe two sort of like mainstream national news outlets that have reported on it and a couple of local newspapers. Nobody’s really talking about the sentencing, and I think they do know that it’s very heavy handed.

 

[26:54]

 

But I wonder if one of the reasons is because we’re unapologetic about it. What usually happens is if you do something naughty and then they hound you and jump on you and attack you, if you apologise. I think they like the public to see that we’re not know, we’re nationalists, we’re White people. We love our race, we love our people. We believe our people exist and should be the majority of the population in Britain, and we’re never, ever, ever going to apologise about that! So I wonder if they don’t want to publicize Sam’s case and our organisation with regards to this matter, because they’re not going to get that apology? And there’s no point in apologizing anyway because they never accept it.

 

Alex Jones: What would your husband say right now, who’s sitting there in a jail cell for his speech in the once free nation of England? What would Samuel Melia be saying right now if he was on air?

 

Laura Towler: He would say thank you to everyone who’s publicizing his case and all the support that we’re getting as well. And, I mean, we did a video, we filmed a video of him before he went into the court for his sentencing. And he just said:

 

“Don’t let this deter you. I want people to stay involved in the struggle, people to keep telling the truth! I want people to push back against this anti-White system that’s attacking us and oppressing us so much!”

 

That is his main message, really. He doesn’t want people to give up. He wants people to get involved, join the struggle and play our part and just push back against it.

 

Alex Jones: All right, Laura Towler, stay there. Let’s hear more of what your husband would say, who’s in prison for thought crime in the UK. Stay with us.

 

All right. Coming up next hour, I want to do a deep dive on the economy, and we’ve got a lot of documents here, but even NBC News reports, one trillion every 100 days is being issued by the treasury. Biden’s put out more money in the last three plus years than was ever put out in the first, 2048 years or whatever it is the country’s existence. I live here, too, and the same monetisation of debt. And this has happened world-wide, so it’s not just here. I don’t wish this on anybody, but we need to be ready for the crash landing we need to admit we’re in this situation and not stick our heads in the sand.

 

So that’s coming up next hour.

 

Now, Laura Tower’s husband is a major political prisoner. Sam Melia. Two years in jail for posting stickers online that say, our borders are open, we’re being replaced. Stand up for yourself.

 

[29:23]

 

Meanwhile, you turn on any Hollywood movie:

 

“Whites are the devil! Whites all need to be killed. Professors, Leftists. Whites are inherently evil!”

 

And we’re supposed to sit here while they do all this? It’s not enough to call us racist for no reason. Now they’re the ones being completely racist, mainly globalists and think tanks pushing the brown majority world-wide to hate White people. And then White people are like:

 

“Hey, I’m not going to take this! Well, we’ll just throw your arse in jail!”

 

So, Laura, I asked you to talk about what your husband, if he was here, would talk about. I wasn’t looking at the clock. I didn’t realise the break was coming up. I’m sorry. Start over. Your husband is in jail right now, but we’re going to send him prayers and energy and love and support for his free speech. What would he be saying right now? Start over. And then what do you want to say about your husband right now, and why you chose this fight?

 

Laura Towler: Yes, well, sorry for talking when your break was about to start. Sam, if he could get a message out there, he would say what he said in the video that we filmed before we went into court. And that is just don’t be put off by what’s happened to him, because I honestly do believe that we’re the majority of people.

 

If you look at the response to what’s happened to Sam, 99% of the comments on social media are supporting him. Even people who don’t agree with him are saying he has the right to say this.

 

Alex Jones: And by the way, start over. I just want to say this. That’s why they want you silenced, is because you’re good people standing up for yourselves under attack. And people.c Exactly! People resonate. That’s why they want to silence you, because courage is contagious. Sorry. Start over.

 

Laura Towler: Yeah, I mean, Sam is not some evil caricature of some demon or evil guy. He’s just a normal family man. He’s a sign maker. He’s a tradesman. He’s obviously a husband. He’s a father to his daughter. We’ve got another daughter coming in the middle of April. And he’s just a brilliant, kind, strong man!

 

And I think that’s what the establishment fears. They want these “evil Nazis” or these “evil extremists that they can put on a platform and say:

 

“Hey, look how bad the Right are!”

 

But Sam isn’t like that.

 

And I think that’s why he is such a threat to the establishment and why they’ve come down so hard on him.

 

But, yeah, he would just say:

 

“Don’t let this deter you!”

 

Because that’s what they want you to do. That’s what they wanted to do they said:

 

“We are sending you to prison to act as a deterrent.”

 

If you get scared and back off because of this, they’ve won. So what you need to do is get involved. You don’t have to be at the front. You don’t have to be picking up a megaphone like Sam did and shouting in front of loads of people. There are things that you can do behind the scenes. You can write articles, you can raise awareness of stuff on social media. We’ve got hashtag going at the moment, hashtag free Sam Melia.

 

You can get involved in that you can financially support organisations that are going out and doing homeless outreach like we do at Patriotic Alternative. There is so much that you can do but get involved! Use this as a sign to get involved. What’s that thing about where when they cut someone’s head off, like, ten more stand up in its place? That’s what we need to do in response to this.

 

[32:20]

 

Alex Jones: Well, it’s really an amazing moment. And I noticed on X or your ban, I think Elon should restore you guys just for the fact you’re political, … I mean, Hamas and Hezbollah are on there literally murdering jews! And that’s okay because, oh, well, they’re a political group.

 

But then, … And I think it should be there so you can see what they’re doing. I think what they did was wrong. I think what Israel’s gone too far now and what they’re doing with attacking the civilians is wrong, too.

 

But we can all have our own opinion right on that. We need to be able to see the facts. But overhead shot on this, it’s in mainstream news. This judge is famous for letting people with child porn and paedophiles off.

 

So this judge looks like a really nasty guy! And what do we know about this judge?

 

Laura Towler: Well, this has all come out since he sentenced Sam. There’s a guy called No Chance who wrote a thread about him on Twitter. And it’s all of these paedophiles that he’s basically given a sentence to. So they’ve been found guilty of something, but it’s a non-custodial sentence, including people who had child porn, images of one year old babies, including people who were repeat offenders.

 

I mean, Sam has a clean criminal record. He’s a man of good character. And there are repeat offenders who are paedophiles who had child porn on their computers, who, this judge has given either a community order, which is community service, or a suspended sentence.

 

Alex Jones: Oh, it’s the same thing with the judges I talked to in Texas, federal judges. It’s in the news. They order them to let child rapists go!

 

So it’s the same thing. I mean, it’s just incredible!

 

Laura Towler: Yeah. Anything involving harming a child should be an incredibly tough sentence. And you want to keep those people away from children forever! But especially when you’ve got a repeat offender. I mean, to me, that’s just absolutely awful how they could do that. And it’s not just one or two. There are lots of judges in this country that seem to give very, very lenient sentences, …

 

[34:10]

 

Alex Jones: Especially with what they call the “Asian rape gangs” that are really the Muslim rape gangs.

 

Laura Towler: Yeah, well, actually, while we were in court waiting for Sam’s sentencing, we were sat opposite a rape gang of 42 people. 42 people! 39 men and three women, who’d been responsible for the Kirklees grooming gang. Our press call it the “grooming gang”. They’d raped, abused, and even forced young girls into prostitution. And the judge is in there saying:

 

“This isn’t true. It’s a nuanced issue.”

 

And all this kind of stuff. We literally sat outside, looking in the eyes of child rapists, and you’re telling us that we’re not allowed to talk about it?

 

Alex Jones: Wow! Tommy Robinson’s a great example of this. Put in prison over and over again for a speech, viciously attacked by Antifa. And they would tell him:

 

“Just don’t be political anymore or join us. We’ll give you a job. Just back off. Just give in!”

 

But it doesn’t look like what they’ve done to Tommy and others has worked. What’s your view on Tommy Robinson?

 

Laura Towler: Well, Tommy Robinson has actually raised awareness about what’s happening to Sam, and I really do appreciate him doing that. I think he’s done a good job of raising awareness of the grooming gangs in Britain. I mean, we’ve not always got on. There are things that we disagree with, …

 

Alex Jones: Tommy’s way pro-Israel, which, again, he’s a great guy, I get his view. I understand. The point is he understands what’s happening. He was wrong.

 

Laura Towler: Yes, exactly.

 

And I really do appreciate him doing that because he does have a big platform. And when he spoke about what happened to Sam, and he did seem really angry about it, he raised awareness about that to his followers and to people who were looking at him. And we are thankful that he did that. Whether it was for genuine intentions or not, he still did it, which we do appreciate.

 

Alex Jones: All right, Laura Towler will get updates from you. Stay in contact with us patrioticalternative.org.uk. And people can go out for themselves and see the Thought Crime stickers. I agree with about 95% of them. I disagree with some of them. But hey, he has a right to do it!

 

And I think it came from a good place, but even it came from a bad place. He has that right.

 

And I think you’re a very good lady. And I would imagine if I talked to your husband, he comes off like that. The videos I’ve seen, and I think you’re standing up for yourselves. And compared to the Left, your racial victory all is like a one. And they’re a 50, a scale of one to ten. The Left is off the hook, anti-White, anti-Christian, anti-European! And we need to stand up for ourselves. And I stand up for everybody. Folks, I fight hard against the fact that over half the abortions in America are black kids. I don’t want to kill black babies, but I also don’t want them raised up to hate me because I’m White. See? It is nuanced. Thank you so much for joining us.

 

[36:36]

 

Laura Towler: Thank you for having me. And, yeah, everyone who’s listening, please continue to kick up a fuss about this. Thanks, Alex. Enjoy the rest of your day.

 

Alex Jones: All right, you stay in contact with us. Okay?

 

Laura Towler: Okay.

 

Alex Jones: Because I look up and a year goes by as soon as there’s an update next week, two weeks from now, you reach out to us, we’ll get you on. Okay?

 

Laura Towler: Thank you very much. I will do.

 

Alex Jones: Thank you. The lady has a lot of courage. She’s a good person.

 

Again, what White people are doing in response to all this anti-White racism is a one, or a two. On a scale of one to ten, the Left is like a 50.

 

I mean, they are off the chart, foaming at the mouth anti-White! And it’s the ADL, folks. They’re racial politics. The closest things to Nazis I’ve seen is the ADL. And I’ll just call it out because I believe in Martin Luther King, Jr. Judge people according to the character of their deeds. I don’t look at colour. But I’ll tell you this, I’m not going to sit back and be demonised. And attacked anymore. I’m done. I told everybody this.

 

And it was this last summer, my six year old daughter went to a summer exercise camp, and she doesn’t make stuff up. And she’s smart. She sounds like a 30 year old woman when she talks. I tell you, she’s amazing! And she said:

 

“Daddy. During lunch, they played these videos about how White people are bad.”

 

And I confirmed it was real. It’s a cult, folks. You send your kid to a six hour a day sports camp, and they don’t even say it’s political, and it’s got high ratings, and they’re brainwashing your six year old. She’s like:

 

“Am I bad because I’m White?”

 

And then I went and looked it up and found out they did that, and I was like:

 

“Okay, this is it. It’s over! I’m not going to be intimidated. I’m not bad because I’m White!”

 

I’m not going along with this anymore, folks. And black people or anybody else, they’re telling you your back is what colour you are. You just stand up for yourself, too. I’m going to break.

 

Please remember, we’re listeners supported.

 

[38:22]

 

[Ad]

 

[39:52]

 

 

END

top

 

 

 

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

 

Banned Video Comments

top

(Comments as of 3/6/2024 = )

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

See Also

top

 

 

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

Mark Collett — Christmas Adverts – Multicultural Propaganda — TRANSCRIPT

Mark Collett — What We Must Do To Win — TRANSCRIPT

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

PDF Download

top

Total words in transcript = 7,273

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

Click to download a PDF of this post (x.x MB): (Available later)

 

Version History

top

Version 5:

Version 4:

Version 3:

Version 2:

Version 1: Wed, Mar 6, 2024 — Published post. Includes Banned Video comments ().

David Frost: Thank you. Thank you and good evening. Tonight our subject is Sir Oswald Mosley, whom many of you will remember. Sir Oswald.

 

I think that there are two pictures of you. One is of the brilliant economist, the possible future Prime Minister, man of wit and charm, who’s able to look ahead economically a good deal better than many of his political colleagues. All of that I could not take away from you, if I wished. And I do not wish.

 

 

The second is a confused picture of Mosley, the East End riots, fascism, anti-semitism. And all of that I want to talk to you about.

 

But first I want to begin on the economic front. What was your diagnosis of Britain’s economic ills, position, solution, briefly in 1930?

 

 

 

Oswald Mosley: Well, I think it’s good to begin there. Because really that is the origin of the whole trouble, or the whole business. And I’m afraid it’s now recurring. It is coming back, really.

 

The question was whether in the 30s traditional normal methods could deal with the unemployment problem or not. I was then a Minister in the government charged with dealing with unemployment. I produced a policy within that labour government, the Keynesian background, all his modern monetary theories, but a concrete, definite policy for dealing with unemployment. That is, to put to work about 7000 or 800,000 people at once.

 

And beyond that, there were plans for reconstructing the country and bringing us into a Commonwealth system which would permanently eliminate unemployment, and enable a balanced economy with a high purchasing power for all the people of the Commonwealth to be creating.

 

David Frost: Now, we all know about 1930, and at that time everyone indeed spoke when you made this diagnosis of your brilliant future and so on. You said in that what you were just saying, that it seems similar to you that things are coming back now. Why do you say, specifically, that the situation now is similar to then?

 

 

 

Oswald Mosley: Yes, I think so, and I’ll tell you exactly why. The basic trouble then quite different to the present situation was an overproduction in relation to the given market. That is, the purchasing part of the Western world was not sufficient to absorb the goods which industry were producing.

 

And at that time, as much in America, the technocrats as they were then called, who are highly paid engineers of American industry, were showing that the productive potential of America was so enormous that existing measures could not possibly absorb it. And as a result was unemployment, enormous unemployment there, and also here.

 

Temporarily, that was solved by the doubling of the gold price by Roosevelt, but very temporarily, because that was wearing off after three or four years.

 

Now, that’s not the only problem, that’s the general problem.

 

The particular problem was the inability of Britain in this top heavy island to sell nearly a third of its total production on the markets of the world in open competition. Originally, we had a monopoly position on the markets of the world. That was passing away and we were subject to intensive competition and failing to do it.

 

Now, these factors have been masked in the post war world, first of all by the armament boom before the war, then by the war itself, then by two small wars, Korea, and this new war in Vietnam, which of course absorbed an enormous proportion of world and American production in particular. And that has masked and concealed the situation completely. There’s been a world boom.

 

David Frost: And what are the political parallels now then?

 

Oswald Mosley: The parallel is on that situation of developing crisis. It’s only just beginning, so you’re only just beginning to feel the effects of that, it having been masked so long. But in that developing crisis, the government of the day does precisely what it did before that is coming in on a socialist or advanced program. It takes over at once the position of its opponents and applies conservative policies, even more conservative than the policies of the Conservative Party. And fails to meet the situation, holding the pound with deflation and all the old traditional measures and failing to meet it. That is why the situation now is exactly the same.

 

And then you get the call for devaluation and the rest of it, which may of course, occur at any time, not because they want it. The old lady never walks downstairs, she always falls downstairs!

 

David Frost: And when this crisis last emerged, you wanted a change of a form of government in this country to cope with it. What do you think is the ideal form of government for Britain today?

 

Oswald Mosley: Well, the first thing, if you want to do anything in the world, is to create a machinery to do it. I advocated in my resignation speech from the government, a machine of the civil servants, and businessmen, and others in Downing Street, which created in the modern term, a real powerhouse. They are now talking about doing something of the sort. But 30 years later.

 

The Daily Mirror wrote the other day, the powerhouse in Downing Street is one civil servant, one university Professor, and Colonel Wigg. Now they’ve lost Colonel Wigg. Back at square one.

 

David Frost: A frightful blow. But do you want to change the system today? Or do you think democracy is right for Britain today?

 

Oswald Mosley: That is the much larger question. I am absolutely convinced, for reasons I can give in detail if necessary, that Parliamentary control must be maintained, that is, that Parliament must be able, by vote of censure, to dismiss any government. Otherwise you may have people going mad and doing incredible things. We’ve had more than one example of that in recent years.

 

Therefore I am more than ever convinced it’s right to keep Parliamentary control. And when I gave evidence before the Parliamentary committee, soon after I resigned, I did insist then on Parliamentary control, subject to a right of government to act, so long as it retains the confidence of Parliament.

 

David Frost: Have you voted in a general election since 1930?

 

Oswald Mosley: I stood in a general election, yes. I stood in the last general election.

 

David Frost: Yes. But have you voted?

 

Oswald Mosley: No! I shouldn’t vote for either party.

 

David Frost: Because back in 1931, when you formed the new party.

 

Oswald Mosley: Yes.

 

David Frost: You had a great many influential supporters and so on. An impressive list at that stage. If you had, by some quirk, been asked to form a government in 1931, who would have been your principal ministers?

 

Oswald Mosley: Well, at that time, before I resigned from the government and immediately after, practically every young man that is, man under 50, young in Parliamentary terms, agreed with me. When I resigned from the government, made this speech, Conservative, Labour, Liberal, I can give names if necessary, but they’re well known. All agreed with me. But the for two reasons we could not get the consensus of the nation at that time.

 

David Frost: But who would have been your most important aides if you had formed a government in 1931?

 

Oswald Mosley: If I had formed a government in 1931 of young men on the Conservative side, far and away the ablest, I thought at that time was Oliver Stanley. Well, you hear very many other variable people.

 

For instance, McMillan at that time wrote a letter to The Times. It was very brave of him publicly supporting me. He mentions it in his memoirs. From the Conservative side, good many others, too. Anar [sp] Bevin signed my manifesto after I left the government.

 

David Frost: Labour.

 

Oswald Mosley: Labour and Liberals. The ablest of them, I think, at that time was Mond, afterwards became Millty [sp]. Not the old man, the ICI man, but his son.

 

David Frost: And do you think they would have accepted?

 

Oswald Mosley: Well, they did. They accepted my policy!

 

David Frost: And they would have joined your government?

 

Oswald Mosley: And if we had been in a position to form a government, which we were not, I think they would have joined. But we could not form a government because the party machines were still omnipotent. The party machines are immensely powerful in this country. And not until there’s a much greater crisis than there was then will that cease to be.

 

David Frost: Right. Now you have a position, you see, and here we come to it. That in 1931 you had a list of people, and an impressive list of people, who you felt would support you. Between then and probably 1930, 1935, those people deserted your movement, or deserted being associated with you.

 

And the main reason for that was that they were all convinced that you were anti-semitic, that you became anti-semitic. Why was that? Why did you let that impression get about? Why were you like that?

 

Oswald Mosley: That did not occur until sometime later. That was not the reason these people, …

 

David Frost: No. Well, in the first period, there was the first period when people left because your supporters seemed to be anti-semitic. And then the final, …

 

Oswald Mosley: No, I think that’s a slight confusion. They left me, that is, these well known MPs, the sort of people I’ve mentioned simply because we were coming to the election of 31, the triumph of the national government. The party machines were absolutely omnipotent, and no man who stood a chance, …

 

David Frost: Again, I’m talking about the way that your influential support in general slipped away. And it slipped away. And the reason that today people, when they hear you’re going to be on television or anywhere else want to watch, because they’re horrified by the prospect. The reason is that they are convinced and on the evidence I must say, I just don’t understand how you, why you, did this, or why you let it get about that you werec in that period and your movement, obviously was, but you were anti-semitic!

 

Oswald Mosley: Yeah. No. Well, I’ll deal with that. Certainly it’s very necessary to deal with.

 

David Frost: Well, deal with it now.

 

Oswald Mosley: Thirty two, when we started, 1932, anti-semitism was never mentioned. It was unknown to us. For two years the subject was never mentioned!

 

First time it was mentioned, Albert Hall, 34. And mentioned for one clear reason! Not anti-semitism. Because I contend and can prove that I’ve never been an anti-semite, who I define, as a man who’s against jews because they are born jews.

 

I, however, had a quarrel with certain jewish interests, not all jews, before the war, for a perfectly specific reason! I, rightly or wrongly, thought they wanted a war with Germany! Another World War! And I as an ex-serviceman, …

 

David Frost: And rightly or wrongly, did you?

 

Oswald Mosley: Rightly or wrongly, …

 

David Frost: Did you think it rightly or wrongly?

 

Oswald Mosley: I think it’s still right to say that some jews, many jews, for very good reasons, from their point of view, wanted a war with Germany!

 

David Frost: But you were not anti-semitic?

 

Oswald Mosley: I was not anti-semitic. And I defined it at the time. I have the evidence of it. You can prove it.

 

[11:178]

 

David Frost: Yeah. Now, I mean, just enlighten for me, because this would be valuable. What is the difference between your position, I mean, and it’s a tight one, and I’d like you to do it.

 

 

I think three quotes will suffice between your position and anti-semitism. The first quote was Bellevue, Manchester, where you said:

 

“The mention of the Empire makes the mob yell louder than ever. Let them destroy it if they can these jewish rascals. The red mob howls that we shall put them down. They are right. We shall put them down and we shall put the nation up.”

 

Then there was this one in 34, where you said:

 

“Behind the communist and socialist mob is the alien jewish financiers supplying the palm oil to make them yell!”

 

And in the third case, quoted again from a speech, you said:

 

“The great and powerful were afraid when our fascist movement opened it’s crusade against jewry. Up to three years ago, anti-semitism was unknown as a strong force in Great Britain. Today, in any audience in Britain, the strongest passion that can be aroused is the passion against the corruption of jewish power. It is not we who perish in the struggle!”

 

Now, what is the difference between those three quotes, particularly the last one, and anti-semitism?

 

Oswald Mosley: Yeah, I’ll tell you exactly. We were in the fight with the jews, or many jews. I won’t say all. A tremendous fight! And I hit them as they were hitting me with everything I’d got. When I talk about the jewish rascals was yelling at me, they were yelling at me and attacking my meetings with razors, bludgeons, weapons of every sort! And I had to organize the black shirt movement in this country in order to maintain order at all.

 

 

[Image: William Joyce received his face scar, from a razor, fighting with jews and others in London.]

 

David Frost: But you say, … Yes, I know all about that. But you say here that:

 

“We started our campaign against jewry, up to three years ago. Anti-semitism was unknown as a strong force in Great Britain!”

 

Doesn’t sound as though you disapprove of it very strongly.

 

Oswald Mosley: No. It was unknown until they came out, as I thought, and as I still think, for good reasons, from their point of view, to provoke a World War. I wanted to stop the war. They wanted to have the war! And we had a head on collision! I fought many men in the past about various things whom I don’t fight today. The folly is to continue a fight when the reason for the fight is over. Why battle with them for being jews? That’s why I’m not an anti-semite.

 

David Frost: But why, in that case, did you condone all the violence that was practiced by your supporters, in the 30s, against jews, going down into the East End?

 

Oswald Mosley: Now, wait a moment. Let’s look at that very closely. What meetings of other people were ever broken up by our people? It was our meetings were attacked! I’d had the largest meeting, …

 

David Frost: But you went down and held meetings in jewish areas in the East End. You marched through jewish areas!

 

Oswald Mosley: No!

 

David Frost: Provocation.

 

Oswald Mosley: That’s been stated again and again and is quite untrue!

 

David Frost: Anybody, …

 

Audience One: [words unclear]

 

Oswald Mosley: All right, I challenge.

 

David Frost: Can you turn a camera, …

 

Audience One: It was 200,000 East Londoners that stopped you marching through. The dockers, the clothing workers, the shop assistants, stopped you, and even the biggest police force they could muster couldn’t push you through. We beat you then and we’ll beat you again! And we beat your friend Adolf Hitler! But we were predecessors, …

 

 

 

David Frost: Can we just move this camera here a bit to one side so that, … Sorry, yeah, but so that Sir Oswald can see the person.

 

Audience One: Why would they, …

 

David Frost: Right, just the gentleman in the front.

 

 

 

Audience One: I was making the point. Mosley at the moment tries to present himself as sweet and reasonable. He’s not anti-semitic? Here’s a picture of him in 1962 with the leader of the neo-Nazi party in Germany, rapidly calling for a re-division of frontiers. The leader of the Belgian fascists. The leader of the Italian fascist. And a face, … This was published in your fascist paper. That’s blacked out, or whited out, there it is [pointing to a photo he is holding]. There it is.

 

 

Who is this mystery man that you weren’t prepared to show in your own paper? A war criminal?

 

 

You are now busy going around Europe trying to rebuild your crooked cross international. You failed once, but you hope that the revival of German Nazis in Western Germany, the old gang coming out of their holes again, will give you another opportunity, even though you’re an old decaying element in this country!

 

 

 

[audience applauds]

 

David Frost: Okay, just a moment.

 

Audience One: There’s a picture of him, sweet and reasonable! Look at it! Trying to preach to the people of East London.

 

 

 

David Frost: Here, just a minute. Let him answer!

 

 

 

Oswald Mosley: Well, now you’ve had your speech, can I say a few words in reply? Now, it’s divided into two parts. Your question. First of all, you say I’m in alliance with anti-semitic elements in Europe.

 

 

And secondly, you say, I held provocative, or bullying marches through East London. I’ll answer the first point first. None of the men in that photograph are anti-semite, or ever have been! None of them! None of those parties, none of them! They’ve all specifically disclaimed it. Every single one of the men in that picture have declared against anti-semitism. And what you say is completely untrue!

 

Audience One: Hitler was an anti-semite, but you were his ally!

 

 

 

Oswald Mosley: No, I was not his ally.

 

Audience One: [words unclear] [shouting]

 

Oswald Mosley: Now you see how we had to fight for free speech. When you show pictures of me, when you show pictures of me in uniform, it was because men like you came by the score to our meetings. Enormous meetings, like that in Exhibition Hall, London, 30,000 people are coming to listen to us, which was in perfect order, because we’d stopped people like you breaking up the meetings. And I did that with the Black Shirt movement. And I’m proud to have organized and led the Black Shirt movement to restore free speech to Britain!

 

[Parts of the audience breaks out shouting.]

 

Audience One: Heckling is part of the British tradition! And until, …

 

Oswald Mosley: Heckling was not something done. Shouting down, which is what you’re doing. Shouting down!

 

 

Audience One: No heckler had ever been beaten, and kicked, and had bones broken, and sent off to hospital! Never! Not since the ancient times. But, you started a fashion that you learnt from your friend Adolf Hitler! You thought the anti-semitic, …

 

David Frost: Just a minute. Let him answer.

 

Oswald Mosley: You want to bring the meeting, as your friends often tried before, to a close and stop the speaker, either of the speakers, having their say. And that is why we organized to put people like you out, when you denied free speech in Britain! And it was a right and proper thing to do! And they were magnificent young men, and I’m proud to have led and organized them to put people like you out at a meeting!

 

[The audience member continues to try and shout over Oswald]

 

Yes, very well. You will not allow other people to speak! And you are doing here what you’ve always done, denying free speech to other people. And that is precisely why I put the people like you out of our meeting. And I do it again!

 

Now, do you want? Do you want to hear the answer?

 

[Audience applauds the heckler.]

 

David Frost: Look, let him answer [directed at the heckler]. You’re arguing his case by not letting him speak.

 

Oswald Mosley: Yes, you proved the case very well. Thank you. As Mr. Frost points out [slight applause from audience]. Now, oh yes, you proved it very well with people like you, …

 

David Frost: Answer the question now.

 

Oswald Mosley: We’ll answer now. The thing we want to answer now is the question of East London, which Mr. Frost raised. And I should answer.

 

I have never marched through areas like White Chapel! Never held meetings in White Chapel. Since in 1931, a well known jew was my candidate there, so I had no need to march through. I stood in Bethel Green, or our people stood in the 37 election. We polled 23% in Bethel Green, 19% in Limehouse and 14% in Shortage [sp]. Are you seriously contending that we had no right to hold meetings in areas where we got votes like that?

 

Audience One: May I deal with that?

 

David Frost: No, just a minute, I want to just follow up this for 1 second. You were saying in answering all that, you were talking about where you marched and where you didn’t march. And that you were not anti-semitic. And I must say I’m not convinced on that point.

 

However, let us talk also, in addition to being non-convincing there, on the subject of your supporters.

 

There is no doubt, there is no possibility of denying the fact that people who said they were supporters of yours engaged in vicious, provocative acts, against jewish people in the London area. Did you ever dissociate yourself from that conduct? Did you dissociate yourself?

 

[20:06]

 

Oswald Mosley: Yes!

 

David Frost: When?

 

Oswald Mosley: Not only did I, … By expelling them from our movement!

 

David Frost: All of them?

 

Oswald Mosley: Anybody we found doing that was expelled at once! Because it was not allowed! For one thing, …

 

Audience One: [word unclear]

 

Oswald Mosley: Yes, he was expelled from our movement. I threw him out. Thank you very much. I threw him out three years before the war, for that reason, among others. People were expelled who did that kind of thing! And we maintained our position of fighting fairly by political means, winning votes in East London, as we won votes everywhere at that time!

 

Audience One: On the basis of stirring up race hate! On the basis of appealing to the lowest instincts of people! In the same way as Hitler won his mass support by dividing people! Saying the jews are to blame and not anybody else! You thought you’d use the same tactic!

 

Oswald Mosley: Not at all. Do you want the answer, or do you want to shout?

 

Audience One: I’d like to have the truth, instead, …

 

David Frost: Please be quiet!

 

Oswald Mosley: I fought some jews, because I thought and I still think they were trying to make a war with Germany! And yes, in the 1930s they were doing it! From 1934 till the end!

 

Audience One: [words unclear] [shouting]

 

Oswald Mosley: And they came out, they came out in, ….

 

Well, that man is proving my case up to the hilt! That’s the sort of thing we’d have had the whole time. Never a word of reason or argument heard! Like I’m trying to have with Mr. Frost. Because people like that are imported to make free speech impossible. He’s proving my case, up to the hilt!

 

Now, as far as I and Hitler go, the answer is this. I declared in a speech in 1934, which I think was one of the speeches from which quotations have been made, that we could never have any racial policy in Great Britain because we were running a multiracial empire. The German problem was completely different.

 

Audience One: [words unclear] [shouting]

 

Oswald Mosley: The Germans were anti-semitic, and I was not!

 

Audience One: What about this?

 

Oswald Mosley: You can show anything you like. It’s all on public record. We certainly have always been against the import of aliens, not only jews, but people from abroad, into the overcrowded housing areas of Britain, while our own people had no houses to live in!

 

David Frost: Right.

 

Oswald Mosley: So I was against it then, and I am now!

 

[22:25]

 

David Frost: Right. Sir Oswald. So okay. Now, in all of this, you’ve been going on about all of this, and you’ve been dealing with the various points that have come up. But now you are saying absolutely, definitely, that anybody who was guilty of anti-semitism was expelled from your party, and so on. How can you possibly say that as if you expect people to believe it, when everybody who watched the events of the 30s, whoever you talk to, knows and associates your party totally, with racial hatred, and anti-semitism?

 

Either what you’re saying is not true, or you were the most ineffectual, put upon, unable to impose his leadership on a party, leader that has ever been seen!

 

[loud applause from audience]

 

Oswald Mosley: That is a quite false dilemma. We were in a fight! I should not expel every man who was fighting with jews in the street, particularly if they attacked us with razors and other weapons! We were in a fight! That’s why we wore uniform in order to deal with men like this, who broke up our meetings by organized violence!

 

Audience One: [words unclear] [shouting]

 

Oswald Mosley: And, of course, I would not expel Black Shirts who fought jews in the street, when they were attacked by jews! What I would expel is a man who went around saying that we should deal with all jews in a horrible fashion. He would mistreat them, or bully them. Not at all!

 

We were fighting jews for one reason to stop a war with Germany! As an ex-serviceman of the first war, in air and trenches, I was determined to stop another war if I possibly could!

 

Audience Two: May I deal with it?

 

David Frost: All right.

 

Audience One: May I deal with this?

 

David Frost: No. Let someone else speak. Gentlemen in the third row.

 

Audience Three: You say you are never anti-semitic except the jews individually. What did you think of von Streicher*, who was the most rabid anti-semite in the history of the world?

 

[*Der Stürmer was a weekly German tabloid-format newspaper published from 1923 to the end of the Second World War by Julius Streicher, the Gauleiter of Franconia, with brief suspensions in publication due to legal difficulties.]

 

Oswald Mosley: Streicher? Streicher. Well, he, not only he, but the whole German party was anti-semitic! That is, they condemned jews because they were born jews!

 

[Image] Julius Streicher

 

Audience Three: Streicher sent you a Telegram.

 

Oswald Mosley: No, that’s not proved. I’ve had that before. I have absolutely no recollection of it.

 

Audience Three: [words unclear]

 

But wait a moment. Wait a moment! If it was true, which it didn’t, I was trying to keep peace with Germany. That is why twice in the 1930s I went to Germany. And I don’t care what a man’s politics are, or what his opinion. I’m not going to sacrifice young English lives because I don’t like his politics or his opinion!

 

Audience Three: May I read your Telegram to Streicher?

 

Oswald Mosley: No. First of all, I don’t believe it to be true. You can read it if you like. I don’t care. But it is not a true Telegram. And if it was, I wouldn’t mind.

 

Audience Three: The Telegram reads:

 

“I greatly esteem your message. In the midst of our hard struggle, the forces of jewish corruption must be overcome in all great countries before the future of Europe can be made secure in justice and peace. Our struggle is hard, but our victory is certain!”

 

And the Manchester Guardian, and the German paper, printed this Telegram and you never at the time denied it!

 

Oswald Mosley: Well, would you like to have the answer?

 

Audience Three: [words unclear]

 

David Frost: No.

 

Oswald Mosley: Would you permit me to reply? No, you won’t.

 

David Frost: Will you please be quiet?

 

[25:56]

 

Oswald Mosley: No, you won’t permit me. Right. Now the answer is this, as I’ve already told you, we were in a fight with those jewish interests in this country in order to stop a war with Germany! And anyone in any country who supported us in that, I would send a greeting Telegram, too. Although I think I did not send a Telegram at that time! Anyhow, it doesn’t matter.

 

David Frost: Sir Oswald, I think that the main point to emerge from that first half, when voices were not indeed speaking in concert, was the feeling that seems to be absolutely general among this audience about the way they see your campaign in the 30s. And in the same time, the way that they see your relationship with Hitler, as a damaging fact.

 

If Hitler had survived at the end of the war, would you be in favour of his being tried and convicted for war crimes?

 

Oswald Mosley: Yes. I think anyone who has committed crimes should always be tried, under whatever law exists.

 

David Frost: And would you have thought that he would have been, and should have been, found guilty?

 

Oswald Mosley: I have said again and again that the murder of the jews in the concentration camps was an outrageous, and vile crime. I’ve said that again and again.

 

[Audience member: You deny it!]

 

David Frost: When did you first say that?

 

Oswald Mosley: Ever since the war. The moment I was convinced that it had happened.

 

[Audience heckling loudly]

 

David Frost: Just a minute, please.

 

Oswald Mosley: That’s quite untrue.

 

David Frost: When did you first say, admit this fact, about the jews in the concentration camps?

 

Oswald Mosley: Very soon. Very soon after the war. I think. When the Nuremberg trials had taken place. When the evidence was clear. Quite frankly, when I first saw it, I did not believe it. I then saw not only the results of Nuremberg, but I saw German friends. And while I don’t think nearly so many were killed as were supposed to be killed, that doesn’t matter! It doesn’t matter! Because any crime, the murder of any defenseless prisoner is a crime! And everybody must detest it, particularly professional soldiers. I was brought up as, one must despise and detest the crime of killing defenseless prisoners!

 

David Frost: Yes, but I mean, the thing is that, and not just prisoners, but the jews in general. But I mean, as late as 1947 you were telling press conferences you were against the Nuremberg Trials and you didn’t believe it. So it clearly wasn’t as soon after the war as you say, but clearly you were backing, …

 

Oswald Mosley: Can I deal with that? The Nuremberg trials. I am against people being judge, jury and prosecuting counsel in their own court. You ought to have an impartial tribunal and everyone, on each side, who’s committed crimes ought to be tried. What about the people who dropped a bomb on Hiroshima when the war was over? Is that not a crime? Is all crime to be one sided? Is morality a one way street? Where are we getting in all this humbug?

 

David Frost: I don’t think, actually, that Nuremberg trials can be described as humbug and nonsense. They seem to be dealing with a fairly serious subject.

 

Oswald Mosley: Humbug and nonsense if it’s one sided.

 

David Frost: But it wasn’t one sided. You’re saying now that you, in fact, in the 30s backed and imitated a man who turned out to be a monster?

 

Oswald Mosley: No! Imitation is completely untrue!

 

David Frost: All right, let’s just take a look at this piece of film.

 

Oswald Mosley: Can I answer that point?

 

David Frost: Well, you can just watch the film first.

 

Oswald Mosley: Right.

 

[Film of Mosely walking among a crowd of applauding supporters, giving the “Roman salute”, and then speaking]

 

“Sooner or later in the lives of great nations comes the moment of decision! Comes the moment of destiny! And this nation again and again in the great hours of its fate has swept aside convention, has swept aside the little man of talk and of delay, and have decided to follow men and movements! That day we go forward to action, let who dare follow us in this hour! That is the permanent almighty mood of Britain. And I came that in the ranks of our black shirt legions, [word unclear], and mighty ghosts of England’s past are [word unclear] their strong arms around us, on their voices echo down the ages, saying onward!”

 

David Frost: That is one of two people speaking there. It’s reminiscent either of Hitler, or of Charlie Chaplin’s great dictator. Which is it?

 

[Audience laughs and applauds]

 

Oswald Mosley: Oh? That’s a very smart question. Personally, I think it’s a very good speech about England’s greatness. To which we’ve all just listened. I’m very glad, …

 

David Frost: What’s all that business? [giving the “Roman salute”]

 

Oswald Mosley: But don’t, you know what that is? What an incredible question! That is a salute 2,000 years before Hitler was born.

 

David Frost: Of course it was a salute 2,000 years. But whose salute was it in the 30s? Whose salute was it in the 30s!

 

Oswald Mosley: First Mussolini and then Hitler.

 

David Frost: And who is it reminiscent of there? Everyone in that audience, …

 

Oswald Mosley: Are you saying that Hitler imitated Mussolini?

 

David Frost: No, I’m saying that everyone in that audience is not going to think, oh, there’s old Ossie [Oswald] imitating someone from 2000 years ago!

 

[Audience breaks out in laughter and applauds loudly.]

 

[31:21]

 

Oswald Mosley: Anyhow, that was the origin. And I think a good many people in England have enough historical sense to know why all the movements from the Renaissance in Europe adopted the European salute. Which wasn’t adopted by Hitler, Mussolini or anybody else, but was taken over by us all because it was a European salute! And because we were fighting against people who gave the clenched fist salute! And it was an answer to that!

 

An answer to the Communist International. The results of which you’ve seen recently and the support of the old parties for people like Philby, MacLean, and the rest of it. And that’s what we were fighting, and giving the salute of European manhood. And I’m proud of it!

 

David Frost: In other words, fine words and we can all take them at their face value. In other words, would you say that the wrong side won the war?

 

Oswald Mosley: No, certainly not. I’m for my country, and offered to fight for my own country, as I’d done before.

 

You people come along now and talk as if we’d never fought for Britain. I fought for Britain in the air, and I fought for Britain in the trenches! And I offered to fight in the last war the moment the life of Britain was at stake! And yet I claimed the liberty, I claimed the liberty to persuade the British people by my voice, if I could, to make peace! I claimed that liberty! And it was denied me by putting me in jail to stop me making speeches!

 

David Frost: And on balance, would you say that Hitler, it was better, or would have not been better, if Hitler had ever existed?

 

Oswald Mosley: No, certainly better that he should not ever have existed, because his existence led to 25 million Europeans being killed! And if I had my way, those 25 million would be alive today, including 6 million jews who never would have been killed if there hadn’t been a war! They made the greatest mistake they ever made when they produced that war!

 

David Frost: And who was most of all responsible for the 1939 to 45 war?

 

Oswald Mosley: I’ll tell you exactly. Hitler began it by driving east. And he would undoubtedly have destroyed Communist Russia in so doing! We intervened and declared war to prevent him doing it!

 

And the result is that Britain today is tossed to and fro between America and Russia. We’ve lost the empire! We’ve lost our position! And we had 25 million Europeans killed! And I’m prouder than anything in my life of having done my utmost to stop that suicidal war which has destroyed Great Britain!

 

David Frost: And you would, in fact feel, you said in 39, so you said those incredible words in 1939.

 

Oswald Mosley: Tell me what they were.

 

David Frost: Where you said that this was:

 

“Simply a jewish financier’s quarrel.”

 

You don’t think at that time we had a moral choice to take, as to whether we were going to try and prevent all that Hitler was doing?

 

Oswald Mosley: A clear and fair question, which I’ll certainly answer. No, we had not! And I’ll tell you why.

 

When Mr. Gladstone wanted to have a war with Turkey in order to stop the Armenians being badly treated, the leader of the opposition. Mr Disraeli, a jew, opposed him with success. And that’s traditional British policy. If we run around the world fighting wars for anyone who’s having a bad time anywhere, you will never have peace for the rest of your time. And you’ll have world death because now you’ll fight with nuclear weapons.

 

David Frost: Now we come to the crunch point.

 

Oswald Mosley: Please.

 

David Frost: We started at the beginning with the story of a man who was in 1930, promising. Who could have been a future prime minister. Who made a gigantic miscalculation in 1931 in thinking he could form his own party and carry the country with him.

 

Who then, in order to somehow give the fuel for that movement, allowed it to become the vehicle, let’s be very euphemistic about it, the vehicle for a great deal of racial hatred and anti-semitism! That kept the movement going. It wouldn’t have got kept going, but it destroyed it.

 

Now, why a man as promising and as intelligent as you, couldn’t you see that the decisions, or lack of decisions of you in the 30s were in the short term, evil! And in the long term totally disastrous! So that today you’re either a hated, or a joke figure! You can never regain that lost ground. Why did you make that mistake? It’s a personal tragedy.

 

Oswald Mosley: Let me take you up on that. I have dealt with the jewish question. But of course, it wasn’t that in the slightest which got us going. It was unemployment. You never heard of unemployment? There was terrific unemployment! That was the origin of our movement and of these movements in every country. Unemployment! Vile housing! The other failure of government to do it!

 

And that’s why I got going! And I was right when I could not get the old parties in Parliament to act to try to form a new movement. And I was right, in my view, to try to stop the World War!

 

David Frost: And today you have nothing to show for it. And when your candidates stand in elections, they try and choose in 66, the three areas where they can capitalize most on racial unrest, and they end up with an average of just over 3% of the votes. There’s nothing left to show for your movement. What went wrong?

 

Oswald Mosley: That, again, is quite untrue. There is no racial problem of where I stood. Whatever! Absolutely none!

 

David Frost: 3%.

 

Oswald Mosley: I polled 4.8%. Not 3%.

 

David Frost: You polled four point, … Just a minute. You polled 4.8%. Just a minute, please. Just a minute. 4.8%. A colleague of yours, 4.6%. And another two point, …

 

Oswald Mosley: We averaged 3.7. We averaged 3.7.

 

David Frost: That’s fair.

 

Oswald Mosley: And if you must talk so much about Hitler, who doesn’t interest me very much, we pulled just about double what he did five years before he got power. So don’t be too cocky about that!

 

David Frost: And do you think one day you may still get power?

 

Oswald Mosley: Well, there are two ways of getting power. One is by, …

 

Audience One: [words unclear]

 

Oswald Mosley: Now we’re getting to the point, which, of course, you want us to miss. Now, there are two ways of getting power. One is by a consensus of the people of the nation, and agreement of everything vital in the country coming together, which I strove for before, and believe we can now possibly attain in the coming crisis.

 

The other way is to build up a grassroots movement of the people. But never do it until the first method has failed. In life, always try to do things gently, and only get tough when you have to get tough!

 

David Frost: All right. And with Sir Oswald Moses message in life, always try to do things gently. We’ll say goodnight.

 

[37:49]

 

[Outro music]

 

[38:10]

 

 

[END]

 

 

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

 

See Also

top

 

Colin Jordan Interviewed by British Movement – 2003 – Transcript

 

 

Mark Collett – The Queen Doesn’t give a SH*T About You – Jan 7, 2022 — Transcript

 

 

History Debunked – Is Multiculturalism Predominantly a Jewish Enterprise? – Feb 21, 2022 – Transcript