Joel Davis: Okay, we should be live. It is the 4th of July, so if we’re in America, it would be Independence Day. But Obviously in Australia, 4th of July doesn’t mean anything. And interesting show for you tonight, I hope. Big show for you this evening, even though we are missing Blair. There’s a lot I wanted to break down, a lot I wanted to discuss. Blair’s sick, so I gave him the night off and decided to ride solo for this one.

 

So, yeah, you’re going to be getting two hours of me yapping, but presumably that’s what you’re all here for. So, sorry, I don’t have any Blair to kind of break it up. But it is what it is. The man’s sick. I think Mark Collett made him get out of bed early the 4 o’ clock in the morning or whatever for a Mark Collett stream the other day. And it kind of tipped him over the edge. It is winter down here in Australia and so he’s a bit under the weather.

 

But yeah, there’s a few big stories I wanted to touch tonight. The main thing I wanted to do, I’ve been doing a bit of a deep dive into Chinese politics lately and the last few days because there’s a lot of very interesting kind of subtle dynamics going on there. And it’s really interesting precisely because the timetable for potentially World War III kind of hinges upon Chinese politics. And that has massive implications for Australia, for America, for the world. So it’s hard to get good information and to kind of break through all the propaganda on both sides and figure out what’s happening because of the nature of the Chinese system. But I’ve done a considerable amount of reading and study.

 

And so I was going to set out my preliminary analysis this evening for all of you to kind of like red pill you on recent developments in China and what’s potentially happening and what to look for over the next few months as more signs will become evident as to what direction things are going at in Chinese politics where potentially, yeah, a lot hinges on kind of what happens over the next few months.

 

But before I get into that, there’s a few other stories. There’s a shocking story here in Australia with this, I think probably the most egregious child rape paedophile allegations I can remember in Australia. So there’s probably been something worse over the years, but I just don’t remember anything as bad as this. I pull this up here from The Noticer:

 

“Homosexual childcare worker charged with raping eight babies and toddlers. A homosexual child care worker has been charged with sexually abusing babies and toddlers at a child care centre in Point Cook, Melbourne. Alleged child rapist Joshua Dale Brown, 26, was arrested on May 12 and charged with 70 child sex offences against eight children aged between five months and two years old at Creative Gardens Early Learning centre, Point Cook between April 2022 and January 2023. The charges included sexual penetration of a child under 12, sexual assault, sexual activity in the presence of a child, possess child abuse material for use through a carriage service and possess child abuse material. Brown, who appeared with pink and blue dyed hair in a Facebook photo with his boyfriend during the same time period he worked at the Point Cook centre, had no criminal record and had a valid working with children check. It has since been cancelled.”

 

“Victoria police said on Tuesday they are now investigating whether there are more victims as Brown worked at 20 child care centres around Melbourne between January 2017 and May 2025 and are examining evidence of an allegation at a second centre at Essendon. The alleged child sex predator appears in a photo at that centre shared on its Facebook page on March 21st for so-called Harmony Day with the caption, quote, ‘today we recognise Australia’s cultural diversity’. Brown also tested positive for a sexually transmitted disease and authorities have contacted the families of 1200 children who attended the same child care centres to urge them to get tested. The alleged paedophile first appeared in court in May, but a suppression order issued by Magistrate Michael White and applied for by police and the Office of Public Prosecutions meant the case could not be made public at the time.”

 

“But as the investigation has developed in scale, the need to notify more than 2, 600 families as a precaution became apparent. Suppression order was therefore revoked and police announced the charges and made the unusual decision to release the alleged child rapist name.”

 

Yeah, anyway, you can go read the whole thing on Noticer. I mean I read most of it, but I mean horrific! And look at, he’s gone to so many different child care centres. He’s flip-flopping around doing days at all these different child care centres.

 

And so now thousands of parents have to get their children tested for STDs. This is beyond fucked up! Like it’s actually like it’s hard to even believe this is even real from my point of view. Like it’s hard to, I mean I’m not denying that it’s real. It’s obviously real, but it’s hard to fathom. It’s hard to come to terms with that this is real, this is happening. And there’s a lot of obvious things that one could say about this. Right? You know, I’ve heard calls for:

 

“Oh, we need to ban men from working in child care centres!”

 

Probably not the most unreasonable thing in the world, but, like, wouldn’t that break, like, discrimination laws? The kind of contradictions of the system are kind of being shown up there. You know, obviously gay dudes, highly disproportionately paedophiles. That discussion has been opening up.

 

[06:20]

 

But I think the real discussions that are important here and that are pertinent here, are these. Number one, nobody in Australian politics with any kind of power or influence, no major political party is calling for the death penalty. This guy is raping kids. Some of them haven’t even turned one. This guy is raping children that young in a systematic, predatory way and filming it. He needs to die! Like, I don’t. Who’s going to come and debate me on this subject? Who’s going to offer the counter argument, no, we need to keep this guy alive. For what reason?

 

Pedophiles need to be executed. But particularly it’s a case like this. I mean it’s. How is it even, … Why the fuck did we get rid of the death penalty? And it’s just putrid that we have to breathe the same air that this scum breathes. It’s unacceptable. It’s an insult to the honour of our nation that someone can commit crimes like this against our children and stay alive. He needs to die! He needs to be put to death. Obviously the system won’t do that. And I’m seeing barely anyone call for this.

 

When we launch our political party. This is going to be one of key items on our platform. I think this is a message, a national conversation that we need to have. I think pretty much everyone in Australia agrees we need to put child rapists to death.

 

So that’s going to be one of the key issues I think that we’re going to attack, because we just need a far more serious response.

 

I mean, there’s too many cases. I mean, this person hasn’t been caught before, but there’s been too many cases of child rapists that have gone to jail, served short jail sentences, where they get held in protective custody so the other prisoners don’t kill them, released back into the community and then reoffend.

 

I mean, how is this even happening? How are we ever releasing someone who is a child rapist back onto the street ever! Like that’s just insane! That’s insane! It begs the question, the people making these decisions, why are they so lenient? Is it because they themselves are engaging in this kind of behaviour? Why are politicians not doing anything about this? Is it because they themselves are engaging in this kind of behaviour? It really does beg the question. Why else would you try to protect paedophiles unless you are one yourself, or you’re working with them in some systematic way or somethings surely this is something that we can all agree on. Left-wing, Right-wing. It’s just disgusting!

 

I mean, second thing that I also would like to say about this is another key policy that we’re going to be putting forward in this country. We have the child care rebate. Now I’ll look into this. Actually, I’ll look it up right now. How much is the average child care rebate a year for working mothers in Australia? Looking it up right now. So there’s child care studies, subsidies.

 

So the child care subsidy percentage decreases as family income increases. For instance, families earning up to 80,000 may receive up to a 90% subsidy, while those earning above $530,000 a year are not eligible. So what it’s saying here is, basically if you earning like an average wage, the government basically pays for your kid to go to childcare. If you’ve got children under school age. Why are we paying? Like if the mother of the child literally can’t afford to pay for child care, why are we subsidizing that? Why don’t instead of paying mothers to dump their kids at like random child care centres run by foreigners infested with paedophiles so they can get raped? How about instead of that, we pay that money to mothers to stay home and take care of their own children.

 

In society today you can be moralistic about it. Mothers should be taking care of their own children. And I agree with that. But obviously economically it’s quite difficult today to have stay at home mothers. You know, it’s difficult to raise a family on one income and for many reasons related to cost of living.

 

So what’s the number one thing that we could do if we want to increase the birth rate and protect children, pay mothers to stay home! I think that’d be an incredibly popular policy. Popular with women and with men. Right? Most men would like their missus to stay home and take care of the house and take care of the kids. The state should pay. That’s a social good. The state should pay for it. Taxpayers, I’d rather pay my taxes so that White mothers can stay at home raising White babies, then paying child care subsidies so they can go and work and send their kid off to some like, paedophile rape centre. So we can protect the kids. We can get the mothers back in the homes so the kids are raised properly. People will have more children because women, won’t be as busy with their careers. They’ll be able to have more children, feel more comfortable to have more children, be incentivised to have more children because they’ll probably get bigger payments the more children they have.

 

And then we won’t need immigration anymore to expand the population. I mean, it’s just a beautiful policy. Everyone wins. It’d be an expensive policy, but we’ve got like 15% of the country on NDIS, the disability insurance scheme. Most of them are rorting it. Most of them are capable of working and just have like a diagnosis, like a bullshit, like psychology diagnosis to allow them to just grift off the system. Got all these like immigrants that come here from the Middle East and just sit on Centerlink grift off that. So many people are grifting off this system. If we shut down all those grifts and redirected that money to young White mothers to have White babies. I’d much rather they be the ones grifting. I’d much rather reproduction be the grift. A lot of people say:

 

“Oh, how are you going to get women to vote for Nazis? How are you going to get women to vote for nationalism?”

 

I think this is a pretty fucking good policy that we can get their votes on, but men as well. We want to be able to bring back the Australian dream, raising a family on one income.

 

[12:56]

 

So I think this issue here really just illustrates how great policies like this just don’t exist in the political system. Like, no one’s really interested in trying to fix the major social problems of our time that have very simple solutions that no one talks about, no one thinks of, that would be 90% of the country behind you, popular. So I think we can really do some damage in a political system like this, presenting these kinds of ideas to the people.

 

I think a lot of people are going to be very pleasantly surprised:

 

“How come the Nazis have such good policies? What the fuck!”

 

And yeah, we can hopefully move the debate onto our terms. And yeah, but I mean, just disgusting the story. I mean, what else can you say about it? We just got to kill this fucker. We’re not advocating for to do anything illegal, but he needs to be legally executed, anyway.

 

Another I’m not going to go into another issue. I’m going to focus on this China thing because there’s a lot to unpack.

 

So basically what I’ve been looking into lately is there’s been a lot of rumours swirling that President Xi Jinping in China is, his power is being curtailed, basically. That his grip on power is significantly slipping, that other elements within the Chinese Communist Party are reasserting themselves. And there’s many reasons why people are suspecting this. And I heard this at first months ago and I suspected it was Western propaganda and the type of thing you hear all the time:

 

“Oh, Vladimir Putin is going to drop dead, he has cancer, he’ll die within six months!”

 

Or you hear these kinds of stories all the time, but very rarely does anything materialise. So I didn’t really look into it too much because I kind of dismissed it as typical Western propaganda. But after taking a serious look at what these people are saying, I think that are calling this out, it does seem that there’s no smoke without fire on this. It does seem like there’s something to there’s been a whole series of purges of high ranking members of the PLA, the Chinese military, of generals appointed by Xi, that was, Xi loyalists that have been taken out, whether they’ve died, been in prison, disappeared from public life, been forced to step down, what have you. A very large amount of these things have occurred.

 

There’s been more critique on Xi’s policies in Chinese major publications, particularly his policy on Taiwan, but also his economic policies. And yeah, the Chinese economy isn’t doing so well. They’re hurdling towards potentially a major war with the United States over Taiwan. If they play that situation in a particular way.

 

And so it would make sense actually that certain elements within the party would maybe try to assert themselves at this time. Apparently rumours were, because basically the way that the Chinese system works, every five years you have, they have like a big, you know, general meeting, like conference where all the members of the party come together and like all the senior members of the party and like vote on the direction of the party and so on. And the last time this happened was in 2022.

 

And I remember at the time it was significant because the previous president, Hu Jintao, was kind of publicly disgraced. Xi kind of ceremonially in front of all the cameras, had him kind of like marched out of the meeting. And he represents like the Communist Youth League faction, which is a faction of more moderate elements within the Chinese Communist Party. Xi’s faction is more nationalistic and militaristic and authoritarian, whereas this other faction is more liberal in the sense that obviously they’re still communists and they’re still like technically and they still support like a one party state, but they support more economic liberalisation, more capitalism, more opening of China to foreign markets, a better kind of better relationship with the United States, a less hostile relationship with the United States, and they want to maintain more kind of stability and diplomacy for foreign policy, economic policy, etc. And Xi kind of won out against them.

 

And then over the years since he became president has made a series of moves to essentially like stack the party with loyalists to him and to his agenda and kind of sideline all these other factions. And leaders of these old factions often get referred to as the so-called party elders now because they once held the highest positions in the party and are very famous in China. And you know, they’ve made note kind of in subtle ways, they don’t explicitly criticise the party or Xi, but in subtle ways they make it known that they don’t approve of Xi’s militarism towards Taiwan and kind of more aggressive and assertive foreign policy.

 

[18:45]

 

But what’s interesting is that at the, as I said, every five years they have a big meeting and then they have what they call plenary sessions, which are their like major meetings that they have once every year or like less than every year, maybe every 10 months or so, roughly speaking, I can’t remember exactly. And it’s kind of like the leaders of the party get together and decide what the direction of the party is going to be.

 

At the most recent of these meetings last year, there were all these rumours that he was sick. There wasn’t very much footage put out by Chinese State media of him really doing anything at the meeting or presiding over much. And it was presented that these party elders, so to speak, that Xi had sidelined were now involved and were talking at the meeting and were, and it was kind of spun:

 

“Oh, Xi is trying to show unity by being graceful and allowing his old fashioned rivals to come and participate in the plenary session.”

 

But in retrospect that seems like a cope, because ever since that plenary session, Xi’s public role has greatly diminished. Recently they just had like a BRICS meeting. He didn’t even go. And there’s been several big events and big meetings where he hasn’t really attended. Many are speculating he has health issues, which is probably part of that.

 

But let’s say he does have health issues. He has no obvious successor. It would make sense that that would undermine him, people’s confidence in him and his agenda. Because if he’s gonna drop dead or become too sick to be president, then the obvious question of, well, who’s going to take over from him comes into play. And it seems like elements within the elite, even though many of them were allies of Xi at one time or another, many of them have turned against him.

 

One of these, according to rumours, top military figures that have turned against him is General Zhang Yuga, which is basically the most senior kind of military figure in China. You know, basically only Xi really outranks him in military matters. He is the Vice Chairman of the Central Military Commission.

 

And basically it’s the guy that’s like running the military. He’s kind of getting on a bit. He’s getting old. I think he’s in his 70s, and he was kind of in line to be potentially replaced by generals that were installed by Xi below him. And I can’t remember all the Chinese names. I’m not going to like list off all the names, but basically those guys that were kind of earmarked to kind of succeed him, and everyone was expecting to succeed him, have recently been purged. They’re Xi loyalists, which has kind of been shocking news, and many other high ranking officials across the military.

 

Meanwhile, Zhang Yuga in his public statements on Taiwan is a very different line to Xi. I can break this down a little bit. Xi’s vision on Taiwan, which is kind of nuanced and complex. So since Xi has come to power, his rhetoric on Taiwan has become progressively more and more aggressive. It kind of peaked just before Covid then it kind of let off a little bit, and then once Covid was over, it’s been even more aggressive.

 

So Taiwan, for those who don’t know, according to the official position of the Taiwanese government and the official position of the Chinese government, Taiwan is not a separate country. Taiwan is a part of China, and it simply has a different government.

 

And this is a layover from after the Second World War. You had an alliance between the old Nationalist government and the Communists, where they ceased their civil war and made an alliance to fight the Japanese in World War II. After the Japanese were defeated, they went back to fighting each other. The Communists won. Mao Zedong took over China, established Communist China. And the Nationalists were essentially chased off the mainland onto the island of Taiwan in 1949 or whatever.

 

And at first, the Americans backed the Nationalists against the Communists. This is the beginning of the Cold War, as you might expect. There was even, like General MacArthur, I believe, proposed that the United States should nuke China to try and like, nip Communism in the bud, which probably would have been the right move in retrospect. It was chosen against. There was obviously the Korean War with the Chinese kind of helped North Koreans fight against South Koreans, which were backed by the United States and us and other Western powers.

 

And so there’s a lot of tension there. And there was a view that the Nationalists could maybe somehow get a foothold back in the mainland and take the mainland back from the Communists. And the Americans backed the Chinese government in absentia that basically had formed in Taiwan, that still had ambitions to go and take Beijing back and take China back.

 

But of course, that never materialised. And this was a kind of quasi fascistic, nationalist authoritarian regime that was running Taiwan, but backed by the United States.

 

Fast forward to the 70s when it became clear that the Nationalists were never going to take China back, and the Communist Party had kind of consolidated power. Then President Nixon and his Secretary of State, Henry Kissinger, they normalised relations with China and they agreed, because basically they wanted to, during the Cold War, they wanted to basically drive a rift deeper between China and Russia or China and the Soviet Union. They noticed that the Soviet Union and China, even though they were both communist states, they didn’t see eye to eye on a lot of issues. Mao in particular, was very upset after Stalin died. Khrushchev took over the Soviet Union, put out the secret speech basically condemning Stalinism as excessively totalitarian and brutal and so on. He saw this as a betrayal of Communism and of the revolution. Mao, that is, and kind of viewed the Soviets as moderates, as kind of moderates who were infected with bourgeois sensibilities or whatever. And there was territorial disputes between the Chinese and the Soviet Union.

 

[25:31]

 

And so even though they were both communist states that were aligned in many ways, they didn’t see eye to eye. And the Americans saw this as an opportunity to go in there, make a deal with China, make an economic deal with China to normalise relations somewhat, get China hooked on trade with the United States, and therefore neutralise them to isolate the Soviet Union strategically. Obviously this was an effective strategy. The Cold War was over with less than two decades later, the Soviet Union collapsed.

 

But the United States never went back to re-isolating China or didn’t perpetuate the Cold War. Even though the communists were still in power in China. The Americans declared the Cold War was over, Communism was defeated, liberalism had won.

 

And then they adopted a policy of liberal internationalism, a policy that basically, if we just integrate the countries of the world into enough international institutions that are quote, unquote, “liberal” and integrate everyone’s economies with one another through the globalisation of international trade, and we had globalised culture and everyone gets kind of draughted into this Pax Americana-Judeo, global slop of the post Cold War, you know, Pax Americana, international order. The elites of every country in the world will develop so many business relationships and diplomatic relationships and so on with the elites of all the other countries in the world, mediated by America and the West. But they’re all basically just copy and paste liberal democracy into their societies, engage in liberal, democratic reforms. Everyone will become a liberal democracy, and they’ll all sit together at the UN and shake hands and we won’t have any major World Wars anymore. And everyone’s economies will become so interdependent with one another that they won’t want to go to war because their economies aren’t sufficiently isolated that they could take each other on.

 

Instead, they’re so dependent upon trade with other countries that they work out their problems diplomatically and we all sing Kumbaya and everyone’s like a liberal forever. And there’s no more wars and there’s no more evil dictators. And this is the bullshit vision that was put forward.

 

And so even though China was still a communist authoritarian state, the idea was:

 

“Well, if we just let China, we just pretend that the Chinese are cool and allow them to participate in all international liberalism and globalism, then eventually the Chinese elite will adopt liberal ideas and engage in liberal reforms and China will liberalise over time, and we won’t have to fight China and force them to kind of succumb to liberalism. They’ll do it organically.”

 

This was the theory. And it seemed to be kind of working for a time because the Chinese leadership did get progressively more liberal. Every new leader that came in was less and less authoritarian, less and less radical in terms of their Marxist beliefs, more and more open to economic liberalism, opening up Chinese markets. They didn’t, you know, create Democratic, liberal, democratic reforms, but they were more liberal on economics and they were more open on diplomacy. They weren’t very aggressive in asserting their interests on the world stage.

 

And so the Chinese were not viewed as a major threat. And the idea was that if we just make the Chinese and American economies so integrated and dependent upon one another that China relies upon selling cheap crap to the United States and America relies upon buying all these key items from China, this will create a kind of natural friendship and alliance that prevent the two states from going to war.

 

Then along comes the rise of President Xi in the early 2010s, early to mid 2010s. And Xi is a nationalist, Xi is an authoritarian and he had more aggressive views for China’s potential. For Xi the Chinese are the centre of the world. The Chinese traditionally and there’s some truth to this. For a lot of human history, China was the biggest and wealthiest empire on the planet. You know, the Chinese empires existed for literally like five millennia or something in various forms. They’re an ancient people, an ancient civilisation, and there’s 1.4 billion of them.

 

Imagine if all of Europe was integrated into one big like super state. That’s basically what China is in terms of its size and its complexity. And the view was:

 

“Well we’ve become so rich now through all of this economic development that we’ve done that we can invest that money in developing a modern military outfit that can compete with the United States and we can assert ourselves and the United States is falling. The United States has declining internal legitimacy, all these internal problems. We can rise and challenge the American led liberal international order with an assert a different way. And we can assert Chinese interests and try to dominate the Asian region and become the most powerful country in the world and kind of replace the United States as the top dog.”

 

And key to that is taking Taiwan.

 

So why is Taiwan key to it? Well, number one, it’s kind of like a disgrace to China that Taiwan, which they consider to be part of China, is being run by a now liberal democracy.

 

So after the Cold War ended, Taiwan shifted from being a one party authoritarian nationalist state to being a liberal democracy.

 

And so the Kuomintang, the old nationalists that used to run China and that pushed into Taiwan and were running Taiwan under Chiang Kai-shek* and so on, they now had to win an election of the Taiwanese people to hold on to government.

 

[* Chiang Kai-shek-Chinese politician, military leader, and President of Taiwan from 1950 to 1975 (1887–1975) Chiang Kai-shek was a Chinese politician, revolutionary, and general who led the Republic of China from 1928 until his death in 1975. His government was based in mainland China until it was defeated in the Chinese Civil War by the Chinese Communist Party in 1949, after which he continued to lead the Republic of China on the island of Taiwan. Chiang served as leader of the Nationalist Kuomintang party and the commander-in-chief of the National Revolutionary Army from 1926 until his death, during which he was known as Generalissimo. Wikipedia.]

 

[31:58]

 

And by the time you get to the 2000s, they start losing and you get the rise of the Democratic People’s Party or whatever it is, which is basically the Taiwanese libtards. Taiwanese Leftists who advocate for bringing in immigrants into Taiwan, who advocate for gay marriage, who advocate for basically trying to join the West and adopt Western so-called Western, basically like American libtard values.

 

And also each generation that is born in Taiwan, if you look at the polling, they consider themselves Taiwanese more and more and Chinese less and less.

 

So when they started doing polling on this back in the 1990s, the vast majority of the people of Taiwan when they asked them what’s your ethnicity? They said “I’m Chinese”. Now the vast majority of Taiwanese people in particularly young people say “we’re Taiwanese, I’m not Chinese”. And a minority identifies as Chinese.

 

So the Taiwanese have begun to see themselves as a distinct people. They identify with liberal, democratic, so-called western values. And yeah, they keep getting voted back in these Taiwanese libtards. And the Kuomintang who’s like, I guess the Taiwanese Right-wing conservative like Boomer Party, they say:

 

“Let’s not upset China. Like yes, like one day there is only one China and yes, one day we’ll reunify.”

 

But they tried to kind of maintain this perpetual status quo instead the Taiwanese libtards that are in power basically kind of pushing the envelope and getting more, not outright stating like full on Taiwanese independence, but basically almost saying that. And this is a big deal.

 

Like pretty much no country in the world recognises Taiwan as an independent state. Like technically on paper. America doesn’t, Australia doesn’t. Almost no one does because the Chinese have, in order to normalise relations with them, they insist that you have to, you can’t accept Taiwan is a legitimate state. They don’t have a seat at the UN. There are so they’re in a very interesting weird position.

 

And the leaders before Xi, when he took power were kind of conciliatory towards Taiwan. Like:

 

“Yes, as long as Taiwan accepts that there’s only one China and they don’t assert their independence, we’re chill with that. And one day we hope that we can peacefully reunify into like one political system.”

 

But they weren’t really pressing the issue. In the 1990s I believe there was a dispute under the Clinton administration era there was a dispute between China and Taiwan over like I think it was when the Taiwanese held their first Democratic election. I think that the Chinese didn’t appreciate that they preferred the Kuomintang to be in power because I guess they correctly assessed that the Kuomintang was going to be more pro-Beijing than what would come out of democracy, which is a more Westernised, anti-Chinese version of Taiwan. And anyway, strongly opposed the whole election procedure, I think it was in like 1996 or something.

 

And the way that Clinton responded as President of the United States was just to send some carrier strike groups through the Taiwanese straight and say:

 

“What are you going to do?”

 

Basically. At that time, China was so militarily weak compared to the United States that they just had to cuck out and just kind of watch the United States flex on them like that. The elections went ahead and Taiwan became a democracy.

 

Cycle forward to today and China’s way more powerful than it was back then they have invested a lot obviously in building up their navy, their air force, rocket tech, etc. They’re not at the level of the United States, but they’ve closed the gap in a very big way.

 

And after Covid, I remember 2022, I think I remember like Nancy Pelosi, she went to go and visit Taiwan and this caused a big stir because she was like Speaker of the House, so she was like third in line for the American leadership at the time, below the Vice President. And she flew to Taiwan to do a visit and she was the highest Ranking, I think US official to visit Taiwan in like 25 years since the events I just described, I think basically. And the Chinese freaked out and started doing all these military drills and shooting rockets over Taiwan and flying fighter jets all over Taiwan and practicing like invading Taiwan and stuff, doing like live drills with their navy and this kind of thing. Obviously with the intent of, basically freaking the Taiwanese out, saying “don’t take any steps towards independence, like you’re ours, bitch” kind of thing.

 

And Xi, in his public statements on Taiwan or official statements on Taiwan when he first came to power, there were a lot more tame. There was an assertion that Taiwan would be reunified with China.

 

But as time went on into the late 2010s and the 2020s, Xi statements have become more forceful, saying basically that option that we’d like to do it peacefully, but there’s other options on the table. If Taiwan makes a move towards independence, will invade, basically.

 

And anyway, this is a big deal because a war, an invasion of Taiwan isn’t just an invasion of Taiwan. The United States is basically committed to protecting Taiwan. And the reason why they’re committed to protecting Taiwan isn’t just to fuck with China or because they care about Taiwanese democracy, or something. It’s strategic.

 

Basically, if you look at the geography of East Asia, where Taiwan is very key strategic real estate. Because basically all the shipping lanes that connect Japan and South Korea through Southeast Asia, to the Middle East and to Europe all go past Taiwan. If China controls Taiwan, they’re able essentially to more effectively navally blockade Japan and Korea.

 

[38:31]

 

Now, that’s significant because Japan and Korea are highly dependent upon imports by sea. Korea only has a land border with one country, North Korea, which then is connected to Russia and China. So they need access to the sea to have access to the rest of the world, basically outside of Chinese control or North Korean control, which are probably even worse from their perspective.

 

Japan has no land borders with anyone. They have to trade by sea. And Japan doesn’t have natural resources in any substantial number. Japan is utterly dependent upon importing natural resources, even importing food. I believe. They don’t actually have enough agriculture to sustain their population. There’s like 120 million people on that island. They can’t feed them unless they can get ships in and out.

 

Basically, they’re highly dependent upon international trade. So if the Chinese were to navally blockade Japan or Korea, it could bring either of these states to their knees very quickly. They could cause famines. They could completely collapse their economies.

 

So if the United States doesn’t guarantee their security, basically they would be forced to cuck to China. They would be forced to sign a whole bunch of agreements subordinating themselves to China. And that would enable China to become a hegemon over East Asia. They’d have other political and military control over East Asia.

 

And that has massive ramifications, because that would mean Australia’s position becomes precarious. All the other countries in Southeast Asia becomes precarious. A lot of them, the Philippines, Vietnam, a lot of these states would be like a cascade effect. America would lose its ability to have bases. Right now, I think the Americans have like 50,000 personnel or something stationed in South Korea. They’ve still got bases there from the Korean War that they maintain. They’ve got obviously an alliance with Japan. Japan’s the most powerful country in East Asia that America is aligned with. If they lose Korea and Japan, their whole strategic position relative to China collapses.

 

And then all these other states, like I said, would then lose confidence in the United States to defend them. They would also then cuck to China. Maybe even Australia would cuck to China at that point, because there would be this cascade effect. China would become a regional hegemon. China would grow in global prestige. China would then be able to start projecting power beyond East Asia into the rest of the world. It would be a massive shift in global power dynamics.

 

So Taiwan is one little island of like 25 million people, right? It seems insignificant, but it’s not. Because from the Japanese and the Korean perspective, if America is not willing to defend Taiwan, they’re going to lose confidence that they’ll defend them and so on, right? The dominoes go from there.

 

So the United States has to project power in the region. It has to say:

 

“No, these are our regional partners. We will fight to defend them.”

 

Because that’s what holds together the network of alliances that keeps China kind of like locked in, where all the, these island countries and Southeast Asian countries that encircle China, whether it be the Philippines, Vietnam, you know, Indonesia even, and so on, Australia, this whole chain of countries, them all being aligned with the United States, locks China out, basically. They can’t build military bases on their territories. They can’t flex over them diplomatically, politically, and so on and force them to do whatever they want because they’re the big dog. Well, the United States and the Americas can do that they can flex on Canada, they can flex on Mexico, they can flex on all the countries around them because they’re just so much more dominant and powerful. Who’s going to come and defend Mexico against the United States? Who’s going to come and defend Canada against the United States? No one.

 

So America is able to throw its weight around. That’s how China would be able to kind of behave under these kinds of circumstances.

 

Basically, yeah, there’s a whole other series of technical advantages to Taiwan. China doesn’t have, like a deep drop into the Pacific Ocean. So there’s kind of like a, … The Pacific Ocean is very deep, right, like most big oceans are.

 

But as you get closer to China, the undersea kind of ground level, whatever you call that, it raises quite significantly. So when China drop a submarine off the coast of China, it can be detected, because of the [low] depth, by sensors.

 

However, if you drop a submarine off Taiwan, you get this radical kind of cliff drop basically on the eastern side of Taiwan straight into the Pacific Ocean. So in theory, Chinese nuclear subs could, if they control Taiwan, could be dropped off the east coast of Taiwan into the Pacific Ocean and be undetectable to the United States. Meaning the Chinese could sail nuclear subs all the way to the other side of the Pacific without the United States detecting them, because they could sail them at like maximum depth the whole way. That’s pretty serious because they got nuclear subs that would provide first strike capabilities or counter strike capabilities, or whatever, in the event of a nuclear exchange.

 

So there’s a lot of key, like strategic dynamics at play over who controls Taiwan.

 

Also, from the United States perspective, if China was to move on Taiwan, they would be upsetting the regional balance of power, like I said. It would give the Americans an excuse to go to war with China. Because now they’re saying:

 

“We’re just defending Taiwan, we’re defending our allies, right?”

 

And because China would anticipate that, they would probably actually attack Japan, Korea, other states at the same time they attack Taiwan, potentially under certain kind of like war game scenarios, it’s projected.

 

[45:50]

 

So the United States, the argument goes, maybe it’s in their interest to fight China now because if you leave it 100 years or 50 years China could keep developing, developing, developing, developing, and become so militarily powerful that they’re harder to beat 50 years down the track than they are now.

 

So the idea is you kind of bitch slap them now, put them back in their place, because a war with China over Taiwan is far preferable to a war with China somewhere closer to the United States, or a war with China after they’ve already got Japan and Korea and these other states on their side and consolidated power and have grown stronger. And now maybe they’re getting involved in South American politics or they’re getting involved in European politics or Middle Eastern politics or something, and you’re fighting China in another part of the world.

 

The advantage for the Americans of fighting them over Taiwan is that it’s right in China. Basically, it’s right off the coast of China. America can send all their navy, air force, whatever, and just blow up as much in China as they possibly can.

 

And at the same time, they can navally blockade China in Southeast Asia. China is also utterly dependent on international shipping that goes through Southeast Asia to connect it to the Middle East and to Europe. China doesn’t have enough natural resources, resources to sustain itself. It doesn’t even have enough food to sustain itself. It needs to import a lot of stuff. Also, its economy is entirely built around exports.

 

So the US strategy, they don’t necessarily even have to defend the island of Taiwan successfully. They can just blow up a bunch of shit in China, try and blow up as much of China’s military hardware as possible, and then set up a blockade in Southeast Asia that stops China from basically being connected to the rest of the world through shipping, and then wait and watch as China internally kind of destabilises. And win the war that way. That would probably be their strategy.

 

So, however, if you allow China to kind of develop and all these Southeast Asian countries to become allies of China because you didn’t fight them over Taiwan, setting up that naval blockade becomes way more difficult because maybe all those states are now Chinese allies and they’re going to be enemies of the United States. They’re going to allow the Chinese to build naval installations. They’re not going to allow the Americans to bring their navy into their region or whatever.

 

So, yeah, international politics is a confidence game. If all these states have confidence in American power, they’ll back it. If they’ll cuck to China. That’s how it works. So Taiwan is just like this first domino in this chain effect of strategic ramifications.

 

Now, this is significant because ultimately the ball is in China’s court. The United States can’t force China to invade Taiwan. Maybe they could try and convince the Taiwanese to do something suicidal, like declare independence or something and really provoke it, but they can’t ultimately decide what China does. China decides what China does.

 

Now, Xi Jinping, in his kind of aggressive foreign policy, has only really been kind of pushing Taiwan away, making Taiwan fear invasion seem inevitable, getting the Americans to basically see invasion as potentially on the horizon, prepare for a war with China. Trump’s foreign policy is a large aspect of it is really geared towards containing China, like the tariff policies and so on. There’s people in the Trump administration, like Elbridge Colby, I think his name is, and others who are national security advisors who are just like China hawks, who just say that basically everything should be focused on containing China. Fuck Russia, fuck the Middle East, we should just make peace deals and forget about it and just take all of our military hardware, concentrate it in East Asia and get ready to fight China or try and deter China from going to war with us. So that School of thought is developing in the United States because of Xi’s actions.

 

And basically, the longer that the current trajectory of things, or Xi’s basically kind of led trajectory of things continues, the closer and closer World War III gets, basically. So that’s like the strategic context.

 

Meanwhile, Xi had spent years concentrating power, purging rival factions, stuffing the party full of his allies.

 

But then in the last year, you’re seeing a kind of a bit of like a backflip. A lot of his allies getting purged, his public appearances like I said earlier, being curtailed. The tone in the media, he’s getting criticised. Not openly directly criticised but getting indirectly criticised by a lot of people and then other rivals, other old heads basically in the Chinese Communist Party not directly criticising his Taiwan policy but advocating for a far more restrained Taiwan policy in their public statements, including this Zhang Yuga guy who is the 2IC [Second in Charge] over military affairs. Basically the guy running the Chinese military who’s presiding over a lot of these purges that happening to these Xi’s top guys, who basically is the highest Ranking dude in the Chinese military structure.

 

So it’s interesting because what it seems like is that however internal dynamics have been seized its hard to tell from the outside. It seems like there’s been a move against Xi. Not necessarily that he’s going to get replaced as leader although there’s some speculation that he could be literally about to be replaced. That would be very uncharacteristic. Usually they don’t. Someone’s elected to do a five year term that would mean Xi’s term doesn’t end till 2027 that it would continue. But he’s being sidelined. There was an announcement a few days ago that a so-called joint decision making body was being created at the top of the CCP and Xi Jinping, you know, has really kind of pushed for a long time. He is the leader. His interpretation of policy is the prevailing interpretation and China will be strong if basically it subordinates itself to him and his leadership. And that’s the way a lot of the top officials in the Communist Party were talking for years. Now the tone has shifted. Now they’re talking about power sharing and committees of decision makers and how everyone in the party needs to be included like the party leadership in decision making. We need to create more committees and have more what they call Democratic Centralism which basically means there’s one central decision making body but within that body you have democracy. So the Chinese people don’t have democracy but the party leadership collaboratively make decisions.

 

[51:56]

 

So they’re trying to cuck Xi, strip him of his kind of authoritarian power and kind of subordinate him to the other elements within the party. There is a rise in prominence of the so-called party elders who represent this more liberal view that I was describing earlier.

 

And the backdrop of this is also that the Chinese economy is slowing. So my view, Ron Unz put this view forward with some compelling evidence. I remember a few years ago, and I think it makes sense, is that Covid was probably a bioweapon created by an element of the United States government. I don’t know which element, whether it was a rogue element or it was directly under Trump himself ordered it to be done or what, we don’t know, I don’t know exactly. But some element within the US Government unleashed that bioweapon on China.

 

And I think it also had a secondary purpose of facilitating all these economic policy or financial policy actions where basically in the United States the economy was hurtling towards really difficult times. Covid happens they just then flood the market with all of this money to prop it up by basically bailing out all the major companies, all the major banks, basically massive wealth transfer, just giving trillions and trillions of dollars to the American financial elite. That’s basically what they did during Covid.

 

And no one was in the streets protesting it like they were after the global financial crisis because everyone was arguing about vaccine mandates and vaccines and lockdowns and blah, blah, blah, Covid shit! Because everyone was arguing about Covid bullshit, no one was arguing about:

 

“What the fuck! The richest people in the world just stole $15 trillion off us. What are we going to do about it?”

 

Well, no one did anything.

 

And I think that was basically like the psyop. Like they, it was like a sleight of hand. Like we can’t just do another 2008 style bank bailout. So fabricate this bullshit crisis that gets all the goys into this false paradigm, and we’ll have them argue within that space for a year and a half and then once we’ve transferred $15 trillion to the financial elite, we’ll just close the paradigm and then we’ll just pretend like everything’s gone back to normal. Which is what happened! That’s literally what happened!

 

There was no permanent vaccine passports or what. Remember everyone was saying:

 

“If you don’t get the vaccine, you’re going to get put in a camp and vaccines are going to kill everyone!”

 

And all this kind of stuff.

 

And obviously the vaccines were fucked up! I’m very glad I didn’t get one. And who knows what the long term effects of those things are going to be. It’s kind of scary to think about. But I think a lot of the catastrophe, the kind of catastrophism that many people had, has been shown to be false because everyone hasn’t dropped dead. There’s some evidence that it’s had an impact on fertility. I saw a study recently that about a third. It’s got like a 33% drop basically in the fertility of women who got the vax versus the ones who didn’t. Something like that, which is significant.

 

But I don’t know. I didn’t read the study closely enough to know if it was controlled for the fact that a lot of the women who didn’t get the vax are also quite conservative. So wouldn’t they be more like as a demographic, be more likely to have more children? Because you know, when I think about the kind of women I know they didn’t get the vax. Usually they’re very Right-wing, very conservative, very traditional. A lot of Christians didn’t get the vaccine because they thought it had something to do with the mark of the Beast and the book of Revelation. People who are into conspiracy theories, people who are in the dissident Right who listen to Right-wing memes. We’re the kind of demographic that didn’t get the vax, the non-conformist types. Well, we’re also probably a demographic that are more likely to have kids at higher rates because we kind of reject the mainstream programming, eat healthier, have more traditional values and so on.

 

So I don’t know if that’s all it is. Just like the vax was predominantly taken by people that are libtards and normies and they just got a lower birth rate than Right-wingers, or if there’s something actually in the vax that’s causing the fertility issue. But whatever the case may be, the consequences don’t seem to have been as catastrophic as what people were saying.

 

So while they had you arguing about that, this is what they were doing.

 

[56:35]

 

But I also think part of why they released Covid specifically in Wuhan in China is in order to basically try and slow down the Chinese economy. Because prior to Covid, the Chinese economy was growing at breakneck speed. It was growing like two or three times as fast as the United States economy and had been for decades. So China’s flying and they’re building up their military power. Xi is in power. He is the strongest leader since Mao, most consolidated authoritarian leader since Mao. Militaristic, nationalistic, getting more and more aggressive on Taiwan, more and more assertive in the world.

 

Something needed to be done to slow this mother fucker down! Boom! Covid! Drop Covid in China. What happens to Asians when they think that there’s a disease happening? They freak the fuck out! I remember like it was all the Chinese that bought all the toilet paper and stuff when Covid broke out and you couldn’t get toilet paper for months, it was a nightmare because Asians are hyper anxious people and Asians would always wear masks whenever they get sick, even before Covid. That’s part of their culture because Asians are bug people who live in giant cities full of millions of people. Disease spreads very easily in Asian societies and so they’ve culturally adapted to be more threat avoidant and neurotic about diseases than White people because we don’t live in the same kind of environments on average.

 

So it’s also why conservatives and people who live in the countryside were less freaked out than inner city like libtard cosmopolitans because they’re more like Asians. They live in these kind of more clustered environments where they have contact with more humans per day and so they’re more neurotic and so on about these things.

 

But anyway, the point is that you drop a disease like that in China, it’s going to shut down the economy. And it did that very effectively. China’s economy still hasn’t recovered from Covid, like their official figures still look kind of decent, but if you really scratch beneath the surface and you look at the underlying numbers, the Chinese economy hasn’t recovered from Covid. It’s actually slowed down to about the pace of the United States economy in terms of its growth. And yeah, there’s a lot of structural problems with the Chinese economy. Like you can see they’re claiming publicly that the economy is growing at 5% and everything’s fine. But youth unemployment is high. And look at the underlying numbers.

 

Like if you look at prices, house prices, industrial goods prices and so on, these prices are stagnating or falling, which indicates a lack of demand. So it means people don’t have money, businesses don’t have money, people don’t have money to buy houses, to invest in expanding business operations, whatever.

 

So that shows that there’s some structural problems inside the economy. You know, in China, it’s hard to trust any statistics that come out of China because there’s all these incentives to lie because they, everything’s managed by central committees and those central committees are assessed based upon these metrics. So of course they’re going to lie about the metrics to make themselves look better. And everything in Chinese, you know, culture is about saving face and not appearing weak, not appearing incompetent or whatever.

 

So I think it’s quite clear the Chinese economy has slowed down. Covid was very effective in doing that. It slowed down international trade, which China’s dependent upon. It also just literally caused all these lockdowns all through China that went on for ages. That this like zero Covid policy that persisted for a long, very long time. Their lockdowns went on longer than any other country. They were still doing lockdowns I think in 2022, when everyone else was open and back to normal. So that really fucked them up. And there’s a lot of evidence that the Americans released it.

 

Like for example, the so-called Wuhan lab where this thing was built was literally funded by Bill Gates, right? He’s a fucking American! And Anthony Fauci was like working there. Like, what’s going on?

 

Also they had the World Military games in Wuhan at the same time that Covid was broke out or was released or whatever. We know that it was a genetically engineered disease. Okay, that’s kind of quite something like the World Military Games. So like US military people were there was like 600 guys or 800 guys from the US military in Wuhan at the time when it was released.

 

So the US had people there that could have released it. And you know, there’s a lot of links to people that have links to the ruling class in America. So you know, why would, if the Chinese created a bioweapon, why would they release it in their own country? Wouldn’t you release it in someone else’s country? Like who releases bioweapons in their own country? Like that’s insane!

 

Also there were suppressed reports at the same time that it was released in Wuhan that Covid spontaneously was also released in Iran and in Russia, but it was never reported on in Western media. They just only focused on the Chinese release. That’s kind of interesting. Like the other two, like major American geopolitical enemies or whatever.

 

So yeah, I think that there was something nefarious that went on there. I think it was intentional. It’s beyond a shadow of a doubt that Covid was biologically engineered. Like that’s just confirmed at this point.

 

So the question is, who released it? Would China release a bioweapon in their own country that ended up fucking up their own economy? Or would America do it? Not only did it fuck up the Chinese economy, it greatly benefited the American ruling class.

 

So think about it. Why would China do that?

 

[1:02:34]

 

But anyway, my point is that all of these dynamics are occurring. You could see why elements within Chinese Communist Party would move against Xi because the economy is stagnating. Xi is a hardliner. Xi wants to isolate the Chinese economy from the rest of the world. Doesn’t want American cultural influence, doesn’t want foreign financial interests coming into China, gaining a foothold in the Chinese economy. Doesn’t want Chinese elites developing too close relationships with people in the West, with Western elites, and becoming disloyal to China. Right. He’s a nationalist, and that’s why he has those views. It makes sense.

 

The elements within China that support liberalisation, that want to have a better relationship with the United States, that don’t want to kind of rock the boat, have a war over, potential World War over Taiwan that could destabilise China irrevocably, potentially. They lose a war like that. Like, it could be over for the Communist Party in China who are right now, you know, elites that are doing well, that are rich, successful, whatever, have good positions in Chinese society. Do they want to go to war with America over Taiwan? Do they feel as passionate as Xi does about these nationalist policies? No! A lot of them don’t. And they make public statements that show that they don’t. So if Xi got sick, showed weakness or this weakness that he has at the moment because the economy isn’t doing so well and so on, maybe they’ve chosen this as the time to move because Xi had consolidated so much power, and that’s why we’re seeing this switch up within Chinese politics.

 

But a lot of this is speculative and kind of reading between the lines on a lot of things that people are saying in China. It will become clearer in the coming weeks and months. I think the next plenary session, the fourth plenary session in China is occurring on, like, August. That’s going to be key, seeing how that plays out, you know how Xi behaves, public statements made by other leading figures and so on, that’ll say a lot about whether Xi has been sidelined or at the very least, radically cucked in how much power he has over the Chinese Communist Party and how much other elements of the party are resurging in power and influence.

 

And based upon that, it’ll completely reset the clock on the World War III clock. Is World War III going to happen? Is a war between America and China going to happen this decade? If Xi manages to hold and reconsolidate power and this is all bullshit! Or he can turn it around? Potentially, yes. This could embolden him to go:

 

“Okay, well, I almost got defeated. Now’s the chance for the power and glory. Defeat the United States. The Chinese century beckons. I’m a great man of history!”

 

Invades Taiwan. Boom! World War III! Or Xi can’t come back from this. He’s been defeated. He’s been internally outpositioned. All these top guys are taken out. He’s basically been undermined, and it’s basically over for the Xi era. If that happens, there’s not going to be a war with Taiwan anytime soon.

 

And obviously, the big Trump tariffs that were dumped on China only exacerbated these problems, and they’ll probably go down as a strategic masterstroke, which future generations look back at this. The key is, as well, there was a recent negotiation between the Americans and the Chinese. I think it was in London or something, over a trade agreement between the United States and China, an agreement to bring down their mutual tariffs on one another and so on. What’s kind of interesting about that, Xi said nothing about it. Zero! Wasn’t involved, hasn’t made one public statement about it. It’s a pretty big fucking deal, you would think.

 

But not only has Xi not said anything about it, nobody in the Chinese government has really stated any substance at all about what was negotiated. But Trump walks away from that negotiation immediately. He is saying:

 

“I’ve secured an incredible deal and we’re going to open China up. And it’s an incredible deal with massive progress and my negotiating team, they’re the best in the world!”

 

Why was Trump so happy and why is China not saying anything? Very suspicious.

 

Some people are suspecting that it’s because basically the faction that Trump negotiated with, it’s not Xi’s faction, it’s the faction undermining Xi. And basically, until they can fully cuck go formally or get him to step down while saving face or something, they’re not going to announce the deal. So what’s in that deal? When that deal gets made public again, that’s going to be a key indication of where China is at. Because there’s no way that Xi, based upon his philosophy, his ideology, would be willing to make any concessions to the United States. You know, he’s a staunch nationalist. Whereas, yeah, other elements in the CCP absolutely would, in order to preserve economic stability, because the Chinese economy is not doing great! And their view is that the way that they gain the support of the Chinese people predominantly is through managing the economy well. They don’t have a democracy, they don’t get voted in, but they say:

 

“Qu hey, look, you don’t get to vote in your leaders. But look at the great job that we’re doing. You know, China’s constantly developing. Everyone’s getting richer, everyone’s getting more opportunities, everyone’s making more money. So don’t rock the boat. Just trust the plan!”

 

Right? And that obviously has worked for a certain period of time, but what happens when it stops working? I don’t think a lot of people in the higher ups in the CCP want to find out what happens, and I think a lot of them don’t want to go to war with the United States. I think they’re afraid, and understandably so, because they could get absolutely blasted! Like, even if they were to win, they would take a lot of damage, and it could basically set back the whole project forever. It could destabilise the Chinese Communist Party’s grip on power entirely.

 

I mean, what if the United States there’s certain dams in southern China that some analysts say if you bomb them, it could cause a flood that could kill hundreds of millions of people! If you do a naval blockade on China, it could cause a famine that could kill hundreds of millions of people! Like, the United States is over 7,000 nuclear weapons like the do you really want to have World War III against the power that’s that powerful? And when you’re that vulnerable? A lot of them probably might view Xi as a madman! And the Chinese are not risk takers. They’re not a nation of Hitlers. They’re not a nation of blitzkriegers. They’re not a nation of poker players. You know, they’re a mercantile race of Art of War, you know, Wu Wei, do nothing, win. That’s kind of like the Chinese, you know, philosophy and mentality is being conservative, being harmonious relations and all this gay shit! They don’t have the Faustian spirit.

 

[1:10:09]

 

So basically what I’m saying is that we’re probably at the on the brink here of total chudjack victory. If Xi loses his grip on power, World War 3 will not happen anytime soon. So that radically kind of changes the calculations. And that actually also, I think, explains why Israel might have decided to kick things off with Iran. The Israelis, they might have gained intelligence that China is weak. And they think:

 

“Well, if we try and escalate things with Iran now, the Americans might have more confidence that the Chinese won’t do shit over Taiwan. And so we can start forcing the issue on Iran.”

 

Basically that’s why they chose to move now, partly maybe because Trump is in power, but also partly because, yeah, maybe the China threat isn’t as imminent as as many previously thought, if Xi’s power is weakened.

 

So anyway, big dynamics, I think, like very complicated, lots of moving parts. But yeah, nothing ever happens. Nothing ever fucking happens! Yeah. Relying on China to move world history, I guess, was a mistake. I mean, think about the kind of people we’re dealing with here.

 

So anyway, I think that’s interesting and important to report because from an Australian nationalist perspective, World War III, if it was to happen, would completely change everything. So we kind of have to have our finger on the pulse of like how, like, are we at Defcon4 or like, where are we at on the, is World War III gonna happen rating scale? Because that’s a massive spanner in the works.

 

I’ll go through a few Superchats. I see Ultra Saxon said:

 

“I’d love to see you guys do a stream with Karl Radl from X. Every post of him is a gem and he’s super informative on National Socialism. Respect from England, lads.”

 

Yeah, Karl, I’ve seen his stuff. I would like to do. I think he’s more of like a Twitter guy. I don’t think he does video streams. I never seen him do a video stream before. Maybe I’m wrong, like, correct me if I’m wrong. But yeah, maybe like a Twitter space or something like it would be interesting too. I think I actually proposed that to him and then I got banned from Twitter. But make an alt account and have a conversation. If he was interested, I’d be down to discuss. Seems like his wheelhouse is World War II history and NS German history. That’s obviously quite interesting. Dan3 said:

 

“There are apparently experts saying that China has less than half their official population using salt consumption and other stats to estimate their population. Don’t know this is whether this is propaganda though.”

 

Oh, you’re saying that there’s some estimates that their population is much smaller than they say?

 

Yeah, I mean, I don’t know about that. I don’t think they’d be able to like lie about something that effectively. But you definitely can’t trust the stats you hear out of China. Megawatts 80 said:

 

“Everyone watching should send a few bucks. Hail victory!”

 

Well, I can’t disagree with that. Sector88 said:

 

“Any opinion on the Yanks reviewing the AUKUS agreement? I don’t believe we’ll be getting the Virginia subs until the late 2000s at best. No matter the a administration, unless they somehow double or triple sub production.”

 

Yeah, it, there does seem to be a great lag on that.

 

But I don’t see them ripping up the AUKUS agreement because at the end of the day it’s in the strategic interest of the Americans for us to have better subs. You know, the current subs that the Australian military has basically not going to last much longer. The old subs, they’re going to be decommissioned. We need to have new subs somehow and we don’t have a programme in place to build our own. The Americans aren’t going to want us to have no subs.

 

Also, we’re paying big money for their subs, so of course they’d like to sell them to us. And the nuclear capable subs are important just purely for the fact that, well, you don’t have to refuel. The nuclear reactor lasts like 30 years or whatever. So that’s an incredible capability where you can effectively just stay at the bottom of the ocean as long as you want. Incredible technology. So from a strategic standpoint it’s vital if we want to assist the Americans in engaging in like a naval blockade against China to have that kind of thing. There’s a reason why the Chinese freak out about AUKUS and they don’t want us having nuclear subs is because nuclear subs are effective as fuck! Like they’re incredible technology, and not that many countries have them. Ultra Saxon said:

 

“Joel, have you ever heard of the concept of a Canzak union? You see the idea amongst normie Libs, but I see it being a great long term geostrategic strategy for reuniting and re empowering the Anglo sphere.”

 

Yeah, I mean in principle I don’t necessarily think it would be so bad, but there’s a few things why I don’t think it’s realistic.

 

[1:15:44]

 

Number one, Canada is basically the strategic bitch of the United States. So being able to deal with Canada as an independent state is unlikely. Also Australia’s main allies, the United States and Britain’s main allies, the United States.

 

So this idea that we could all come together and form a union that was somehow not integrated with the United States is unlikely to be something that the United States would be too happy about. So it would only really happen if there was a massive sea change in the respective politics of our three countries. It’s unlikely that that sea change is going to be the same in all three.

 

So let’s say like nationalists, let’s say like we win in Australia. Is libtard Britain or libtard Canada going to want to make some kind of alliance with us? Probably not. And vice versa. So I don’t see it as super likely.

 

Also, there’s radically different. Like, there isn’t a lot of economic trade between the Anglo-sphere countries. Like Australia trades a lot with them. Like all three trade a lot with America. We don’t trade much with each other. Like the Canadian economy is very similar to Australia’s in the sense it has a lot of minerals and so on. We both need to trade with like manufacturing powers to like, get the most out of our economy. So like, economic integration doesn’t make as much sense as it does in say, Europe.

 

Also, we’re geographically quite isolated from one another in different regions of the world.

 

So I think, yeah, the argument is, oh, but we’ve got similar culture, similar forms of government, good relations, similar heritage. Yeah, okay, like, but why does that mean? Like, what would the union be? Just like a union where like, we’re already in a military alliance with one another, basically. Like Canada and Britain are both in NATO. Australia’s not in NATO, but we’re like a NATO partner or whatever. So like, what would it really do? Like freedom of movement? Again, like say, like we take power in Australia as nationalists. Do we want to have freedom of movement with Britain and Canada? No, because then they’re going to like flood Australia with nons. I’d rather just have an immigration policy that takes White people from those countries. So yeah I don’t really see what like the point of Canzuk Union is like from a strategic standpoint. So I don’t really see it happening.

 

But like, let’s say we took power in Australia, we would look to take over New Zealand. As well, that’s undoubtedly true. And then we would probably look to support nationalist forces in Britain as best we could. And then if we that was successful, then we’d form an alliance on those terms. Be very different than the Canzuk Union.

 

Then, like, let’s say, like our guys are running Australia and Britain and there was this idea of getting the empire back together and building an imperial federation that fuses the two countries. We could look into it down the track.

 

But yeah, it would be difficult probably because at that point, like the Australian identity, the British identity had diverged so much at that point. We’re on opposite sides of the planet, completely different strategic objectives. Like is Britain going to want to fight to the death to defend Australia’s geopolitical interests and vice versa? You know, maybe they are, maybe they aren’t. But that’s usually you get those kinds of alliances between countries that border each other. Dan3 also said. Oh no, I already read that.

 

Modern World Reject, he just hailed! Awesome! Hail you. Modern world reject said:

 

“How World War III affect nationalist politics in Australia?”

 

Well, if it was to happen, massively! Number one, the regime here would have to completely change its attitude on racism. You know, they would basically have to allow anti-Chinese racism in society because they would have to find a rationale basically to either mass incarcerate or mass deport almost, 2 million Chinese people that live in Australia. There’s about one Chinese person for every 10 White people in Australia. Like that’s how you gonna go to war with China and just allow them to walk around and be, hold high ranking positions in society and trust them like it’s not feasible. Also if you want to fight a war you need patriotism.

 

So you’re gonna have to wind back the woke shit, allow people to be kind of racist. If you’re going to want to try and convince young White Australian men to fight a World War, you can’t keep flooding their country with foreigners. You can’t keep pushing the current like ridiculously woke anti-White agenda down their throats. They won’t fight for you! They won’t sign up. So there would have to be a completely new deal made. Like the government would have to make a lot of concessions to us.

 

And I think after the war everything would be radically different. I think after a war like that, it would become defining in world history, in Australian history. The memory of World War II would fade and the whole paradigm of the post World War II international order would collapse. And it’d be a Great Reset basically. Not in the kind of Claus Schwabian sense, but it’d be like a full reset basically of ideologically, historically and so on.

 

[1:21:40]

 

And ultimately if Australia came out of it intact, I think it’d be good for nationalism. I think nationalism would grow in a post World War III Australia much more quickly and more forcefully than you know, in the current order. It’d be a great shake up, a great reality check.

 

Megawatt said:

 

“Touch on the SA political donation laws. Will this go national?”

 

I have to read up on it first. Not too aware of South Australia’s political donation laws. Rygo Weber said:

 

“Joel, will you or Blair be running as Senators in the next election? I think you would be quite effective. Thanks for the show.”

 

Yeah, we’re looking at doing something like that. Obviously we’ve got to launch the party. It’s a long time to the next federal election. You got to decide what we want to do with the state elections that happened before then. So exactly how it all fits together is a bit open ended because there’s a long way between now and then. There’s a lot to consider. Yeah, we’re gonna have a crack.

 

What else we got here. On Entropy Racist Aristocrats, he said, this is directed at Blair after last week:

 

“Blair, when Joel violates liberal norms, for example, equating the desire for a White man to marry an African with marrying a dog. Why the knee jerk reaction to sheepishly moderated. Who are you hoping to placate? Seems rather inexplicably explicably discordant.”

 

Okay, well that’s kind of funny. Says here:

 

“Joel, Cameron McGregor has a worthwhile fourth turning influence. Take positing America and Australia, by inference remains in the adolescent stage of development. He’s a coming war of reintegration of the state and national White Identity driven polarisation, catalyzing White unification and ending pluralism and disintegration. He sees Whites awakening to race, the jewish question and distrust of modern capitalism as preconditions for state transition to adulthood. You two could have a fruitful chat.”

 

Well, I don’t know who that is, but sounds good. So if he’s out there, he wants to get in touch. By all means, yeah.

 

I will say another couple things, another couple things that have been on my mind this week that are interesting to observe. So whilst you’re seeing these big kind of moves in China, behind the scenes shifting of power in America, you’re also seeing an interesting dynamic emerge where I remember when Musk and Trump had a falling out, they then kind of patched things up and I said I don’t see this lasting. Well, I think I was correct about that. Musk has been very vocal over the past week in his opposition to the so-called Big Beautiful Bill. And there’s reports that he’s going to fund Thomas Massie, who is the Israel critical Republican, the only Republican that’s not taking money from AIPAC or whatever. He’s going to fund his primary campaign because Trump is backing his opponent because Trump hates Massey because Massey’s basically not going along with the Zionist agenda.

 

So that’s interesting to see that Musk is going to step in and take Massey’s side and drive this kind of wedge between using the Israel issue to drive a wedge within the Republican Party.

 

Because as I said, Musk’s position is awkward in American politics because he’s completely abandoned the Left. The Left hate him! The Left maybe hate him more than Trump because he’s said and done maybe things that are more radical than what even Trump has done. Well, just objectively are like he’s throwing Romans and kind of statements that he’s made. But also he didn’t successfully win over Republicans. Musk is awkward, he’s a nerd. He’s not even American. And he’s kind of like a [word unclear] to Trump’s movement. Trump has organic charisma. He’s a real American. He’s beloved by the people and he’s the president.

 

So the average, you know, red blooded, Right-wing American sides with Trump against Musk. And also Trump doesn’t see himself as beholden to Musk. He sees Musk is below him in the hierarchy. Doesn’t matter how many hundreds of millions Musk kind of threw at him. Musk wasn’t able to get what he wanted out of Trump. He wasn’t able to get what he wanted out of MAGA, if you will.

 

And so now Musk is in political no man’s land. He’s the richest man in America on paper. He is entirely dependent his business models basically on American government subsidies. So he needs political power on his side. But he’s alienated both major sides of politics. So what do you do in a situation like that? Well, if you’re the world’s, world’s richest man on paper, you’re probably going to try and fund a third faction into existence. And that’s what you see his early moves.

 

So I could see Musk making bigger moves going ahead and it could be a real kind of I don’t like Musk in the sense that he, any kind of like pro-White stuff that he said to try and like win us over, he kind of like showed his true colours on the H1B Indian saga where he sided with stuffing America full of Indian H1B Visa types as opposed to preserving the White majority.

 

So that shows where he stands slike he’s not truly loyal to us or our concerns.

 

But nevertheless, when you see inter elite competition, it’s a good thing. It means that there’s dynamism in politics. It means it opens up opportunities for dissidents because you’re probably going to get more free speech, more open exchange of ideas, more dynamism in politics if you have two rival factions on the Right competing for the approval of the Right-wing masses. And what Musk showed through that whole H1B Visa saga is that he does care about maintaining a positive public image and that he has political ambitions.

 

[1:28:31]

 

So it could be a real challenger to like the Peter Thiel Donald Trump network. J.D. Vance, you know, is the heir apparent to Trump as president. If Musk can find a candidate that’s capable of taking on Vance, Vance is going to have a real challenger with hundreds of millions behind him. And I said before, if Tucker Carlson wanted to run for president against J.D. Vance, for example. I think Elon Musk would give him hundreds of millions of dollars and I think he’d beat J.D. Vance.

 

So that’s a situation to monitor as well. Big dynamics in America and China, like deep politics, elite politics that could really define what direction the wind is going to flow, going to blow over the next few years and kind of define the next decade or generation in international politics.

 

So that’s something that I noticed as well, something to keep an eye on. But an issue that I wanted to discuss as well, to kind of end the show, I guess, is I’ve got a Superchat coming. I’ll read a couple of these and then I’ll discuss this. Rabbi Shlomo Noisberg said:

 

“A hundred dollars. What do you need $90 for? I’m not going to give you an $80 Superchat to a racist, anti-semite. That $70 is mine. All right, fine, I’ll give you $60. But this is not a gift, it’s a loan and I want interest.”

 

Well, you’re not getting interest. I don’t even know who the hell you are. Dad3 said:

 

“Do you think the English will have a great man like Hitler and Napoleon in a few decades after the Civil War? Maybe three original Germanic great powers are supposed to have one after a disaster!”

 

I want to know what kind of question that is.

 

Yeah, I think that’s all the Superchats, but yeah, like one thing I want to discuss is the issue of settler colonialism. There’s been a lot of discussion precipitated, I think, by anti-Israel discourse. There’s been a lot of discussion on the Right. The dissonant Right. About the issue of settler colonialism. And there’s basically two major schools of thought. One is we should oppose ourselves to the idea of settler colonialism and talk about jewish supremacy and talk about how Israel is this horrible evil colonial power who’s stealing away land from the Palestinians. And this will help us educate White people on the jews and show that the jews are the bad guys, not Whites, and that Whites don’t want to hurt anyone. And we just want to have our own countries too. And yeah, and we can kind of focus all of the ire that’s directed against imperialism and colonialism and so on against jews and that this would be in our interest.

 

And sometimes these people say if you don’t agree with this, you must be jewish or Joel is a secret Zionist because he doesn’t agree with us.

 

The other position, my position, is that we should oppose Israel on the basis that Israel is a parasitical and subversive force of zionism, let’s say in general, because it’s not just the state of Israel, it’s also the jewish diasporas that live in our countries. They’re a subversive and parasitical force on our countries, White countries, Australia, America and particular Britain, so on. They’ve completely taken over the Right-wing. They have incredible power over the media and they use their power and influence to siphon off resources and support for Israel even though Australia and America and Britain have no strategic interest whatsoever in Israel. Like actually. They’ve captured politicians in America through incredibly nefarious means, like where they’re running paedophile networks and shit like that! They have [word unclear] like British monarchs and you know, elites from across society. Who knows how deep that goes. This is why we should oppose Israel. They’ve dragged us into wars we had no business fighting for no strategic benefit to ourselves. They taken over the Right-wing and redirect the Right-wing towards, in our countries towards their interests as opposed to representing the interests of our actual nation and people. This is what we should be criticising them for what they’re doing to us!

 

Like in Australia recently, you know, we’ve been going, doing a lot of activism and discussing a lot about the involvement of the organised jewish community and probably the Mossad in leveraging false flag, so-called anti-semitic attacks to push through an agenda to attack our free speech, to make it illegal for us to criticise jews in Israel and other racial groups as well.

 

That’s why we should be criticising jews. We should be explaining to the people of White Australians, White Americans and so on what jews are doing to them and why jews are their enemy. I think going on about like bleeding hearts about the poor Palestinians and this kind of shit is the wrong trajectory because it plays into the same moral framework that is used to describe how the poor Aboriginals and the horrors of colonialism, White colonialism or you know, the poor African slaves in America or etc. Etc, etc. It’s the same morality and framing that is used as a stick to beat the White man. And it’s generally appeals to Leftists who are anti-White, who hate the British Empire, who hate the White Australia Policy, who hate the racist founding of America, blah blah, blah blah, who hate us and everything that we stand for.

 

So to me that’s insane! The argument they make is:

 

“Well if you try and if you try and defend settler colonialism, if you say oh well, Australia was built on settler colonialism, then you’re just being the bad guy.”

Apparently you’re being the bad guy. You’re playing into the narrative of the enemy. Apparently this is what these people say. And no one’s going to support your White nationalist movement. What you have to do is say:

 

“You know what, I agree with the Left, Aboriginals were treated horribly and we don’t deserve to have this country because we’re horrible colonial occupiers!”

 

[1:35:31]

 

And somehow acknowledging all of that is going to help us to advance White nationalism. Like it doesn’t make any sense to me. It’s very simple. This country was built on settler colonialism. This country was built on our people coming here, conquering it, taking it off the people who were previously here, asserting our dominance over it, securing it for our people, fighting for it, defending it, building it up into what it is.

 

And that’s how shit works, that’s how nature works. We live in a dog-eat-dog world. Everything anyone has in this world was taken off someone else at some point. There’s a finite amount of resources on this planet. There’s not enough to go around. Some people win, some people lose. I want to win, I don’t want to lose. And when you assert your interest in this world, someone loses out. There’s never a way to be a totally nice guy and for everyone to get everything that they want. It just doesn’t work like that. That’s not how God made Earth, the universe. If you don’t like that, take it up with God. But that’s how it is, that’s reality.

 

And this idea that we need to be like 20th century liberals, we can’t assert the morality of any of our ancestors before 20th century, post World War II liberalism. We can’t say the British Empire was glorious! We can’t say the colonisation of Australia was glorious! That we can’t assert the interests of White people and White Australians just because we are White and because no one’s going to look after us but ourselves. It’s ridiculous!

 

That’s a message that makes complete sense. I believe in it. And I don’t think White people are going to be able to do what is necessary to take back control of our countries unless they’re willing to accept a message like that. I don’t think this so-called normie demographic that exists out there that is willing to be White nationalists only so long as White nationalists chungus pilled and respect everyone and don’t want to assert their superiority of everyone and want to like eke out space for everyone’s human rights and treat everyone amazingly and love everybody. I don’t think these people really exist. I think people who need to be placated to like that actually are against us and won’t embrace our politics no matter how chungus, no matter how moral fagged we make it.

 

And I also believe that the average person is capable of understanding that we live in a world of struggle. That life is struggle. That you got to fight for it, you got to fight for your existence on this planet. And that either we’re going to fight for our collective existence as a people or it’s going to be taken from us and that those are the two options on the table. We need a reality check! We need to come come to reality on this question. We can’t live in this illusion that if we just frame things with the Right moral arguments and make the right amount of concessions that we can somehow negotiate a perfectly nice and non-violent and non-controversial way for us to continue existing on this planet and to continue having our own countries. It’s the mentality of a fucking cuck. It’s the mentality of a loser.

 

We have strength as a race. Incredible collective strength! If we come together and assert our interests together. If we’re willing to come together and fight for our existence, we can secure it. That’s what it comes down to.

 

And I’m not going to forsake the incredible actions of my ancestors. I’m going to venerate them. What they did to create this country. Stealing countries of other peoples is something that few peoples are actually capable of I don’t consider it to be an immoral thing, I think you either fight for it or you don’t deserve it. If we lost World War II to the Japanese, if we ultimately one day lose this country to other races, other forces, ultimately we’d have no one to blame but ourselves for not fighting with enough valiance, for not mustering enough strength and power to hold on to what is ours. We have to take responsibility to secure our own future. No one else on this planet owes us anything and we don’t owe them anything. That’s reality.

 

And I want to live in reality. I don’t want to live in this fucked gay ideological delusion that some people in this movement want to live in. And I don’t want to pretend to believe things I don’t believe.

 

A lot of people say:

 

“Hey, look man I don’t really believe this shit either, but it’s going to help us make jews look bad or it’s going to help us win over moderates to our position if we just pretend to believe in it.”

 

I don’t believe in pretending to believe in shit! Pretending to believe in shit is inauthentic. It’s not how we’re going to convince people to stand side by side with us and fight for an objective, is pretending to believe things we don’t believe.

 

The way that we’re going to get men to stand behind us and fight to believe in our cause, believe in our movement, is to actually believe what we believe and say it proudly and openly! To have faith in our ideas, that our ideas are inherently have so much truth and potency and value that they will succeed. That’s how we’re going to win!

 

And yeah I’ve had this argument before with people. They say:

 

“Oh, I’m a universal nationalist. I believe in nationalism for all people.”

 

Well, that’s a nice thing for you to say. So are you going to go and fight for Algerian nationalism? Are you going to go and fight the Sri Lankan nationalism? No, you don’t actually give a fuck about Azerbaijani nationalism or Venezuelan nationalism. You say you believe in everyone’s right being equal to having a nation, but you’re not willing to fight for everyone’s nation. You’re willing to fight for your nation and maybe some brother nations that you have.

 

[1:42:01]

 

So maybe if you’re an Australian, you’d be willing to fight for Britain because that’s the land of your ancestors. You’re willing to fight for Ireland or whatever. If the Americans had a civil war, you’d be willing to go and fight for the White team because they’re our ethnic cousins or something like that. Okay, that makes sense.

 

But if you aren’t really willing to fight and die for it, you don’t actually believe in it, to any significant or deep level that it’s of consequence.

 

So why can’t you just say you’re an Australian nationalist and just say you want to fight for a White Australia? Anyone who has a problem with that, you want to crush them. You want to crush them and destroy them because it’s us or them! That’s what we believe in. Why isn’t that good enough? Good enough for me.

 

Maybe it’s not good enough for you’re a liar. Like, you’re just a liar. You don’t actually really believe what you’re saying. You’re trying to come up with a strategy, like a marketing, like a moral marketing strategy where you pretend to have this morality that’s nice to everyone so that people will allow you to have your own country or something. It doesn’t mean that we should have like zero allies or zero respect for other people. But let’s be real here. Why can’t you’re asserting your own interests in your own and the future of your own people?

 

Like and for example, in Australia, we have a military alliance with Japan. The Japanese are a completely different people. I think the Japanese are an incredible nation, incredible cultural achievements, whatever. I wouldn’t fight for Japan unless it was in Australia. I’d fight for Australia if we were like allied in a war together and it made sense, it was in our interest to fight together against a mutual enemy. But I wouldn’t fight for Japan. I don’t think it would be a good thing if Japan was like, wiped off the face of the planet necessarily. I think they’re interesting, cool people. But I wouldn’t be willing to die to save Japan. So I can respect Japan. Maybe we could have an alliance with Japan if it’s in our interest. But I’m not a Japanese nationalist.

 

I don’t ultimately believe in some metaphysical right that the Japanese have to exist. Ultimately, it’s the responsibility of the Japanese to secure their own existence, and it’s the responsibility of White Australians to secure our own existence. And it’s the responsibility of Palestinians to secure their own existence and the responsibility of whatever group of people it is to secure their own existence on this planet. That’s how it works. That’s the iron Law of Nature. So Modern World reject said:

 

“We cannot negotiate for our existence. We must secure it through struggle.”

 

And he hailed and yeah, that’s basically the essence of my view. Someone said here:

 

“Joel didn’t get the Rabbi Noseberg meme.”

 

No, I did get the meme. I just didn’t think it was that funny. So I did like a kind of deadpan delivery.

 

Now, what else have we got here? I think that’s basically a good show for the evening. So give me some feedback. Did you still enjoy the show, even though it was just me riding solo? Don’t usually do this. I usually have the foil of having someone to talk to. It feels a bit weird just sitting here speaking into, like a laptop. Like, not talking to another human being. Feels a bit inorganic. But I’ve been doing this a long time, so I could still kind of sell it, I think. Jack Brady, given some respect:

 

“Excellent monologue.”

 

Well, I appreciate that. Friend of the show. Obviously been on the show before. High praise.

 

But, yeah, everyone’s seemed to enjoy the stream, so I’m glad you watched. I’m glad you listened. And yeah, got some things coming up. There was an interview by this guy called Hermes from the United States. He does like these street interviews that have been going viral lately. He’s obviously like a nationalist from America. Seems like a solid dude. I haven’t really spoken to him much before, but he interviewed Tom earlier this week, which you can find, I think, on Rumble. And we’re doing a collaboration soon. I’ll put out on my social media on Telegram, when we’re gonna go live. I think soon. I think maybe like Sunday, Australian time, Saturday night American time was the plan. But, yeah, I’ll put it out when it’s all, like, ready to go with links and stuff.

 

And I’m also going to do a collaboration with Ferryman from Canada next week. I think there’s a new Codex India documentary that’s going to be released. And they wanted us to do a kind of Watch Party promotion. The previous one was pretty funny. It was kind of like this David Attenborough narrating, like Pajeets in the Wild. I’m sure a lot of you have seen it. So anyhow, I don’t know what to expect. [chuckling] I haven’t seen it yet, but should be funny.

 

And yeah, there’s a few other things happening. So keep an eye on social media, keep in touch and we’ll fill you in on when we’re doing more content when we’re doing more activism, etc. And if you’re in Australia, join the fucking movement! ! WhiteAustralia.org, WhiteAus.org. If you don’t want to come and be a member of the NSN, marching around on the street, doing street activism, you can join and just come to the community events. You can come and train with us. Kickboxing, weightlifting, barbecues, seminars, we’re putting on more events. Come get involved in the community. At least get networked with fellow White nationalists.

 

And if you don’t even have time for that, at the very least, sign up as a supporter. Put your name down so we can get registered as a political party. We’re getting closer and closer to hitting the target. We haven’t even done an official launch yet. We will get more than enough signatures. Be a member of the party. We need members. So at least sign up as a member or even better, come and join the community. Come and get involved in a more direct capacity. A lot of events are going to be organised through the rest of the year.

 

[1:49:04]

 

The only way that we can turn around the political situation in this country is if White nationalists in Australia come together, join the Organisation, join the party and build a movement that can actually change things. We have the foundation of a movement that has the potential to really make an impact, which we haven’t had in this country for a long time. We’ve created that foundation.

 

The only way that that foundation can go into something actually tangible, making like, real, meaningful change is if everyone gets behind us and backs us. Even if it’s just as simple as just signing up as a member of our political party, which really is not asking for very much at all!

 

So WhiteAustralia.org. Sign up! Join up! You know, don’t you want to see us enter politics in Australia? Wouldn’t that bring you joy? Wouldn’t that be fucking awesome? Like, oh, you don’t want like me and Blair and Tom and shit running for office. You want to fucking vote for, who you voting for? Craig Kelly? You want to vote for Ralph Babet? You want to vote for Pauline Hanson? This shit sucks, man! Help us give awesome candidates! Our policies are going to be amazing! We’re going to break the fucking news cycle. We’re going to have the most interesting political party probably in the whole world. Fucking why have you not signed up yet? Sign up, help us win!

 

But yeah, anyway, so that’s the end of the stream. I hope you enjoyed it. And White power, blood and honour! Hail victory! See you all next time.

 

[1:51:06]

 

 

END

top

 

 

 

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

 

Rumble Comments

top

(Comments as of 7/11/2025 = 35)

J0hnC0nn0r
6 days ago
There is no question, they all need to leave
9 likes

Report
J0hnC0nn0r
6 days ago
You know why they removed the death penalty. Because if they used it in this case then it would be injected into the public consciousness as a solution and then the sheep might get ideas about applying it to other criminals.
7 likes

Report
JoshRecessionberg
Supporter
6 days ago
Society is falling apart with Jewish ‘democracy’
6 likes

Report
‹ Hide 1 reply
J0hnC0nn0r
5 days ago
Lets state the obvious
0 likes

Report
Lynchmob11
5 days ago
Awesome show. You should do a weekly solo show where you break down geopolitical events, since the other show is mainly centered upon Aussie politics.
5 likes

Report
SueNewson
5 days ago
you done a great job!
5 likes

Report
natogroyper
5 days ago
Great show, these type of shows that you do where you break down geopolitics from a Australian nationalist perspective are brilliant and its important. It’s something that we need more of. You really come into your own doing this type of content mate
5 likes

Report
leibekohne
6 days ago
Usury free world economy will solved lots of problems including wives staying at home. Also the wars will disappear no financing jew banks. In modern world China has never necessary ability to fight a long war. They could do nothing against small Japan. If that should happens the will end of humanity. Those problems, can be overcome by changing the communist China into Monarchy as used to be.
4 likes

Report
StevenGurr
3 days ago
Kill all pedo fags
3 likes

Report
katana17
6 days ago
[Joel Davis – Nothing is Happening, But It Will – Jun 26, 2025 – Transcript] https://katana17.com/2025/06/28/joel-davis-nothing-is-happening-but-it-will-jun-26-2025-transcript/ [In this livestream episode Aussie nationalist activists Joel Davis and Blair Cottrell discuss ZOG vs Iran, Mark Latham vs Minns, the caravan hoax, Trump jews and Epstein, Israel with 200 nukes, JFK assassination, boomers being selfish, Holohoax Card wearing out, WWIII with China vs ZOG, jews not being flashy, Joel dreams of an Aston Martin, miscegenation, Human rights, NSN childcare policy, and current events, etc. – KATANA] [TRANSCRIPT – Words: 21,471 – Duration: 125 mins]
2 likes

Delete
J0hnC0nn0r
6 days ago
I dont agree with your idea to pay the mothers to stay at home instead of childcare, as that doesnt address the root cause of why the wahmen are working in the first place. Usually to pay for the usury loan and every other fucking rip off corporate swine and their small hat masters are perpetrating on the White race. Anything that undermines the ponzi scheme, aka forcing a collapse is the only option.
2 likes

Report
‹ Hide 1 reply
JoshRecessionberg
Supporter
5 days ago
You are a fool. Who is going to support a party advocating for an economic collapse? It is more like an economic transition that will have to be done smoothly and professionally in order to reinvigorate White Australia. Implementing policies in phases is the best approach. Talking about collapse is for low IQ blackpilled degenerates.
0 likes

Report
‹ Hide 1 reply
J0hnC0nn0r
5 days ago
Sure thing fuck wit. Lets move jew money for daycare to middle class welfare, banksters dont care they still get their usury bucks, inflate property prices based on the extra income and keep the ponzi scheme going. Just to stick to your ad hominem attacks and idiocy, you clearly are a stupid zoomer cunt rash because this shit was done under Howard and led to much of this fucking mess. The fact you still think this is a viable “policy” when the same Whites sucking off the govt tit will turn on NSN etc when the welfare tap is turned off (transitioned as you put it like a tranny) truly shows how stupid and short sighted you are.
1 like

Report
‹ Hide 1 reply
1Antonius
3 days ago
People are too degenerate to play moderate with them. They’ll still betray you, it’s in their nature.
0 likes
Report
leibekohne
6 days ago
therefore NSN you must stop drinking even beer drink Kombucha instead. Never slacken be vigilant You must be hard, strong without any remorse and it will require blood, because you waited to long, because you let yourselves your parents to be fooled whilst the internal enemy never stopped only intensified after WW2 He mesmerized us and made us imbecilic morons murdered us lied to us stole from us killed us used us exploited us destroyed us to merely 6% of world population and going down faster and faster to total distinction of Aryan goyim white race wake up shiksa cunts and fight; teach abusive fanatical communist police a hard lesson, give it back.
2 likes

Report
MPCV
Supporter
6 days ago
o/ HH
2 likes

Report
JFurM
Verified
4 days ago
To your point Joel, on the study that covered the 33% drop in fertility of women who go the jab vs those that didn’t… as a woman who previous to Covid, had no fertility issues, I stared having lots of issues with my cycle as well as miscarriages as soon as the vax came out. My husband and I did not get it but most all of our family members did. This is an experience that many other women (not vaccinated) I have spoken with share in common. Potentially due to vaccine shedding and or what they’ve been putting in our water (I.e. Dr Ardis’ work shows this). Either way, agree with what you said about the massive wealth transfer that was going on during covid, and it eerily all began in nov of 2019. Very few people were talking about what was going on with all the major corporations and financial elites at the time. They definitely took advantage though to hurt us health wise, in our economy and as a society. Hopefully enough are awake now to not get fooled again! Great show!
2 likes

Report
Bigboy6669
5 days ago
bump
1 like

Report
palacepony
Supporter
6 days ago
Wuhan Institute entered a partnership with Peter Daszak/ Ecohealth Alliance. Special Cancer virus programs, ‘defense’ programs, theres beeb decades of work on G.O.F virus manipulation. See pizzapicklespur on X, also Charles Rixey (prometheusshrugged.org.) See Major Murphy’s release of the D.E.F.U.S.E document. Rixey will take you there. Research into Covid amyloidogenic properties continues @ mccairndojo.com. Support the doc; https://rumble.com/v6uyxpb-lab-updates-synthesizing-amyloidogenic-fibrin.html?e9s=src_v1_ucp
0 likes

Report
‹ Hide 1 reply
palacepony
Supporter
6 days ago
https://t.wtyl.live/videos/browse?s=1
0 likes

Report
palacepony
Supporter
5 days ago
succinct overview; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3OHBkkZeqms
0 likes

Report
TripleGas
Verified
5 days ago
need to kick out and block nons from entry before implementing anything like paying for mothers to stay home or it’s just another incentive for them to come and breed.
0 likes

Report
Kroninn
Supporter
5 days ago
Taiwan has around 2 million private gun owners. I dont think it would be too easy for China to invade them. Especially with the Philipines and others helping them.
0 likes

Report
› Show 1 reply
palacepony
Supporter
4 days ago
Colac constitutional restoration conference in Colac upcoming late July; https://rumble.com/v6vqyl7-2-seminars-26th-27th-july-augusto-zimmermann-darren-dixon-and-tim-dwyer.html
0 likes

Report
SSlieutenant
4 days ago
Trump is not American either. His mother is from Scotland. And his father could be a German jew if you look at Fred Trump’s physiognomy. Trump is also a New Yorker.
0 likes

Report
‹ Hide 1 reply
SSlieutenant
4 days ago
Trump is not founding stock American like us that have been here since the 1600s.
0 likes

Report
SSlieutenant
4 days ago
Israel sucks at colonization. Look at a settler colonial nation that was White, and had no outside funding. America, Australia, Canada. Jews have all the money on the world and still can’t make a nation larger than new jersey.
0 likes

Report
‹ Hide 1 reply
SSlieutenant
4 days ago
Jews are the laziest parasite bastards ever known. They should have listened to Hitler when he said they can live comfortably on Madagascar, but they resisted, now their final fate will be worse.
0 likes

Report
amacc14
Supporter
4 days ago
Democracy is fake and stupid. Listen to us, we’re sitting around, brainstorming how to get VOTES. Pathetic.
0 likes

Report
localsussybaka
4 days ago
The political analysis gets more compelling each day.
0 likes

Report
MattOosty
3 days ago
A stream/space with Karl would be amazing
0 likes

Report
PhooeyPhoxide
21 hours ago
Joel overrates the CCP. They can’t even take Taiwan. No way China is even going to put a dent in the New World Order.
0 likes

Report
BrossefStalin
5 days ago
Blair is so fragile. Always talking about how tired he is or how he feels weird. He had to get up early and it took him over the edge? Man up
-2 likes

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

See Also

top

 

 

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

Aaron Spreadbury: Our fifth speaker today is a man with a jaw like an anvil and shoulders you could land a plane on. His anecdotes are legendary and his tangents infamous. It’s been quite the journey for him to get here, all the way from the other side of the world in sunny Australia, and I’m thrilled that he could be here today.

 

It’s Blair Cottrell!

 

[loud applause]

 

Blair Cottrell: Well, here I am in England. Huh? This is the first time leaving Australia for me, so I didn’t begin with anything small. I’ve literally gone on the other side of the planet. And the flight was long and uncomfortable, but it was worth it.

 

This is a beautiful country, great architecture, and the people have been really welcoming. I appreciate that. There’s a certain nostalgia that I sense or feel being here in England that I can’t explain because I personally have not been here before. But it’s where we Australians hail from, and I feel and sense that in my soul. And I think that really it’s significant to me to be back in the motherland. And we still consider it the motherland. As Australians, it is regarded as that.

 

[applause]

 

So there’s certain similarities, too, in Australia that portray the British character of my country. I noticed in London when we were exploring some of the architecture, the places seem similar. Much larger scale, of course, but similar to some of the architecture in my home city, Melbourne.

 

Very great to be here, and I’m glad to be speaking before you now. A little bit apprehensive about this, to be honest, because it’s been a few years since I’ve addressed a crowd of any size, and unfortunately for me, I’m tasked with addressing you fine people who are probably more well read than me, most of you, and very politically minded. It’s actually harder to talk to a smaller group of people than it is to talk to a larger group.

 

And the reason for that is because people, on average, are more feminine than they are masculine, and masculinity is in short supply. Probably shorter than ever, for reasons we understand. But the more people you have, let’s say we have 500, a thousand people, then on average, the more feminine that crowd is and the more emotion appeals to them.

 

But I can’t imagine I’m going to be too charged with passion in this speech, because all of you here are already thinking and understanding the things that I think and understand. So I thought I’d make my speech more pragmatic.

 

And a little bit has been said today about talking to people, and I thought maybe I could share my perspective of how to talk to people and how to win people over to our community, to build our community larger. And it’s important, I think, always to bear in mind and understand that people have been exposed to quite a lot of propaganda for quite a lot of years, right? And the mind of a person, you must imagine it like a soil into which you’re planting a seed, right?

 

Now, unfortunately, the system understands this better than we do, perhaps because it gets them young and it plants the seeds early. But the system does not force things onto people as much as we think it does. It doesn’t force messages and propaganda. It nurtures over time.

 

And the only way to change people’s minds is often to do the same thing, to plant a seed in the mind of the person and give it a little bit of water only when it needs it, a little bit of a push here and there. You can’t get frustrated with people if you don’t change their mind straight away, especially when you consider that it’s taken 15 to 20 years for people to actually get to the point that they’re at now. And most people, on an individual basis, you’ll find, still have sensible ideas when you talk to them as individuals. But unfortunately, when they fall under the influence of the masses, those ideas dissipate and disappear because they’re scared of being the outcast.

 

And this is completely normal human behaviour. Right? So don’t despair and always have patience when you’re speaking to people, you only need to say a few words. You only need to give people that little push in the right direction. Plant the seed, water it here and there, don’t drown it with too much at once. You don’t need to say too much. And in time, you’ll find that you can re-subvert people back to a better way of thinking, back to our way of thinking, which is completely natural and reasonable. It’s important to remember that.

 

So I’ve written down a few notes here in my phone because I haven’t had a great deal of time to prepare this. And also in regards to talking to people, there’s a principle by which influencing people becomes easy, and that’s authenticity. The power of authenticity!

 

And that means you have to authentically believe what you’re saying. When you do believe what you’re saying you don’t need to say as much. You can use fewer words because, charged with the power of authenticity, your words carry more weight!

 

So that’s the beauty of authenticity and what we want to build in people is a hope! A hope which you can also describe as faith. Because hope is what convinces men to fight when they otherwise wouldn’t have fought because they thought there was no hope. You might notice the great efforts, the government, system, regime, whatever you want to call it, the efforts the system goes to destroy hope, right? Because if there is no hope, then the men of the society being affected by an enemy, by an aggressor, will not fight!

 

And I think one of the most clear or prominent ways the system tries to destroy hope is through what we have come to understand as “humiliation ritual”.

 

[06:34]

 

Now, it’s important to understand what that is the point of humiliation ritual is to kill your hope. The point of turning your children into transvestites is to kill your hope! The point of feminism, destroying the family, it’s all to make you think that there’s no hope. And you have to understand that the amount of effort they’re putting in to try to humiliate you, it’s such a great effort that we’ve come to understand it as a daily ritual! Something that we see on a daily basis.

 

The reason for that is because they’re scared of us! They know that if they don’t consistently apply that humiliation tactic, if they don’t consistently destroy hope, we begin to regain hope. We start to fight and we win! So always be hopeful! It’s your duty as a member of this community, our international nationalist community, as ridiculous as that sounds, we’re one race all around the world, and remembering always to maintain that hope within yourself, authentically believe it yourself, that will inspire hope in others. And I think that’s the primary duty of all of us here!

 

[applause]

 

I really am a little bit rusty here, aren’t I, eh?

 

Earlier this year, I read a curious book*. And this will be on the subject of hope as well, I suppose. In this book was a concept called the “fitness effect”. And to explain it simply, what the fitness effect is, it’s very anthropological, meaning we understand that anthropology is the study of organisms and how they develop and evolve. The book is written by a man, David Kilcullen, who was an Australian soldier who I believe ended up working in counter espionage with the Americans, or perhaps counter-terrorism.

 

But the book, this particular part of the book is very interesting. It made me think of the quote, by Christ, “love your enemies”, because it made me begin to understand and appreciate that it’s good to have enemies and it’s good to have pressure put on you. The reason for that is because the right amount of pressure consistently causes an organism to grow stronger. Because it has to grow stronger to deal with the consistent stress.

 

Think about if you’re in the gym, lifting weights, right? If you’re putting yourself under that constant stress, then your muscles have to get stronger in order to deal with it. If you are under too much stress in any one period of time, you risk injuring yourself. If there’s no stress at all, that’s even worse, in my opinion, because you become stagnant or even get weaker.

 

But the fitness effects, especially when considering communities, political groups, is when you’re consistently under that pressure from an external source, from an enemy, you’re forced to adapt, you’re forced to get stronger, to learn new tactics and strategies, such as you know, Mark does putting together these conferences. He’s had problems in the past, and he’s had to develop new strategies to make sure the conferences still go ahead. This is an example of the fitness effect applied to a community group. Let’s put our hands together for Mark, by the way. He’s done a great job!

 

[applause]

 

So the whole point of the speech, I suppose, was to understand that hope is your duty, to be patient when speaking to other people, to use authenticity to inspire belief and hope in others.

 

And there’s not a lot more for me to say, really. I didn’t have much prepared, so I’m sorry if I’m disappointing you, but that’s it.

 

Thank you for inviting me to your beautiful country!

 

[long loud applause]

 

[11:04]

 

[* The Dragons and the Snakes: How the Rest Learned to Fight the West 92019) by David Kilcullen. A counterintuitive examination into how, and what, opponents of the West have learned during the last quarter-century of conflict.]

 

 

 

END

top

 

 

 

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

 

Odysee Comments

top

(Comments as of 11/1/2024 = 10)

@MrVans
4 hours ago
quick, but straight to the point. great work blair!

5
0

@PureNomad
4 hours ago
A jaw like an anvil :rofl: :joy: :rofl:

5
0
Hitlers Ghost
4 hours ago
he’s a fine representative example of the White anglo male

4
0
Hide replies
renunciate
3 hours ago
As a white, Anglo, female…I concur. A fine example indeed.

3
0

@MrRoboto
3 hours ago
Very well said. I appreciate the brevity and of a concise, authentic delivery.

3
0
renunciate
4 hours ago
Good on you, Blair.

3
0
Dawn Browning
4 hours ago
You’ve done us proud, Our Blair. Next time I see you out & about I’ll come and shake your hand again.

3
0

@AryanObservations
3 hours ago
Hail victory. We adore you Australians. This time the world.

2
0

@BMC1488
3 hours ago
Blair is indeed a proper Aryan Chad.

2
0
renunciate
3 hours ago
It’s easier to win people over when you’re making them feel accepted, that they belong with us.

2
0

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

See Also

top

/>

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

Monika Schaefer: Greetings. Good day. Good afternoon. Hello, wherever you are. Today’s date is August, 24, 2024. This is episode nine of The Flip Side with Monika. And I am your host, Monika Schaefer. Before I introduce today’s guest, I’ll give you the phone numbers to call after the bottom of the hour. We like to invite guests or callers to call in. And those numbers are 512-248-8252 or 1800 313 9443.

 

Okay, today’s guest is Grace Eki Oyama. And I’ll just give you a brief, a story of how I met Grace Eki. And this was back in 2015. So nine years ago almost. I attended the trial, the speech crime trial of Arthur Topham in Quesnel, British Columbia, Canada. And there I met some very interesting people.

 

And one of the people I met was Grace Eki Oyama. And it turns out she had attended other such trials and was very, very knowledgeable in many things.

 

And at that time we were talking about World War Two history, those kinds of things. The kind, the very subject that I got into some trouble with the powers that should not be, the Holocaust subject and all those things. So Grace Eki Oyama has been in this for a long time.

 

And today we’re going to talk about some other subjects a little bit different from that. But I’ll just, before I bring her on, I will just say that in my Chatango site, this is the chat room. And how you can find that chat room, it’s all spelled out The Flipside W Monika. So instead of with. It’s just a W.

 

So the Flipside W Monika Chatango. That’s Chatango. Chatango. Chatango.com. And I posted a video. It’s a five minute short video. It’s called The World Owes Germany an Apology for World War Two. And that’s a video of Grace Eki, who made this very brilliant and succinct little five minute talk, which was this apology.

 

And so I’ll let her talk a little bit about that too, because we were just revisiting that a few minutes ago. But the subject we’re going to talk about today are about musical frequency. And people have probably heard about 440 being the standard tuning for A and many people these days are aware that perhaps 432 might be a better frequency. So that’s one of our subjects.

 

And the other subject, and I had put this into the show notes, if you’re going to find this in the archives, is on the three stages. This is a Japanese philosophy about the three stages of development, childhood development. And I will let her just discuss that at length. So, Grace Eki, are you there?

 

Grace: Yes. Hello, Monika.

 

Monika Schaefer: Welcome.

 

Grace: Thank you.

 

Monika Schaefer: Would you like to start about this, the title of that video? Because we just talked about that a few minutes ago.

 

Grace: Yes. Because often it’s not me who put the title, but what I wanted to say. And if you. The idea was war is war. And then I feel that the world does owe an apology for what happened to the Germans, actually, after the war, how they were treated, and also the fact that there is no real official peace treaty, and the expellees, et cetera, et cetera. I think that’s very important for people to know and understand, because it leads away for the problem in what’s happening now in Palestine. There is a similarity, but the fact that it is not known at all, it’s a shame, because it’s things that, oh, including the Nuremberg, which was not a real trial, nor was it very fair.

 

And so that was the part that I wanted people to be at least conscious of.

 

Monika Schaefer: Yes, thank you for that. Just clarifying that that wasn’t, you know, our main subject today. But it does give the audience, the listener, a little bit of background about first of all, I explained how I met you was at this speech crime trial. And why don’t you give a little bit of a snapshot about background of yourself? I know you’ve done many things. You’ve lived in many places. You’ve been a writer, you’ve been a translator.

 

Can you just give maybe a couple of minutes, a bit of background of yourself?

 

Grace: Well, a couple of minutes.

 

Monika Schaefer: Maybe that’s not possible! [chuckling]

 

Grace: Once we get into the detail, we can go all over. But maybe, just as an honor to my father, I just want to add the fact that my father participated in World War Two. And the fact that he is a martial artist of karate.

 

So I wanted to say that you are brought up in a different environment than if my father was a banker, or a businessman, or a Professor, let’s say. And that was one thing.

 

And then later on, I worked with this researcher, a Japanese researcher who would also make history on his own. But his name is Ryu Ota. And Ota is the one who got me very much interested in, … Well, what really happened was when Eustace Mullins came to Japan, there was a presentation with a professional translator. And the translator, I realized, wasn’t really translating, not accurately. And it was about 9/11. And whatever Mr Mullins was saying, basically, she was translating it the opposite. I almost thought she could be a saboteur. But later on, I understood this, that we, first of all, in Italian they say, “translator traitors”. “Traditore, traditore”. Because it can’t be helped because you can only translate something that you understand. So she wasn’t, I feel, purposely doing that. But from her standard of knowledge and common sense, the alternative so-called conspiratorial theory sounded so absurd, I think she just couldn’t digest it and kind of purified the translation.

 

[08:40]

 

Monika Schaefer: Wow! And when you say 9/11, you’re talking about 9/11, the events of September 11, 2001, right?

 

Grace: Correct?

 

Monika Schaefer: To clarify, yes. Oh, that’s very interesting.

 

Grace: Well, he said a lot of interesting things, but she was diluting it down.

 

But anyway, so what I did was I wrote out what Mr Mullins said and what the translator said, and how I would have translated what I feel he really said. And I showed it to Ota. And ever since then, he’s asked me to basically become his translator. And through him, I met really not just Eustace Mullins, but he had more than 13 books by John Coleman translated into Japanese. Now he’s famous for the Committee of Three Hundred. He also, I think, was the first to talk about Bohemian Club and Bilderberg. I was also his translator when David Icke came two times when Ota called David Ike to Japan, for example. And he would have called Webster Tarpley. But unfortunately, he became ill and died. And that was about 2009 anyway.

 

So that taught me very much. That’s how I found out a lot about true history in the West. Yeah, true history in the West.

 

Despite this slogan of “democracy and freedom”, there really wasn’t., … You know, one of the reason about Arthur Topham’s trial is like, do we really have free speech? And ever since I found out about Zundel.

 

Monika Schaefer: Ernst Zundel.

 

Grace: Yes. And when the court in Canada, when the court judged that “truth is no defense”, I was so shocked! Because, well, how else are you expected to defend yourself? Yes, I just found it so absurd!

 

And I think that is, at least in, as far as Canada is concerned, that was when things started to crack. That was like the beginning of the cracking of the justice system.

 

And the other thing is that I really, honestly believe in freedom of speech. Even for your enemies, even for things that you don’t like. Because that’s the only way. I don’t want to sound like cliche, but the only way to peace is through negotiation and through diplomacy and so forth. And it saddens me also to see what is happening with Ukraine and Russia, too.

 

But instead of diplomacy or negotiation, basically a dialogue, it seems that the world has gone mad, and it’s like more money, more arms, more of the things that’s, more sanctions more of the things that’s really not a solution or working!

 

Monika Schaefer: Yeah. And I would say the really important element is deception. Right? In all these things that are happening.

 

Grace: Well, like, I think we would all agree that without deception, war is not possible, that war is propaganda!

 

Monika Schaefer: I’ve never heard anybody say it that way. That’s really, really good! That’s profound. I would say. [chuckling]

 

Grace: Thank you.

 

But I also think you have to demonize the enemy, because if you had one drop of sympathy, imagination, or compassion, you really could not have war.

 

So you have to demonize or as an “alien”, I say alien in quotation Mark because it can mean many things, but something so foreign and different and something to be demonized! And I’m sure you would understand.

 

Monika Schaefer: Yeah.

 

And, I mean, otherwise you wouldn’t have all these soldiers going and killing people who look like them, especially all these brother wars. Cousin wars.

 

Grace: Yeah.

 

Monika Schaefer: Yeah. For sure. So, Grac Eki, that’s really very, very good! Thank you. I didn’t know how your beginnings were in translation, but that’s how you met all these people and then learned a lot about true history. And then I know that you were a writer for a while, I think, at the American Free Press.

 

Grace: No. Well, I had a job with them at the Barnes Review for a while, but it was very short. It was work, but that’s how I managed to go to Palestine in Israel.

 

So I am very appreciative of their help at that time.

 

Monika Schaefer: Right, right. Okay. Well, would you, do you feel ready to jump into the first of our subjects that we., … And the reason we’re going to talk about this, people might say:

 

“Well, why? This is kind of unrelated to anything else.”

 

But Gracie spent a few weeks with me a month or so ago, and we, of course, had time to talk about lots of things.

 

And I like to play music, and we talked about these frequencies. And generally, people, the standard tuning is for A is 440.

 

Now, anybody who plays and tunes up their instrument, they’ll know that.

 

Now, we talked about this other frequency, A 432. And I was just delighted and surprised to hear Grace Eki talk about this because you revealed to me that a lot about this.

 

And so I thought:

 

“Oh, well, we have to talk about this on the show.”

 

[chuckling] So tell us a little bit about how did that come to be that this frequency of 440 was pushed upon us. I think that’s what we had talked about when you were here.

 

Grace: But Monika, it’s not always 440. It can be 442. And I have heard of 446, so it isn’t always 440 either. It can even be higher.

 

Monika Schaefer: Well, I’ve heard that there are some orchestras that in Europe, for example, who are pushing to have the 442 tuning, and it’s just kind of tightening things up.

 

I feel like it’s tightening up a tight wire and to the bursting point or something. So go ahead and talk about the history, perhaps.

 

Grace: I would also say from 1980 to 85, I was in Italy actually studying music, you see, and around that time, there was also this revival of Baroque music and original instruments.

 

So I was always interested in this. But in order to save time, I will be a little bit practical.

 

I happen to be very, very fond of the Italian composer Verdi. This is also called La Verdiana, meaning Verdi’s A, meaning. He thought this was the best that it should be. This was the best pitch. So I assume that was the pitch he was writing in.

 

[16:13]

 

Monika Schaefer: Sorry, which was the best pitch?

 

Grace: Well, it depends how you count it. But basically 432.

 

Monika Schaefer: Yeah.

 

Grace: If you want to really get into the science and all this is actually supposed to be like 430.8 or something, but because it depends how you count it from, the, C equals 256.

 

But in order to simplify, I also, later on, I knew, have you ever heard of Schiller Institute in Washington, DC?

 

Monika Schaefer: Yeah.

 

Grace: But anyway, there was a politician called Lyndon Larouche and his wife Helga, who is German. She heads the Schiller Institute. They only doer. Music and performances in a A equals 430 or 432. And from their Institute, if you Google, you can see musicians actually performing for you in two different pitch. I was lucky. I tried to look for some of the things that I managed to experience a long time ago, but not everything is on the Internet still, and I couldn’t find it.

 

So I’ll tell you one radio program with Carlo Bergonzi, but he was like the Italian star tenor. And in that radio program, he actually has three, like, graduate students in music singing opera arias in both pitches.

 

And all of them said that it feels so much natural to sing in 432 as opposed to 440. And Bergonzi would explain why he feels that is. I also, …

 

Monika Schaefer: Can you tell us a little bit about that? Why that is? Why does it feel better?

 

Grace: Well, first of all, I think you are getting, apparently the standard for classical music was about 430, 32, definitely until the fifties with Fruk Wengler [sp].

 

Now, you know, there are many people who like retro recordings. Could there be a possibility that the pitch does also influence? Is one.

 

And the other thing is that let’s try to get nearer to the composer’s original intent.

 

And the other thing is that without going into too much detail, we have chest and middle voice and high voice.

 

Now, if you, if the tuning is too high, your voice register changes at the wrong place, and that may not reflect correctly with the words that’s meant to be colored. Before you go and ask me, let me just add, I was also fortunate enough, … So there was a time when these musicians were actually doing presentation, like Norbert Brining. He was like the head of the Amadeus Quartet, and he actually played Bach Partita in two tones right in front of you, and you can feel the difference.

 

Monika Schaefer: Yes.

 

Grace: Now, at the same time, I also want to tell you that there are people who like brilliant, who don’t like, who prefer the more brilliant tilling sounds.

 

Monika Schaefer: Yeah.

 

Grace: And, but anyway, Verdi lost. Why? Apparently the Russian military equipments were already tuned higher and it, they can be more penetrating and they can be heard much better at distance. So for like, military bands in the 1800s.

 

Monika Schaefer: Yeah.

 

Grace: That was their preferred pitch.

 

Monika Schaefer: I just want to, if I may jump in, for people who have not heard about this and they might think, well, why don’t you just play in a different key? That’s not actually what happens with this different tuning. It’s not just simply playing in a lower key. Like instead of C being C, go to B flat or something. That’s not what’s happening. This frequency is, I would say it’s less than a quarter tone or something. It’s really just a change in frequency. And it literally just is., … It’s something that we, … We all have a vibration. We all have a frequency. Everything around us is vibrating at a frequency. And the 432 frequency for the A is, to my knowledge, a more natural frequency that we simply, our bodies will vibrate more naturally to that.

 

So that’s the important point to make here. Otherwise people will say:

 

“Well, why don’t you just play lower, play in a lower key?”

 

[chuckling]

 

Grace: Just like when you change the tonality, the coloring of the piece changes. It’s a very subtle difference. But I would just say that for people interested, try looking for this kind of experiment that was done where they would switch the pitch, and you can also see what you, how you feel.

 

And as a last comment on this, I want to add that when I changed my piano tuning to 432, my daughter, who was in kindergarten, said:

 

“Much more relaxing!”

 

Monika Schaefer: Yeah.

 

Grace: That was the key for me.

 

Monika Schaefer: Yes. So I did that once, Gracie Aki. I paid the piano tuner extra because it took longer, and I got him to tune my piano down to 432.

 

But then my next music jam, when I was asking all the musicians to tune their instruments down the guy with the twelve string guitar, [chuckling] and they didn’t appreciate it! [chuckling] So it didn’t work out. Well, that’s the problem. When we have this standard tuning that everybody’s tuned to and when we’re playing with people, we have to come to the agreement where we’re going to be tuned at. And what about accordions? I mean, all these instruments are tuned to that certain frequency.

 

So that’s a little bit of a, just a technical problem with this.

 

But it’s an interesting subject, and I do hope that maybe we’ll get some callers after the bottom of the hour on that subject.

 

I mean, I don’t want to be sounding like we’re jumping around one subject to another, but I think these things all kind of do relate back to us because it’s like we’re being, you know, damaged or assaulted on all fronts, and this is one of them. I do think that the musical frequencies is just another way that those who wish us harm are, you know, degrading us and this kind of thing. But unless you had something more that you wanted to talk about that.

 

[23:25]

 

Grace: Well, yeah, let me ask you, more for people can also try and find things, but 432 mathematically is two to the fourth power times three to the third power. And I have seen documentation how it corresponds with many other amphithegorian numbers.

 

But we don’t have time to really go into that. But I feel like, and before we go into that, let me, can I give you my favorite quote of Mozart, which is that he said:

 

“Music is painted on the canvas of silence.”

 

And that’s the other thing we are lacking. We don’t have enough silence!

 

And the other thing is that I think there is, music is used especially, … How can I explain this? Okay. Records used to, the sound would come in waves.

 

And I’m not so sure about the cassette, but I think it’s still rather relaxing compared to the CDs, all this digital sound, they actually come in square blocks exactly like in the computer screen. If you enlarge it’s made from little squares.

 

Monika Schaefer: Yes. Pixels and pixels, right?

 

Grace: Correct. And it’s the same thing with music. You break it down into blocks and then you remake it, but it’s in blocks as opposed to waves. This is my personal comment, and I’m very much interested if anybody else ever felt the same, but I don’t listen so much to CDs anymore. It hurts my ear after a while.

 

Monika Schaefer: That’s so interesting. There’s a real resurgence in people buying records. Records, actual records, because it is a different quality of sound. It really is. And I’m sure that many people are nodding their heads as we’re speaking about this. For sure. For sure.

 

And that quote, because I just interrupted just when you were saying it was Mozart, did you say?

 

Grace: Yes. It’s hard to find the original, so I cannot guarantee.

 

But it’s supposed to be something he wrote in a letter.

 

Monika Schaefer: I think it’s very apt. We do need silence, and it’s Sorely lacking. [chuckling]

 

Grace: And [chuckling] the fact that it’s only beautiful because there’s the pause is one. And second. Mozart was like a kind of child prodigy that can say:

 

“Oh, the birds are Twittering in G major.”

 

For example, and I think he could hear natural sounds and decipher them better than many of us.

 

But I think that’s one of the reasons why his work is so eternal. And it seems to, … I’ve read research is how it increases the IQ of children.

 

Monika Schaefer: Oh, yes.

 

Actually, that’s a very good point. People say if you have Mozarte while you’re studying, you do better on your exams! [chuckling]

 

Grace: Interesting! No? And so but shall I, … Let’s move to the next.

 

Monika Schaefer: Yes, I just found this was the most interesting thing. And we’ll just have a couple of minutes before the bottom of the hour to touch on, but we’ll continue after the break. But you had talked to me about this Japanese. It’s a philosophy about the three stages of childhood. Go ahead.

 

Grace: It’s like a seven year cycle, but actually it corresponds very well to what Rudolph Steiner felt and thought, at least as far as education is concerned.

 

But this is the way I interpret. Well, in Japan, you are not adult until you are 20.

 

Monika Schaefer: Or 21? No? Because you said three times seven. The seven year cycle. Yes?

 

Grace: Well, although let’s say in the year that you will be 21, you are officially an adult. And it seems strange because if it’s just physical, you seem to have matured much earlier on. But apparently research has shown that human brain takes that long to genuinely finish maturing and growing, 20 years.

 

And the other thing I was trying to say is that, okay, for the first seven years, you’re just growing physically and you need a lot of physical activity. And then seven from 14, then you get your education in grammar and the basis. And then from, like, 14 till later, it’s, I think it corresponds to the classical concept of rhetoric. You know, grammar first, dialectic first, and then rhetorics. But it also, I don’t know exactly where and how I got this idea, but you’re physically, maybe even a 14, 15, you’re more or less done.

 

But as far as the concept of philosophy, physics, abstraction, spirituality, that kind of realm, you really don’t understand, you have to be at least 14, more or less. You know, we all have, like, I’m not talking about child prodigies or exceptional people. But usually it takes that long for you to really start to have that kind of capability to comprehend.

 

Monika Schaefer: Yeah, it’s like the philosophical, the spiritual development, all of those things start after maturing.

 

We’ll come back after the break, Grace Eki, and you can discuss some of the factors that are stalling those processes. So please stick around and we’ll be back after the break.

 

[29:41]

[ad]

[36:00]

[music]

[36:58]

 

Monika Schaefer: All right, welcome back. That music is so beautiful! And it just makes me think of what you just told me about before World War Two, anyway, that it would have been commonplace for families in Europe and Germany to be playing chamber music together after supper, after dinner.

 

And can you imagine the enrichment that provided in their lives as opposed to being stuck in front of a screen.

 

But anyway, before we go on with our discussion, I’m just going to remind the listener, if you have the means, please, please do support the Republic broadcast broadcasting network.

 

And if you go to the website, there will be all the information there. There’s still the special on T-shirt that’s still going on right through September. A special T-shirt? I would say if you do, I think it’s a $100 donation.

 

And if you don’t have the means, there are other ways you can help this network, and that is by sharing these programs. And you can do that anyway, even if you are supporting financially or support the sponsors. Yeah. So this is not mainstream. We have such a we’re very fortunate to have the Republic Broadcasting Network so that we can speak freely and speak truth.

 

Okay. So we were going to get onto these three stages of development and this third stage, which is critically important, but it’s less visible to the eye because the physical growth has happened. And the learning, a lot of the learning is in school, like, you were talking about the grammar and this, that.

 

But this other thing that happens, it’s like philosophical spiritual development that comes in that third stage, does it not? And we had talked about, what are some of the things that could arrest that development? This is the critical part. Go ahead.

 

Grace: Well, like, I’ll put it bluntly. Sexualization! Over sexualization at a young age.

 

Now, the West is theoretically at least a Christian country.

 

And I think it’s somewhere in the Bible or the New Testament. Doesn’t it say something like:

 

“Children should not see wicked things.”

 

Or do you know?

 

Monika Schaefer: Yeah, no, I’m not familiar with, did you say a Bible verse?

 

Grace: But, anyway, innocence should be protected and childhood should be protected. It’s like you don’t offer a cigarette to a six year old.

 

Monika Schaefer: Right? No! And what are we seeing in the schools? I mean, this is a subject that we talk about often. I’ve talked about it before, the hyper sexualization, and it is shocking what is going on in the schools. And this is a direct attack on us, on our people, on our children. And my goodness, it’s beyond even just exposure. It’s like downright, you know, poisoning of the minds. And then even physical like:

 

“Oh, yeah, you don’t feel like a girl today. You want to take these hormone puberty blocking things and, oh, well, oh, well, just. Sure, we can cut off that penis!”

 

I mean, it is just over the top, outrageously bad what is going on! And I mean, it already, it started a while back, but now it’s just accelerated to beyond belief! And, you know what you say:

 

“Okay, there’s hypersexual or over sexualization of children at too young, of age.”

 

This arrests, arrests their emotional development.

 

Grace: And many other things. And it’s like, I think this was the metaphor I gave to you. It’s like you cannot force open a flower to blossom while it’s in the bud. You would damage it forever! You have to have patience, and it has to grow. Everyone, basically, personally, you have to discover so-called sex or sexuality in some ways on your own, because the internal makings of a human being is far more complicated. And you have to let it blossom in quotation Mark “naturally”, because we have been so cut off from nature. So everyone has to kind of figure it out by refining their instinct.

 

But it’s just like children can mimic words to appear sophisticated, but to have had the experience to back it up.

 

And frankly, there was a Japanese writer that said he feels sorry for the younger generation of Japanese because in Japanese there is a word for “love”, and there is another word specifically for “falling in love”. And he said that children have no time, basically, to discover that mysterious emotion of falling in love, for example.

 

Monika Schaefer: Yes.

 

Grace: And the other thing is you know why I think the other thing is, in childhood you must play a lot!

 

Monika Schaefer: Yes.

 

Grace: It’s very important. Well, one of the things, and also you can’t, I think, the way they keep the children so occupied. So yeah. Because sometimes you must have a lot of breathing space and you must sometimes even be bored for you to become creative. I wonder if that’s an oxymoron.

 

Monika Schaefer: Yes, you’re absolutely right! I’ll just tell you, the German word for “boredom” is “Langeweile”, which literally means “long while”.

 

So it’s a completely different meaning on that. And I love that.

 

But, you know what? We have a couple of callers on the line.

 

Kathleen: Yes.

 

Monika Schaefer: And let’s take Kathleen from Texas.

 

Hello, Kathleen, are you there?

 

Kathleen: Hey, Monika and Grace. A great show. And I called because I heard an author interviewed about ten years ago, maybe on RBN, and he wrote a book called the “440 Conspiracy”. And it was all about. I heard him interviewed several times. It was very interesting. And he had said many of the things you’re talking about, but he was talking about that 432 was actually what everybody played before the Rockefeller changed it to all the marching bands of the horns were all made with the 440. And it was unnerving, and it was very good to get people nervous and upset about going to war or something.

 

Monika Schaefer: Well, is that something? So that sounds like a good book. Grace Eki, are you familiar with that book?

 

Grace: No, I don’t know that book. So thank you.

 

Monika Schaefer: Who was the author, please?

 

Kathleen: I don’t know that. I don’t remember the author’s name, but it was called, The 440 Conspiracy.

 

Monika Schaefer: Okay, I’m gonna write that down and I’m gonna look that up. That’s great!

 

Kathleen: It was about ten years ago, so.

 

Monika Schaefer: Okay, thank you. Do you have any additional comments?

 

Kathleen: No, I love your show. I mean, I heard you for a long time before you had the show. And you just been great. So I’ve enjoyed every one. And thank you so much!

 

Monika Schaefer: Thank you so much, Kathleen, for your call.

 

[45:22]

 

Kathleen: Yes. Oh, I loved it when you said that you’re an ice skater in the wild. [chuckling]

 

Monika Schaefer: Yeah. [chuckling]

 

Kathleen: Wild skating. Oh, that’s so great.

 

And then all of your music, it’s wonderful! And, Grace, I really appreciated everything that you said, too.

 

Grace: Okay. So thank you so much!

 

Monika Schaefer: Well, thank you for your call. Okay. So, Mr producer, could we please have Nightingale on line three? Are you there?

 

Nightingale: Yes. Monika, can you hear me?

 

Monika Schaefer: Yes, we can. Thank you. Would you like to add a comment or question?

 

Nightingale: Thank you so much! I’m overjoyed to meet you. I want to say it’s an honor to meet such a brave, talented, honorable lady. Thank you so much! Just a fact that you play the music for your bumper music. I said, wow, RBM is getting classy. Fun! [chuckling] It was so beautiful! What a change. Usually I shut the bumpers off. Some of the host I listen to, I run to the phone and say:

 

“I don’t want to hear that!”

 

And I wait till the ads and the music are gone. [chuckling]

 

But with you, …

 

Monika Schaefer: That’s sweet of you. Thank you. Did you have any questions or comments for your guest, Grace Eki?

 

Nightingale: Yes, yes, I’m getting there. This has been fascinating! I just turned it on. Sometimes I listen live, sometimes it doesn’t work for me. I’m always on the cell phone, but sometimes it does a bit, and I turn it on just when your wonderful guest, her name is Grace. She’s been very, very personal to me. What I heard, very fascinating! She talked about a beautiful., … It was a beautiful anecdote. She thinks it’s from Mozart. That “music is painted on the canvas of silence”.

 

And I wanted to add that that is so beautiful, because it’s not just music, but it’s, I think, pretty much everything. Mystic experiences, the feeling of sacred is also. Everybody talks about it. All the mystics are on the, come out of silence. Even our myths of creation come out of silence. Things were “created by the word”, Elvero Incarnado, which is Spanish. What is it, the word incarnate? I don’t know if that’s that. But yeah, but it’s sound. Started creating the manifest world, I guess.

 

So this is very, very beautiful. And I heard many beautiful things. I heard the comment about spirituality, Rudolf Steiner ideas, spirituality developed later on.

 

But I have to say that I have to disagree with that a bit because I had, personally, some very mystical experiences. A very, very young child. And they did start going away. I totally agree with the over sexualization, because I think that’s when they started going away for me. Sex was just very much in my face with the world I lived in, my parents, and a lot of violence and jealousy! [chuckling] And it was always sad for me as a very young child.

 

But then when I hit puberty, I was very, very curious, and I did naughty things. You know, I wanted to see what this wonderful thing was. Right? And I learned that it wasn’t what it was touted to be. If love is not involved, if the falling in love, like you mentioned, but it can be a lot of fun. But it’s not falling in love. That’s a totally different thing.

 

Monika Schaefer: Yeah.

 

Nightingale: This has been very personal, what you were speaking of, because, yes, I had a, as a very young person before I was into sex, you might say, I had even incredible out of body experience, which I will always cherish. I hope that just before I die, I get there again, because it was like total unity.

 

I don’t know if you guys ever felt that, but the only experience I’ve ever had that I reserved the word “bliss” for. And it was just, it was just fascinating because I was totally not there. But you’re in everything when you exist, I guess, what people call a cosmic consciousness. And it was this overwhelming, powerful light that was so incredibly beautiful.

 

But then I was, it was going to annihilate me, which is a very mystery because I was not there, and yet I felt totally annihilation. And somewhere, I guess I was very young, somewhere in the body, I guess I wasn’t ready to go. And I was at the moment, so I realized that fear the root of all our issues, because it was fear that brought me back into the body. And then I felt so horrible to be back in the cave, and I just hated myself for being a coward! But someday maybe it’ll come back and I’ll be ready too.

 

Monika Schaefer: That’s an incredibly profound experience. Thank you for sharing that, Grace Aki, do you have any comments about it?

 

Nightingale: Well, it has a lot. Yes. It relates to everything you’re speaking of and I think I was lucky enough, even though I did have a very turmoil, not very happy household growing up. And yet my father did play classical music, and so I was imprinted with that. And it was the old vinyls, I must say! [chuckling]

 

And I think that is what, …

 

Monika Schaefer: Sorry, go ahead. Grace, did you want to comment on that.

 

Grace: Yes. That I wanted to say. I agree with her. You know, silence is the base of everything. And she was saying the Bible, I think. No, sorry the Testament in the beginning was the word, and word was “God”, but the word is “vibration with intent”. And I do kind of agree and with silence will show how important this intent and so-called vibration is, even more in the future.

 

And as speaking, I just wanted to make a comment as far as the frequency is concerned. You know those famous water crystals?

 

[51:52]

 

Monika Schaefer: Yes.

 

Grace: Photographed. Well, if it’s the ones I have seen anyway, at A 432, it actually makes a flower. At A 4040, it makes the outline. It’s different.

 

Monika Schaefer: Yes. And it scrambles it, doesn’t it? That’s what I’ve seen and heard.

 

Grace: Oh, it’s not as beautiful as 432. 432 definitely looks like a flower.

 

Monika Schaefer: Isn’t that something?

 

Grace: Yeah. Interesting!

 

Monika Schaefer: So, Nightingale, did you want to make a quick final comment? And then we’ll let you go, and I really appreciate that you called in and shared a your story with us. Yes, Nightingale.

 

Grace: Oh, perhaps she’s already gone.

 

Monika Schaefer: Okay, so let’s have John in New Hampshire, please. Are you there? Okay, yeah, that’s great! You see, this is such an interesting subject. I find it just fascinating! And the vibrations, the music, and then, of course, this. Go ahead.

 

John: Hello? Am I on?

 

Monika Schaefer: You are on. Is this John?

 

John: Right, right. Okay. Thanks a lot, ladies. That Grace perked me up because when she mentioned Verdi, I was born in the same province as Giuseppe Verdi, Parma. I was very, very happy to hear that. And I’m wondering maybe, hopefully, maybe I can get in touch with her. And I got some interesting stuff.

 

So maybe somehow we can get connected through you, Monika, or through the board. I don’t mean to be rude, but I also would like to see if I could get in touch with Kathleen from Texas. I’ve been trying to get in touch with her, too. So maybe through the board op or something. But if you could call back in, or I could leave my number or something like that.

 

But anyway, yeah, this is a very fascinating conversation. And that, Grace, you’re a pretty amazing, remarkable woman!

 

And, I mean, I love my Italian heritage and I love, … I was born in Parma, but I was only 14 months when I came to this country. But most of my relatives still live in Italy. So maybe we can get in touch or something like that. But anyway. Okay, see what you can do.

 

Monika Schaefer: Okay, I’ll just tell you how you can get in touch with me. My email address is posted on RBN. If you go to the host the page where they have my brief bio and that kind of thing. There is a, an email address posted there. Okay. So you could get in touch with me and then I could send your, I’ll get you connected with Grace.

 

John: Okay, I appreciate that. Do you think that would be a good way to get in touch with Kathleen from Texas?

 

Monika Schaefer: I have no idea. You’ll have to perhaps take that up with the producer. [chuckling]

 

John: Okay, great!

 

Monika Schaefer: So, yeah, and if you have a brief comment, final comment, because we have a couple of more callers on the line.

 

John: No, no, no, I’ll go, I’ll defer to them.

 

Monika Schaefer: So if that was John, thank you so much for your call. We have John from California.

 

Another John, are you there?

 

John: Yeah. So 528. I don’t know what, you know, about it. Good frequency or bad frequency?

 

Monika Schaefer: I don’t know. That’s a good question. Grace Eki, do you know, this 528?

 

Grace: I think it’s like you. Continue. I think it’s just a, C higher.

 

Monika Schaefer: Yeah, I don’t know. I think I’ve heard things about it that are actually kind of terrifying about it, but I don’t know. I’m not sure. [chuckling] What do you know, about it, John?

 

John: Yes, well, I don’t know a lot about it. I know that it’s titled. There’s a guest, I won’t use names that comes on this RBN that claims it to be a love frequency. But I’ve heard from others that it’s a not so much.

 

Monika Schaefer: Yeah. This is something we’re gonna have to do some more research on. Maybe the next caller will know. [chuckling]

 

Grace: But let me add that everything has a plus and a minus, the yin and the yang. So something that’s positive in one sense is possible, that it’s very, quite negative in another sense. But I’ve heard of this number. I think it was just, 2056 that you keep on going higher up. But I could be wrong.

 

Monika Schaefer: Okay. John, did you have anything like to add?

 

John: Well, yeah, I don’t know a lot about it. Supposedly it’s called Esophageal [sp]. I don’t know if I pronounced it correctly, which was something that was kind of in Rome, they had this thing kind of under wraps for a long time. And supposedly someone got a hold of this following. It’s supposed to come from the Bible and, …

 

Anyway, I just wondered what you knew about it. But thank you very much. Great show.

 

Monika Schaefer: Okay. Thank you for your call. Let’s take Chris from Alabama. And we really literally have just, 20 seconds left or so. chris, are you there?

 

Chris: Yeah. Hi, Monika. Sometimes when I have more time. I’m Chris from Alabama. I moved here from California along. I live in California. Born there in 57, married a Canadian woman in 88, and she’s lived in the United States for all this time. We’ve been to Canada many times. British Columbia.

 

Monika Schaefer: Did you have something for our guests?

 

Chris: That book is called The 440 Enigma, and it’s basically trying to blame the 440 frequency on a collaboration between the Rockefellers and the Nazis. And it has a swastika on the cover of it. And like everything else, they want to blame everything on the Nazis! I’m just adding that right now.

 

Monika Schaefer: Ha! Thanks for that. It does sound like we know that they’re lying to us about who are the “Nazis”, quote, unquote, and what they did and all that stuff. So that’s a little bit suspect, isn’t it? And the producer did write in the notes. Maybe it’s The 440 Enigma by LC Vincent.

 

Grace. Do you have a final comment? Just while the music is taking us out?

 

Chris: It’s a pleasure listening to you.

 

Grace: Yes. I wanted to say that, remember that your voice is the free gift of so-called God and nature, an instrument you already have inside and so is your body. And I think it’s in our DNA to love, to dance and sing, and it should help one when one that’s not really so happy. Thank you.

 

Monika Schaefer: Beautiful! Thank you for being my guest, and thank you to all the callers. Thank you very much.

 

Monika Schaefer: And thank you to the producer, too. Awesome job!

 

Grace: Thank you.

 

Monika Schaefer: Keeping everybody straight. Okay, bye bye.

 

[59:01]

[music]

[59:05]

[ad]

[59:59]

 

 

END

top

 

 

 

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

 

RBN Comments

top

(Comments as of 8/25/2024 = 0)

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

See Also

top

 

 

 

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

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

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

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

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

 

 

 

 

 

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 6/3/2024 = )

Long Knife
22 hours ago
“They are, all of them, born with raging fanaticism in their hearts, just as the Bretons and the Germans are born with blond hair. I would not be in the least bit surprised if these people would not some day become deadly to the human race.”

3
0

@danadlington
12 hours ago(edited)
If you consider international law the contents of this video could be interpreted as an Act of War against the White Race. This goes beyond racism. Also as time goes on and it’s more and more evident we have no political representation. Based off available evidence I don’t believe there’s a political solution to this problem as it’s built into society so deeply. The question is how quickly can the normies wake up and will the Genocide plan be into it’s final phase for any meaningful action to be taken?

2
0
Hide replies

@L
11 hours ago
get comfortable with the idea that a resolution will not come in your lifetime, nor mine or likely not for possibly a few centuries. How we got here didn’t happen overnight, and won’t be fixed that quickly either. know this and embrace it, dedicate your life to your people and work on things that will help other whites survive. eventually all empires collapse, though the technological aspect will possibly draw that out longer than it otherwise would take. think of your ancestors, every white person alive today is here BECAUSE their ancestors survived extraordinarily difficult times. This is a huge task in front of us, but it’s also part of nature’s way of correcting things ; only the most well equipped will get to pass on genetics and through that the future generations will be better and stronger, with the hope that they recognize the mistakes and not let it happen again.

2
0
Hide replies

@Pandemonium
2 hours ago
Your position presupposes a continuation of the status quo. Societal trajectories can be rapidly changed through the insertion of destabilising variables and which cascade into unstoppable forces. This is where accelerationism needs to be embraced by WN, instead of defaulting to the “two more weeks” cope strategy and the “we need more time to prepare” fear response. The more I see of how WNs are operating, individualistic within their splintered groups the more apparent it is that we need a unifying set of rules to steer our efforts. Just like the Jews have done using their Talmud and texts like Rules for Radicals and the Frankfurt School doctrines.

1
0

@pius.hermit
13 hours ago(edited)
The only society, that would be able to survive, would abort jews postnatal. And choose the postnatal abortion for whamen, that are not willing to get children, or are to old for this, even if they have given birth before.

2
0

@Alison-Chains
18 hours ago
I just saw this on Weston’s show. we all need to share this

1
0
The worst
18 hours ago
agree with this video

1
0
By Their Works
20 minutes ago
One angle that i didn’t even know worked on me until i was embarassingly old is that “overpopulation” is destroying the environment. Of course this is pushed in White nations to White kids, not in the nations that can’t feed themselves, and are actually overpopulated. Whites are the one who /should/ be breeding. We are the ones who will invent and improve the technology to restore a healthy balance with nature. Whites have to stop funding the growth of non-White populations and remove non-Whites from all of our nations. Nature devised us to outcompete obsolete subspecies. We must purge the poisonous parasites and realize our potential.

@Pandemonium
2 hours ago
These videos are well researched but always fall short for mass distribution. Terrible “AI” voice overs and questionable imagery will not see widespread distribution of this information into the “normie” sphere. It is also amazing that despite all of this information that no motive or understanding of central drivers are discussed, which is not only CRITICAL for normies to understand WHY,HOW and WHO but to ACCEPT it as fact. This is where the work of people like Adam Green discussing Edom is paramount and further to this is the nature of PARASITES, that is there is no VALUE CREATION occurring to “progress” society. I commend the time and effort to make this video but it needs more work to break through to the masses.

1
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 = 4,620

• Total words in post = 6,822
• 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: Mon, Jun 3, 2024 — Published post. Includes Odysee comments ().

David Kurten: Welcome back to the David Kurten Show here on Today’s News Talk, TNT. And it is fantastic to have back on the show Mads Palsvig, who is the leader of the Prosperity Party in Denmark. Mads, welcome back to the show.

 

Mads Palsvig: Thanks, David. Good to see you again.

 

David Kurten: Yeah, really good to see you again. Now I want to talk to you about some, you know, the general issues that you write about and speak about on X [formerly Twitter] and on social media, as well as leading the party in Denmark. And that relates to something that happened in the news in the UK yesterday. There was an incident at Manchester Airport where a couple of Israelis were stopped, you know, in a routine check. They were held for a couple of hours and then let into the country.

 

But there was a complete outpouring of the narrative that these people have been treated badly. They’ve been treated with “anti-semitism” because they come from Israel. But if someone came from Russia or Afghanistan and they were given the same treatment, no one would bat an eyelid.

 

And do you think that the narrative of anti-semitism is talked up more than you know, that actually there is anti-semitism in existence in the West?

 

Mads Palsvig: Oh, for sure, yeah. I mean, leading jewish scholars admit openly that it’s a tool they use to get sympathy. And they’re very successful in this. They managed to take over literally every institution in America. 85% of the Biden administration is jewish!

 

So they are very successful.

 

And you mentioned Russia. Now, my wife is Russian-jewish, so I’m of course knowledgeable about what’s going on there.

 

And if you talk about “anti-Russianism”, if such a word exists, most people are not aware that Russian people were collectively punished for Putin’s Special Military Operation in Ukraine by having all their assets frozen overnight. They didn’t even get 24 hours to transfer their money to Dubai or elsewhere. They just had all their assets frozen.

 

So you have collective punishments of all Russians. I cannot send a package to my mother-in-law. I cannot send money to my mother-in-law. I cannot travel directly to my mother-in-law. I have to spend 1,000 Euros to travel through Istanbul or Dubai to visit my mother-in-law, who is old, who is fragile, who is in hospital on and off. And this is collective punishment, but this is just Russians!

 

And then if you are reading the Talmud, then you would see that they write that a jew is worth 10,000 non-jewish! And a jew should have 2, 800 non-jewish slaves! These are not my words. These are written in the Talmud.

 

[02:55]

 

And I believe that some of the jews in Hollywood and some of the jews in the US administration are clearly Talmud followers, because the chutzpah to think that you are entitled to 85% of the good jobs. And that goes for not only the Biden administration, that goes for all the leading jobs on us universities, all the social engineering, the woke culture that is happening there, the anti-Christian and the hostility towards Christian people. Hollywood is also 85% Talmud followers. And it’s nonstop White guilt, social engineering, hate towards White people:

 

“Just open your borders. We need to get rid of the White people!”

 

And they literally, you can find so many examples of leading scholars, writers, politicians in the Knesset, talking openly about, you know, not only genociding the Amalek, they call the Palestinians, but actually all White people!

 

So I think it’s about time that all jewish people, all the good jewish people, and I know a lot of them, when you have a jewish wife, you get a lot of jewish friends. I love them! And I need more jewish people now to go out and say:

 

“Excuse me, maybe if we only 2% of them are America, maybe we shouldn’t have more than four to 5%, at most, of the leading post in the society?”

 

Because who’s talking about the diversity? It’s the jews who are talking about the diversity! It’s the jews who are using this tool of calling diversity by shaming and White guilt tripping the White people. Because we’re all behind the Holocaust! All of us! Not only some psychopathic Nazis, who wanted to loot jewish wealth, but all White people have to pay.

 

So you can have, … Well Americans don’t have free healthcare. If a jew is sick in America, they have free healthcare, even including organ transplantations.

 

So there is a rule for thee and the rule for the other people. And this is based on this philosophy of “collective punishment” that is inherent in the Talmud. This Amalek “kill all of them”. So if one Muslim commits a crime against a jew, then kill all of them! This is collective punishment. This is not Christian.

 

In Christianity, we have an eye for an eye, which means if someone is committing a crime, you can go for one person and only him. You cannot kill his wife and children! It’s not a Christian thing to do. And I would like to see a more Christian world order in the Christian societies, and a Muslim and a Hindu and a Buddhist in their societies, of course.

 

I’m not saying Christians should be running the whole show. I’m just saying in the Christian countries, I would like to see a Christian world order of love, of forgiveness, of all men are created equal, and never collective punishment, only the perpetrator.

 

And what we’re seeing is we’re having a Talmudian world order right now perpetrated by the 85% in the Biden administration, and that is hate! That is revenge! That is racial supremacy! That the only genocide we are allowed to hear about is crimes committed against jewish people.

 

[06:24]

 

The 50 to 100 million Russian, mainly Orthodox Christians that were murdered, we’re not allowed to talk about! Any other genocide it’s not important! Because there is a racial supremacy inherent in the Talmud!

 

And I would like to see all my jewish friends who might watch this and any other jewish person, who are lovely people, and I love jewish people. They’re bright, they’re fun to be with, they’re great people. But please, come on, now!

 

I mean, if you’re promoting diversity, then try to be a little bit diverse. Allow some Hindus, some Buddhists, and Muslims and Christians to be allowed to make some movies and run Wall Street, run the universities, get an occasional seat in the Congress and the Biden administration.

 

David Kurten: That is an absolutely extraordinary figure! 85% of the Biden administration being jewish. I didn’t know it was that high, being a Christian myself. And I say the majority of people in the United States, which obviously is the most powerful country in the West, would say they’re Christian.

 

But I think there is a very big blind spot here, because a lot of Christians would support jews because they think of themselves as living in a judeo-Christian culture, and think that Judaism is just, well, the Bible without the New Testament, it’s just the Old Testament.

 

And a lot of Christians have never even heard of the Talmud.

 

I mean, I myself, I’d never heard of the Talmud until three or four years ago. I wasn’t even aware of his existence. And I’ve now come to understand some of the things that are in it, and it’s absolutely horrific!

 

And it means that if you follow the Talmud, which was written in the first of the fourth century AD as a rejection of Christ, Christ is the fulfillment of the Old Testament.

 

And a lot of jews are Christians. There are messianic jews who follow Christ, have gone that way, but there are some who follow the Talmud. And it’s a horrific book, isn’t it?

 

And I think everyone should be aware of what’s in there. And you’ve put that very well and succinctly how that book is now having an incredible influence over Christian nations.

 

Mads Palsvig: Yeah, I mean the reason that you and I probably were not aware of that until, in my case, also three, four years ago, is because there’s a death penalty for a jew to tell a non-jew about the Talmud. They know that it’s not good.

 

And in the Talmud, they also write that you are free to commit any crime against non-jewish people, even on the annual Purim*. To take part in the annual Purim. I just posted a video of how they have kids dress up as Arabs and jews.

 

[09:21]

 

And then in the Purim, the kids in the schools are play killing the Arabs. I’m not kidding! It’s happening. This is what they do. And on the Purim, they have to go in, if they take part in that. I’m not saying in all synagogues, not in all synagogues, but in certain synagogues they have, when they take part in the Purim, in the ritual, annual ritual, they have to promise to break all promises to non-jews in the following twelve months. And that’s totally fine! I mean, come on now! That’s enough!

 

And there are so many assimilated, or whether there are religious or non-religious jewish people out there. I think, you know, you had a good run. We all love you. We’re not going to collectively punish you, all of you, for what some evil jewish people have done of crimes. We are Christian people. We will only go for those who actually committed a crime. We’re not going to go after his wife or his kids. This is not a Christian thing to do.

 

And then I have another thing I would like to say is the Germans have now been punished for 80 years.

 

I mean, can you find an inch, an ounce of forgiveness in your heart? Isn’t this enough? Isn’t it enough now!

 

The latest gimmick they now have found out is that now they have to be ritualistically humiliated during the European football championship. And the German men are forced to play in pink! Come on!

 

David Kurten: No! I didn’t know that. That’s terrible, isn’t it?

 

Mads Palsvig: It is so in your face! We own you!

 

Come on, that’s not good. We are nice people. And the jews people are nice, but we are all nice people. We should get along.

 

And the thing is, the minute Germany get their freedom again, then Germany and Russia will find out that they could benefit each other with Russian energy, German ingenuity, and we would have freedom, democracy and prosperity beyond belief!

 

If only we are allowed to not be socially engineered into hating each other and fighting all these ridiculous wars that already cost at least half a million young men their lives in Ukraine. It’s horrible!

 

David Kurten: Yeah, well, it goes back a long way, doesn’t it? I think we’ve had the World Wars of the last century.

 

But I think the greatest tragedy, or tragedies, of the last century is that there was enmity created between England or Britain and Germany and Russia and Germany and America and Germany, and now America and Russia and Britain and Russia. And we have four great Christian nations here. If we all got along and helped each other and supported each other and worked for creating prosperity and building a Christian society in a Christian world, how incredible would the world be? But this continual enmity being stirred up, and I speak against it. You speak against it.

 

[12:35]

 

I mean, look at the Russophobia in all of the mainstream media all over the West because of what’s going on in Ukraine. And you just think that this is perpetuating the tragedy and perpetuating something that is desperately wrong here, when we should all stop fighting against each other and start being friends again.

 

Mads Palsvig: I totally agree. And if I can add, this fight against Russians, it’s again a sanction against human beings of flesh and blood with a beating heart. It’s against the Russian people.

 

And also all us non-Russians who have friends and family we love in Russia. It’s not against the corporations. 97% of all western corporations who were there in March 2022 are still there. You can buy everything there! I was there last year visiting my Russian family, and everything is there. And the standard of living is just going one way. The sanctions are not working. The Russian people are hardworking. They don’t understand this hate. They’re very serious people. They’re ready to fight. They don’t want to fight.

 

But if you want to fight, they will hit back! And I have no shadow of doubt. If there is a war, they will win it. And I try very hard to show a third way. So you have, like, you have one way. You are either pro-China and Russia or you’re pro-NATO.

 

But I would like to say there’s actually another way. That is, there are some people who are running both, who are trying to stir up the beans and get both sides to fight each other.

 

And I think it goes back a long way. If you read books by Golitsyn and Bezmanov, they suggest that it was actually engineered in the Soviet Union back in the sixties. All the social engineering in the West, the youth revolution, the feminism, the attack on Christianity, was all engineered in the atheistic communist Soviet Union back in the sixties. These are first hand witnesses who were present in the meetings who say that.

 

And you can see it might have happened by other means, but there were definitely a motive. And they tried to do it and they’ve succeeded in doing it.

 

So that’s the third way I’m trying to say is that someone is trying to infiltrate and destroy our Christian nations and they’re trying to make us fight with Russia and China.

 

David Kurten: Yeah, well, I mean, I absolutely agree with you because, you know, looking back in history, you know, just very briefly, there was this hideous revolution in 1917. The Royal Romanov family was executed by, you know, Bolsheviks, and most of the Bolsheviks were jewish, Talmudist jewish people. And then revolution didn’t happen and take off in the West, so cultural Marxism was developed. You know, that goes back from the sixties, and then it also goes back to the Frankfurt School in the 1920s as well.

 

[15:35]

 

And one of the people involved in the Comintern at the time was Willi Münzenberg, who is reported to have said:

 

“We will make Western civilisation stink! We will change and undermine all it’s values and make life impossible!”

 

So that’s really horrible! It’s quite satanic! You’ve got these people who actually genuinely wanted to do that.

 

But Mads, I totally agree with you on all of these things. I wish we could talk for much longer because we’ve just touched the surface on this issue. And, you know what you’re saying about feminism being created. I mean, this is a cultural Marxist ideology where women are seen to be oppressed and they need to “rise up and smash the Patriarchy”.

 

And then you have homophobia and trans-phobia where the LGBTs are created as a group, and then they need to rise up and smash hetero-normativity and undermine Christian values, and so on.

 

So this is going on in multiple different parts of society and we can see it.

 

But anyway, Mads, thank you so much for joining me on the show today, and I really wish you well and the best with your Prosperity Party in Denmark. I hope one day we can be in the places of power and we can turn things around and we can get things back to normal.

 

Mads Palsvig, thank you for joining me here on Today’s News Talk, TNT.

 

[16:59]

 

[END]

 

[* Purim: A Festival of Hate and an Insight into How Jewish Supremacists view Gentiles
March 14, 2014 at 12:10 am

 

Purim: A Festival of Hate and an Insight into How Jewish Supremacists view Gentiles

 

By David Duke. As the Jewish celebration of Purim starts on March 15, it is timely to ask what is Purim, why is it celebrated and what does it mean? The answers to these questions are shocking–and always covered up by the Jewish-Supremacist controlled mass media.

 

It is vital that non-Jews acquire a fundamental understanding of the unconscionable hatred engendered by this primitive Jewish celebration of atavistic hatred, murder and revenge against their enemies, a feast called “Purim”.

 

According to the Jewish religion, Purim means “Feast of Lots” which comes from the Jewish contention that Haman, who was the Prime Minister to the King of Persia, Xerxes (the Jews call him Ahasuerus), planned to kill all the Jews in the empire.

 

Xerxes’ wife was the Jewish Esther and she with the Jewish leader Mordechai interceded with the King, to have Haman executed and allow the Jews to exact revenge upon those they saw as their enemies.

 

There is no archeological or historical evidence for any of this other than the bloodthirsty writings in Esther and it’s admittedly Jewish version of the events. The book of Esther records that Haman along with all of his ten sons were hanged, and that 75,000 Persians were slaughtered by the Jews.

 

Interestingly enough, the Jews used Jewish influence (that of Esther) over a Gentile king to do their dirty work. In one instance, the book of Esther even frankly tells how the King was fooled into believing wrongly that Haman had cut down his beloved grove of trees.

 

Esther explains that Haman did not do this but the angels did it and appeared to the keepers of the trees as Haman.

 

 

END

top

 

 

 

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

 

Youtube Comments

top

(Comments as of 3/29/2024 = 76)

@ChefEarthenware
1 day ago
Excellent guest.
21

@MrSillenomis
1 day ago
Hats off again to David for a great interview providing brave clarity on these issues
17

@TheGreatestLieEverTold
1 day ago
God bless you David for doing this and thank you.
9

@allenniumfalcon
1 day ago
Bang on.
14

@sipocharles9180
13 hours ago
For years, I have questioned the statistical absurdity of Jews having a global monopoly on business, banking, and economics, which by extension means the world, but representing only 0.2% of the world’s 8 billion people.
Mr. Palsvig echoes this sentiment and articulates it excellently, aiming at problem root causes, so I look forward to hearing from him more.
Well done, David. I applaud your courage in tackling this sensitive topic.
14

1 reply

@romeisfallingagain
4 hours ago
a racket of blackmail, extortion and payoffs
1

@clivejohnston9894
1 day ago
Massive fan David – this guy is kicking ass 󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿
5

@DavidUK64
13 hours ago
Great job David and Mads!!
3

@martingodden613
7 hours ago
my lovely wife is Russian.She is unable to transfer her Russian pension home to the UK.Something she worked hard for many years to receive.Collective punishment indeed.
2

@ChrisLipthorpe
22 hours ago
I met Mads at an Ian R Crane AV conference in 2018. We need more politicians like him.
9

@davestevenson9080
1 day ago
Fantastic push of the overton window there david. I don’t really believe there is a political solution but if heritage run in my area i’ll give them a vote
27

1 reply

@romeisfallingagain
4 hours ago
you are wise to know the solution isnt political, its theological
1

@a.j.b.8658
8 hours ago
I hope you can turn things around too, David! I’d be proud to vote for you.
1

@bertibear1300
1 day ago
Good show.
6

@mattfm101
5 hours ago
David knows how to touch on this subject without ever touching on it, it’s beyond words how impressive how he does it.
2

@Thecountofstgermaine
1 day ago (edited)
Well done david you keep blowing me away with your guests, im a deep researcher into jewish malfeasance glad youve got the cojones to go there may god be with you always.
EDIT:if anyone needs documentaries or sources ill be glad to help
21

David Kurten
·
1 reply

@davidkurten1
1 day ago
Thank you
3

@astroterf.
4 hours ago (edited)
Absolutely fantastic interview, thank you!
People have been encouraged and conditioned to be horrified by the Qur’an and Muslims while the (much worse) Talmud is kept quiet and if you talk about how much more appalling it is you’re ‘anti-Semitic’ – all by design!
3

@gillps5130
1 day ago (edited)
Kim Iversen very recently, now this. At long last. Europa the Last Battle and ‘The World Conquerors’, Louis Marschalko fills much else in. I’m glad you mentioned the Frankfurt School, David, which was in danger of being left out.
16

@GhostfaceAB
12 hours ago
Well said
2

@fredfredericks3496
1 day ago
There goes your YouTube channel, David. At least I’ve got the TNT app lol
5

@romeisfallingagain
4 hours ago
i have been informing people for years. was banned from facebook for it for 5 years. now its meainstream
4

3 replies

@astroterf.
4 hours ago
You and me both!
2

@romeisfallingagain
4 hours ago
@astroterf. to the end, brother
2

@astroterf.
4 hours ago
@romeisfallingagain
2

@rl53
6 hours ago
Lebor Glas Clann is a good read David for an alternative history of ideologies & how they came about.

@dd7521
15 hours ago
Free health care?
3

@kronos77
1 day ago
What was he saying about free health care for Jews in America? I dont get it.
6

2 replies

@lilleypops1868
13 hours ago
Apparently the US is paying for the health care in Israel and if they need to go abroad for treatment that’s paid for too. As for organ donation I believe they can accept organs but cannot donate organs themselves. I don’t know how true this is.
4

@romeisfallingagain
3 hours ago
wait til you find out about their mortgages/loan arrangement lol “heter iska” lol

@earthstick
1 day ago (edited)
I’m not sure that the accusation of anti-semitism is talked up, and I am not sure it is wrong either. If I was a Jew who follows the Talmud, then it follows that I would think differently. But I am not. So it seems to come down to this: Some groups, be they racial, national, religious, will put people of their group before people outside their group. And it seems that either Christians never did that, or it has been lost. Christ said anyone can be saved, so long as they follow him, so it is primarily a religious group. But if this group does not put its members before those outside the group, then there is nothing really to it, and its own destruction is inevitable. So how does it avoid being a weak group?
5

9 replies

@gillps5130
1 day ago
A really good question. The nature of Christianity virtually prohibits exclusivity. It wasn’t always so, crusades, missionary work etc but we have evolved away from it while others haven’t.
2

@earthstick
1 day ago
@gillps5130 That’s it, exclusivity. It appears to be the anathema of modern Christian nations. But a group exists because there is condition that divides the whole into those inside and those outside the group. Without that condition there is no group, nothing to be within. That condition is critical, it must be studied, understood, and enforced.

@earthstick
1 day ago
@gillps5130 It’s more than just that though. Is it true that the Pope blessed weapons in WWI? Because Jesus being a peaceful man, objected to that. And it seems if the Pope did infact bless weapons/support WWI, then we can see a clear contradiction that had such consequences that I dare say it has greatly damaged Christian faith. But that begs the question of how do we overcome the violent people. You mention the crusades, a bloody period in Christain history and a rude contradiction. But nobody cared about that until now.
1

@earthstick
1 day ago
@gillps5130 The recent chemical attacker migrant was accepted into the Christian faith, yet had a Muslim funeral. This question of exclusivity is central.
1

@ayyleeuz4892
23 hours ago
all ethnic groups have positive and negative ethnocentrism, each to varying degrees. Christianity is a religion, and it is universalist.

@gillps5130
13 hours ago
I’ve tried to reply twice but each time they have been deleted.

@ayyleeuz4892
13 hours ago
@gillps5130 you must write as if you are talking to an extremely politically correct person whom you do not want to upset

@earthstick
10 hours ago
@ayyleeuz4892 But it still has conditions before someone can be regarded a Christian. If there is no condition then it cannot categorise, and thus does not exist.

@ayyleeuz4892
9 hours ago
@earthstick I don’t know what you’re referring to. you mentioned noticing in group cooperation between Jews. I explain that Christianity is a universalist religion, whereas Judaism has a “law of matrilineal descent” so only people whose mothers were Jews are Jews, and so their ethnocentrism is expressed quite apparently in the world.

@shrunkensimon
10 hours ago
I’d be very careful that you actually understand the full history before giving energy to something that may end up causing a future mass horror – are you certain you’re pinning the tail on the donkey.
Bare in mind you may be seeing what someone wants you to see, so they can remain out of sight while another party takes the flack.

3 replies

@romeisfallingagain
4 hours ago
no, its called indepth study. everything said is correct. you just didnt get taught the history or theology by the controllers of the system
1

@romeisfallingagain
4 hours ago
@shrunkensimon rothschild isnt the beginning of this. the talmud is, and its teaching. i have hundreds of books which cover the topic at hand. stop coping
1

@shrunkensimon
3 hours ago
@romeisfallingagain Do you understand world history? The last 2000 years are about Rome, not Judaism.

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

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 = 2,716

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

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

 

Version History

top

Version 5:

Version 4:

Version 3:

Version 2:

Version 1: Fri, Mar 29, 2024 — Published post. Includes Youtube comments (76).

 

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

 

Odysee Comments

top

(Comments as of 10/3/2023 = 98)

Open Borders for Israel
10 days ago
$5.00
Spot on as always Mark… also cuckservatives nearly all support mass immigration, miscegenation, homosexuality and every other degenerate flavour of the day cause – they are just cultural Marxists 5 years behind… also whilst they deny whites any sense of ethnocentrism, they are all fervent Zionists and support blood and soil ethnonationalism and ethnocentrism for Jews…

41
3
Hide replies
renunciate
10 days ago
I think they’re just cowards, tbh. Too afraid to take a strong position on anything.

11
1
Hide replies
NaInOa13
10 days ago
playing “underdog” to get more of that donation/PAC money…

4
0

@MilosM.
10 days ago
I must heavily disagree on that. at worst, they are afraid to take strong position at anything, like user below said. But you’d probably find plenty of those who vehemently oppose all of those.

3
15
Hide replies

@MilosM.
9 days ago
I am conservative.

1
1
Hide replies
Sir Leon
9 days ago
You are a disgrace for humanity…

0
3
Hide replies

@MilosM.
8 days ago
i hope bolshevik shekel money is good to you.

0
1
Hide replies
Sir Leon
7 days ago
Conservatism has failed the White race, either become a hardened National Socialist or be a Zio-Liberal Tranny.

0
2
Hide replies

@MilosM.
7 days ago
that’s stupid. National socialism is delusional. White people are better than that. It failed more white race than conservatism itself (National Socialism being a form of conservatism though)

0
1
Peak Aussieman
10 days ago
“Conservatism” will go down as a bigger grift then Progressivism has been. At least the Progs, they actually genuinely believe their stupid crap they spew. The “Conservative” talking-head class have been the premier con-artists for decades.

20
0
Hide replies

@MilosM.
10 days ago
well I hope not. because we would have nothing left then.

1
9
Hide replies

@Vivec
10 days ago
There is something else but people were taught to hate it and reject it.

11
0
Hide replies
Mike Forester
8 days ago
Something like a … can’t put my finger right to it … a … kind of … THIRD political position maybe.

2
0
TheCeltDenise
10 days ago
I don’t care about Brand. He’s a mongrel pajeet mutant. But who would defend TATE?

21
1
Hide replies

@vettekid407
10 days ago
for real?? I knew he wasn’t white but no clue of his actual background

10
3
Hide replies
TheCeltDenise
10 days ago
Brand is half White, half rape monkey pajeet. ALL pajeets are rape monkey pervs.

9
0
Hide replies

@markantonynosferatu
10 days ago
Where did you see that info? Both his parents are white, there are photographs of both of them available.

3
0
Hide replies
Kanketsu
4 days ago(edited)
I don’t know for certain what brand is, but he’s clearly not British, and that beady dead eyed stare he has looks pajeet to me.

No Thoughts Barred
10 days ago(edited)
Conservatism has conserved.. what exactly? At this point it’s a hollow ideology used to stop disillusioned men embracing the third position. Conservatism, like liberalism, only works in a homogeneous society. I think it’s a good measure of intelligence to see who continues down the dead end path of conservatism and who embraces “radical” politics.

16
0
Hide replies

@MilosM.
10 days ago
I still cling to conservatism because I see no other option. conservatism should be better than this what we have. At least you cannot call Tories or Republicans as conservatives. Such term would be so unappliable to them.

3
9
Hide replies

@Vivec
10 days ago
National socialism, its the natural counter to communism. You’re well aware of that but dont want to take the leap judging from past discussions in the streams. Hopefully you change your mind on the topic.

8
0
Hide replies

@MilosM.
10 days ago
national socialism, with the key word socialism,will never be part of my mantra. Because of people who know nothing and feel less.

0
1
Hide replies

@Vivec
10 days ago
You are still fixated on the socialism part without understanding the difference. I suggest looking into documentaries of what was done at the time to bring people out of poverty (actual germans not just some random human that crossed the border). Its like night and day.

2
0
Hide replies

@MilosM.
10 days ago
socialism is all over the same. don’t tell me it’s not. Fight for the working class, but that doesn’t make you socialist. I am coming from a former socialist country and for all its virtues, I really wouldn’t live there.

0
2
Hide replies

@Vivec
10 days ago
It wasnt the same under a proper leadership, look at what they accomplished in a few years. Nothing will change your mind on the issue but know there is something out there, conservatism isnt the way out of this situation.

2
0
Hide replies

@MilosM.
9 days ago(edited)
ah, protecting your society against lgbt propaganda, eradicating feminism completely, employ indigenous people and pay them properly (who will have to work), stop migration and immigration (at least from 3rd world; read: non-European countries), allow people of either Christian or pagan faith to practice their religion undisturbed, having successful industrial organization that thrives on profit, allow people to have medical treatment for free (unless is some more complex procedure they have to pay), allow freedom of speech where no one should be untouchable, allow people to become modestly rich, but not too rich (cuz no one who is too rich reached there honestly).
All these I am completely in.

1
0
Hide replies

@Vivec
9 days ago
Good summary, if you’d like to find a name for it that doesnt remind you of communism go right ahead. If you agree with what they’ve done its good enough for me we have similar goals.

1
0
Hide replies

@MilosM.
9 days ago
well I imagine all these were a very thing in period 70 or more years ago. I doubt it was communist. I mean, I certainly am no reminded of communism in the first place.

No Thoughts Barred
9 days ago(edited)
Think of it as Social Nationalism. If NS were a Marxist ideology then the left leaning aspects of the party wouldn’t have been purged in the night of the long knives. There was even a term used to distinguish National Socialists who were previously communists from regular National Socialists, “beefsteak nazi”. The only people who were oppressed under NS were Marxists/communists and later on Jews. Safe to assume you’re neither of those so you wouldn’t have to worry. I recall you have some interesting takes on China, try to view what they’re doing through an NS lens and you’ll find some similarities. CCP is a poor man’s NSDAP with Marxism mixed in.

2
0

@markantonynosferatu
10 days ago
European nationalism is more conservative than conservatism. How is conservatism even an option, they are complete losers, and that is what they will always be allowed to be by their masters.

6
0
Sir Leon
9 days ago
Conservatism has conserved ‘Jewish Hyper-Capitalism’, ‘Atomizing Individualism’, and ‘Worldwide Zionism’.

4
0
hitlers nest
10 days ago
Hail \0

11
0
Hide replies

@vettekid407
10 days ago
hail

7
0
Hide replies
linuxHelpTipsUK
10 days ago
o/

linuxHelpTipsUK
10 days ago
o/

renunciate
10 days ago
Are Brand & Tate actually conservatives or are they just in place to discredit people that object to the current things? I’ve certainly never identified with either of them. One reminds me of a loser hippy chick I knew in high school who is now a loser adult gaming the system, the other reminds me of a two bit scumbag that wears their shirt unbuttoned a little too far and thinks Las Vegas is classy. Lol. Yuck.

8
0
Hide replies
Mark Collett
10 days ago
Except Kanye actually approached one of the BIG issues.

14
3
Hide replies
Asadafa
10 days ago
hear, hear

2
0
linuxHelpTipsUK
10 days ago
That ‘issue’ had a big nose lol.

2
0
renunciate
10 days ago
True, Kanye did share more truth and he also got punished harder. I wonder if his current “wife” was hush money?

2
0

@nboeger
10 days ago
He’s a degenerate and always was. The only reason he is on our talking points is because they have become popular and he likes to be seen as a “rebel”. It’s all vain and faggie.

7
0
EmptyLife
10 days ago(edited)
They are coming for him because he started questioning the establishment. Whatever he may have done I’m more concerned about the British government trying to influence private companies to cancel people.

6
0
Hide replies
No Thoughts Barred
10 days ago(edited)
Yeah I don’t like media witch hunts. If you have a crime to report go to the police, not the media. This isn’t a defense of Brand, I hate snakes like him.

9
0
King Tut
8 days ago
Andrew Tate is a lowlife scumbag that not only pimps white girls, but also manipulates and scams the lonely and desperate men so he can buy his Bugattis. i hope he rots in Romanian prison forever.

4
0
Save the white race
10 days ago
I’m no fan of Brands and his leftist globalist anti-capitalist anti-white politics certainly doesn’t align with mine but then neither does that despicable Tory woman who tried to cancel and stop him earning money.
I hate those that push cancel culture and those behind the online data bill. whether it be against good people like Mark and Laura or Brand.
Sod that Tate though.

5
1
Hide replies
linuxHelpTipsUK
10 days ago
There all in bed with each other….

1
0
Mike Forester
10 days ago
When I heard the news about Brand I thought: Well, well, well. Couldn’t happen to a nicer guy, eh? A spoiled rotten, champagne leftist trust fond brat gets taken down because of sexytime offences during his BBC tenure. After what this prick has done to you, Mark, in the past, I’d file that under “poetic justice” and lean back.

4
0
Hide replies

@MilosM.
10 days ago
What Russell did to Mark?

0
4
Hide replies
Mike Forester
9 days ago
Many years ago when Mark was active for the BNP (or even earlier) Brand did a TV report “exposing” his racisms and that Mark’s a very bad geezer ‘n stuff. He did it of course in the ambush journo way lying that he would hear the other side of the argument. It aired on national TV as far as I know.

3
0
Mike Forester
9 days ago
After looking around I found the hit piece on Bitchute. The “doco” is called “Nazi boy” from 2002:

3
0
Hide replies

@MilosM.
9 days ago
i saw that, but I saw nothing but a friendly chat between the two. actually I think all Nazi and “bad” was added without Brand’s input. Even Mark admitted once they had a good time.

1
0
Hide replies
Mike Forester
8 days ago
Then you didn’t watch it until the end. Yeah, they had a good time, until Brand tried to pull a “got’cha” on him with the goal to publicly embarrass Mark as head of the youth branch of BNP.

@Koko
10 days ago
Gatekeepers get the pit along with the lowly talking heads that prop them all up..

4
0
Moon Man’s Dad
10 days ago(edited)
Great video, but I think the reason that Tommy Robinson defended Tate despite him converting to Islam, has more to do with the fact that Hope not Hate were the ones behind the attack. They were offering 50,000 to any women that would come out against Tate. Having been a victim of Hope not Hate himself and knowing Tate before they both became famous, Tommy felt that he had to defend him. (He explains all this on the Fresh and Fit show)

(Also explains how he is a proud Zionist and paid for his own trip to Israel, they don’t even need to pay him)
Tommy goes on to say that he was extremely disappointed when Tate converted, having promoted him to his sons, but they are still part of a privet WhatsApp chat for guys that grew up in Luton.
So it seems his loyalty to Tate has blinded him from reality, as Tate has admitted he likes to strangle women during sex and boasted of making all his money by being Mr 50% a Digital Pimp.
Personally I hate them both, but I thought I would just let you guys know about their real life connections.

4
0
Hide replies

@MilosM.
10 days ago
Tommy is strange fella to me. He is supposed to be some Jewish shill yet gets all sorts of accusations thrown at him. Or there is something I don’t know? And somehow I think he would hate the likes of me, despite that my aversion toward muslims surpasses the one toward Jews. for half an inch.

0
3
Sir Leon
9 days ago
Andrew Tate and it’s clique (I call it Tateism) is not a positive social trend for traditionalists, conservatives, and especially national socialists. To classify it as “anti-feminist” is misleading. The worldview pushed by Tate is essentially ghetto philosophy (no surprise given his heritage), which conceives of man’s purpose in society as an individualistic struggle against other men to accrue the most “paper, bling, and bitches”. There is nothing here resembling family values, patriarchy (in the true sense: rule of fathers), nation, race, or God. It is nothing new either: Rappers have been putting out an identical message for decades.
If feminism is defined as opposition to patriarchy, then Tateism is just another strand of feminism, albeit a macho version. It never actually denies the precepts of the sexual revolution; it merely offers a method whereby men can enjoy its fruits.
In short, Tateism is just what Pope Pius XI predicted: That, when “female liberation” is achieved, and women are taken from their positions as mothers and homemakers, they will simply become the sex toys of men. Tateism is not anti-feminist, it is simply the logical conclusion of feminism.

3
0
Rev. James Costello
10 days ago
Well said.

3
0
Moon Man’s Dad
10 days ago(edited)
Expert analysis as usual. Tate is the physical manifestation of anti-conservatism, a mixed race sexual deviant, who rises well above his station, becoming a multi-millionaire by exploiting women and sad lonely men. Only to turn around and become a Muslim, whilst maintaining his inflated ego. The irony is that having a prideful heart and a belief that one’s good fortune is a result of their hard work, not the divine providence of God is one of the most deadly sins in Islam, yet that’s Tate’s entire personality…

4
1
Hide replies
Moon Man’s Dad
10 days ago
So it’s doubly ironic.

@HerrNordstorm
9 days ago
Russel Brand is f..king scum, I hope they hang him by his balls. I saw what he did to Mark Collett and i will never forgive that scum, ever.
Another zog-puppet, f-ck him.

2
2
RyaHiSs
10 days ago
Hi Mark, have you ever heard of KiwiFarms and Josh Moon? I watched your previous video about off-com and the concerns for freedom online. Have you ever thought about discussing freedom of speech online with him?

3
3
Hide replies
Sir Leon
9 days ago
That is a very interesting question, but I doubt it will happen. If Null associates with Ethno-Nats like Mark, he could be in trouble legally.

Eh
10 days ago
Good video. I thought you may have had an axe to grind re your previous posts. This is more thought out. Thank you.
You know it’s hypocritical of you to criticise “conservatives” for adopting online personalities for their benefit. You did exactly the same thing – will keep it to Goddard and Mitchell as they left in a somewhat acrimonious way.
Nothing against them, but we know they are both thick and seemingly just got involved because you sucked them in – which is fair enough.
The former is a thick egotist who never really understood what you stand for and the consequences involved, then tried to distance himself from you in a cowardly way. Nowadays he shouts at black people, saying they’re racist.
The latter – also very thick. He left or got kicked out literally because of some bird. Couldn’t stop harassing her when it didn’t work out.
I can understand why you used them to grow your movement, but you shouldn’t criticise other movements who do exactly the same thing.

2
0

@Prussnblk
10 days ago
That video of Brand following you around was just weird

2
0
Matt Hammond
10 days ago
Last night I had a dream where I actually met Mark. I had been invited to some house and I was in some living room talking to him. I was babbling on and on and he was just listening and nodding. I was trying my best to make a good impression and knew that I shouldn’t outstay my welcome. Various people were sitting on the couch and coming and going. Family members and associates I guessed. I ended by shaking his hand which became a prolonged handshake but not awkward and telling him how much I admire him and his work. It was very vivid. One of those dreams you have when you oversleep beyond your normal waking time.

3
3
Hide replies
No Thoughts Barred
10 days ago(edited)
Interesting. Recently I had a dream (nightmare) where my sister got in a taxi and it was blew up by a Muslim. I think it was Jung who said that dreams represent the unconscious mind. I guess both the good and bad in our lives manifests while we sleep.

1
0

@nótt
10 days ago
Years ago I met Hitler in a dream. It was great.

1
0

@NormalStyleCrew
7 days ago
‘ello, luv

1
0

@david_smith
8 days ago
I’m not racist, but what species is Brand?

1
0

@tonyellis154
9 days ago
I detect a lot of cynicism Mark.
its a big stretch from drunken junkie sexual predator, to Saville’s psychopathic child molestations and child trafficking.
We certainly can’t agree with everyone and everything, but I’m saddened to see Christian values thrown out the window by Mark with redemptionf being a fundamental underlying principle. If someone is speaking truth to 6.5 million people, that is something we should promote and somehow reinforce and spread the message.
what Brands views
on immigration are now I don’t know, perhaps we should use his platforms to challenge him, lets see if he’s prepared to stand up for the oppressed, like Longshanks and Graham Phillips?

0
1
Defaced from Humanity
10 days ago
The enemy of my enemy is my friend. Ever heard that? If you’re tied up in the immorality of someone’s past life just to throw away the attack against the truth, then what chance have we do win in this information war?
Obviously, I am not in favor of what these men have done, but I don’t want people doing better than me to lose their independence. Because if they can lose their independence against the system, then someone like me, much lower in the economic chain, stands absolutely no chance.
When you’re in a war, moral purism never wins the battles in an immortal society.

3
2
Hide replies
Defaced from Humanity
10 days ago
Read Sodom and Gomorrah. Did purist morality of man win? NO.
Wake up and realize the war you’re in isn’t for the morality of a single man. It’s a battle between Satan and God. Morality will always be the casualty.

0
2

@MilosM.
10 days ago(edited)
it’s not outrageous that (some) conservatives hurl to support either Russell or Tate. Anyone who had about unpopular for the establishment takes got their seat in Convo circles. I’ve already heard some saying “thank God for Tuckers, Musks, Shapiros, Rogans, Brands, Jones etc. But I wouldn’t smear conservatives because of that. Even Ye for a period of time is seen as an idol for white nationalists. I would be more concerned if lefties dig these people too.
Mark, you should goad Russell to join PA. It seems dark days are way pass him.

1
5

@SCrusader
1 day ago
The biggest threats White people face, are traitors, and cowards.

Tony
5 days ago
Brand-Tate are conservative of the status quo : incels , conspiracy lunacy , Covid conjecture, pick up culture and dead internet proliferation.

@paxroma
7 days ago
Brand and Tate are a couple of scumbags end of.

@NormalStyleCrew
8 days ago(edited)
do battlefield earth on next film club. have mike enoch on to replace laura since she already hates it

Htrac
8 days ago
Brand is not a conservative, he’s a left wing hippy who said things against big pharma and the establishment (similar to Piers Corbyn). Russell Brand is not Andrew Tate and they shouldn’t be conflated.
But yeah, conservatives are cucks. There is also nothing new about Russell Brand being a sex pest, it’s been known for 20 years. Nobody cared when he was the darling of the left. It’s clear why it’s suddenly coming out now, and I am not defending him by saying that, I just think media and government overreach to cancel people is always wrong, whoever the target.
Brand has most likely done bad things and he should be punished for that (before now), but he should still be entitled to innocent until proven guilty. This trial by media and deplatforming or demonetising despite not breaking any laws or the platform rules, with MPs writing to companies to say he should be removed or demonetised, is ridiculous and not good for anyone. Speaking out against that is not speaking in support of Russell Brand – this kind of censorship and authoritarianism is not good for any of us.
I know you have beef with Brand because of that documentary he did about you when you were younger, which was admittedly a horrible way to smear you (although with hindsight you actually came out of it looking very good, basically predicting everything).
With Andrew Tate, as far as I know, not even conservatives support him. He’s popular with a certain misogynistic young male demographic, but generally hated by most prominent conservatives and everybody further right.
Less

White Nationalist (Balk Right)
9 days ago
21 years have passed and Britain has changed a great deal, since your interview with Brand. You have stayed on message with the same vision. He, not being intellectually honest, has fallen. I know that most will never allow themselves to self actualized and see if their logic and reason is off. Certainly, I do not expect the intellectually dishonest Brand to revisit his interview with you, since he would experience the, “I told you so.” Being a Balkanist, I don’t help fund a great deal of people that be not part of the Balk Right, since I do not believe there’s a political solution. I’ve always given to you because of your iron will and not kowtowing.

Major Dolby’s Cat
9 days ago
Only If you’ve still got a platform to say “I told you so” Mark. The way it’s all going arse about face, only the far left will be heard and quite frankly that’s such an horrific thought.

Avalon
10 days ago
It’s hard work being right

linuxHelpTipsUK
10 days ago(edited)
One’s a sex pest the other ALSO a sex pest but a mongrel. stupid freemason silly rituals they do! This is clearly a psyop as well. muh andrew tate, muh balloon, muh maui, muh brandon and now muh brand. Remember there ALL in bed with each other! Celebs a-like are all controlled opposite.

MTaylor
10 days ago
Brand is like Trump. Not perfect, but he gets the sheep to think about things they otherwise wouldn’t

Hide replies

@Tyrnasra
9 days ago
And he deliberately misleads them, like Trump, and behaves as a pied piper.

Wibble
10 days ago
WotW released this re Tait…

Yet still some will defend him, just as they defend Scott Ritter, a serial paedophile, arrested twice, on over 20 counts of soliciting sex from under age girls, including sending them videos of himself masturbating…sadly for him one of the girls was an undercover cop and he had a short spell in prison, but still people have him on their streams and defend him constantly, saying things like “He was entrapped!” not a care about his crimes, just how he was caught…
My personal thoughts on Brand are, if the accusers are granted anonymity, why not the accused, at least until/if found guilty of any crimes….?
And apparently this whole campaign against Brand has been going on for over 4 years, and the average payment to the accusers is £60 to £100k….
The whole thing is very clearly manufactured by the media…not saying there’s no truth in the allegations…but that is all they are right now, allegations….

0
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

 

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

PDF Download

top

Total words in transcript = 2,106

• Total words in post = 6,529
• 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: Thu, Oct 5, 2023 — Added images.

Version 1: Tue, Oct 3, 2023 — Published post. Includes Odysee comments (98).