Anne Twomey: Welcome back to the Constitutional Clarion!

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

For example, by:

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

So it’s actually a self fulfilling condition!

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Articles 20 and, 26 require:

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

[19:30]

 

 

END

top

 

 

 

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

 

Youtube Comments

top

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hide replies

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

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

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

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

Hide replies

@Lucid-AUS
9 hours ago
Very informative thank you

@constitutionalclarion1901
2 hours ago
You’re welcome.

Hide replies

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hide replies

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

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

Hide replies

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

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

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

Hide replies

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

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

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

@constitutionalclarion1901
2 hours ago

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

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

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

Hide replies

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

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

@constitutionalclarion1901
12 hours ago
Thanks.
8

Hide replies

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

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

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

Hide replies

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hide replies

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

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

Hide replies

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

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

Hide replies

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

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

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

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

Hide replies

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

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

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

@constitutionalclarion1901
12 hours ago
Much appreciated.
2

Hide replies

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

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

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

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

Hide replies

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

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

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

Hide replies

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hide replies

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

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

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

@MrTiddalik
13 hours ago
Never a dull moment
1

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hide replies

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

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

Hide replies

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

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

Hide replies

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

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

Hide replies

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

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

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

Hide replies

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

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

Hide replies

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hide replies

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

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

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

Hide replies

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hide replies

@nicholassteel5529
14 hours ago

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

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

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

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

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

Hide replies

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

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

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

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

Hide replies

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hide replies

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

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

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

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

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

Hide replies

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

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

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

Hide replies

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

@constitutionalclarion1901
15 hours ago
You are most welcome.
2

Hide replies

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hide replies

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

@justheretowatchatrashfire
14 hours ago
Yep
1

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

Hide replies

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

@lylegc01
15 hours ago
Thanks again for your vids
1

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

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

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

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

@worker-wf2em
10 hours ago

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

Hide replies

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

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

Hide replies

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

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

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

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

Hide replies

@michellefranklin3182
15 hours ago
Thanks for this.
4

@constitutionalclarion1901
15 hours ago
Much appreciated.
2

Hide replies

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

@Know_It_All
16 hours ago
Thanks
3

@constitutionalclarion1901
15 hours ago
You’re welcome.

Hide replies

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

See Also

top

 

 

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

Kenny Ko: What is up, guys? Welcome back to Kenny Cancelled. I have a very special guest today. It is Germar Rudolf, who many of you may know, and many of you may yet to know, but I’m sure you will be happy to hear his story for a like-minded cause. Germar, thank you once again for taking the time to join the podcast and chat with me. I’ve been looking forward to this just because I’ve wanted to pick your brains on some of the stuff that I believe happened during the “Holocaust” and other certain events throughout history.

 

I’ll allow you to take the mic, introduce yourself for maybe the people who don’t know much about you as of yet.

 

Germar Rudolf: Yeah, well, thank you first of all for having me. A little bit about my background. I’m a German citizen. I grew up in West Germany. I had a kind of normal lower middle-class upbringing and ended up going to university studying chemistry, graduated from Bonn University, then moved on for postgrad studies for a PhD, got a position at a Max Planck Institute for Solid State Research to work on a PhD there.

 

And while I was doing that research, I became curious and interested in applying my knowledge as a forensic chemist, which I had developed during my graduate studies, to a field that is a little bit exotic—that is to say, history. I stumbled over an expert report that had been submitted in 1988 during a Canadian trial against a German immigrant who had been quote, unquote, “denying the Holocaust”. That expert report was written by the—back then—the only existing expert in execution technologies in the United States. Since we have the death penalty here in several states, there need to be people who can design and equip and maintain that kind of equipment.

 

So he was asked in that trial to come up with his expert opinion of whether or not the homicidal gas chambers that are said to have existed at the Auschwitz and Majdanek camps could have existed. He did that and he came to the conclusion:

 

“No, that wouldn’t have worked!”

 

Caused quite a brouhaha. I learned about it a year later. At the time when I was just graduating and then doing my fledgling PhD studies. I dipped my feet into that field and tried to find out a little bit more because I got a copy of that expert report from Fred Leuchter, from that American expert, and I was not satisfied. It didn’t live up to my expectations and I wanted to do a better job. And then I found actually a legal team who would finance that. So I got expenses paid—didn’t get anything paid but reimbursement for my expenses.

 

But that was good enough for me. I was personally curious about what was going on. And I eventually submitted an expert report that was introduced—or, I should say, the defense lawyers in seven or eight defense cases in Germany, Switzerland, Austria, more so than Germany actually—tried to introduce it. The courts turned it down in these cases. German courts don’t accept any evidence that challenges the mainstream narrative.

 

But anyway, that was my introduction into the topic. My conclusions basically were: Leuchter had it basically right, even though he jumped a little bit to conclusions that were not well founded. But I managed to do a lot of research and back it up.

 

And while this all was going on—doing my PhD studies, doing this forensic work, investigations and appearing in court as an expert witness who was always turned down—I realized, well, Auschwitz, the question of whether or not there were homicidal gas chambers and whether forensic chemistry can elucidate any of the questions of whether it happened or not and if there are any traces, is only a very minor aspect of the Holocaust, which is a big issue. It’s three years, a whole continent, hundreds if not thousands of crime locations. And what can you deduct from thinking to have resolved one tiny issue about one alleged murder location in this context?

 

So I figured the area is bigger. I want to know more. I want to wrap my head around everything. And I was reaching out to other people. I was planning on doing an anthology, a collection of—I think it was initially—15 contributions by various authors from all over the world who were looking into other aspects of the Holocaust. And we eventually published that book. While that was being prepared, German authorities also…

 

Kenny Ko: Sorry to interrupt, just for the people that are watching, what was the name of the book?

 

[04:12]

 

Germar Rudolf: Well, it appeared in an English translation in 2,000 for the first time. And it’s called Dissecting the Holocaust. Now all the books and the research that I have pursued and published ever since, over the past 35 years, can all be accessed free of charge as ebooks on the website called Holocausthandbooks.com. So if anyone’s interested in actually following up and finding out what this is all about, you can go there and find it out.

 

So that was volume one of the Holocaust Handbooks, Dissecting the Holocaust. This anthology has more contributions now. The updated last edition is just two years old, I think. And volume two of it was actually— is now—an updated, expanded edition of my original forensic research into the question of whether or not there were homicidal gas chambers at Auschwitz. That’s volume two.

 

And as I mentioned, there are now 54 volumes, plus we have a range of documentaries and some other, more summary books—they’re called Holocaust Pocketbooks. All of this stuff is available free of charge on HolocaustHandbooks.com. You’ll find links there where you can also purchase hard copies which are not free of charge, of course; they cost to produce and mail.

 

So the authorities were going after me. I had by 1990, I think, five court cases pending, five criminal investigations pending, in addition to my original trial for my forensic research. As I mentioned, introducing that evidence gets impossible in German court cases.

 

And then they went a step further, actually putting me on trial for it, for my forensic research, and denied me then the right to defend myself by proving that I’m correct. Because that is “contesting the mainstream narrative” again; you’re not allowed to commit that crime in a courtroom, so you’re not allowed to defend your views. They actually later turned it into an actual crime to even file a motion to introduce evidence proving that my dissenting views—or anyone’s dissenting views for that matter—are correct, declared that a crime, and they would prosecute defendants or primarily defense lawyers who would file such motions, and convicted them.

 

So defense in Germany in these cases is illegal! It’s kind of absurd—a Kafkaesque situation. I had to go through this in my own trial. Eventually I decided I’m not putting up with this. I was sentenced to 14 months for my forensic research, but I didn’t have to serve time immediately because the appeal was pending. And when more and more criminal investigations were filed by the prosecutors for the various books and journal articles that I was working on, I had published, I decided to leave.

 

So I went into exile and in 1996 lived in England for three years, until a journalist there published a hit piece on me demanding that I be extradited to Germany. And then British Parliament even had a session where I was discussed. And so the situation got tricky there.

 

I had used the three years in England to expand my publishing activities. At that point I was a little bit hemmed in, couldn’t do active research anymore because I was kind of living under an assumed identity and couldn’t travel. But I was giving other researchers a platform; they could submit stuff to me, I would publish it online and in print, initially only in the German language.

 

But then I slowly started to get into doing stuff in English, which of course—if something in this modern world, with the lingua franca being English, does not exist in English—it basically doesn’t exist at all! You have to do stuff in English for it to be recognized and noticed by the world. Now my English initially when I came to England was pretty bad. But the three years helped me to get up to speed. And when things were heating up in England, I decided to leave. In late 1999 I came to this country and after a while applied for political asylum here.

 

Now I expanded then in this country to do what I had done before only in German, also in English, which down the road ended up with these 54 volumes plus all the other stuff.

 

However, there was a little bit of a bump in the road because America has waged two wars against Germany to make them do what they do—suppress historical dissent. So they were not willing to give me political asylum, even though the immigration judge who reviewed my case said multiple times during the hearing that:

 

“This is the best documented asylum case he’s ever seen!”

 

But the immigration judge is not a judge in the legal sense. He’s actually an employee of, back then, the State Department, and later it was the Department of Homeland Security. And he has to follow orders given by the administration, and they said:

 

“Deport him!”

 

And eventually that’s what happened. By that time, however, I had married a US citizen. The marriage had been recognized and I had been granted an immigrant visa. I had the documents that:

 

“Your immigrant visa for a Green Card is granted.”

 

And at that moment—when that certificate, this confirmation, was issued—I was arrested and deported. So just before getting to the counter to get my actual Green Card, they arrested me and deported me back to Germany.

 

Now Germany had an axe to grind because by that time I had published a further 20 books in the German language. And they had an arrest warrant out not only for the 14 months that I had to spend from before, but also for the 21 books that I had published and been selling in the time ever since I had left Germany.

 

Kenny Ko: So my question, and I’m sure the audience too, what’s the crime that they charged you with?

 

Germar Rudolf: Incitement to hate.

 

Kenny Ko: Exposing the truth?

 

[09:40]

 

Germar Rudolf: No, the crimes—they didn’t invent these new laws. They had been on the books, similar laws, ever since Frederick the Great! Believe it or not, Frederick the Great had a massive immigration policy because after the Thirty Years’ War, Prussia/Brandenburg was devastated and was depopulated to a large degree. And he wanted French Huguenots and Protestants who were persecuted in France to come to Prussia. So he invited them by the tens and hundreds of thousands. I don’t know the exact figures, but the Prussian subjects of Frederick the Great were not happy about this massive influx of immigrants from a different culture. So no different situation than today—people being not happy about mass immigration. And there was a lot of polemics going on. Frederick the Great issued a law: You can’t stir up the people against minorities—particularly non-German, non-Prussian minorities back then.

 

So that law has developed over time. It became part of Germany in 1871, when Prussia kind of merged into Germany and Germany took over the Prussian laws more or less. And that’s been on the books ever since. As a matter of fact, in 1936, I think, under National Socialism, a German Catholic priest by the name of Rupert Mayer was indicted by the Third Reich judiciary for inciting the masses and stirring up the masses, because he was preaching in his church against National Socialist policies. He was sent to a concentration camp for a few months. So he was kind of persecuted for the same—and prosecuted for the same—offense that I have been prosecuted for.

 

The group that is protected by this law depends on whatever the zeitgeist demands as a specially protected group. Under Frederick the Great, it was the French immigrants; under the National Socialists, it was the government and the National Socialists that wanted special protection. And nowadays it’s immigrants and jews and Zionists that have this special protection. So it’s a vaster, or more numerous, group of special interest groups that have special protection nowadays.

 

So that was stirring up the people—inciting to hatred—back then. They still have “inciting to racial hatred.” They have taken that term out because “races” don’t exist, as you know. It’s politically incorrect to assume that.

 

And then also “disparaging the commemoration of the dead” and “insults.” Insult is on still-living jewish witnesses—insult them by insinuating that they could not have told the truth! And disparaging the commemoration of the dead is just all the victims that died—you deny that they even existed as victims, and so on. So there are four laws I was actually tried under back then. They did not yet have a special law for, quote-unquote, “denying the Holocaust”. They introduced that in 1994, kind of as a result also of my activities that unfolded back in the years, and all the rest of it.

 

Anyway, I ended up being deported to Germany, put on trial there, got another 30 months for only two of the nine books I was indicted for. Twenty-one were in the arrest, 19 were in the indictment. And for two of them I got convicted to 30 months. Had it been 21, that could have gotten nasty. If you get one year or so for each one of them, you do the math. Because eventually I got 50 months for the two books—the two publications—they booked me for eventually.

 

So 44 months later, I was out. And the US authorities said—they eventually denied my political asylum. The case had still not been resolved by the time I was deported. So I was whisked away, not only in violation because I was rightfully married to a US citizen. And US law says you can adjust status if you have a clean record.

 

And what I was convicted for in Germany was not recognized as a crime here in the United States. It’s First Amendment stuff. So from the US perspective, I had a clean record, should have been allowed to adjust status to permanent legal residence, but they deported me. Plus, it’s a violation of the Fifth Amendment, the right of anyone physically present in the United States to have due process.

 

Now, if in the middle of a hearing and procedure in front of a federal court, you arrest a defendant and throw him out of the country— which is exactly the reason why the case is pending; you want to prevent being deported—that’s the whole reason of the case, whether it’s political asylum or just withholding from deportation. Both of these cases we had filed for. Deporting me in the middle of it is a violation of the Fifth Amendment. Supreme Court didn’t take the case. That’s the way how they prevent not adjudicating a case that is unpleasant to them.

 

So I was back in Germany and then had to fight my way back to get my immigrant visa, even though I had already been granted it; it wasn’t issued physically yet. And then I was outside of the country already, so I needed one to be able to get back. The US authorities weren’t adjudicating the application. They just said:

 

“It’s too complicated. We can’t decide whether we’ll ever be able to adjudicate it.”

 

In other words, they were stonewalling. I had to litigate against them, force them to a decision. Fortunately, I got a judge in the Chicago federal court who kind of sided with me. For once, something went my way. He is an immigrant judge from Syria. No, I think from Syria. Not quite sure. Anyway, from the Middle East. So he evidently saw through what’s going on here, and he rubber-stamped every motion that we filed in kind of lightning speed. For legal considerations, federal courts take months for things to be decided, but he was taking days.

 

And then in August, 2011, after two years of waiting and litigating after having gotten out of prison in Germany, I was back in the United States. So I’ve been in the country ever since. The Germans keep doing what they’re doing, issuing arrest warrants or Europe-wide arrest warrants. And they stopped issuing me a passport because they want to catch me, but I don’t need a passport.

 

So I have no intention of leaving the country.

 

[15:21]

 

Kenny Ko: I was going to say, do you ever plan on leaving the United States now?

 

Germar Rudolf: No, I can’t. I have no passport. I’ve tried to adjust to become a citizen. But no matter what your background is, you have no right to become a US citizen. That’s a discretionary act of the people of the United States, represented by the government. And I applied for it, but they were stonewalling that case too, not adjudicating it.

 

And then eventually a cop framed me for something that didn’t happen. Early in the morning—talking about fitness—I was doing triathlons early in the morning for four years. Some neighbor in the neighborhood didn’t like that I was working out in the park there, doing calisthenics, and going in the river to swim, and ride a bicycle.

 

Kenny Ko: Were they jewish?

 

Germar Rudolf: No, it’s just—I don’t know the neighbor. It’s just a riverfront property. And he went to work every morning and he saw me once in a while, and he was calling the cops for years! Cops were checking on me for years! I didn’t realize what was going on really, but I couldn’t do anything. They got pissed. They got called for years and years—six years or so—every other morning in the summertime when this guy saw me. He wasn’t happy about me working out in the park area there.

 

Kenny Ko: Wait, why did he dislike you so much, or what was his issue? Did he know your work or something?

 

Germar Rudolf: No, no, I don’t know.

 

Kenny Ko: Interesting!

 

Germar Rudolf: I have never contacted the guy. I don’t know anything. I know from a cop that eventually talked to me about this, that there is, they say:

 

“A man in the neighborhood, he calls anonymously.”

 

Nobody can call the police anonymously! So that was just a claim made up in order not to have to reveal to me who that is because they think some people may take revenge for the perpetrator. I know where he lives. I know his daily routine because I was there for 10 years, every morning from April to September/October, and I know his daily routine—what time he gets up, where his bedroom is, what he does next, when he goes to the kitchen, does his breakfast, and which TV channels he watches, until he gets in his car and leaves for work. That’s the routine. I’ve been there for 10 years. I know the routine of that neighborhood.

 

Anyway, the cops realized they can’t get the guy to stop complaining and they can’t do anything against me because it’s legal to be there! That’s a famous fishing, motor-boat, recreational area.

 

And so the guy just said he was going to make up a claim that I was doing indecent exposure there, which wasn’t true. But you have only a cop and yourself at four o’clock, at a dark, vacated park, nobody there. And the guy makes up a story and then he contradicts himself. That’s interesting. Because in the preliminary hearing he makes up a completely wild story. And I couldn’t believe it, what he was telling. And then by the time the trial came, the prosecution had realized that the case was physically impossible. The claims he made couldn’t have been. It was not visible what he was claiming. It was just physically impossible. So they completely changed the story.

 

And if you have that situation that a witness—and that’s only one witness—completely changes the story, that’s automatic proof of perjury.

 

So I have that actually published, both transcripts, and everyone can look at it. You see that a cop’s committing perjury on the behest and on instruction, I would assume, of the prosecution. Because the prosecutor doing the trial showed a photo of the scene, taken from the place where the cop said he saw things. And you could see the things he described in the preliminary time were impossible. The prosecutor must have realized that. And then they told the cop that and he changed his story.

 

I requested after that from three law firms, three lawyers: :

 

“What do we do about it? I want to file a criminal complaint against the cop for perjury.”

 

And the answer is:

 

“They framed you the first time—if you are right that they framed you—and the prosecutor actually was the one working with the cop to get that accomplished. Your criminal complaint against the cop for perjury would come on the desk of the very prosecutor that has framed you in the first place. What do you think is going to happen? You get a second framing so fast you can’t blink an eye! And if you have two of these cases hanging, as an immigrant, you get deported from this country automatically!”

 

And that’s what’s going on. So my attempt to get citizenship was stonewalled. They weren’t deciding it, but the moment I was convicted and the conviction was upheld in the appeal—which was kind of absurd too—they instantly denied my citizenship application because I have a criminal record. Now you see what’s going on. And the appeal, the argument was:

 

“Wait a minute. If a guy with a searchlight goes in a park at night, completely black, and looks around and then happens to find a person with pants down, as he claims, what do you call a person who’s doing that?”

 

Kenny Ko: A streaker, I guess, or flasher.

 

Germar Rudolf: Peeping Tom!

 

Kenny Ko: Yeah.

 

[20:03]

 

Germar Rudolf: Yeah. So if you give that guy a police badge, what do you call that? Still a peeping Tom!

 

So the argument wasn’t made that way. But basically, a crime of indecent exposure requires that somebody has been indecently exposed to someone of the public. A police officer who is going around with searchlights is not a person of the public. It doesn’t count. So therefore, the crime has not been committed, because as we all know, it was completely dark and it was vacated. Even if it were true—which it isn’t—but if it were true that I was there with my pants down, it cannot have been a crime because nobody was around. And the Appeals Court said:

 

“Well, it doesn’t matter. From now on, we say anyone who has the pants down anywhere in public, whether anyone is around or not, commits indecent exposure.”

 

Which means that every person in the world that ever lived has committed indecent exposure! If you were ever in nature and had a pee or did your business—which happens to us sometimes—it’s automatic indecent exposure.

 

Kenny Ko: They might be looking for me. I probably have over 50 charges against me here!

 

Germar Rudolf: Right! So legal professionals after that appeal decision said:

 

“This is impossible! This is completely untenable case law you’ve created here. Now, everyone has committed indecent exposure. Indecent exposure requires the intentional act to expose your genitals to someone in public who does not consent!”

 

If you’re in a nudist area, that’s not, because you have consent there, right? But if it’s not in a nudist area, you don’t get consent, then that’s a crime. But if there’s no one around, there’s no exposure. So later they actually reverted that by simply ignoring the case law. And every case that’s been adjudicated in Pennsylvania ever since still goes after the old law because the new case law is complete bullshit! But it shows you what was going on—trying to prevent me from getting citizenship, to have something, and to go to extreme lengths, to ridiculous lengths!

 

And I suspect that they got to my defense lawyer, because my defense lawyer threw me under the bus. I had all the evidence showing that this thing cannot happen. And of course we had him nailed when he contradicted himself—perjury. And my defense lawyer refused to defend me, refused to introduce any evidence.

 

So this is the curious thing about America. You have the First Amendment when you are outside the courtroom, you can speak your mind. If you’re inside the courtroom in a penal case and you’re the defendant, you don’t have First Amendment rights. You depend—you can speak out only if you go—if you’re defended by a lawyer, of course—you can speak about the case only if you go into the witness stand and then you can only answer to specific questions that you are asked. My defense lawyer, I had given him 10 questions I wanted him to ask me, and then develop the case and introduce all the evidence. And then I get into the witness stand and he doesn’t ask any of the questions! Only one:

 

“What did happen that morning?”

 

Which was complete bullshit because that didn’t allow me to introduce any of the evidence showing that I was working out, that I have a history of working out, and introduce images of my clothing, and so forth.

 

Anyway, the issue is, of course, now I don’t have citizenship and I have this criminal conviction. And the lawyers then said:

 

“Get the hell out of there! The best is to remove yourself from Pennsylvania—not just from this county—most certainly stay away from that county because they have you on their list there, and move!”

 

So that’s what I eventually did.

 

Kenny Ko: So where’d you move to from there?

 

Germar Rudolf: I’m in upstate New York now.

 

Kenny Ko: Okay. And you’ve been there since?

 

Germar Rudolf: Well, you know, it was my marriage that fell apart. That’s been in decline ever since. You know, if you have been forcibly separated for six years, that doesn’t bode well for any marriage. And my wife suffered more than I during that time of separation because it wasn’t her battle and she had to be a single mother raising our daughter all by herself. She was stressed out and not happy.

 

And then of course, I wouldn’t stop doing what I was doing. Coming back, slowly getting my feet back into things—that is not conducive to marital bliss. Plus, which I found later, the family and friends evidently were undermining the marriage from behind the scenes, unbeknownst to me, to one degree or another. So that wasn’t a good situation.

 

Anyway, eventually, when all this unraveled, I left and lived with friends first until my marriage issues were resolved—getting through divorce and splitting up assets and so forth. Until you know what you have, you don’t want to make any moves. So when that was settled, I could actually get my own life back. And that happened a couple of years ago.

 

Now I’ve used that time well. Fifty-four volumes of hard-hitting research accessible at HolocaustHandbooks.com, unparalleled in the world when it comes to the depth and the scale and scope. For instance, if we look at Auschwitz, which is the most iconic crime scene of the Holocaust—whatever happened there—I mean, it was nasty even from a revisionist perspective, from a skeptical perspective: 135, 500 documented cases of deceased inmates. That’s a huge number.

 

[25:04]

 

Kenny Ko: Because I do want to pick your brain heavily on your research and what you found. One question I wanted, and I’m sure a lot of people have it: How’d you go from your PhD field—what you thought you were going to pursue—into so passionately looking into the events surrounding the Holocaust and the World War II time frame? What kind of sparked your interest, I guess, to want to navigate that?

 

Germar Rudolf: I had an interest in German history, just not that topic because it’s an unpleasant topic—modern German history, kind of circumnavigating the Holocaust, ever since, I would say, ever since I started studying at university, it was a kind of a private hobby. I knew about the importance of the topic when it comes to the German psyche, if you want to put it that way, because it weighs heavily on Germans, on their self-confidence as a nation, as an identity. But you kind of take it for granted. It’s cast in stone. It’s inevitable to have to deal with it. So it never crossed my mind to challenge the narrative, let’s say it that way.

 

But I refuse to accept that two wrongs make a right, that one evil can balance out another one. So using what happened in the past—whatever it is—as justification to commit other injustices, whether it’s against my own people and country after the Second World War or in subsequent issues that have come up more recently. Like we look at what’s going on in Gaza or the various wars that Israel is waging—that made me aware that it has relevance, political relevance; still not a way of challenging it.

 

But once I did stumble over arguments that I could verify—or refute, for that matter—the toxicological and forensic research that Fred Leuchter in the United States had done, I said:

 

“Well, I have to look into this is a question, a topic that has huge implications politically.”

 

Back then I thought only in German dimensions. I was kind of still in the German box. In the meantime, I’m more cosmopolitan, I see the larger picture. But it was enough for me to say:

 

“I want to find out!”

 

And the real motivator that got me going is to realize during my time as an expert witness how the system breaks all the rules it claims to defend. It claims to be at the core of its values—be it free speech, be it freedom of science, be it the rule of law. As an expert witness in court—when you are in Germany—the German procedural rules say if an expert witness is already in court, he is an expert at what he is supposed to testify for, he is able to testify, and the testimony is relevant to the case that’s being handled by the court, then he has to be heard. There’s no way of turning them down because there’s no effort for the court to get the expert—he’s already in the court—yet still they violated that law, in every one of the seven or eight cases I was summoned to testify!

 

And the panic that I saw in some cases in the eyes of the judges—because they knew they needed to violate the law; they are the criminals in that case. One of them ran out, called some superior—there is no superior of a judge—but evidently called probably the capital or whatever, some higher court to find out:

 

“Do I get backing from the higher courts if I violate the procedural rules here?”

 

And evidently the decision later on by the German Supreme Court:

 

“Yes, we’ve always done it, we will always keep doing it. That’s the way we have to do it!”

 

Bunch of horseshit! Excuse my English.

 

Kenny Ko: Hey, you can use whatever language you want. They put you through absolute hell! And first, I wanted to say too, thank you for all you have done, by the way. And also, sorry that you’ve been put through so much. But it just shows that the truth will always prevail. And we need people like you. Honestly, from the bottom of my heart, thank you for doing what you did, sacrificing what you have in order to get this information out to the masses.

 

[28:49]

 

 

 

 

Germar Rudolf: Yeah, that is the stage I’m in right now, actually. I was getting to that. Fifty-four volumes of hard-hitting archival and forensic research—too much to wrap your head around. If you want to read it all, it takes you years and by the time you get to the end, you have already forgotten the beginning. And the same was for me.

 

I mean, I’ve published all this stuff in German, in English, I’ve republished it in many, many editions. So I’m the one who actually has that stuff on his fingertips and should have the best knowledge of where to find what. But I couldn’t! I was forgetting stuff. And I had a hard time finding arguments, finding evidence, finding sources. So I decided eventually we need to write an encyclopedia.

 

And that’s what I’ve done. After my marriage fell apart—the depression, it put me into separation from my kids, from my home—I used that time, work therapy, to sit down. Within five months, I wrote an entire encyclopedia. Normally that’s a collective work of many scholars. Now I’ve been in the unique situation of having assembled this research for 35 years, having published it in several languages and republished it over and over again! I also was in charge for many years of the periodicals that were publishing papers on it.

 

So I have it all on my hard drive, kind of in my head. If not I, who else could do it? And I’ve worked with one additional scholar, a Professor of the humanities who helped me. I had some experience in contributing to scholarly works like that, encyclopedias. It’s not something you do every day. I’m most certainly not writing one cover to cover.

 

But I know that having, say, 200 scholars contributing—each several, or one contribution, one entry—to an encyclopedia is actually a much bigger challenge to get because it’s not economically viable. You don’t make money with this. It’s an honor for a scholar to be listed as a contributor to an encyclopedia because then he’s the top of the field in this particular entry that he is writing about, and to get people actually to do it.

 

And then you have a problem of synchronizing things because there’s overlap between entries and cross-referencing. And if you have everyone writing their own style, writing their own opinion, they sometimes don’t even agree on things. It’s a nightmare to co-ordinate that and to get that actually to go together—to have, first of all, everyone submitting their stuff, and then coordinating, synchronizing, streamlining it. And then the ego gets in the way where nobody wants to budge and they have different points of view. It can be a nightmare!

 

 

Now if you have just one guy writing it with one supporting it was actually a much faster job. But I required these 35 years of background in the entire field. And having published—covered—the entire field. HolocaustEncyclopedia.com is freely accessible for everyone. We update it, we expand it as it is needed. You can also get hard copies there in various languages. By now we have it in German, French and Spanish on top of it. And I’m currently working—and that’s what you interrupted me with, …

 

Kenny Ko: Sorry about that!

 

Germar Rudolf: Arabic translation. No, I appreciate that because I want to get the message out. The work is there. It is completely silenced and swept under the carpet by the mainstream. Any work on the Holocaust over the past, 20 years that does not at least consider the work we have done cannot be called scholarly! Scholarly means even if you disagree with a scholar, if it’s a considerable work—and 54 volumes is a considerable amount of work—then you have to at least say:

 

“Well, this work is there and I disagree with this for this and this reason.”

 

And that’s it! If you completely ignore it and you pretend it doesn’t even exist, that means you’re a dogmatist, you’re not a scholar anymore. And that’s the situation we have in the field of Holocaust studies—have had now for the past, 20 years plus. But this is only the scholarly issue; we’re talking about suppression. I frame it in a certain way to make clear what’s going on. History at gunpoint! Writing of history at gunpoint! That’s what we have in the Western world—have had ever since. The first country to introduce a law that basically puts historians under the threat of imprisonment was Israel. Surprise! In ’85 or ’86.

 

Kenny Ko: I wonder why that is!

 

[32:53]

 

Germar Rudolf: Yeah, so that was coming up with the John Demjanjuk show trial that started shortly after, to make sure that nobody gets any funny ideas of challenging the show trial they were about to pull off. So in that context that has to be seen.

 

And then the next one was France. And by now we are up to 28 countries who formally have declared it illegal. But there are many more if you look at those who informally prosecute it. Most of the Arab countries actually throw people in prison if they dissent publicly, not because they want to, but because they are basically in the pockets of the United States and the Europeans. They are all bankrupt states, most of them, except for the really oil-rich countries. When we’re talking about Jordan and Egypt, the two examples that come to my mind, or even Lebanon—they’re in debt and they get bailed out financially by Europe and by the United States over and over again! So they are basically corrupted. They should have an interest in free discussion of the topic because it impacts their region massively these days. But they suppress it too. In South America, there are a number of countries which suppress it.

 

So it has come to the point that over the years many mainstream historians have gotten in touch with me—privately, of course, and some of them anonymously. They just create a Gmail account and get in touch and don’t tell who they are, but by the amount of assistance they have provided—giving us archival material that we don’t have access to because many archives now are closed to us. You have to identify yourself before you can get in. And we can’t do that; we’d get arrested. More and more archival material is being put online. So that will hopefully— we’ll see it.

 

Anyway, these historians give us massive amounts of information from archives that we can’t access, and therefore we know they know what they’re doing. They are professionals.

 

Kenny Ko: Right.

 

Germar Rudolf: And I hear from them the fact that they work from behind this kind of a firewall to prevent any leak who they are and that they’re helping.

 

But also of those who actually have contacted me, I had one of Germany’s most prolific historians, Professor Werner Maser—may not mean much to you, but he has written on modern German history and the World War II era. Many books, many of them were translated in many languages. So he was one of the leading scholars in the field from a German point of view. One of these days he called me! When I was in the United States shortly before my deportation, complaining to me about the dictator-style conditions in Germany and that historians are constantly afraid and can’t write anymore what they want to do.

 

And I had a number of these encounters with half a dozen mainstream historians. These are the ones who stick their neck out and risk getting in touch with me. You can figure out how many more there are who will not say anything and just toe the party line quietly or stay out of this area entirely. One of the leading Polish historians on the Auschwitz matter, Wacław Długoborski [sp], who was an Auschwitz inmate himself—he became the curator of the history department of the Auschwitz Museum after the war for many decades—said in 1998 in an interview why Polish historians from the Auschwitz Museum for decades until the collapse of the Soviet Union had spread false, exaggerated victim numbers even though they admit that they knew better:

 

“Why did you lie?”

 

He said:

 

“Well, we were put under pressure in the Eastern Bloc. We would have faced disciplinary measures had we not toed the party line.”

 

That was 1998, that he had this interview. And that was the same year Poland introduced a law making it up to three years imprisonment to challenge the current narrative. So back in the communist days they were facing disciplinary measures—which is on a professional level, administrative stuff, like you get demoted, you get removed from that position and then have to go somewhere else or whatever. But not criminal proceedings! Now we have criminal proceedings. Poland is finally Democratic—and democracy, as you know, is when two wolves and a lamb decide what’s for dinner!

 

So that’s the situation when it comes to this topic—democracy and dictatorship are not mutually exclusive concepts. If you’re a democracy, the majority decides to dictate to the minority what they can think and say. That’s a Democratic dictatorship! And that’s what we have in these 28 countries.

 

Kenny Ko: Thank you—Canada included! [clapping] By the way, a lot of people don’t understand democracy or how it operates.

 

[37:14]

 

Germar Rudolf: Yeah, if it’s not guardrailed strictly by inalienable civil rights and the right of self-determination—I throw in there for the sake of being complete—then democracy is a lynch mob! That’s just a nice way of saying lynch mob. So in a democracy, a majority should never be allowed to take away essential civil rights—human rights—from minorities, no matter what. But that’s what you see here. So be that as it may—got a little bit sidetracked with this here! Yeah, so Długoborski says:

 

“We acted under coercion. That’s why we lied!”

 

At a time when the Polish government jacked up the coercion that they are threatening.

 

So if they lied before, and they agreed and admitted that they have lied because of coercion, and the coercion has increased—now it’s even worse! Why would you believe them now, the story they tell now? Historians the world over when it comes to this topic all act under coercion! Usually only those people get into the field on the mainstream who are ideologically charged. You see a hyper over-representation of jews in that field—no surprise. And you see people with left-leaning ideologies. So Antifa kind of attitudes—no surprise there too. A lot of the quote, unquote, “evidence” that we have for the mainstream Holocaust narrative was produced, skewed and faked and forged and fabricated by communist Eastern Europe.

 

When you look at the six camps where mass extermination is said to have happened—that’s Auschwitz, Belzec, Chelmno, Majdanek, Sobibor and Treblinka—and the Einsatzgruppen mass murders, gas vans, mass murders etc., that are said to have happened behind the Soviet front. All this is on former Soviet territories. So for 40 years it was behind the Iron Curtain. And the evidence that was presented in the Nuremberg trials and in many trials thereafter was produced in those countries in those years.

 

Can you believe them? I wouldn’t take anything at face value that comes from these countries! Does everything have to be a lie? No, of course not. We have to discern critically, with tools of source criticizm, to figure out what is true and what is not. Forensics. There are a lot of tools that historians have— forensic historians in particular. And in the encyclopedia, with all these crime locations, claimed crime locations, they have entries in there and they go through what the documents say, what the forensic research—if any was done—says, and what forensic research should be done to clarify any issues that we still have a lot of the fields have never been researched in a way that they should have.

 

You probably have heard of the mass murders at Katyn and Vinnytsa. So the Soviets and the Germans divided up Poland in 1939. And the Soviets arrested some 20,000 people of the upper society of Poland that came under their control. And after a year of detention they executed them—or not even a year—in various mass graves. The Germans in ’43 found two of them and made a big fuss about it. But they did not do the forensic examination of these graves all by themselves. They actually invited experts from all over the world, from neutral countries and even from countries they had occupied, and let them do the research or at least partake in that research.

 

And that is the way you should do it. The Soviets after the war—already during the war—did nothing like that! They had a commission that was actually re-examining the Katyn mass graves and blamed it on the Germans with an expert report—complete fake! And the same commission, with the same people, discovered more and more mass graves of German atrocities all over Soviet Russia and claimed outrageous numbers of people killed. On the face of it, obvious exaggerations.

 

What should have been done is somebody go in there and do the actual Katyn, German-style, independent, international forensic examinations. For instance, it happened in Cambodia—massive atrocities, auto-genocide if you wish. They called it a politicide. The intention was not to wipe off an ethnic group—that was not the intention of the Khmer Rouge. The intention was political ideology of an extreme degree. Mass graves of up to 2 million people. So up to one third of the Cambodian population was murdered there. And they had intensive forensic efforts to exhume those mass graves and to count the victims—an absolutely atrocious job when we’re talking about well north of 1 million human beings that were eventually found. Similar thing you had with the Kosovo mass murders that are said to have happened in the Kosovo War, 1999 and thereafter.

 

So this is the way it should be done. It’s never been done in the context of what we are looking at here. And the longer it takes to do it, the less likely it is that things can be clarified. Who are these victims? Who has killed them? It gets more and more problematic because Soviet territory is drenched in blood. We’re talking about 1 to 2 million jews presumably killed by German execution squads in this area. We’re talking an area that has seen the Holodomor, that has seen wars with millions of victims and mass graves of war casualties and prisoners of war, the mass executions that the NKVD, the Cheka, has done in the early years—particularly of the Bolshevik Revolution and the reign of Lenin and Stalin. It’s all in those soils there.

 

So wherever you dig, you’ll find bones. We’re talking north of 10 million, potentially, that are not jews murdered by Germans. Who talks about them? There’s a single focus only on that! But the Soviet Union never had an interest in clarifying any of it. They didn’t want anyone to dig in their soil because what you would find most likely is victims of Lenin and Stalin and so forth, rather than jewish victims of German units. And after the collapse of the Soviet Union, nothing changed really. There were a few attempts of Western scholars to excavate mass graves in Ukraine, which has a more neutral stance now since it’s independent. They have an interest in documenting Soviet atrocities—any kind of atrocities.

 

However, those research efforts into claimed German massacres of jewish civilians were again not done forensically. They were done with the background of public attention and commemoration culture. Locate a mass grave—don’t disturb it. It’s kind of the pressure from jewish groups. A jewish grave is not supposed to be disturbed. That’s against certain interpretations of jewish law. That doesn’t hold up in other crime cases.

 

But in that case they are adamant. Don’t rock the boat—meaning don’t investigate who these people are and how many there are and how they died. Just find the mass grave and put a memorial on top of it, and that’s the end of it. And so that’s kind of what happened, which is unfortunate.

 

Massacres did happen. There’s plenty of documentation and some good forensic evidence in a few cases where this can be found, and anything else would be a surprise. As I just mentioned, the Bolshevik Revolution, the predominance of people with jewish background in the early leadership of the Soviet Union and the early leading figures of the Cheka and the NKVD is well documented.

 

Kenny Ko: Also in America why do you think there’s such a heavy focus on the Holocaust and not the Holodomor, or the Bolshevik Revolution? Like why is it such a matter of the emphasis on one?

 

[44:43]

 

Germar Rudolf: Two reasons. First of all, you have of course mightily influential pressure groups. As you know, the Cambodians have a massive pressure group that can impose a memory/commemoration culture of the Cambodian genocide in this country? No, they don’t! The Ukrainians have somewhat of an immigrant group. They don’t have political clout.

 

Jews most certainly in this country have a lot of political clout, to put it mildly. And that’s the entry to imposing that kind of commemorative culture upon a host nation that has originally nothing to do with it. The United States has neither contributed nor assisted, nor was it in any way the victim of anything that concerns the Holocaust.

 

So why is it here?

 

Kenny Ko: And also why is there Holocaust museums in the United States?

 

Germar Rudolf: The other issue is, of course, you need to have a justification for the suffering of the sick. This has been portrayed in general as the “Good War”. The painting of a black-and-white image of absolute evil against absolute good. The Democratic countries fighting absolute evil in the shape of Adolf Hitler and his cronies. This is a narrative that finds its ultimate confirmation in the Holocaust. Even though the Second World War—when it broke out—there was no Holocaust going on. When it was escalating in 1940, there was still no Holocaust going on. When it was then completely getting off the rails with the invasion of the USSR, there was still no Holocaust going on! It is supposed to have started then, within the first half-year or first year of the war against the Soviet Union, step by step on various levels.

 

So the Second World War in itself—its initiation and its expansion and becoming global—had nothing to do with the Holocaust at all!

 

But it’s a convenient tool for people to say:

 

“Yeah, we fought absolute evil!”

 

In hindsight more than back then. And my reaction to that usually is, I’m not defending a dictatorship that tramples human rights into the dust. And that was National Socialist Germany. As I just mentioned a Catholic priest was sent for a few months to a concentration camp in the Third Reich for speaking out against oppressive policies.

 

Had I been alive and kicking in those years with my attitude to stand up against injustice, I may have ended up in a concentration camp as well. I don’t want to have a government of the Third Reich style when it comes to their disregard for the rule of law and for human rights.

 

But on the other hand, any government that allies itself with Stalin cannot claim to fight a good war! The Second World War breaks out in 1939 by Stalin and Hitler both dividing up Poland. So they are both evil at that point and have started the whole mess.

 

Hitler at that point, when you look at the Third Reich death toll of civilians who had become a victim of the regime, you can amount it to roughly a thousand people—people dying in concentration camps, not too many, but already some dying there who probably wouldn’t have died otherwise. You have the November of ’38 pogrom against jews where roughly 100 jews died. And you had the internal strife of the Röhm Putsch in ’34 where several dozen people were killed.

 

So we’re talking about a thousand people roughly that were victims of that regime. Not necessarily murder all of them, but some of them most definitely, or just gross negligence and so forth.

 

At the same time you have the Stalinist regime, which at that point—we can discuss whether it was 5 million, 10 million or 20 million by the time the Second World War broke out—but we are talking about four or five orders of magnitude more victims on the account of Stalin than Hitler!

 

So why would you pick the side of Stalin? I’m not saying you should have picked the side of Hitler. You should have stayed out of it altogether! If you have an interest—you consider both evil, okay? Make sure that they are well balanced and they start fighting each other and grind each other down and destroy each other. And at the end that both of them are kaput! That would have been a good strategy. Then you wouldn’t have to deal with the mess that we had for the entire Cold War.

 

And now with the conflict with Ukraine and all the rest of it—if Russia had been just as exhausted as Germany would have been and then brought to the point where it collapses internally and becomes reasonable; or Germany collapsed and became reasonable to some degree.

 

So anyway, with all this said, during the 1920s in Europe, German jewish organizations were ringing the alarm bell. In the ’20s, Germany itself was kind of unstable. There were a lot of attempts by Left-wing radical groups and communists to destabilize the country and have a revolution of the Soviet style. While at the same time in Europe they were observing very closely—and particularly in Germany—what was going on in the Soviet Union with the massacres happening, the Holodomor being one, but in general, the absolute atrocities on an order of magnitude that was unimaginable in the history of mankind. And seeing in the early 1920s that a lot of it is done by people with a predominantly jewish background. And people were seeing that. So jewish groups in Germany were saying:

 

“Well, this is bad—what’s going on there. The massacres in the millions—and it’s going to get blamed on jews! So the revolution that Trotsky and the Bronsteins are implementing now is going to end up with a backlash of massive retaliation. And during that coming Holocaust, the Goldsteins and the Goldbergs are going to suffer.”

 

So that was a prediction, I think in 1925 or something, by a German jewish organization. And it was kind of a prophecy. Eventual collision between Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia was a counter-revolutionary war against the initially predominantly jewish-Bolshevik Revolution. Now, by the time Stalin was in power and the Second World War broke out, Stalin had kind of cleansed his own ranks from predominantly jewish people.

 

When you look at the internally recorded ethnic consistency of the NKVD back then, you see that from ’34,’35 onward, the percentage in the higher echelons of that organization went down when it comes to jews—from 40% that they were at that time down to only, I think, 4% within a few years. You see an anti-Jewish cleansing of the entire political apparatus that Stalin put in place.

 

[Image: the mostly jewish CHEKA secret police]

 

Now of course Germany—Third Reich Germany—didn’t know that; it’s something that came out later. But in the view of Third Reich Germany, that was the embodiment of evil—looking at the millions of people massacred, impersonated by people with jewish background on purpose. Because these people were, in the classic sense, not jews anymore in a religious sense, but they had that background. So massacres were inevitable. They started already when the German army went into Russia. The Soviets, were retreating massively! And they— the local population, particularly in Ukraine—had suffered so much. They were the main battlefield of the Bolshevik Revolution.

See: The Other Holocaust — the Terror Famine in Ukraine

 

And then you had the Holodomor—the attempt of the Russians to break Ukrainian will of independence. What’s going on right now was nothing new. They have been through that for the past hundred years. They’ve been through it repeatedly. So the poor Ukrainians, they get it over and over and over again in history.

 

So by that time the Germans move in, the Ukrainians take matters in their own hands. They have massive pogroms directed against officials and against anything jewish. I know from personal account of Otto Strema [sp]. He used to be a major general in the Third Reich and he went into Russia in 1941 himself—that he stopped pogroms. So certain German units were turning a blind eye to it. Some units were encouraging it, others were stopping it, depending on the mood of the command or whatever was going on. But it was going on. And then Ukrainians collaborated in a large degree with whatever suppression and possibly massacres happened afterwards.

 

That was the backlash of 20 years of Bolshevik massacres that killed north of 10 million, mostly Christians, in Russia! If you see that in the context of the greater historical picture, it’s not a justification. As I mentioned initially, two wrongs don’t make a right. That goes on so many levels.

 

So whatever wrong the Bolsheviks had done is no justification for massacring every jew in sight. And many jews who lived in Russia had nothing to do with the Bolshevik massacres. But it makes things understandable.

 

And ultimately, why do we do history? Because we want to understand, we want to learn the Right, the correct lesson. And if you don’t get the story straight, you’re not going to learn the correct lesson. It’s an ever-escalating sequence of massacres, one justified by the other. And we need to see that, see that we all have blood on our hands when it comes to identifiable groups. That’s one with me. We—I don’t mean individually—but Germans have done bad things. Americans—the carpet bombing and throwing nuclear bombs on Japan—there were war crimes, there were atrocities, there were massacres. So destroying basically all of Central Europe and all of Japan.

 

So you need to understand that we need to find a way out of the circle of violence, to learn the correct lesson here. And it is sure not the correct lesson to learn from the Holocaust to teach jews now, already from the cradle—I’m exaggerating, but I think in 2014 they introduced a law in Israel that Holocaust education is now ready to start in elementary school. Elementary school kids in every country in the world— to any, not just elementary—but it is illegal to expose any children to chainsaw massacres and other fiction horror movies for good reason. It should be just as illegal to expose them to gas chamber massacre movies like Schindler’s List or whatever, which is shown to them at an age when they’re heavily impressionable.

 

Kenny Ko: Right.

 

Germar Rudolf: Because it is even more traumatizing if you show them a chainsaw massacre:

 

“Oh, that’s just fiction, it’s just made up!”

 

But it’s bad enough. And I have an adopted son who has been exposed to that prior to his placement—his biological parents had shown him these things. And I know what effect it can have. It should be illegal.

 

And if you tell them:

 

“Oh, this really happened—something like that—and it can happen again and it can happen to you, and the same people who did that are still around and they’re in your back. Yesteryear there were the Germans. Yesteryear there were the Ukrainians; right now they are the Palestinians in Gaza or the Persians in Iran!”

 

And that justifies then the next massacre. So if teaching about historical massacres is used to justify or gloss over the next massacre, we learn the completely wrong lesson! And that’s what this country, with its support of whatever Israel does! And in particular, jews and Israel, Zionists in the vast majority have been learning because of what we experienced, presumably because it was so unprecedented:

 

“It was without logic, without rhyme and reason, without any historical nexus whatsoever! We have to be aware it can happen anytime and therefore pre-emptively we need to lash out at someone as soon as someone looks askance—under every rock a goy can hide who may want to stuff you into the gas chamber—be aware of it jew! So if anyone ever makes the wrong move, kill them pre-emptively!”

 

“Rise and Kill” is actually a book that was written in this context. And that’s what we see in Gaza. And that’s what we hopefully will not see now in South Lebanon. Detraumatizing jews, but also detraumatizing Germans. They have had a similar lesson to learn that leads them to genocide-suicidal tendencies of wanting to give up because they are so evil, historically speaking, that the best they can do is just disappear. So with broken self-confidence they need detraumatizing, but jews need detraumatizing. If you have a heavy trauma as an individual—and the same applies for ethnic or religious communities, whichever way you want to frame it—you need to understand where the trauma is coming from. But then you need to prevent yourself from being constantly exposed to the same triggers. Overcoming trauma—and I had my own trauma: If you’re torn from your family twice and your family’s been destroyed twice and you’re thrown into prison for scientific research you have done—it is traumatizing.

 

And sometimes when people ask me, tell me a little bit more about the story, sometimes I say no. The jewish attitude of “always remember”, and I translate that as “wallowing in your own suffering of the past as an ethnic group” is exactly the wrong way. You can’t overcome trauma if you wallow in it all the time. You need to move forward. The rock climbers say, don’t look backward.

 

And I couldn’t lead a normal life. You know, I know the US authorities—there are strong groups in this country who want to have me deported again, frame me again, or even in this administration, they just arrest anyone they don’t like and deport them even if they have green cards. They have tried that—they could come after me. So I’m constantly in an ejector seat and I have lived that way over the past 35 years and I can’t be constantly reminded of that. I’m trying to have some normalcy. If you’re in this situation, normalcy is what keeps you sane.

 

And if you constantly wallow in it just destroys you! And turns you into a psychopath or at least a sociopath. And that’s what we see with the approval ratings among average Israelis about what’s going on in Gaza.

 

In fact, fully aware that massacres happen on the magnitude that they are happening, that genocide is being committed on the scale as it is described in the Book of Joshua, of the conquest of the Holy Land, where God has ordered the jews to kill everyone in the Holy Land and take the land. That’s kind of what they are reenacting and get the consent of the majority!

 

What kind of mental conditioning must these people have gone through to get to the point to have no empathy whatsoever and to have these attitudes? And the answer to this is Holocaust indoctrination from childhood!

 

Kenny Ko: That’s a great point!

 

[58:36]

 

 

Germar Rudolf: So it needs to stop. And it is, I think, good news for jews to realize the nightmare they’re living under that turns them into these sociopath/psychopaths almost as a nation or as an ethnic or religious group—whichever way you want to frame it. The nightmare of this uniqueness, the icon of which is the gas chamber, is a nightmare! You need to wake up! Yeah, jews were targeted during the Second World War. And it has a historical reason—it was not justified, but there is reason behind it, but not to the extent and with the means that you think there’s one picture that I show sometimes to people of a group of jews from Israel that have been taken on a tour to Poland—because tours, traumatizing tours of jews into former German concentration camps or the former so-called “extermination camps” on Polish territory are organized regularly. They go there to, … It fulfills the same role as in the past the rabbis had with ghetto jews in shtetel * in Eastern Europe—to make them afraid of the Gentiles outside the ghetto, so that they would stay in the ghetto and would stay together as a herd. And these kinds of traumatization serve the same purpose.

 

[* Shtetl or shtetel is a Yiddish term for small towns with predominantly Ashkenazi Jewish populations which existed in Eastern Europe before the Holocaust. The term is used in the context of pre-Second World War European Jewish societies as communities within the surrounding non-Jewish populace, and thus bears certain connotations of discrimination. Shtetls were mainly found in the areas that constituted the 19th-century Pale of Settlement in the Russian Empire, as well as in Congress Poland, Austrian Galicia and Bukovina, the Kingdom of Romania and the Kingdom of Hungary-Source: Wikipedia]

 

And beyond that, leads to these sociopathic tendencies. They go into a gas chamber at the Majdanek camp, or what is depicted to them as a gas chamber—was until several years ago. And they reenact a gassing scene. How traumatizing that must be for young people after all the indoctrination they had already! Now it turns out the Majdanek Museum later says:

 

“Oh, okay, we lied. That wasn’t a gas chamber. That was one of these things that we had to drop.”

 

In 2005 they made that major revision. Over the years dropped the claimed death toll from 2 million down to only 78,000—not even 4%—and scrapped seven of the originally claimed homicidal gas chambers.

 

So a lot of the enactment that jews had done was completely done in places that were fumigation chambers—closed disinfestation chambers—no homicidal gas chambers at all!

 

Now we skeptics knew that a long time ago and published that. It’s good news—it didn’t happen! And the two remaining gas chambers that they claim—it didn’t happen either. Yeah, massacres happened; happened all over the war. The jews weren’t the only victims. If they get themselves into the line of massacres and genocides that have happened during and after the Second World War—get down from your attitude of being unique! Unique victims feel uniquely entitled not only for recognition, but also for blank checks, …

 

Kenny Ko: For reparations.

 

Germar Rudolf: For lashing out, for repression, for pre-emptive lashing out against whoever is in their way. And this is bad! They need to stop! And the way of doing it is realizing the story has been blown out of proportion and is used to traumatize you need to downgrade it to the real size, which is still bad enough, but not extraordinary. And it just is one link in the chain of human atrocities and catastrophes that have happened. The good news, …

 

Kenny Ko: Based on your findings of doing the forensic research, for instance at Auschwitz, and of course I know I’ve looked into the Treblinka forensic studies of ’99 from Australian researchers—do you believe that gas chambers were actually used to exterminate the jews in any regard?

 

[1:01:49]

 

 

Germar Rudolf: No! Gas chambers, … I have actually written a book that you can find as an ebook on HolocaustHandbooks.com. It’s titled Nazi Gas Chambers: The Roots of the Story. After doing 35 years of research on several levels and writing the Encyclopedia, finally when I wrote it, I had to get an overview and had to connect all the pieces and interconnect everything so that it all fits together. And I started to connect dots that I hadn’t seen before and started to realize who has created that story. After the war primarily jewish witnesses—or witnesses with jewish background, I should say—testified and attested to the existence and use of homicidal gas chambers. Which is no surprise because they were the primary targets for persecution of the National Socialist regime and therefore would of course make up the main body of the witnesses.

 

However, if you look at the claims they made, they were completely disorganized, contradictory. You can say it’s a testimonial chaos and anarchy! Nothing made sense, nothing was disallowed. Whatever claim you can come up with, you find testimonies. This story was streamlined during the postwar years, 1945, 1946, 1947. And I document in that book what the original chaotic claims were—made no sense whatsoever! You could find the absolute most ridiculous claims about anything! And how then step by step, by whom and for what reasons and with which methods the narrative was created.

 

Basically created out of whole cloth, invented out of thin air! And the actors, as I mentioned before—primarily they were actors of the Soviet communist bloc. All these six camps were in Poland.

 

So we’re talking about just four Polish individuals who streamlined. They were—three of them—investigative judges who were interrogating all these witnesses, faced complete chaos:

 

“What are we going to do?”

 

And eventually they agreed on one method, threw everything else out—or in one case actually threw out all the witnesses because none of them made sense—and replaced it with something they copied over from a different camp. So it’s all neatly documented there. It was an operation that was done under the auspices of the Soviet Union—of the Stalinist regime—and the new Stalinist authorities that had been imposed upon Poland after the war, and with the help of, just as I mentioned, fleeing Polish scholars—one historian and three investigative judges. So, no! We know from one particular case that is so elucidating that logic tells you it can’t be anything to it.

 

And I’ll give you a quick rundown of that. Josef Kramer was an SS officer who ran, in the earlier war years, a concentration camp in Alsace-Lorraine. And then later he was transferred over to Auschwitz, ran a camp there for part of the camp for a time, and at the end of the war ended up in Bergen-Belsen, which is an infamous camp too because of the typhus epidemic that caused tens of thousands of victims there, as the British found and filmed the mountains of dead inmates.

 

 

[Image: British army bulldozer at Bergen Belsen being used to move bodies]

 

Now he was put on trial there and he was made—after torture, we have actually accounts of how he was tortured—he claimed that in Natzweiler, in the camp in Alsace-Lorraine, he rigged a little room and did a test gassing. And the way he describes it is absolutely ridiculous from a technical and toxicological point of view. Makes no sense!

 

However, that is supposed to have happened at a time when massive gassing operations are said to have been ongoing in the Third Reich already for years. So had it happened, Kramer, who had experience in various camps, would have known how to do it! But they have him testify to something completely ludicrous that makes no sense at all!

 

Kenny Ko: So you think that was through means of torture, …

 

Germar Rudolf: Yes!

 

Kenny Ko: And essentially getting him to confess to something that was never done?

 

[1:05:31]

 

Germar Rudolf: Yeah, exactly! Now we have proof that it was never done because he was made to testify that this gassing happened with a number of Auschwitz inmates that had been transferred to it in 1943, I think, to that camp in order for their skeletons to be used in a skeleton collection at the Strasbourg University—rather macabre claim. At the Strasbourg Anatomical Institute they found corpse parts with tattooed numbers and they figured these are some of the victims that were transferred from Auschwitz. So there seems to be some truth to it. We don’t know what exactly!

 

But then they made forensic investigations of those inmates. Did they die of the poison that Kramer said he used? That investigation— forensic investigation by a French scholar—conducted in 1946, as I’m not mistaken, disappeared in archives for many years, and only in 2018, I think, was it finally released by the French authorities, and the result is negative. No, it didn’t happen!

 

Of course they’re dead. They died somehow, but not with gassing with hydrogen cyanide.

 

So the whole thing is clear to have been made up. And on the face of the absurd claims of how it’s supposed to have happened—which is technically impossible—it was clear that it can’t have happened. But had Kramer had any idea of post-application in Auschwitz and wherever else he was of such massacres, he would have known what to say and so would the French have. So it’s clear the whole story is made up.

 

Also it’s one of, I would say, the only clear-cut cases where we know from forensic testing of the actual claimed victims—no, it didn’t happen. They have been executed, but not that way. No gas chambers! That doesn’t mean that people didn’t die. I just mentioned in Auschwitz we have documented cases of 135, 500 people dying. Most of them of disease. Typhus epidemic was raging in that camp for one and a half years—and they had dysentery, other issues.

 

And so the biggest death toll of any recorded, documented case in Third Reich German history— all the other camps did not come close to that in itself is a humanitarian disaster! Putting people who are snatched from their homes without due process, without anything, and putting them in camps and exposing them to conditions where they have to die like flies may not be outright murder, but it is manslaughter with gross negligence at least—and 135, 500 cases in that camp alone. And that’s something that Third Reich leadership, …

 

Kenny Ko: Do you believe the amount of deaths was due to the Allied powers cutting off supply routes and whatnot into Germany?

 

Germar Rudolf: In some of the Western camps at the end of the war, ye! When we’re talking about Bergen-Belsen and the amount of corpses there, that was due to force majeure, if you wanted. But still, somebody put these people in the camps. Unless they were hardened criminals or some people who justly were in there—POWs would have been in a war; that’s legal to put POWs in camps—and they would have succumbed to the same circumstances. And some of them did. But if you take civilians—Jewish or otherwise—without due process* and just deport them and put them in these camps, you can’t evade responsibility.

 

[* This is a weak argument as the jews were considered a security threat to the war effort, just as Japanese were put in camps in the USA, Germans and Italians in Australia, etc.]

 

When it comes to Auschwitz, no—the typhus epidemic there broke out in 1942 and got under control only in late 1943. So there were no mass bombing raids disrupting supply lines in the eastern part of Europe at that time, at all! What we do have there, however—we have evidence of the Polish underground spreading typhus germs, typhus-infectious lice, in hundreds of cases on purpose! So it stands to reason that they had some impact, were quote, unquote, “successful” with this kind of underground biological warfare, and made sure that German attempts at wiping out the disease in order to have camp inmates fit for labor and work for their war efforts would be undermined in one way or another. Now that’s war. You can look at it which way you want; the Polish underground killed mainly their own compatriots with that, because they were mostly the inmates in those camps.

 

I mean, there were other East Europeans. But anyway, people who were just as oppressed and occupied as the Poles were. And so it should undermine some part of the German war effort. Whether that’s morally justifiable—this is a different issue.

 

But again, it was the Germans who deported jews by the millions without due process just because they belong to a group—and that this shouldn’t be acceptable.

 

Kenny Ko: Another question I did have for you is—because of the non-gassing of jews and them fabricating the story—why do you think they would have chosen that means if it would have been so hard to prove, of course, through forensic studies and people could have come years later to see that the story was untrue? Why did they choose the route of gassing essentially? Or what do you think your opinion on that would be?

 

[1:10:19]

Germar Rudolf: Again, it is kind of laid out in my book Nazi Gas Chambers. If you look at the Nuremberg Trials, when the story hadn’t coalesced yet, they were claiming for Treblinka steam chambers; they were claiming for Belzec electrocution; Sobibor hadn’t settled yet—they were claiming there mainly chlorine as gas. Auschwitz had Zyklon B. So as I just mentioned, chaotic testimonies about what happened there at the Nuremberg Trial hadn’t settled in yet. It’s completely contradictory that we then eventually agreed—or the Polish scholars agreed—on engine exhaust gas in some of the camps and Zyklon B in Auschwitz. It’s a long story. It starts already in the First World War. I would say. The absolute horror of gas warfare is what people were most afraid of in the interwar period—that if another war breaks out, this is going to erupt again and it’s going to get much nastier than during the First World War.

 

 

So the first stories we have coming out of Auschwitz are actually claims by the underground that the Germans are testing war gases on Russian POWs. It was completely made up, but that was how things started—on that level—and developed from there. Zyklon B was of course used in camps because it’s an insecticide to fight lice. As we just mentioned, epidemics broke out—always break out in war. It’s almost inevitable. In many, many wars in the history of mankind, epidemics have caused more victims, particularly in the civilian population, than the war itself. And to some degree that’s true for World War II. Zyklon B is a convenient item that can— even though originally it’s a benign thing to preserve the life of the inmates by fighting epidemics— be twisted around and be seen as evidence for evil things if it has been used for homicide. You see that on various levels, that things that have the ability for dual interpretation—both benign as well as evil—have been used by the Allies. There is evidence that there was Zyklon B. Therefore they twist the story and say:

 

“You used it for homicide! Because there was so much sold and shipped to Auschwitz. You can’t explain that possibly with disinfestation—you must have committed mass murder!”

 

That’s actually the reasoning that was done by the Allies.

 

When you look at the actual record—Auschwitz being such a huge camp, the hundreds of thousands of inmates that were led through that camp, the huge size of it and the epidemic lice problems they had—it perfectly justified the amount of Zyklon B they received. As a matter of fact, they didn’t have enough to combat the epidemics, evidently. But it gives the opportunity for propagandists then to twist it into something that it was not.

 

And the same with the fact that there were crematoria. Crematoria are also a thing that can fire up the imagination of people. Back then, cremation wasn’t quite as common as it is now. And funerals by fire had been illegal in most European countries—in Christian countries, I should say—because of opposition from the Catholic Church and also a lot of Protestant churches, to the effect that it was just illegal by state law. And that was rescinded only starting in the early 20th century, step by step.

 

And by the time the Second World War was on, it was still not a widespread method, particularly in Eastern Europe. The imagination that people get burned, whether they’re dead or not, is just a horrifying imagination. A lot of people still—they want to be interred, they don’t want to be cremated—because the feeling is, my body is getting burned. It doesn’t sound right.

 

So that’s a convenient way for black propaganda to latch onto their fear and turn the hygienic way of disposing of the victims of mass epidemics and mass casualties into something evil that looks like mass murder. “Gas ovens”—the combination of the two—which is a term that shouldn’t exist because the oven, the furnace, and the gas for killing are two separate things.

 

But it’s this imagination, the merging of these two horrific things, that gives black propaganda a perfect opportunity—proving that many of these German camps had crematoria, and therefore mass murder must have been committed there. And this is just fallacious reasoning, but it was an opportunity that the victorious powers seized and they had the total power to ram this narrative down the throat of the general public. And they succeeded with it.

 

Kenny Ko: Right.

 

And another opinion I wanted of yours is, of course, Treblinka, which I think is one of the more interesting ones due to the revisions and everything that were done once the forensic studies and stuff started to happen. I just wanted your overall input on Treblinka as well.

 

[1:15:00]

 

Germar Rudolf: Treblinka is one of the three camps—in the more narrow sense—said to have been pure extermination camps, close to the demarcation line that separated the German-occupied area of Poland from what the Soviet Union gobbled up after the division in ’39 and which used to be Soviet up to 1921. Poland had just gained them— border stations, if you wish.

 

The revisionist take is that they were transit camps for jews who were sent east. Now the mainstream said they were pure extermination camps. Jews were sent there just to be killed in gas chambers. And as I just mentioned, the initial story for Treblinka was actually steam. That was the predominant claim. How murder was, …

 

Kenny Ko: I thought it was diesel—or was it steam?

 

Germar Rudolf: Diesel is the narrative that became predominant starting in ’46,’47. Back during the war it was steam. There’s an official government report of the Polish government in exile from 15th of November 1942 that explicitly says it was steam. Very detailed, describing the camp and anything that’s going on—allegedly based on witness accounts. So it’s so detailed that it is either a fictitious story made up well, or it had a lot of witness claims to it. Be that as it may, steam was the thing. And the steam is also how it was entered at the International Military Tribunal there. Well, there’s a little bit of— they introduced two. One of them said steam and the other one said:

 

“Well, steam, vacuum, electrocution, gas, whatever.”

 

So as I mentioned, anything goes. The shift to engine exhaust gas happened after the war and it was kind of ongoing when the International Military Tribunal was unfolding. It didn’t find entrance really in the documentation there. But you find it, as I mentioned, in the interrogation protocols that were going on, particularly in Poland. And one key event was a German high-ranking official—high-ranking not by military grade, but by the importance in the context of what we’re talking about—that’s Kurt Gerstein. He has been an officer in charge of the SS Office for Hygienic Technologies and in particular there for disinfestation. He was the man who was overseeing the delivery of gas chambers and Zyklon B and other disinfestants to the various camps—gas chambers in terms of fumigation chambers.

 

So at the end of the war, when the gas chamber propaganda took off and Zyklon B appeared as a mass murder instrument at the Majdanek and Auschwitz camps—Majdanek already in July 1944; it was the first camp to be overrun by the Soviets— and then in January in Auschwitz as well—January ’45—Gerstein was sitting in his office in Berlin and knew that he’s toast! Because he is the one who was in charge of supplying all these camps with the technical means and the disinfestants and the Zyklon B to do whatever they have been doing. So he eventually flees from Berlin, surrenders in his hometown in southwest Germany to the French authorities, and writes a report where it says:

 

“Well, yes, I have been in charge of that Zyklon B. And I was actually ordered to drive to one of these camps—to Treblinka—to change the murder method from diesel engine exhaust to Zyklon B. And I didn’t do it because I convinced the guy that, keep your diesel, Zyklon B is no good. And he kind of destroyed it.”

 

Now why did he do that? He had to depict himself to the authorities as a secret resistor, who would actually destroy the Zyklon B and would make sure that the Zyklon B never reaches the camp—and his account is full of it—that he actually intercepted and made sure that it disappears and that it doesn’t get used and that it gets used for disinfestation at a different place after all.

 

So it was an attempt for him, because on the scale of evil of the Third Reich depicted by the mainstream, you have of course Adolf Hitler, Himmler and so forth. And then you have Adolf Eichmann who deployed all the people to the camp. You have Kurt Gerstein who supplied them with this poison gas and the technical means for applying the poison gas. And then you have the local camp commander. So Kurt Gerstein should have been right up there with Adolf Eichmann—and he knew it.

 

So he makes up this story:

 

“Oh, Zyklon B, I was resisting, I was making sure it doesn’t get there. And instead this stuff actually wasn’t happening with Zyklon B. It was diesel engines. So Zyklon B wasn’t even used. And I made sure the switch to Zyklon B didn’t happen!”

 

A big lie! Mainstream historians nowadays have completely discredited him. The testimonies he made are full of complete absurdities and insanities and historical lies!

 

What has been found out is that he actually embezzled, in today’s money, worth more than $100,000 of funding for Zyklon B purchases and had made a luxurious life during the war for himself. Had people go to Paris, get exotic food items and so forth. And he even stole a painting from a jewish estate that was found in his estate later. So he was corrupt, he was a thief, and he knew he’s on the chopping block and he made up this wild story.

 

Now this wild story he tells to the French authorities; the French authorities wrap it up, they interrogate him and they figure out that he’s probably lying because the stuff he’s saying makes no sense. But they convey this message:

 

“Oh, diesel exhaust is said to have happened. We have this high-ranking, top-notch Nazi official who tells us all about how this is supposed to have happened!”

 

And they communicate that to the Poles and in late 1945 send the whole set of documents to the Polish authorities. And that’s when you see the Polish authorities suddenly switching from electrocution, from steam, from vacuum and all the rest to diesel engine—or engine exhaust. And they throw out everything else and rewrite—1946,’47—the stories of Sobibor, Treblinka and Belzec. They don’t even commit necessarily to diesel, but definitely engine exhaust. In decades thereafter, mainstream historians, when it comes to Belzec – and based on Gerstein – and Treblinka, they say then:

 

“Okay, it was diesel exhaust!”

 

Now diesel exhaust doesn’t have the toxicity needed to commit that kind of mass murder. Diesel engines run on a vast excess of oxygen and so oxygen comes out the tailpipe too, and very little carbon monoxide, which is the lethal part. Tests made with small mammals show that it takes many hours—under worst-case scenario conditions—to kill those little mammals. Humans are usually a little bit less susceptible to this kind of toxin, so it takes even longer. So we’re talking about many, many hours that it would have taken.

 

[1:21:24]

 

 

German engineers knew engines! If you look at who has invented all these engines, you find out the Germans were the center of engine invention. They knew the toxicology and they had even better methods at hand. They had the producer gas generators, because they were cut off from petroleum supplies during the war. Mainly they switched their truck fleet, their buses and even some tanks over to producer gas, which is basically: You take coal, coke or wood and restrict the oxygen supply and make it a little wet. Then it burns incompletely and the gas that comes out is very rich in carbon monoxide, which you then can funnel into the engine and use as fuel. They had hundreds of thousands of them. And the top-notch officials of the Third Reich—Hitler, Himmler, Heydrich—everyone was promoting it to get out from underneath the dependency on liquid petroleum products.

 

And German engineers knew about this technology. It is so rich in carbon monoxide, up to 30% and more, that it’s very quickly lethal. It was everywhere, mass-produced, deployed everywhere, particularly in the transport region. So jews were transported—probably some of them—in vehicles with this kind of producer gas technology. There’s no record anywhere that anyone was ever murdered with this. It was well known. Even this technology was used at times before the invention of Zyklon B to kill vermin! Insects are not susceptible to it. It works only for mammals, but to kill mice and rats. So, known that it is a good method to kill—never used.

 

So the Germans had that and then they are supposed to have settled for the worst possible solution—that doesn’t work: Diesel! No, didn’t happen. In the meantime, mainstream historians have shifted the goalposts again. First they were at steam, then they moved on to diesel. Now they figured out—after the research we’ve done and pointed it out for decades—diesel doesn’t work:

 

“Okay, it wasn’t diesel; it was gasoline engines!”

 

So how long does it take for people to stop believing these mainstream historians if they keep shifting the goalposts, here as well? So much about the technological background. The forensic investigations that were conducted over the years—the Soviets did one, and the Poles after the war,’45,’46. The Poles were doing some excavations but didn’t find the mass graves or leftovers of mass graves that witnesses claimed were there. Then we had a preliminary, somewhat superficial, ground-penetrating radar analysis by an Australian engineer back in 1999, and he’s never published his research because he got cold feet with this.

 

And then we had a British team of forensic archaeologists starting research in 2011—2011, 2012, if I’m not mistaken. And they had preliminary conclusions published in a series of BBC interviews and then in a documentary that they made about Treblinka. But the scientific publication of the actual research results has never been released to this day. And we suspect the reason for that is that they didn’t find what they’re supposed to have found.

 

The claim is that in Treblinka at least 700,000 victims were initially buried in mass graves. And you can roughly calculate what kind of earth volume you need to bury that many people. You can have a theoretical maximum of, say, 10 people per cubic meter.

 

But more realistically, if you’re looking at all the mass graves that have ever been disinterred—where victims of National Socialist massacres have been found, or even other circumstances like the Katyn massacre, like mass graves in Bergen-Belsen that the British dug at the end of the war, or mass graves in Hamburg from the Allied air raids—the 40,000 German civilians that died there were put to rest—so we know roughly what kind of a density these mass graves have. And you don’t get up to 10 per cubic meter; it’s lower than that.

 

But even if you were to do that, the amount of disturbed soil that the ground-penetrating radar research found by this British team doesn’t come anywhere close to what should have been found—certainly in the order of magnitude of 10 or 20% or so. I don’t remember exactly the number. But anyway—way too little! And we are talking about just indications of disturbed ground—that doesn’t mean there were mass graves. Because we know the Soviets did excavations in the area and they didn’t find any. No. So did the Poles—and they didn’t find anything. So they definitely disturbed the soil on a massive scale with these excavations they did. But these are not mass graves.

 

And then the civilian population in the area did wild diggings after the war because there was the rumor running around that the jews had left treasures behind. Whatever jewelry or money they were taking with them—some of it fell on the ground, was buried secretly, or whatever. So civilians were digging up the whole place. There’s actually a Polish report that describes the area kind of like a moonscape with craters. Evidently Soviet soldiers had joined in the frenzy of trying to discover jewish gold by using munitions they had and blowing some artillery shells or whatever to quickly, quote-unquote, “excavate” areas. So there were craters of ordnance that had exploded. Some of it has exposed a few bones here and there, but not to the degree that you would expect for a massacre of that size.

 

But anyway, all these disturbances of the soils—some of them may intersect with actual former mass graves, who knows? But some of them may not so we don’t really know from ground-penetrating radar what we are looking at. You would have to actually do a whole-scale excavation to figure out what is there.

 

Now, as I mentioned earlier, jewish authorities disagree with the disturbance of jewish graves. So they prevent anyone from looking.

 

Kenny Ko: Did they lay pave stones or something over the area of Treblinka?

 

[1:27:11]

 

Germar Rudolf: Yes, I think in the 1960s they paved over a large area where it is said to have happened—whatever that is—with concrete. And they have a lot of rocks erected there as monuments. So ground-penetrating radar, depending on the technology, can look through that.

 

And it’s also not completely covered, so there are areas where it’s not so that wouldn’t completely prevent you. It makes it a little bit more difficult, but it does not completely prevent you from using that technology.

 

Similar in Belzec, however—there they did do core drillings. So it shows you if there’s a will you can do more than just non-invasive methods. You can use mildly invasive methods. And the jews agreed to that they found there as well disturbed ground—way less than is needed, even under the worst-case scenario. So if the jews that were deported—of which we know; we have the records— so and so many jews were deported to these camps—not all of them, only a minority of them in the worst-case scenario—can have ended up in the ground there, according to the data we have for now.

 

Where did the rest go? We know the claims—how the murder is supposed to have happened—can’t work. We know that the claims of how the traces of the mass murder were made to disappear—all those mass graves are said to have been excavated eventually, in the course of mainly 1943, and burned on huge pyres. The claims made there are technically unfeasible for open-Air incinerations. The amount of wood and labor force and space that would have been needed—and time that would have been needed for that makes it completely incompatible with the claims.

 

So this is just a convenient and very anti-scientific way of explaining why the evidence isn’t there:

 

“Oh, because the evidence was destroyed!”

 

The absence of evidence doesn’t prove what you’re claiming. And when you are adding another claim on top of it, which you can’t prove either—that something was destroyed:

 

“I don’t have evidence you killed my wife.”

 

“Where’s your evidence?”

 

“You destroyed the evidence. So you have committed two crimes—you killed my wife and you destroyed the evidence.”

 

So you have to go to jail two times. That’s the way the argument goes here. And that’s ridiculous! With that kind of attitude you can prove every crime.

 

Kenny Ko: Right.

 

Germar Rudolf: That’s not the way it works. That’s not how science works. That’s not how law should work. Which isn’t to say that criminals do not try, and sometimes succeed to some degree or another, to actually make traces of their crimes disappear. Of course it does happen, but that doesn’t alleviate you from the duty to prove that something like that did happen.

 

And by the way, if you have 700,000 corpses in the ground and you have no technical means other than wooden logs and a lighter to make them disappear—they don’t disappear tracelessly. There’s just no way in heaven! So things need to be there! Will anyone ever look, with the attitude societies have now? No! By the time that may have changed—down the road in decades or centuries to come—I don’t know whether it will still have any way of succeeding.

 

But then again, technology—hundreds of years down the road, who knows. Forensic archaeology can find out amazing things about human settlements and human graves that are thousands or even tens of thousands of years old. So who knows what we can find out in future.

 

So there’s a lot of things to be done that mainstream doesn’t want to do.

 

Actually, the lead scientist who did the British archaeological research in Treblinka is going to have a lecture at the US Holocaust Memorial Museum upcoming in a few weeks, I think. And we guys are actually considering going there—but a little bit of a logistical challenge, and it’s a risk because if you start asking inconvenient questions, you don’t know what happens, because you’re going into the midst of people who get very angry. If you challenge—just challenge. Not even say:

 

“Well, it’s wrong.”

 

Just ask inconvenient questions. Then all kinds of shit can hit the fan.

 

So let’s see whether that’s something we can pull off.

 

Kenny Ko: Right.

 

[1:30:56]

 

 

Germar Rudolf: So this is Treblinka. The Achilles’ heel of Holocaust skeptics in this regard is, of course, we don’t— we know that many of them can’t possibly have ended up in the ground, and they can’t have been made to disappear with these fires either. So where are they? Where’s our answer to the question—where are they? We do have anecdotal evidence of people who have claimed—witnesses during the projects launched in the 1980s to get as many survivor testimonies on tape, on record—quite a few witnesses have testified that their trains full of jews were transited through Treblinka, through Sobibor, through Belzec. We have actually a paper about that— it kind of goes through them and lists how many we have—that shows yes, these camps did operate as transit camps. That doesn’t mean they operated only as transit camps, but they definitely did serve to some degree and had the ability to serve that purpose, because there are plenty of witnesses that say:

 

“We were transited through there.”

 

Now, unfortunately, I have experience with getting transited through situations like that, because when I was in Germany spending time, I was several times relocated to different prisons. And sometimes you get through the transit section of another prison on the way to your final destination.

 

Kenny Ko: Right.

 

Germar Rudolf: And I know from experience, I remember having been through a transit camp, but I can’t remember the name of it because you’re there only for a few hours, a few days, depending. In my case, it was even six days. Actually, it was long.

 

In the case of Bełżec/Treblinka, people say they were there only a few hours, or a day or so. why would you remember the name? How likely is it that a train full of 5,000 people or 10,000 or 1,000 people—whatever the train may have had, how many people in it that have been in this place that’s completely remote, unknown back then, completely unknown name of a little, tiny settlement, not even a village in the deep backwoods of Eastern Poland—why would you remember that name? So that some of these witnesses do remember. And they were not alone. They were not brought there individually in a car. No, they were in a train full of people who were all transited through there.

 

So you can extrapolate—if you find 10 witnesses who say that, 100 may have forgotten the name and will never have thought of it. And maybe 10,000 never testified anywhere.

 

Kenny Ko: Very interesting.

 

Germar Rudolf: And then we have, of course, records of resettlement actually having happened. That is the official narrative that you find in the documentation—resettling the jews to the east—because Germany thought they were having the Soviet Union close to its collapse after the ’41 onslaught, and then in ’42—which we’re retreating still deep—the whole thing turned around only in Stalingrad, 1942, 1943.

 

Kenny Ko: I think that was the turning point in the war.

 

Germar Rudolf: Right. That’s when the Germans knew it’s not working. And that’s when all these camps were shut down—no transit anymore.

 

So you have a historical coincidence there. Yeah, coincidence that points to—yeah, in late ’41 and throughout ’42, they thought they can ship those jews to the east, have them work there, have them resettle there, because they’re going to control the area. The Soviet Union is going to collapse. We’re going to reign until the Bering Strait. That didn’t happen.

 

And then in late ’42, early ’43, when things were clear, these camps all got shut down.

 

So what happened to the jews that were resettled to the east? I’m sure we have a number of documents saying as soon as they get unloaded, the local German authorities—they can’t handle them. They are stretched thin with all the limited resources they have in a war. We have no camps, we have no nothing here. These jews, they run all over the place. They run into the woods. So they join the partisans right away. And then we have a major partisan problem. They are fighting us.

 

So one of these local commanders says:

 

“If you don’t announce ahead that we’re going to have these jews coming and if you don’t give us the means to actually accommodate them somewhere, the next train that comes unannounced, we’re just going to shoot all these people. Because if we don’t, they join the partisans right away and then they are going to come back and kill us!”

 

So he was ordered to stop this nonsense and to find accommodations for them and make sure that they all get settled there. That’s what was going on. Massacres did happen in this situation of local commanders saying:

 

“I can’t handle these jews. What are you guys doing? They are joining the partisans!”

 

And so some of them got killed ahead of time. Some of them joined the partisans, got killed in that process. Some of them survived. There’s actually one report saying that the Russians, at the end of the war—the Soviets—overran a camp where Germans had concentrated many of them, and the Soviets ran into them. There were jews that had been deported from Western Europe. So there they were. And that was only one case that was reported. Maybe there were more. So some of them got overrun by the Soviets. They may or may not have let them pass.

 

The number of people in Europe who were displaced persons—that includes jews, but not just jews. Eastern Europeans were fleeing from the Red Army advancing. The Germans were being ethnically cleansed all over the place. End-of-war and post-war Europe was a mess where people by the millions were moving Left and Right. How many jews who had been pushed this way and that ended up in displaced person camps that eventually led to them immigrating to Israel—what was to become Israel—obviously a lot of them to the United States, which stopped counting jews or registering the religious affiliation of people somewhere in the early stages of the war actually— and to other countries—is not 100% recorded. So there are a number of fates that these people will have had.

 

And another nasty one could be that a lot of these jews, if they were fit to work, were made to work for fortifications, improving infrastructure. You see that in Ukraine now in the war—each fall and spring they have a mud problem. And they had that back in the Second World War too. The roads back there were in worse shape.

 

So they had a lot of these jewish labor columns improve the roads so that the German supply runs could actually go to the front. And these jews, if they were ever overrun by the Red Army, had collaborated with the Germans—with the German war effort. Stalin didn’t have any mercy for these people. They didn’t really do it voluntarily for the Germans and were forced laborers. But Stalin didn’t give a rat’s arse! If you surrender as a Soviet soldier and become a prisoner of war, Stalin would kill you! A similar situation you have actually right now with what’s going on in Ukraine.

 

And if you are a civilian, you surrender to the German authorities and you work for them rather than fight to your death, then I’m going to kill you! So yeah, people were deported to Siberia. Even if they were concentration camp inmates, forced laborers whatsoever—not all of them, but I’m sure some of them were.

 

So there’s a whole broad variety of things that can have happened to these people. Some of them led to their death, some of them led to them immigrating and being just fine. So we will, at the end of the day—with history being obscured by the Eastern Bloc having been obscured for 40 years, and the Western powers not having too much of an interest in clarifying this issue, of diversifying historical data, historical viewpoints, historical interpretations; and then of course keeping that narrative as it is because it’s supportive of the post-war order and the powers, the pecking order, so to say—the chances of us ever finding out exactly what happened to these people will not be improving.

 

And Russia nowadays—after the collapse of the Soviet Union—they haven’t been cooperative either. Initially, yes, we could actually get access. A lot of the material that we’ve published is based on documentary resources that we found in archives that had been hidden from Western researchers up to the collapse of the Soviet Union.

 

But then, mainly on pressure of the German government, these Eastern archives closed their Gates again to independent researchers. You now need university or government accreditation before they let you in. So much about freedom of science and scholarship.

 

So that’s where we are with this. Is that a good answer for your Treblinka question?

 

[1:38:50]

 

Kenny Ko: Those were great answers all around, I must say.

 

And actually we just hit around the two-hour mark. I would definitely be down to do a part 2 diving into some more with you, without a doubt. Before we wrap up, I also of course want to thank you, Germar, for not only standing up and doing this for the masses and the future generations to get this information—continuing down that journey and seeking the truth! Because I think it is a core fundamental part, like you said, with history, to learn lessons. And if we don’t have the history correct, how are we supposed to learn lessons moving forward?

 

So is there anything you want to close with? I know you already said, of course, where people can find a lot of your writings and of course the free and then also the purchasable versions. But any social medias or anything you would like to tell the people?

 

Germar Rudolf: Well, the easy way, if you want to get in touch with me or follow me—I have it here on the screen. My website, my personal website, is GermarRudolf.com. It also has links there to all the things that I mentioned: To the Holocaust Handbooks, the encyclopedia. We have a Holocaust Academy where we teach the ropes of Holocaust skepticism. And we have actually a HoloCast—a podcast—where I elaborate on these things. The Holocaust 101 from a skeptical point of view, and 102, and the rest of it. Links to the free speech lobby group that I’m involved in, the Committee for Open Debate on the Holocaust—CODOH.com. You’ll find links there to that, to our stores where you can purchase the books, and social media links you can find on that website too. My channel on X, which is basically what I focus on. The rest is too much censorious and you get thrown out.

 

Kenny Ko: I get that. Blanket censorship is a little out of control! But you guys that are watching, make sure to leave a like on the video. Go show him some support for what he has been through for all of us to obtain this knowledge and understanding and evidence, and through the forensic studies. Leave in the comments down below what you guys think of all of this, or any future topics—if we do a part two—that you guys would like Germar to discuss or cover for you.

 

And once again, Germar, thank you once again for your time. I appreciate you sitting down and having this conversation with me.

 

Germar Rudolf: Yeah, much appreciated.

 

Kenny Ko: Of course. Have a good one.

 

Germar Rudolf: You too.

 

Kenny Ko: Awesome! All right, here—I’ll stop the recording.

 

 

[1:40:59]

 

 

END

top

 

 

 

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

 

Rumble Comments

top

(Comments as of 5/8/2026 = )

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

See Also

top

 

 

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

Tim Murdoch: This is Tim Murdoch. You’re watching WhiteRabbitRadio live in Game Exotica, the interview series. We have on Blair Cottrell. He will be on hopefully for almost a whole show, but most likely only half a show because he’s on a phone and all these, I guess we can say foreign run convenience stores don’t have the right cord for him.

 

So his phones might run out of charge on us and probably will. So get your questions in. We’re here to talk about Joel Davis and things going on over in Australia. Joel can’t be on because of his crazy bail.

 

So how you doing, Blair?

 

Blair Cottrell: I’m doing fine, man! It’s nice and early here. Not that early. What is it, like 8 o’ clock in the morning? But rolled out of bed, frantically searched for the local convenience stores with friendly local neighborhood Indians. Trying to find the Right charger cord. And I bought one not to let you guys down, but then it’s the wrong one. So we’re just gonna have to see how long this lasts.

 

But the reason I’m in a hotel is because a friend and I traveled from Melbourne to Sydney last night. It’s like a nine hour drive. Australia is a big country like America, but when you factor in the couple of stops to get fuel, it ends up being like 10 or 11 hours. And we did that to visit Joel. First time I’ve seen Joel since he’s been released from prison. Been released on bail about a week ago, just less than a week ago.

 

He’s got stacked of new charges on him. He was initially. If you guys don’t know the story, Joel’s someone I stream with down here. Joel Davis, political commentator and streamer from Australia. He was charged with offending a politician [Allegra Spender], harassing or offending a politician in a Telegram post for a comment he made in a Telegram post that was posted to his public channel. And he was held in isolation as a “national security threat” for the last four months. He was finally released on bail by a Supreme Court justice, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of New South Wales. But he had to pay a lot of money to get there. I think he raised maybe 40,000 from his supporters to get to that point to be released on bail from the Supreme Court. But I think he’s like down to his last 4,000 now.

 

So that’s how much it’s cost him just to get bail for a relatively not less than serious charge. It’s not really a serious charge. It typically carries a pretty low imprisonment rate. I think 6.5% of people that get charged with the same offense that Joel’s been charged with actually end up going to jail at all! So almost 95% of people that get charged with this don’t even go to jail at all! Joel hasn’t even been found guilty yet. He’s not even been convicted. He’s just been accused! But he was held in prison because he’s considered a “national security threat” due to his ideology and various opinions that he shares while he’s streaming.

 

So I had dinner with him last night, and he hasn’t changed at all! If anything, he’s, like, sharper and clearer and even more intelligent than he was before. It’s not surprising because when you sit in jail for a while, you’re removed from all of the petty distractions and the quote, unquote, “degeneracy” of normal society, and all you can really do is read and write. And when you do that for four months straight, you come out quite sharp and clear.

 

So, yeah, he’s in great spirits. He’s very happy to be home. Very grateful to everyone who supported him. He is. Everybody who made it possible for him to get bail, who pitched into the fundraiser. That was huge! But yeah, we had a good laugh. We had some food. He’s feeling good. So that’s where he’s at right now!

 

But he’s banned from the Internet.

 

The reason I have to speak for him, I guess, or update you guys, is Joel is banned from the Internet! Okay? He can’t even have a smartphone, guys. The judge has ruled that he has to have an old brick phone that can’t access the Internet. He’s allowed to access the Internet by computer, but he can’t post anything to social media. He can’t comment on anything, and he can’t have access to the Internet from his phone. Those are his bail conditions imposed by the Supreme Court Justice.

 

Tim Murdoch: Can we petition? Can I pay a lawyer to petition to get him on WhiteRabbitRadio? I wonder how funny that would be. How would that go?

 

Blair Cottrell: I doubt it.

 

Tim Murdoch: I think they’d probably throw him back in jail or something, right? Try to throw me in jail, maybe.

 

Blair Cottrell: Yeah.

 

Tim Murdoch: But anyways. I think that’s kind of funny, though. Well, it’s funny that they’re going to that extreme, but they’re just trying to make an example out of him, and they did. Is there any precedents for trying to keep him off the Internet or denying his civil, … This is denying his Civil Liberties in a modern, …

 

Blair Cottrell: We don’t really have., …

 

Tim Murdoch: Denying him the public square. I mean, he can’t come on a radio show and talk about his case. He can’t have a smartphone and post to his Telegram. Even if he’s not violating, … Telegram is not illegal in Australia. It’s not illegal for him to post on Telegram. It’s just illegal for him to say certain things which they’re constantly trying not to specifically define.

 

[07:18]

 

Blair Cottrell: There is some precedent. Look, this demonstrates the bail conditions imposed on Joel basically being banned from the Internet because the accusation against him stems from a post made on the Internet.

 

And so while the matter is still active and a conviction is yet to be found bail conditions preventing him from using the Internet. This kind of thing demonstrates the disparity between Australia and America. We don’t have Civil Liberties. We don’t have free speech rights down here. Like, so no one has the rights to be criticizing any government official, really. As long as you’re not being overly belligerent. You might be able to, but depending on the language you used, you can be charged with menacing or harassing or maybe something else. It’s getting quite tight down here, especially in recent years. But there’s been a significant shift in the past six months or so.

 

I mean, last year, after our most significant or our worst terror attack in the country’s history occurred on Bondi beach in New South Wales, a couple of Muslim characters opened fire on people on a beach specifically targeting jewish people. I think it was at a jewish festival of some sort. It’s like certain government bureaucrats were so disappointed that the shooters weren’t White guys that they just unleashed on Joel Davis! It’s like the Eye of Sauron was just completely focused on Joel Davis. And Joel’s, like, really surprised by it. When we were eating dinner last night, he was laughing! He’s like:

 

“How is this real? Like, I just posted one thing to Telegram and I’m being treated worse than the actual terrorist who shot those guys on the beach. I’ve been banned from the Internet!”

 

He’s almost struggling. He’s laughing at it, but he’s almost struggling to wrap his head around the logistics of it. And it doesn’t actually make sense.

 

So there is some precedent for people being restricted from using the Internet in a certain way if their accusation relates to something on the Internet in Australia. But the major point to consider is its very different from America. Here, basically, you can be just held indefinitely while your matter is being argued without any proof of guilt. You’re essentially guilty until you try to pay enough to prove yourself innocent. You know, so the whole concept of “innocent until proven guilty”, it exists in legal theory, but in practice it doesn’t exist because you get accused of something and then you sit in jail until the matter is finalized in court, until you pay enough money to prove your innocence, or do a deal and get out somehow.

 

So that’s how it really works.

 

Tim Murdoch: He can talk with his friends, he can talk with you and go to dinner with you. Not a problem. What he’s restricted from like former NSN because that’s been disbanded. For instance, if Tom comes and sees him, can he see Tom?

 

Blair Cottrell: I’m pretty sure he can, but the thing is, Tom has also been charged with a number of offenses which confine him to his state. And Joel resides in a different state right now, the neighboring state.

 

So you can’t cross state boundaries legally while you’re on bail for these offenses. And Joel can’t leave the state either.

 

Tim Murdoch: They basically have to have their cases done with, right?

 

Blair Cottrell: Correct. Yeah. So they can move through states freely again. And that’s very standard for any sort of indictable criminal offense for which you’re on bail. You’re not supposed to leave the state without permission. So technically they could call the police and say:

 

“Look, I want to go interstate to visit my friend and come straight back. Can I do that?”

 

But it just comes down to the whim of some police bureaucrat whether or not you can actually do that.

 

Tim Murdoch: Yeah. Not a free country! But none of us live in a free country. Just some more than others at the moment, maybe. When does this, how long. What is the next step for him? How long will this take before he can get to court? Because now he’s released on bail. But the matters are still pending. These guys have all kinds of matters pending, technically, I guess.

 

Blair Cottrell: Right. While Joel was in what’s called Long Bay Jail, New South Wales, in isolation, being held without conviction as a national security risk, he was hit with something like nine other charges, or more than that.

 

I can’t remember what he said. There’s a whole bunch of other charges.

 

Tim Murdoch: Are they more or less serious charges? I remember this, but when it comes to these Australia charges these charges are serious, but they’re not doing it. I mean, these guys really aren’t doing anything! They’re just hitting crazy charges over Telegram posts or crazy charges for getting into an argument with the shitlibs or it’s just total insanity!

 

But nonetheless, the charges are there and the charges are very serious on the books. And the police treat them like these are major criminal offenses and terrorists and so on and so forth.

 

Blair Cottrell: Typically, for this kind of thing, the police wouldn’t usually get out of bed for something like what Joel posted on Telegram, it’s just because of his ideology. And that was more or less admitted by the court system in the magistrates level of court, which is a lower level of a state court in Australia. Magistrates were just like:

 

“Look, usually bail would apply, but because of his ideological connections and the sensitivity around that, given this recent terror attack, he needs to be held in prison.”

 

Basically. That’s what they were essentially saying.

 

But look, all of the charges that Joel has, I think there’s beyond nine of them right now! Nine or ten or maybe even more. They’re all in relation to streaming. Okay. They’re from things. I think he has six charges from one stream! From the things he said about other ethnic groups.

 

[13:05]

 

Tim Murdoch: These are streams with you? These are streams with Americans or you don’t know?

 

Blair Cottrell: Stream with me. Yeah, well, it was just a stream out of Australia with me. The one in question. The’s being charged with a number of offenses relating to “inciting contempt or revulsion of a specific class of people”, which is relatively new legislation under Australia’s Racial and Religious Tolerance Act.

 

Tim Murdoch: This is saying something about jews, probably.

 

Blair Cottrell: Well, one I think is comments about jewish people. One is about Indian people and the other is about black people.

 

And all of the comments, there’s like six different charges I think, if my memory serves me right. But I know he’s definitely been charged a bunch of times in relation to one stream. And here’s the thing man, and this is what’s super interesting.

 

You probably heard Nick Fuentes have a crack at Joel and say:

 

“He’s just a Wignat. This was always going to happen to this guy. What an idiot! Whatever.”

 

But Joel has been charged for essentially being a groiper and streaming, like doing exactly what Nick Fuentes does.

 

Tim Murdoch: Yeah, but he’s in Australia.

 

Blair Cottrell: He’s been charged for what he’s saying in streams, and then directing his followers to criticize politicians on X. He’s been charged with doing the same thing. Americans have the freedom to do this apparently, but we don’t.

 

Tim Murdoch: Yeah, Nick actually said something that over his sentencing after the fact. But nonetheless, he can be on all sides of the ball, depending on who’s on his nerves on any given day.

 

Blair Cottrell: I think Nick’s great value. When he initially, his comments were:

 

“Oh, this was always going to happen to Joel!”

 

But I think when you look at the charges, …

 

Tim Murdoch: Liek:

 

“The charge this is bullshit!”

 

Or something. I forget what he said.

 

Blair Cottrell: Well, it’s bullshit when you look at the charges. Initially, you’re like:

 

“Okay, Joel was pretty loose!”

 

Everyone can agree that Joel was pretty loose. He was going pretty hard.

 

When you look at what he’s actually being charged with doing. What he’s actually being charged for doing is basically the same thing that Nick does for a living. And you’re like:

 

“What? Hang on, it doesn’t., …”

 

Like I said, it demonstrates the difference legally between Australia and America, and it demonstrates how important it is to have legislation, constitutional rights to freedom of speech, because this is what happens when you don’t have that.

 

Tim Murdoch: Fascinating. So how long will this take before all this particular case is over with and all these other cases. What’s the lineup like?

 

Blair Cottrell: I’d imagine he’s got 12 to 18 months of court appearances, but his next move will be to, at his own convenience, try to get all of the charges heard in bulk in one or two matters, so he doesn’t have to go to court for every single different offense.

 

Tim Murdoch: It’s all the same.

 

Blair Cottrell: Otherwise. It’s just too, …

 

Tim Murdoch: Him running his mouth. It’s all the same stuff. Him live streaming and talking.

 

Blair Cottrell: And there’s the Telegram post, which is a different category of offending, but similar still. And there’s a bunch of other offenses in relation to other things he said. He’s even being charged in relation to private messages he’s had. Because when the police. This is what I forgot to mention. When the police arrested him, the Federal Police, they took his phone, they went through everything, and he’s been making jokes with friends in private conversations that he’s been charged for. Like, literal private conversations that were never public. Because he’s mentioned people specifically in some of those, like, comments, which was all in jest mostly because when you’re talking to the boys, you think it’s private. You say stuff. You say stuff that you don’t think other people would see. But the police have gone through all of it. And he’s got charges in relation to private DMs as well.

 

Tim Murdoch: That’s, its such bullshit! None of these politicians could hold up to those standards. And it’s absurd! But nonetheless, it’s something he’s going through. I remember his fundraiser. I remember putting up and his fundraiser was doing well. Does he have enough money for court? You guys have some good lawyers these days compared to like 10 years ago.

 

Blair Cottrell: Yeah, 10 years ago I was relying on the sympathy, … When I was charged with “hate speech”, I was relying on the sympathy of one lawyer, one lawyer slash barrister, like performing two roles. And I paid him as much as I could, but it was never quite enough. These days there’s a lot more resources available, there’s a lot more sympathy internationally. And the lawyers that Joel has access to, the barrister he used at the Supreme Court, all very professional, top tier stuff. And having access to that for him right now is like indispensable!

 

Tim Murdoch: Plus, there was no such thing as, like GiveSendGo or anything like that, back in the day. There was no crypto.

 

Blair Cottrell: Shout out to GiveSendGo too, by the way. Like just standing strong in the face of all the pressure they must receive from governments around the world and saying:

 

“Look, we believe in free speech. If these people want to raise money, they’re not doing anything illegal. They can raise money.”

 

Like most platforms, most fundraiser platforms would not do that. So GiveSendGo, they’re top notch.

 

[18:26]

 

Tim Murdoch: Yeah, I haven’t checked out his fundraiser. I’m assuming it’s still going or I know he hit his goal. That’s all I remember.

 

Blair Cottrell: I think maybe he was saying to me last night that he’s nearly spent at all! Just to get bail.

 

Tim Murdoch: I would imagine.

 

Blair Cottrell: But, I don’t know the details of when he goes to court next and what’s going to be necessary. So once that is known, I’ll help get the information out there and we’ll see what we can do to keep helping him.

 

Tim Murdoch: Okay. And Tom as well. Right. And who else? I know that there’s other guys charged, correct?

 

Blair Cottrell: Oh, there’s a bunch of guys with a bunch of charges. I don’t even know how many. I think the point, obviously is you’re probably understanding Tim. I think the point is just to bog you down.

 

The point is like to just throw this hooked net, this hooked net of just legal nonsense over you that you get entangled in for years. You spend your energy on it, you spend your money on it. And that just kind of holds you back from activism, politics and what you really care about. And that’s the way the Australian government deals with its dissidents.

 

Tim Murdoch: The “process is the punishment”, as they say over here. That’s the whole entire deal. You might get off because it’s all bullshit, but you’re going to have to go through money and it’s all big pain in the ass.

 

Hopefully everyone comes out smarter and more clever. But nonetheless, it sounds like he’s in good spirits. And now this particular program where you can’t be on a smartphone or anything like that, that’ll continue until that particular or trial is over?

 

Blair Cottrell: I think the intent generally, because he has 20 bail conditions, I think, that’s more bail conditions than I’ve ever heard anyone having! Even like the worst criminals don’t get that. I think that the Supreme Court Justice probably just wanted to demonstrate that she was taking everything seriously. She wasn’t just releasing him willy nilly. She wanted to demonstrate to the (((right people))) that she still considers him very threatening. Whatever.

 

Tim Murdoch: Why did he have to be released to his mother and not his wife and kid?

 

Blair Cottrell: Well, this is the funny, this is a weird thing. He’s been banned from Bondi, where his partner lives. And that’s public knowledge now because the media, like doxed her ages ago and, …

 

Tim Murdoch: Right.

 

Blair Cottrell: Literally took a photo on there. Yeah, she was coming out the front of her house. They literally was waiting for her, taking a photo, which I don’t know how that’s legal, is that stalking? The media seems to be able to do whatever they want here. So I don’t know.

 

Tim Murdoch: She’s being a public person now. But they do celebrities. Where there is no decorum, there is no decency in the societies we live in anymore.

 

Blair Cottrell: That’s a good way to put it. Right. And that’s how it feels, definitely!

 

But in Bondi, that’s where the terror attack happened against members of the jewish community. And because of Joel’s public statements considered anti-semitic and because there’s a considerable population of jewish people living in Bondi, that seems to be the reason he’s been banned from that whole suburb. He can’t go to that suburb!

 

Despite the fact that his partner and child live there. And that was his previous residence. That’s where he lived as well. He can’t go home. He’s not allowed to go there because jews live there!

 

Tim Murdoch: Can they come and see him? Can they come to his mother?

 

Blair Cottrell: They can visit him, but I think it’s like an hour’s drive or something, so there’s a bit of a distance to travel. But they have visited him regularly since he’s been out. He’s building a relationship with his son:

 

“My son seems to like me. He’s happy when I hold him.”

 

Is what Joel said:

 

“You know, my son likes me.”

 

So that’s good news. It was just good to see him last night Tim. He’s happy. He’s the same old Joel, but kind of sharper and more energetic than ever!

 

Tim Murdoch: Yeah, I know that when he first got in, it was really bad! Right. Did he have any stories from jail that he told you?

 

Blair Cottrell: So many! Too many to get into. It was really funny because even though he’s in isolation, he’s in isolation with other guys in other cells who can all talk to each other through the vents and the walls.

 

Tim Murdoch: Okay.

 

Blair Cottrell: And so, yeah, he met some very interesting characters. Very funny stories. Probably the funniest thing that I could share without stepping on any toes or upsetting anybody. I didn’t know this. I assumed that when Joel was arrested by the Federal Police in Australia, when he was arrested, he was arrested at a cafe while he was eating breakfast. And because it was just down the road from where his partner lives, I assumed that his partner was at the cafe with him.

 

But that wasn’t the case. He said to his girlfriend, who was due to give birth to their baby the next day, he said:

 

“Babe, I’m going to get breakfast. I’ll see you later!”

 

And he never came back! [chuckling] The day before his girlfriend was due. So she was probably sitting at home thinking:

 

“Has he ditched me? What the fuck?”

 

The timing of that [chuckling] was really ironic and funny. Like when he told the story.

 

[23:40]

 

Tim Murdoch: I remember him getting arrested. I didn’t know it was a restaurant. I didn’t know where it was at. I just remember seeing him getting arrested, the picture. I wonder what he was eating that morning?

 

Blair Cottrell: And I think even the cafe owner made a comment to the media, because the media rushed into the cafe, the breakfast cafe, and asked a bunch of questions and even asked:

 

“What was he eating?”

 

I think he was eating smashed avocado on toast. That was his last meal. That was his last meal! But look like credit where credit’s due. The police actually went, Joel said:

 

“Can you at least tell my girlfriend what’s happened? Because she’s going to think I just ran away!”

 

So [chuckling] the police actually went and knocked on the door and said:

 

“Yo, just so you know, we arrested your boyfriend. That’s why he’s not coming home.”

 

Tim Murdoch: It seemed like the media was there as he was arrested, which is kind of shady. They must have known about it or something. Or did they?

 

Blair Cottrell: I don’t think so. I think the footage of him being arrested comes from police body cam footage. Okay, maybe. I think they all have cameras on their chests and these days it’s part of procedure to actually document high profile arrests and stuff like that. So I think that’s where that footage came from. And the media rushed there after the fact.

 

Tim Murdoch: Fascinating. Okay, did he have any words of advice? Is he full of advice and knowledge now?

 

Blair Cottrell: He’s definitely acknowledging that there’s a shift in what is going to be possible in Australian political discourse in the future. Okay, that’s probably the best advice. He hasn’t given any advice directly, but this is what I’m projecting to you guys as what I think is probably the best advice given the situation. Joel’s acknowledging pretty much openly that the stuff they were doing before, stuff him and the NSN were doing, the kind of activism they were doing, has essentially been made a “hate crime”. It’s illegal now to openly criticize the jewish community is basically illegal in Australia now. You can’t do that.

 

And so you need to approach discourse in a way that appreciates that new reality. And Joel’s acknowledging that, everyone’s acknowledging that’s why the NSN has disbanded, to prevent their members from going to jail for 10 years for being a member of a hate group.

 

So that chapter of the NSN, the way it was, is done. And a new chapter in Australian political discourse is opening. But what that’s going to look like isn’t clear yet because the laws that have been imposed are so extreme, no one’s sure what’s going to be allowed and what’s not. And it’s going to come down to the whim of political bureaucrats.

 

Tim Murdoch: Sounds like a bunch of bullshit, that’s for sure! Let me get to a Superchat because this one’s for you, actually:

 

“Happy to hear of Joel’s release.”

 

Thank you White Bitch Triple Six. What a handle she has, eh? See what we’ve got here. Okay, up here:

 

“Happy to hear of his release. Hope him and his family, …”

 

Let me get this right here:

 

“Hope him and his family are doing well despite these bogus charges. Wondering if Blair does one on one fitness consultations. I would pay for an hour of his fitness wisdom.”

 

Actually, I think you have something going down that particular line. You’re lining up websites and stuff like that and that’s something you do know about, but go ahead.

 

Blair Cottrell: Yeah, thanks for asking. I do provide. That’s what I do to support myself. And I think I’m pretty good at it. I can basically solve your problems in that regard. And I try to offer a lot more than most people do and I’m very pretty passionate about that. You’ll have to DM me on either Telegram or Instagram at the moment because I’m still setting up a more convenient way for contact. And that’s nearly finished.

 

But if you’re keen to get onto it straight away, just send me a DM on Telegram. It’s at Blair Cottrell. Just my full name. Or you can find me through my main channel, which is at Real Blair Cottrell. And that’s what I do. I help people burn fat and build muscle. I’ve been doing it a while.

 

Tim Murdoch: You can also email me White Bitch Triple six, since I know who you are and I will put up his information because I have all of it. I’ll send it back to you in an email if you didn’t get any of that or you need to know how to get a hold of him. I’ll try to hook you two up.

 

But yeah, that’s what he does. But go ahead, finish.

 

Blair Cottrell: That’s fine. I appreciate it, Tim. Cheers. That’s basically. There’s not a lot more to say.

 

But before the show started, you were asking me about Ben Roberts Smith, the veteran who was recently arrested. That’s a big deal in Australia too, guys! Like this is like a huge deal! This guy Ben Robert Smith, if you don’t know, he’s like a 6 foot 7 chad, Special Forces SAS, Australian army veteran who in Afghanistan was basically responsible for rescuing his colleagues, which he was very good at doing. He’s known for storming significant numbers of enemy troops on his own and somehow winning! This guy’s like basically being hailed as a war hero ever since the war in Afghanistan. There’s certain situations where Australian troops were betrayed by members of the local army or police who offered to kill them in exchange for doing a deal with the Taliban at the time. And they were pinned down by enemy fire, they were betrayed, they were murdered in their sleep. And Ben Robert Smith was the guy who hunted those guys down to save any colleagues that had been captured or pinned down.

 

[29:18]

 

Tim Murdoch: He was in some type of anti-terror squad?

 

Blair Cottrell: I think SAS is kind of like a Special Forces or like a more serious, … I don’t know exactly! Tom Sewell would be much better explaining.

 

Tim Murdoch: I can tell you what the problem was in Afghanistan is that there was a continuous issue on the rules of engagement, where someone could fire at you, throw a grenade at you, throw a bomb at you, or do something like that. Then they would make sure the village they were hiding in they would drop the gun, run back to the village. They would basically make sure that they were unarmed at all times because you couldn’t really do anything with an unarmed individual. It became like a police operation for a lot of different guys. But there was various different teams hunting these guys down. Yeah, playing these games. It was very nasty!

 

Blair Cottrell: It was. And that’s the thing. Basically the Australian army was in Afghanistan supposed to be hunting terrorists, terror networks, members of terror cell groups, but they basically had an arm tied behind their back and their feet bound at most cases. Like they couldn’t actually do their job properly because the rules of engagement kept changing. You just described it in a great way. They would like fire on Australian soldiers, then drop their rifles and act like they were just citizens.

 

Tim Murdoch: Well, this was a problem. This is a problem with my friends that were there from America. So no, this is what they were doing. They were feathering or floating the rules of engagement, terrorists were to make sure that:

 

“Well, they can’t kill me because I’m unarmed.”

 

When they just basically killed one of their friends, you know, an hour for something like that they were constantly playing these games where they became a policing operation. You have to go in and fingerprint them and try to prove the crime. It was a fucking mess, it wasn’t a war, basically.

 

Blair Cottrell: Look the big drama is one of our war heroes from that time, from that era, from Afghanistan. The main one who became a bit of an icon was Ben Robert Smith. But there’s this huge, complex investigation that’s taken place behind the scenes, headed up by I think a combination of media and the Australian Federal Police, they’ve like sent people over to Afghanistan to try to get statements to use against their own soldiers. And the name Ben Robert Smith, that’s the one they kept targeting. There was a defamation case initially against media bureaucrats, specifically a journalist named Nick McKenzie who called Ben Robert Smith a war criminal without evidence. So Ben Robert Smith took him to court and said:

 

“That’s slander, I’m not a war criminal, I’ve got all these medals, what the hell?”

 

But the courts ruled in the favor of the media and they said:

 

“Well look, it could be true, so we don’t know the truth, so it’s not slander.”

 

So it’s like it basically just demonstrates that journalists can say whatever they want about anyone in Australia without any real basis. But now, a year or two after that finding, he’s actually been charged with five war crimes. With apparently either shooting people or commanding his comrades to shoot people who weren’t actually soldiers, weren’t Taliban or weren’t connected. That’s the accusation.

 

But this is the thing, guys, whether he’s guilty or not isn’t really what matters. What matters is the ripple effect that this has on our sense of national pride, the trust our soldiers have in each other and in our government and military, the willingness to actually join the military and go fight for the country. All of that gets pole-axed. That gets steamrolled now by the fact that they can’t even feel confident to go and kill their enemies to do what they’re trying to do without being thrown in jail for life for it when they come back. Because that’s a war crime! That’s the kind of feeling that this is created.

 

Tim Murdoch: Yeah. When I first heard it, I thought it was like ICC. I thought it was going to be a big international deal. Then I looked and I’m like:

 

“Holy shit, they’re bringing him up on charges inside of Australia!”

 

This is like some kind of shitlib ordeal, where they actually put up billboards and had advertisements over in Afghanistan for testimony and stuff like that you know, they’re like drumming stuff up!

 

It is somewhat unprecedented now, I assume, because a lot of these guys from my experience, aren’t necessarily on our side. In fact, the ones I know I would kind of consider assholes. [chuckling] You know, our societies are heavily degraded. These guys aren’t necessarily hugs and cupcakes or nice individuals. Many of them you could describe as Zogbots to a certain extent. “Rah, rah”, you know, patriots. But they would line us up against the wall as well if ordered by the government. What is his politics like? Is he being targeted for political reasons or is he targeted because he’s just a military icon and they’re trying to degrade a famous White military icon? You know what is the deal? Because he’s on their side.

 

Blair Cottrell: Like most soldiers he probably doesn’t have politics. And even if he does, it doesn’t matter! When you’re a soldier, you don’t have politics. You’re [government] property!

 

Tim Murdoch: Right, true.

 

[34:25]

 

Blair Cottrell: So that’s like the way I see it. Even if the charges aren’t political, they might as well be, as I explained just then, because they really have a dramatic negative impact on our sense of pride as Australians and our trust that our army members of the Australian Defence Force have in our government and each other. It just makes people not want to fight for this country and not want to take this government seriously.

 

Tim Murdoch: I didn’t mean to interrupt you, but in America that’s already happened long ago. So I’m taking it, this is like we’ve got upset veterans handing in medals. You guys have never had anything like this before where people are saying:

 

“You know, fuck this! I’m not fighting for this government!”

 

This is like the next stage from Covid Covid was a big trust hammer in Australia. This is another thing that’s really putting the nail in the coffin, so to speak?

 

Blair Cottrell: Yeah. Like you said, there’s been really good articles put out there by Noticer News, which is huge source of news. Really good source of news in Australia. Probably the best source we have down here in Australia. And they just did a story I think yesterday or the day before, and war veterans all over the country are handing in their medals in disgust that the government has gone after this guy just for following orders, for being one of our best soldiers.

 

Tim Murdoch: It is years after the fact and you’re putting up advertisement. It’s years after the fact. It’s not like you’re dealing with fresh off Afghanistan and ICC charge or some type of formal investigation. Formal charge that this guy was doing really shitty things or unbecoming of an officer, so on, so forth, etc.

 

Blair Cottrell: Exactly! Why now? What’s the point of this?

 

Tim Murdoch: Yeah. Years after the fact doesn’t make any sense.

 

Blair Cottrell: When something like this happens to him, like who benefits? What is Australia getting out of hunting or targeting its own soldiers? For, like, historical war crimes that probably didn’t even happen. And even if they did, where, … Let me ask you this question. Where’s the Taliban? The government there that’s still in place now. Where are they charging their soldiers with war crimes?

 

Tim Murdoch: They don’t give a fuck!

 

Blair Cottrell: Who are they investigating?

 

Tim Murdoch: They don’t have our standards. They don’t have our moral standards.

 

Blair Cottrell: That’s what I’m saying, right? The Talibani government would never drag its own soldiers who did commit war crimes! There’s no doubt about it. It’s well documented. They’ll celebrate them as heroes! They’re doing the opposite. Right. So that just goes to show, …

 

Tim Murdoch: We’ve always had a very high standard for soldiers and soldier behavior. This is just years after the fact. This is Australia advertising they wanted to do this. And they’re doing it inside of Australia. And it all just doesn’t. I mean, hey, maybe he’s a piece of shit, Zogbot? Maybe he said, “kill all Nazis”. Whatever. I don’t know anything about the guy. But he’s being, you know, railroaded, giving the White nationalist treatment, as what I call it, really. And it’s all inside of Australia, and they’re kind of like, okay, you know, he killed a guy and drank out of his prosthetic or something like that. Well, why are they waiting so long if he’s doing all these terrible things?

 

Blair Cottrell: Exactly! It’s like, why now? Who benefits? What’s going on here? What’s the point? Is it really just bureaucratic procedure that took ages to roll around? And if that’s the case, it’s kind of female coded.

 

Because if you’re fighting a war and you’re holding yourself to certain standards of war crimes where you can’t actually even kill your enemies when they’re there, but your enemy’s not doing that, well, it’s no wonder we didn’t win that war. Right? But what was even the point?

 

Tim Murdoch: Yeah.

 

Blair Cottrell: I don’t know. But there’s this thing going on right now that’s the new head of the AFP. I think her name’s, [Krissy Barrett] I can’t remember her name. That’s that woman.

 

Tim Murdoch: It’s obviously political. This is the thing. We’re in a heavily degraded society, as I always say, and it affects everyone. And there is a problem of behavior amongst a percentage of Whites, especially in charge, especially in positions of power.

 

But there’s also a huge problem in this case of a White woman who obviously is targeting this guy, you know, would this be happening if it wasn’t for her? I don’t know. Seems like?

 

Blair Cottrell: Well, there’s this weird shift. There’s all these new task forces that are being created in Australia, specifically within the Australian Federal Police. There’s like, Task Force Against Anti-semitism, a task force to Promote Social Cohesion by targeting racism.

 

And all of that’s come about, Tim, in the last six to eight months. This is all really new stuff. So there’s these new like, it’s almost like the AFP was quietly overthrown. I mean, this is just speculation, but it was quietly overthrown.

 

And now it’s in the hands of someone. I don’t know, someone with hostile intentions. Because it’s like it’s being turned into a political police. And it happened very suddenly. It’s weird! I can’t explain it at this stage. All I know is that Australia is changing rapidly! It’s targeting its own citizens, its own veterans, its own people, to the benefit of (((foreign lobby groups))), foreign nations often and historically hostile to Australia.

 

[39:48]

 

Tim Murdoch: Yeah, I saw one particular piece from the Daily Mail and the quotes were, … You know, they were analyzing, these particular departments and whatnot were analyzing all his tattoos. And he has a Christian cross tattoo, or we’re calling a crusader tattoo.

 

Blair Cottrell: That was a patch. Yeah, he had a patch. This is Ben Roberts Smith, the soldier who’s been charged. There’s this famous photo of him which was allegedly taken immediately after he just charged in against superior numbers and rescued a bunch of his comrades under heavy fire.

 

And as he’s walking away from that battle, he has a crusader knight’s cross patch, like a red Christian cross on a White shield. But the media in Australia edits the Christian cross out of the photo before they publish it in order not to offend Muslims or offend anyone who might not like that.

 

I mean, that just goes to show where we’re at! If there’s that level of political censorship happening in media, then it’s not unreasonable to assume that he’s being targeted for political reasons. That’s why he’s been accused of war crimes.

 

Tim Murdoch: Yeah. They’re targeting Whites across the board, and he’s obviously a symbol and they’re going after him for that particular reason.

 

I mean, there might be something legitimate. I’m not going to say that the guy’s perfect. I don’t know anything about him. He might be evil. [chuckling] There are some badass veterans in the US Army that I wouldn’t want to live near, that’s for sure. So you never know! We don’t know anything about him. But what I think is shitty is that if he’s doing something and it’s that over the top and there’s all these charges, why are they waiting so long, and why are they doing it with inside of Australia, like they’re doing it?

 

So I don’t know. And putting advertisements, putting up advertisements?

 

Blair Cottrell: There’s appeals to Afghanistanis, … There are more Afghanistanis living in Australia now, who have come from Afghanistan recently who have served in the army. Right. Because they have to over. There are more of them living here now than they, than the amount of Australian soldiers that were ever in Afghanistan.

 

So it’s like we have this fifth column and what the government’s doing and the police, they’re putting out advertisements appealing to those people in Australia saying:

 

“Hey, if you have any information about Ben Roberts Smith or any other soldier doing something mean or wrong to you, come and report it to us. And we’ll put it into our investigation.”

 

So it’s mind boggling! It’s like, how is this real? How is this happening?

 

Tim Murdoch: This is within the military, the confines of the military justice system of Australia. Correct? Or is it outside of the bounds of that? Because they have these laws on the books, war crime laws on the books and I don’t even know how old they are. Australia has these laws on the books that they can go after soldiers for war crimes regardless of the international law or anything like that it’s just kind of like internal to Australia. Now there’s always been a court martialing and stuff like that in America and behavior unbecoming of an officer and so on and so forth, et cetera. We have a military court of law here, but I don’t understand how it’s going over into civilian. I guess I don’t really know Australian courts.

 

Blair Cottrell: It’s definitely an Australia internal thing, because it’s the Australian Federal Police that are leading the investigation. But they’re not really confined to the borders of Australia geographically. Like I said, they’ll send cops and investigators over to Afghanistan to get information from former Taliban fighters about Australian soldiers so they can go home and prosecute their own soldiers. I just think we need, regardless of this guy made some mistakes. I don’t care! This guy went to fight a war in another country against the enemy. That’s what he’s trained to do! And we need to stand with our own, even if they do make mistakes sometimes. It was easy to make mistakes in an environment where your enemy isn’t abiding by any specific rules of engagement. I’m not even saying he did make mistakes. I don’t know. I wasn’t there. The cops certainly weren’t there.

 

Tim Murdoch: Yeah, I’m not interested in trusting the advice of Afghanis that you’re soliciting, that are known liars, that they’re soliciting advice from. We have to see the evidence. But I just don’t like the way they’re doing this years after the fact. If he’s that much of a bad apple as they’re suggesting, you should have easily done something when he committed these acts because supposedly this is like known stuff and he’s a bad actor and he’s this big asshole and blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. Okay, fine. Why are you waiting so long? And why are they having to solicit anything? Shouldn’t you have collected evidence right then and court martialed him or whatever? That’s normally what happens.

 

Blair Cottrell: Exactly! But look, guys, this is just what we’re going through down here in Australia.

 

I’m sorry to check out early, but my phone’s about to die. I’m just gonna give you guys the warning before it does. And like, look, we did kind of like a spontaneous drive up to visit Joel and have dinner with him last night. And so that’s why I’m like in disarray. I’d usually go sit with you guys for a bit longer. Yeah, thanks, Tim, for having me on. And thanks for the questions. Maybe in a couple of weeks or whenever you’re free again, we could say may, I could see up Tom Sewell. He could come on and he, Tom Sewell would be excellent at explaining the Ben Robert Smith Australian army situation because he spent a couple of years in battalion as a soldier. He has much more inside knowledge about how things really work.

 

[45:20]

 

Tim Murdoch: What blew me away is they’re doing this outside of the military, … Well, I don’t know how Australian military works, but they’re doing it, … I mean this is something that happened in a war, but they’re doing it outside military court of law, which I think is pretty crazy! But and they have their own little war crime, their own little war crime ordeal.

 

But anyways, I appreciate it, Blair, for coming on and being a good sport. Guys, I’m going to let’s see what I’m going to do here. Hang out here a couple minutes and look what’s going on in the chat. I thought he’d be on a couple hours obviously, but his phone ran out and what are you going to do when your phone runs out?

 

But this case is one to watch. It’s definitely a political trial. We’ll have to see what evidence there is and why they waited so long. It all stinks to me. But we do appreciate Blair coming on. His phone ran out and he had the wrong cord.

 

Let me see what you guys are saying here. Yeah, it sounds like Joel’s doing quite well. He’s doing okay. Bo Nilson, thank you very much for the sub. But I’ll stay around a couple minutes. Let me cruise around and see what’s going on and then I’ll let you guys go. And for the weekend I’ll be back on Sunday. Yeah, I’ll get those guys on again soon. I’ll get Tom Sewell on again. I have on Warren Balogh but I’ll try to get on Tom Sewell or I’m trying to think of who else. You know, Tom I think was in the military. So.

 

But anyways, I appreciate you guys tuning in and supporting the show. I will be back Sunday. I was planning on doing a two hour show with Blair but nonetheless these things do happen. We do appreciate him being a good sport and coming on for 45 minutes. I was hoping he’d make it on at least an hour but he got close. But I do appreciate it guys and I guess I’m going to go ahead and let you guys go. You guys have a wonderful Friday evening and Saturday and I’ll be back on Sunday same time, same place, about 5:30 PM. Need we’ll talk about everything going on. I know they’re meeting with, … Let’s go over to Drudge. What’s up? Crafty Booms. I know they’re meeting on, … Trump’s vowing complete decimation of Iran. They’re meeting with Iran tomorrow in Pakistan.

 

Okay, so get this. They’re meeting with Iran in Pakistan and Did Do Nothing Replay, bro:

 

“Catching live. Great show. Thanks for what you do, sir.”

 

Well, thank you for support. We got Crafty Booms. Thank you 14 for the 88. I do appreciate it. I appreciate you guys generosity.

 

But this whole entire Iran situation is not over with. It’s not over with. It might die down for a bit. But why Pakistan? Pakistan arranged the meeting. There’s a few different theories on it. They’re a Muslim country. It’s kind of like they’re not in the war and they arranged the ceasefire. Or maybe Trump, through a back channel, had it. I think what they’re trying to do is stall for a period of time to build up enough forces to try another angle. They’re not going to be happy, they being Israel, is not going to be happy until the IRGC, the current regime in Iran, is gone.

 

So they’re going to keep going at it, and they’re going to obviously stall by time, until they can degrade that regime enough and kill enough of them. What they keep doing, obviously, is killing the elites they’re meeting with. So really, how are you going to meet with them anywhere if you’re killing them other than a situation like this? I mean, Pakistan escorted the jet from Pakistan, when it flew into Pakistan’s airspace. The jet containing the Iranian dignitaries and Iranian authorities, negotiating authorities in Pakistan.

 

I mean, the Israelis just keep on killing. And so Israel is supposed to be backing down in Lebanon, but of course, Israel let loose, what, 100 bombs in 10 minutes, dropped 100 bombs, missiles in 10 minutes and totally destroyed Lebanon. It’s just insanity! So Pakistan was a neutral player and they’re trying to, … There’s probably more explanation than that. But the Iranians can’t go just anywhere and meet just anywhere. They just can’t. Because everywhere they pop up, the Israelis kill them.

 

So, I think what Trump wants to do is build up a force to break them another way or maybe take oil or do something. He’s pulling something! The Iranians so far haven’t trusted anything, though. They don’t trust the Americans at all! Let’s see what Field Marshall has to say:

 

“Thanks for getting our Blair on. Hi, Joel. Thanks. Good luck, everything. Congrats to you and yours. The birth of your first child. Done.”

 

Thank you very much, Field Marshal. I do appreciate it. And when Joel can come on, he’ll be on, that’s for sure. I guess he has to get back on Telegram first and get these cases over with. We’ll see.

 

Yeah, I don’t know. There’s like a long explanation on why they did Pakistan and there’s a few conspiracies about it. But the Iranians. Who are you going to trust if you’re Iranian? So now the negotiating team. The negotiating team is JD Vance and it’s Trump’s son-in-law and it’s the main negotiator. Hold on here.

 

Okay. Daily Signal:

 

“I’ll see Vance to lead the negotiating team.”

 

Yeah, we’ve got like four or five guys in the negotiating team. See here, Steve Witkoff. Yeah. Jared Kushner. They’re both going to be there with J.D. Vance.

 

[52:17]

 

But there’s a fourth as well. I want to say maybe it’s Ambassador to Pakistan. Pakistan has four dignitaries there. Pakistan sets modest goal. Let’s look at Al Jazeera:

 

“Pakistan sets goal. A deal to keep talks going.”

 

They want to keep conversations going. The problem with this particular war so far, one of the reasons that I think the English speaking world elite and sections of Europe really don’t give a shit is that it hurts the BRICS. It really hurts the developing countries. That has become very clear. The developing countries, the BRICS countries are being hurt by the closure of the Strait of Hormuz, which is kind of an interesting thing because Trump doesn’t like the BRICS countries.

 

But one of the side effects is they are hurt by the closure of the Strait of Hormuz and only 15 tankers a day can get through. So the whole entire situation actually hurts the BRICS countries, which I find intriguing. They’re the ones suffering the most.

 

And so that’s probably one of the reasons behind it as well. Pakistan, developing countries. You know, these guys are all like:

 

“We’ve got to stop this war if we can.”

 

The Iranians, supposedly, what they’re saying is they’ve come a long ways in agreeing to various different things, supposedly, but I don’t know. Well, Iran doesn’t want to look like a bad guy internationally. They don’t want to play into the bad guy role. They’re not the aggressor. They’re defending their country, they’re defending their homeland. If Pakistan [Iran] would have shut down the Strait of Hormuz any other time, all hell would have broke loose. The whole entire international community would have came down on Iran and probably removed them somehow some way. But because of the way it happened, No one could really blame Iran. The blame would go to Israel, against Israel in the United States.

 

And Iran has the upper hand and they don’t want to lose that, which is very clever of them. They basically have been playing it very well. They’ve been doing a bang up job in handling themselves so far. I don’t think they’re going to make any mistakes. But they’re going to have to be ready to fight to the death, there’s no doubt about that. Because they’re not going to be happy until they get they get the particular uranium. They don’t want them to have nukes. And Trump wants to send them back to the Stone Age. He’s saying that again. He vows complete decimation and ceasefire warning to Tehran.

 

Now I am guessing he’s saying a lot of this shit just to get them to the table because this is hurting the American economy. But I do know in the back of everyone’s head these guys at the top don’t like the BRICs and they want a way to harm the BRICs. Having the Strait of Hormuz shut down harms the BRICS countries, more than anyone else. You know, the Chinese are prepared, the US is prepared more than most. Europe’s got issues, but the BRICS really has issues, that’s for damn sure!

 

But anyways guys, I’ll be back on Sunday. We’ll talk about it more, 5:30 PM. Thanks you guys for tuning in and I’ll get Blair back on when he can bullshit for a couple hours. White Bitch Triple Six get a hold of me via email if you need Blair’s contact information and he can hook you up with a fitness consulting. That’s what he does. And he’s very good at it.

 

But anyways, cheers guys and thanks for tuning in and supporting the show, as well as all the support out there.

 

[59:21]

 

 

END

top

 

 

 

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

 

Rumble Comments

top

(Comments as of 4/12/2026 = 21)

MountainMan1847
1 day ago
Australia for the white man o/ Heil to my Aussie brothers
17
0

‹ Hide 1 reply
xSTRAWMANx
16 hours ago
Ken oath mate
1
0

traceywilliams
1 day ago
Would’ve loved to hear Blair finish a sentence.
11
1

‹ Hide 1 reply
LiftWaffen
18 hours ago
He is really great at interrupting!

Tristan_Blixt
21 hours ago
you need to listen more and talk less. let blair do the talking
6
1

‹ Hide 1 reply
timmurdock
VerifiedAdminSupporter
20 hours ago
I had lots of questions and only an hour to get them in. Cut me a break or get your own show.
2
1

Correctifier
Supporter
1 day ago
Wotan bless me Aussie mates!
4
0

TheWhitenessoftheWhale
1 day ago
Do they want to humiliate SAS?
2
0

renunciate
Supporter+
22 hours ago
Ben R Smith is a war hero. His treatment is intentional demoralization.
1
0

BradC1988
6 hours ago
Its great to hear Joel Davis has been released on bail and that he hasn’t changed a bit! Hail White Australia! o/
1
0

renunciate
Supporter+
22 hours ago

KingTut999
1 hour ago
after Joel got released his Go, Send, Go or whatever fundraiser link got nuked. so not sure what happened exactly.

Spaceman69
1 day ago
ben robert smith is being crucified by hes OWN CREW testifying against him because he cross some big lines and deserves all that he is getting. rules of engagement brothaaaaaa. you aint above the law big fellow. imagine how bad things were your own crew ratted you out, and rightly so!!! dont take my word for it, go read the court transcripts for yourself or watch this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J896i3yrTbQ&t=2s come at me nazis, this is the only place you can exercise your racism these days…. prove me right. prove the hate speech laws right!
0
11

‹ Hide 1 reply
renunciate
Supporter+
22 hours ago
You couldn’t resist squawking buzzwords, could you? “Nazi” “racist”. Both propaganda terms used by communist agitators. Label someone with a negative name to justify persecuting them. GFY.
8
0

‹ Hide 1 reply
Spaceman69
15 hours ago
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA are we pretending like joel davis was not a self proclaimed racist nazi LEADER? blaire use to be as well till he got kicked out cause hes missus cucked him with another member of NSN, so he chased the guy down with toma hawks then burned the guys house down- hence went to max security prison.. ohh boy, ya cant make this shat up.. hey whitey.. feel free to white wash the information to your liking… but now its the age of the internet…. that hitler brain wash bullshat aint gonna float. the truth is out there. the internet never forgets
1
4

‹ Hide 1 reply
BradC1988
6 hours ago
Shut the fuck up retard LOL
Spaceman69
1 day ago
blair sounds funny. like he forgot to take meds or sumthin. joels arrest, that racists try to white wash is that the female politician he had hes nazi possy harass AKA “rhetorically rape”, well she ended up quitting her job and moving house for her families safety because of the degree of online treats and harassment she received. i imagine she also took out intervention order against him and hes nazi friends. so yeah its kinda serious!!! you cannot threaten people like that even “rhetorically” especially a politician. thanks to NSN nazis and racists, Australia has passed laws against hate speech. basically it is now ILLEGAL to be racist in Australia. which i think is freaking awesome! an example to the world. these dumb nazis seem to think their freedom of speech includes insulting people to their hearts desires on the daily! like a aussie magistrate has said, people have the right to go about their daily lives without being subjected to your vile hate filled racism. on behalf of immigrants here in aus, thank you nazis for making racism illegal!!! we couldn’t have done it without ya… now we sit back eat pop corn and watch the overwhelming avalanche of court cases these racist dickheads are about to face.. they make for a perfect example of why these laws are necessary. nazi racism destroys common sense!
1
16

‹ Hide 2 replies
bthor29
21 hours ago
Are you referencing the multi million dollar mansion she inherited then spent $800k renovating using her political influence to assist with council approval?
7
0

‹ Hide 1 reply
Spaceman69
15 hours ago
completely unrelated. next you’ll be talking about affairs and sex scandals… are you trying to justify rhetorically raping her with threats and harassment?!? because she had an opinion about NSN?
0
2

‹ Hide 1 reply
BradC1988
5 hours ago
Joel’s comments were totally justified, retard. However, your presence in a White country has no justification. You and the rest of the unwelcome brown/black hordes contribute nothing but crime to the host country.
BradC1988
5 hours ago
Again, shut the fuck up you antiWhite piece of shit. Also, you will be going home to your shitty country. Its only a matter of time, shitskin! LOL
0
0

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

See Also

top

 

 

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

Dean McIntosh: Hello there, guys. At the risk of sounding like every other YouTuber out there, I’d really appreciate it if you’d click the subscribe button. It’s free, it doesn’t cost you anything and it allows my channel to grow, which means guests like the one you’re about to watch, as well as more, would be willing to come on! Just give it a like, give it a subscribe and we’ll go from there.

 

All right, thank you and enjoy this episode.

 

So today on Laments, I’ve got Mr. Mark Collett. Mark, how are you doing?

 

Mark Collett: Hello, my friend. It’s good to be here. Thank you so much for inviting me on. I’m looking forward to having a decent chat with you.

 

Dean McIntosh: No, no, thank you.

 

Now, for those that don’t know who you are, if they were to Google you get some quite derogatory terms come up. People call you, I saw “Hitler Simp” when I was doing my research. I think simping is something to do with OnlyFans girls. I don’t know, I’m a bit old for all that shit! The neo-Nazi, Nazi. How would you describe yourself?

 

Mark Collett: Well, I describe myself as an ethno-nationalist. I’ve always described myself as a nationalist.

 

But now there seems to be sort of two camps. You have the sort of civic nationalists and you have the ethno-nationalists. I’m an ethno-nationalist. I am English, I’m proud to be English. And I believe that White Britons, i.e., the English, the Scottish and the Welsh, they deserve a homeland just like any other ethnic group. And my belief is basically that we as a people need to turn around the demographic changes taking place, because I don’t want White Britons to become a minority.

 

And secondly, I want to ensure that Britain is run by the indigenous people for the benefit of the indigenous people. So I want us to remain a super majority in our homeland and I also want our homeland to be run for our benefit rather than for the benefit of people who are foreign or for the benefit of foreign countries.

 

Dean McIntosh: You know what, I’m not going to lie. That sounds like it’s right out of the playbook of Restore Britain. Do you know Rupert Lowe?

 

Mark Collett: Well, I mean, Rupert Lowe is now talking my talking points, because I’ve been doing this since 2000. I’m now 45. I’ve been doing this for 26 years. I first got involved in this when I was at university. And it’s very interesting to see that the things that I was de-platformed from X, for the things that I’ve had my bank accounts taken away for, the reasons I’ve been banned from any form of foreign travel are essentially now the policy points of people like Rupert Lowe.

 

So the things that I face such repression for over my lifetime are now the talking points of a sitting MP. And it tells you that there is a massive vibe shift at the moment. What we’re seeing is this unprecedented political change where people are talking about things that at one point were seen as highly taboo. And it was quite a taboo thing.

 

And as I said, I have suffered sort of quite heavily because of my political beliefs. I’ve been doing this, I’ve been consistent in doing this for the past, 26 years.

 

But now these things are breaking into the mainstream. They are being spoken about in Parliament, and obviously Rupert Lowe’s now got 100,000 members who obviously agree with these talking points, which is incredible because obviously I was in the British National Party at the height it had 14 and a half thousand members. We got two MEPs elected to Brussels, but it was nowhere near on the size and scale of what Rupert Lowe’s doing. Now that doesn’t necessarily mean Rupert Lowe’s gonna win a general election, but what it does mean is that there has been a huge change in the way people think and people’s willingness to talk about race, ethnicity and demography.

 

Dean McIntosh: It’s interesting you mentioned that, actually. I had one of your compatriots or previous compatriots, Nick Griffin on a few months ago. And it gives you the vibe shift, as you mention it. I think that scored 10,000 views at my last check and I had lots of people saying:

 

“Yo, you can’t speak to Nick Griffin!”

 

I got a lot of abuse for it as well. And I thought:

 

“You know what, I’m just going to talk to the chap and get his side of things.”

 

Which is why we’re having this conversation as well. I don’t go by other people tell me, as you’ve probably seen, Mark, you’ve seen my channel. I go by going to the source, go to the horse’s mouth sort of situation.

 

So, yeah, you were part of the BNP, which is why I think you get slated as much as you do. Obviously, as we’ve just said, these conversations around race and ethnicity are now breaking through. You’ve got Rupert Lowe, not sort of spearheading that, but he’s definitely picked up the baton and is running with it. His party is doing very well. It’s interesting, really. He talks about re-migration a lot. He talks about millions must go. I know you know Steve Laws and he’s a big fan of or big, big promoter of re-migration. What’s your view of that? Do you think that we should get rid of everyone that isn’t English?

 

[05:05]

 

Mark Collett: Well, I do believe that millions should go, but I have or both myself and the people I work with have always said we would like Britain to be around 95% White British.

 

And if you stated that as a point, I think that’s something that most people who are reasonable could agree with. We’re not saying that every single person who’s got a tiny drop of foreign blood must go, but lots of them do have to go. And we have to bring about a situation where the indigenous people, these islands, are a super majority and a stable super majority.

 

So we don’t want to say 95%. Then in five years it’s 90%, then in another five years it’s 85%. We don’t want to go back down that road. So it would have to be a figure where the indigenous people were an overwhelming majority and that majority was maintained.

 

Now when we’re starting to talk about people being sort of sent home or expelled or remigrated or repatriated, as we used to call it in the BNP, you know, we’ve got to talk about this sensibly. There are 21 million people here in Britain today who are not White British, who are not indigenous or have some kind of mixed race heritage.

 

Now if we were going down the route of mass re-migration or repatriation as we used to call it, there is a sensible way of approaching this. And we’re not talking about putting 21 million people on boats in a single year and getting rid of them. There would be a system of doing this which would be sensible. It would be, it would obviously take people’s needs into account.

 

So the first people you would send back would be illegal migrants. Because really there are three types of people in this country who are not indigenous. There are people who shouldn’t be here because they’re illegal migrants.

 

So you’ve got the illegal migrants, you’ve got Visa overstayers, you’ve got people who have no legal right to be here.

 

Then you’ve got people who’ve got a legal right to be here but are not British citizens. They are people who are citizens of other countries that have gained residency here, work permits, visas. They might be studying. They’re here, but they’re not actually British citizens. Then finally you have the third group, which are people who are here and are not indigenous to these islands, and they have British citizenship.

 

Now, they’re not indigenous, but they have a passport. They have attained citizenship.

 

Dean McIntosh: Right.

 

Mark Collett: Now, obviously, if you were to bring in, look, if somebody gave you sort of like Marvel superhero powers and you were sort of Thanos and you could just snap your fingers and these people all disappeared, that would be all well and good, but that’s not how it works in the real world. And there’s a lot of people who say, like:

 

“Oh they’ve all got to go! They’ve all got to go!”

 

But you have to put forward a policy that would actually work. And you have to realise that you couldn’t do this overnight. It couldn’t be done with the snap of your fingers. So you deal with the first group first. And the first group were illegal immigrants.

 

Now, day one, they would all have to go. You would have to start rounding them up, and you would have to start deporting them. They are here illegally. They have no right whatsoever to be here. And they have come here, and by the mechanism of coming here, they have broken our laws. And we do not want criminal migrants here. I think that’s a fair point.

 

Dean McIntosh: Are we talking about the ones coming across on the boats and things like that?

 

Mark Collett: Anybody who is here that has broken the law to be here and has broke, whether you are a visa overstayer, whether you are somebody who has entered on a small boat, whether you are somebody that has Stowed away in on a plane or in a lorry on the Channel Tunnel, makes no difference. If you are here illegally and you have broken our laws to enter this country, you go immediately! So you would deal with the first group with a stroke of a pen.

 

Now, the second group are people who are here legally but do not have right to remain because they’re not British citizens. So they do not have a passport. You would deal with them rather swiftly as well. You would wait until any work visas ran out. You would not reissue them. Any of those people who were here and were not British citizens and that were out of work claiming benefits, they would have to go. You know, why on earth we have people here in Britain who are not British citizens, but they are claiming benefits? I don’t know.

 

I mean, I don’t think you or I would be able to turn up in Japan or Nigeria or India and immediately be able to just go to some government office and start getting free money. So you would then ship them out.

 

Then you would look at people who were here through the Visa scheme or here through some temporary measure who had broken the law. Now, anybody that comes into our house and violates our laws and breaks the laws, they will be leaving.

 

And I think that’s a sensible policy as well. And over time, you would drastically reduce the number of foreign nationals living in Britain, starting aggressively with lawbreakers and people who were claiming benefits.

 

And eventually, over a period of time, people would run down their visas. Those visas wouldn’t be reissued, the foreign nationals would leave. And you would make sure there was no birthright citizenship. So even if they had children on British soil, that doesn’t give you the right to remain. And I know that America has gone down that route recently. Donald Trump has attempting to abolish birthright citizenship because people have these, what are known as anchor babies, which allow them to stay. And that would leave you with the third group.

 

So the first two groups, the illegal immigrants and those here legally who are foreign nationals, you would deal with those two groups extremely quickly, and those problems would be solved. And that would leave you with people living here who are not indigenous and who have British passports, essentially British citizens, but not natives.

 

[11:24]

 

Now, they would be dealt with in a number of ways. We could offer them reasonable grants to leave, and at the same time we could pass laws that essentially bring about something that the government keeps crowing about the government always talks about equality, doesn’t it? We always hear about the importance of equality:

 

“We’ve all got to be equal, we’ve all got to be treated equally under the law.”

 

Well, no one gives me 150 pound an hour interpreter to go to the council office. So we’ll treat everyone with a British passport equally. And if they don’t speak English, they’re not entitled to benefits. If their children don’t speak English, they’re not entitled to go into the educational system, they’re not entitled to state education. If you don’t speak English, you are not entitled to an interpreter in hospitals because all of these things are inequalities which put White Britons at a disadvantage. We pay for these things, but we don’t get these benefits. And that overnight would begin to incentivise people with British passports to take the grants to leave.

 

We would ban full face coverings in public. We would ban kosher and halal slaughter and the importation of meat that was slaughtered in a cruel manner. And overnight you would see millions choosing to go home.

 

And we would also look at people who had British citizenship but also had citizenship of other nations. So if there was a Jamaican man, let’s say, and he had both British and Jamaican citizenship and he had raped someone, he would have his British citizenship stripped. And that would be completely legal under international law, because any nation can strip a citizen of their citizenship if they have citizenship of another nation where there is a grey zone under international law. Not that I’m a big fan of international law, but this actually does abide by. It is if you strip somebody of citizenship and they don’t have citizenship of another nation. So you couldn’t strip somebody of British citizenship if they didn’t have a dual citizenship and couldn’t go anywhere else. But there are many people living in Britain who have a British passport but are dual citizens. And dual citizens that have broken the law, committed benefit fraud, have never worked, don’t speak English, they could have their citizenship stripped.

 

And over time, what you would end up with, it might take five years, it might take a decade, I don’t think it’d take much longer. But you would see a dramatic turnaround when it came to demographics. It would create a hostile environment for illegal migrants. It would more or less cut immigration to zero. And you would see a massive number of people leaving. And over five to 10 years, the demographic shifts would be drastically reversed! And you would also stop paying the people who are here and aren’t indigenous to have children.

 

I’ll give you a great example. Labour lifted the benefit, the two child benefit cap. Well, which three ethnic groups in Britain have the largest family size on average? I can tell you straight off the top of my head and list them in order.

 

Number one, Pakistanis, number two, Bangladeshis, number three, Indians. So people who come here from the Indian subcontinent have by far the highest birth rate and the largest family size. Labour are currently paying them to breed by lifting that benefit cap. By lifting that benefit cap, Labour are putting in place a form of indirect discrimination that pays certain migrant communities to have children. There would also be policy reversals like that again, that would see thousands, tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands, maybe even millions leave simply because that policy was reversed.

 

And once you’ve done that, you would end up with a small number of people here, 5%, who were not White British. They would be fellow Europeans. There would be a limited number of people of mixed race origin who were half English and say half something else, because they can say:

 

“Well, look, I do have partial English heritage or part Scottish heritage.”

 

Whatever, but it would be a manageable number that was maintained and did not start to creep above that 5% threshold. And then it wouldn’t be discriminating against people like a man who, say, has a Polish wife or, somebody who was of mixed European origin, but their family had lived here for sort of 50, 60 years. And I think that would be fair. I think most people would accept that the idea of sending people home doesn’t have to be one of people marching down the street in uniforms, pulling people out of their houses and loading them into sort of lorries at the point of a bayonet. Sensible policy change would turn this around.

 

And if you extend that, an extension of that, is once you understand that sensible policy change could turn this around, you understand that it is policy change, bad policy, that has brought us to this point. A mixture of horrendous government policy which has created both push and pull factors, has incentivised millions of people from overseas to come to these islands because we treat them as first class citizens and we treat the indigenous people at best as Second Class and at worst a hated minority that are preyed upon by the people who arrive here!

 

[17:25]

 

Dean McIntosh: It does seem everything you’ve just said sounds like it could have come from Restore or Advance Britain. It really does. And like you say, it has crept into the discourse. Yet, what, five, ten years ago you were vilified for these views. Now you’re no longer part of BNP. I don’t think Nick Griffin’s part of it anymore. Do you know Simon Tomlin?

 

Mark Collett: You might want to cut this bit out, but Simon Tomlin, …

 

Dean McIntosh: I don’t edit anything. I do not edit anything.

 

Mark Collett: Well, Simon Tomlin’s a strange guy that has all these fanciful stories of, …

 

Dean McIntosh: Right.

 

Mark Collett: Of what he’s done and where he’s been. He’s written all these sort of strange books. Some that claim he’s an MI5 spy, some that claims he was on the run from MI5. He has these fanciful stories that he was this big player in the British National Party. He wasn’t!

 

In fact, he’s kind of a strange guy. You can look up his criminal history. He was arrested and actually jailed for stalking and harassment of a woman who was in the wider nationalist movement. This can all be found quite easily. He’s not somebody that’s a fan of me. He’s really a Walter Mitty that makes a lot of things up.

 

Dean McIntosh: The reason I ask is obviously he’s got his own podcast. I’m not name dropping anything, but it’s The Daily Agenda, obviously, I’ve seen it. He has mentioned you. I just wanted to know your side.

 

Mark Collett: He mentions everyone. He’s one of these people who is endlessly embroiled in a series of beefs with different people. So he rages about me, he rages about Steve Laws, he rages about Tommy Robinson, he rages about Nigel Farage, he rages about Rupert Lowe, rages about Nick Griffin.

 

Now, I’m not saying all those people like one another. And some of those people don’t. You know, I like Rupert Lowe, I like Steve Laws, I don’t like Tommy Robinson. But he doesn’t like anyone.

 

And if you look into him, you’ll find out that he is a Walter Mitty that lives in sort of this little pocket universe of his own creation. He’s written a load of these really strange books. One of his books claims he has magical powers or something like that. He’s a very strange guy. All of this is on the Internet. You can Google it if you just put in sort of “Simon Tomlin, Eastwood Advertiser”, it comes up with his attempts to sort of get the Eastwood Advertiser to remove headlines about him which relate to his stalking and harassment, which he was jailed for. You know, this guy is not a nice guy. He’s not a good guy. He’s a very strange guy that makes up that he’s had this big sort of impactful career in nationalism. He hasn’t. I never met him when I was in the BNP. He never did anything of note when I was in the BNP, he might have been a member briefly, and he’s fallen out with everybody that you could imagine.

 

So, yeah, he’s not a big fan of me, but he’s not a big fan of anyone.

 

Dean McIntosh: No, no, that’s fair enough.

 

Now, moving on from the BNP, we talked about Re-migration Now, and Steve Laws. How well is Patriotic Alternative doing? That’s your party, isn’t it?

 

Mark Collett: It’s not a party. We are a community building organisation. We believe in three things, community, advocacy and activism.

 

Now, we attempted to be registered as a political party. The Electoral Commission blocked us numerous times for ridiculous reasons. And we eventually, when Nigel Farage came back into politics. Well, when Nigel Farage came back into politics, we were still trying to become registered as a political party and we weren’t allowed to.

 

So we had an agreement with the English Democrats. We gave them our people who wanted to stand as candidates. We gave them our activists in order to leaflet for them. And we worked with Steve Laws and the English Democrats to field a number of candidates at the general election. Almost as soon as we announced that Nigel Farage came back into politics. This was 2024 at the General election. And at that point it was over before it even started. Nigel Farage is one of those people who is a political juggernaut and his involvement in British politics carries so much weight that the previous Reform Party conference, when it was being run by Richard Tice, had around 300 people present. When Nigel Farage got back involved they were filling the Birmingham MNC, you know, one of the conference centres, the Birmingham MNC. Nigel Farage is such an influential and successful man that if you are going to take on populist Right-wing politics when he is active, you are going to be carving out a tiny, an almost, I can call it embarrassing, really, an embarrassing number of votes. You have this niche because he’s going to take everything else.

 

So at that point, we stopped applying to the Electoral Commission. We said:

 

“Let them get on with politics, let them get on with this battle for Westminster, and we will do what we do best.”

 

And what we do best is community building, advocacy and activism.

 

And what I mean by those three things is community building is we hold meetings with, we hold social events, we hold camps, fitness events, and we build an ethno-nationalist community. We carry out advocacy. Advocacy is where we fight for the rights of our people. We raise money for political prisoners, we write to the Prison Service and advocate for the rights of political prisoners. And we take up cases on behalf of people who are of our ethnic group who need our help. So we advocate for the good of our people, for the rights of our people.

 

And the final part is activism. We also go out on the streets. We’re part of the protest movement. We were recently at the large protest in Warwick and we are going to be holding another one of those protests in Nuneaton at the end of this month on the 28th of March.

 

[23:39]

 

So if you, if any of your viewers would like to attend that, we would absolutely welcome them. I am doing that in conjunction with Steve Laws. There was also the National Front there was also White Vanguard, there was also the British Democrats. Other groups who want to attend are welcome to attend as long as they stick to our code of conduct and agree to behave in a reasonable fashion. Numerous speakers spoke there, myself, Laura Towler, Hugh Anthony, Steve Laws, and we are going to build a powerful ethno-nationalist protest movement.

 

So by doing those three things, community, advocacy and activism. We are building something very different to a political party.

 

Now, that means that when Restore Britain was formed, not that it has been formally registered yet, it wasn’t something I was particularly concerned about. Now, I can imagine a lot of people running micro parties were very upset and probably very depressed at the thought of Rupert Lowe starting a political party.

 

Because if you were running a micro party, the day before Rupert Lowe started his political party, you probably thought you were going to hoover up everything to the right of Reform.

 

However, when Rupert Lowe started his party, he gobbled up everything there. And now, if you are running one of these micro political parties that’s got a hundred, 200, 250 members, you’re not going to eclipse Rupert Lowe. In fact, you’re going to be completely eclipsed by Restore.

 

So the political ground now on what you could say the populist Right, has been completely gobbled up by Nigel Farage and Rupert Lowe. We, on the other hand, are going to keep doing the things we do. There is no other group in Britain that takes the approach we take. We are very open to working with other groups. The Woodlander Initiative, Remigration Now. We work with people like David Clews from Unity News Network, and we build, and are happy to build a coalition of groups that want to work together for the good of our people.

 

So we’re very open to unity. We’re not trying to carve out some little niche for themselves and get involved in these sort of bun fights that you see a lot of these micro parties involved in. And by basically being unshackled from the electoral process, it allows us to do the things that are important. And it also means that if we feel passionately about something, we can pursue that without having to say:

 

“Well, look, general public, we need you to vote for us. So we have to sell this thing that you probably won’t understand or agree with or believe in, to you.”

 

We’re not really bothered if the wider public doesn’t support some of the things we do. If the wider public doesn’t support our prisoner support program, well, so be it. We don’t have to sell it to them because we’re not going down the electoral route.

 

And a lot of these micro parties are constantly trying to sell things to the British public that they don’t understand or can’t get their head around properly. And then they get 1.2% of the vote. And it’s all been a big waste of everyone’s time and money. And we simply don’t want to go down that route.

 

Dean McIntosh: No, Fair enough.

 

So there’s a big sort of ethnic push from your side of things. I get that vibe. We’ve had a chat about it for nearly half an hour. I understand that. So what about people that aren’t ethnic nationals who say yours, Steve Law’s ideas, contribute to hostility or division of the British society at large?

 

Mark Collett: Well, that’s a really, … Well, how can I say this politely? That’s a stupid point to make! And it’s a stupid point to make because the British people were not divided until mass immigration took place.

 

The greatest division between the British people when we were an island nation made up of England, Scotland and Wales was when we played rugby against each other or football against each other. You know, as a young man growing up in Britain, when England played Scotland, it was a big event. When Paul Gascoigne, you know, ran down the middle of the pitch and scored that absolute screamer of a goal. You know, the English cheered and laughed and the Scots cried. And that was the division in Britain.

 

The divisions in Britain now are much greater. And they haven’t been created by White Britons or by ethno-nationalists. They’ve been created by politicians who have brought other ethnic groups here that are so different to us. There is no hope of these people fitting in. They have created a multi-ethnic sectarian society and that has been created by design! That is not the fault of people like me who speak the truth! It is not the fault of indigenous Britons who by and large have always been against that level of mass immigration and that sort of immigration. And there are different types of immigration. But mass immigration from the developing and Third world has been something that the vast majority of White Britons have always opposed in one form or another.

 

The fault for all of this lies at the feet of the politicians who have done this without our consent, against our wishes, and have created this sort of ethnic or racial tinderbox which is now causing so many problems!

 

And when I say that, I’m not just talking about White on non-White. There are multiple different ethnic lines which create divisions. Hindus don’t like Muslims. Shiites don’t like Sunnies. There are different black gangs that murder each other on a daily basis because they come from different postcodes or have slightly different ethnicities and ethnic loyalties. We don’t want any of that here! Britain should not be a battleground for all these different ethnic groups. It should be our homeland. It is our homeland and it should be a place where we feel safe to go about our daily business and raise our children!

 

[30:00]

 

 

Dean McIntosh: You know what, that’s a very interesting point because when I was born in 86, so when I was a younger chap, Whites weren’t Whites. And I say that as a broad term. You know, White, Europeans, English, whichever term you want to use, were the majority.

 

And it seems like things have got progressively worse now. People would say it’s migration. People say it’s the small boats. You could point a finger in many different ways. But what I want to get to is a different point entirely. Going back to my earlier point, doing my research on you before I reached out, obviously they call you all these names and they tied you all these different things.

 

So what’s your view on Israel? Now the reason I ask that is because they charge you with being a Nazi, obviously. See where I’m going with this conversation? But Israel, from what I can gather through my research is, and through people I’ve spoke to out there, is an ethno-religious state where everyone, I assume, everyone is Israeli, jewish. Obviously you’ve got different sects of Judaism in there, but for the most part, Israel is supposed to be like a safe zone, a safe country for jews, regardless of what type of jew you are. It seems funny how Tommy is saying that the Israelis should have a state of their own, an ethno-state, an ethno-religious state, but not the UK. And that we’re like almost like a Brazilian style melting pot. Not that there’s anything wrong with that, but be honest.

 

So what’s your view on the Israel side of things? Because it seems like everyone’s okay with that, but when it’s the UK wanting an ethno-state, then it’s wrong.

 

Mark Collett: Well, look, this is the greatest hypocrisy of our time. Powerful jews who live in Britain and wield vastly disproportionate power. They’re a tiny percentage of the UK population, but they wield vastly disproportionate power in terms of the number of seats in Parliament, in terms of their influence over Parliament, and the way that they distort both our domestic and foreign policy. These jews wield huge amounts of power. But not only do they wield huge amounts of power, but they do so in a way which is fundamentally not only to our detriment, but also hypocritical.

 

So people who support Israel, especially powerful jews the British Board of Deputies and the little lap dogs, like little Zionist lap dogs like Tommy Robinson, they will tell you all day and all night that Israel deserves to be an ethno-state, that Israel is a place for the jews, that the jews have a right to a homeland, that they have a right to a homeland which they can defend, where they can control their own borders, that they shouldn’t be taking refugees, that they should be able to do what they want to their neighbours. Some people that Tommy Robinson has just met, the disgusting fat blob in America called Randy. Fine. He will tell you that in fact Israel has the right to starve the Gazan children. Disgusting! But these same people will tell you that actually White Britons do not have the right to be a super majority. That we don’t have the right to our own ethno-state, that the English do not have a right to a homeland, that we should share our homeland with everyone else.

 

So the British Board of Deputies will say:

 

“Yes, Israel has a right to defend itself! The British government should defend Israel, we should send money there, we should sell them weapons, we should allow them to do what they want in defense of their ethno-state.”

 

But then when somebody says:

 

“Well look, there’s tens of thousands of illegal migrants coming into Britain every year raping White girls, attacking young men, claiming huge amounts of benefits, living in hotels, huge amounts of taxpayers money.”

 

I think it’s about £8 million a day is spent housing these people in hotels. The British Board of Deputies will turn around and say:

 

“Don’t be so racist! Refugees welcome!”

 

Why? Why is it that these people who support Israel, who support an ethno-state for jews and wield this huge amount of power, are all completely behind a place for jews, but don’t think the English have the same right? That’s a massive hypocrisy.

 

And Tommy Robinson is a scumbag! Tommy Robinson is a guy who will fly around the world campaigning for the rights of jews. But if you ask him, should the English remain a majority in England, he will reel off 101 reasons why black people should come here, Indians should come here. He was outside the Iranian embassy the other day making clips about how he would allow more Iranians to come here because they’re good people, they don’t create problems. Why? Why do we have to be the nation that opens its borders, welcomes everyone in, hands everything to them on a plate, and then watches our own people become a minority, and a hated minority at that, whilst jews get to do the very opposite? And why are the people that advocate for open borders here the same people that advocate for closed borders and an ethno-state in the Middle East? This hypocrisy needs to be called out.

 

And this is why I’m banned on X. It’s why I can’t get a bank account. It’s why I can’t travel to places like America. And it’s why Tommy is making millions of pounds a year! It’s why he travels everywhere. It’s why he’s got the freedom to do whatever he wants. It’s why he’s spending £455 on a T-shirt and £5,000 on a pair of shoes. It’s why his son is traveling around as an influencer on private jets. It’s because if you bow to these powerful jews and you advocate for Israel, you will be paid for doing. So you will be given freedom, you’ll be given the right to do as you please.

 

Whereas if you say:

 

“Hey, there’s some hypocrisy is going on here, you will lose everything like I have.”

 

[36:13]

 

Dean McIntosh: So you called out what you saw as a double standard and, …

 

Mark Collett: Massive double standard! Yeah.

 

Dean McIntosh: And they smeared you as a Nazi and you’ve been de-banked. What countries are you not allowed to go to? You said there was more than one.

 

Mark Collett: 29 European countries plus a complete ban from North America.

 

Dean McIntosh: Just for calling out, calling it how you see this!

 

Mark Collett: For speaking about two things. Speaking about demography, and who controls Britain. Those two things. I speak primarily about demography and I talk about the disproportionate power that Zionists wield in the West. Those are the two things I talk about.

 

And if you look at what’s going on in the world or what has gone on in the world over the last few years, I can tell you this unequivocally, there is no other nation on the planet who would be allowed to indiscriminately slaughter women and children in multiple different countries, kill foreign leaders, starve refugees, and attempt to drive millions of people out of their homes without international condemnation, sanctions, and even military action being taken against them. But Israel can do all of those things, and all we do is send them more money!

 

Dean McIntosh: Right, Okay, I didn’t know any of that. So that’s all a learning point.

 

Mark Collett: You must know that! I mean, look, come on, you’re an educated guy. You must know what’s been going on in Gaza. Look, I don’t want Palestinians here in Britain. I want Britain to be for us, but also I don’t want to see Palestinian children being slaughtered. I don’t want to see aid workers being strafed by Israeli jets, which has happened. You know, how many foreign nations or how many nations on the planet would get away with killing aid workers, delivering medical aid, food and water to women and children and it just be brushed under the carpet?

 

You can Google all these things. Israel is essentially a country that has subverted Western domestic and foreign policy to the point that they have the complete ability to do as they please, even to commit genocide, which the UN has determined that they have done. The UN has determined they have committed genocide in Gaza. Yet America, Britain and numerous other countries are still dancing to their tune and nothing will happen about it.

 

Dean McIntosh: Okay, so that all to one side. I’ll just put a pin in that for a moment. Do you think, two points to this question. Do you think that the jews should have a homeland, a jewish state of their own? And second point is a lot of people that have come out as ethno-nationalists and Catholics and Christians recently have said that they are Zionists, that they believe that Israel should have a right to exist regardless who lives there, I think it would still exist, personally, but like as it is so do you think this is people just toeing the line and Israel should be there or shouldn’t be there in its current form?

 

Mark Collett: I will say this, and I’ll start this with an interesting point. I have said today at the beginning of this, you asked me sort of about re-migration. I laid out what I believe to be a very sensible, humane and lawful way about ensuring Britain remained ethnically homogeneous and a stable ethno-state. None of that was illegal. None of that was a call for violence.

 

Yet for saying those things, you can be de-platformed. You can have Prevent at your door. You can have the police looking at your social media accounts and potentially arresting you, you can be de-banked. You can have a travel ban put upon you. Okay, for just saying what I said earlier, which I think were pretty reasonable points.

 

Now you have Israel killing children, starving refugees, assassinating foreign leaders, destabilising sovereign nations, arming terrorist groups like Al Nusra Front in Syria, which are just the Syrian branch of Al Qaeda. You know, if you believe that Al Qaeda were the ones that blew up the twin towers on 9/11, why is Israel funding them and arming them and giving them air cover? Because that’s what they’ve been doing. Now I believe that all people all over the world deserve an ethno-state, okay? They deserve their own place in the world.

 

And I’m not saying that jews do not deserve a place in the world. But what I’m saying is, why do powerful jews use their power in the West to silence people like me for saying something reasonable, like I said earlier. Yet they support a state in the Middle East which is committing genocide and war crimes.

 

Now, this is the thing, isn’t it? And what I’m putting to you today is not that jews don’t deserve a place to live. What I’m putting to you today is that jews are creating an ethno-state for themselves whilst denying that right to people of European descent. People like us the English, the Scottish, the Welsh. And isn’t it funny that every single time Israel strikes a foreign nation, Israel was heavily involved in the war in Iraq. Not on the ground, but in the preparations. And this all came out in the Chilcot Inquiry. Tony Blair said that he did meet, you know, leading Israelis who helped America and Britain not with information about important military sites in Iraq, but with making the decision to attack Iraq illegally.

 

[42:11]

 

Now, Israel has destabilised Lebanon, Gaza, Syria, and now Iran. They do all this. But where does the flood of refugees and displaced people go when Israel commits these actions or prompts the West to commit those actions? They all come here! So wars for Israel in the Middle East, which help Israel grow, ensures Israel’s power and position in the region, only create floods of human traffic that come into the West. And we pay for it twice! We often pay for Israel’s military excursions. We often carry out their dirty work. And then there is always blowback. And the blowback is huge amounts of people leaving the Middle East and we face the blowback. How’s that a thing? How’s that fair? How does this keep happening?

 

Well, it keeps happening because powerful jews in Britain silence people like me who speak the truth about this. And they pay people like Tommy Robinson pay them handsomely. Tens of thousands, hundreds of thousand, millions of pounds a year. They build up their social media accounts, they fly them all over the world so that it appears that the populist Right in Britain, who should be enraged about what’s going on right now in the Middle East and should be saying:

 

“Whoa! Whoa! We need to back away from this!”

 

We shouldn’t be supporting Israel. We don’t want hundreds of thousands of Iranians coming to Europe.

 

But instead, Tommy Robinson stood outside the Iranian embassy saying:

 

“Oh, no, no, we should let them in! This is great! We’ve got to support Israel!”

 

This is all part of the Greater Israel plot or scheme or plan to create a powerful state for jews in the Middle East. But at the same time, what does it do? It reduces every other sovereign nation to either flames and destruction in the Middle East or here in the West. It reduces them to multicultural states.

 

And once we become multicultural states, once we lack in-group preference, once we are riven with division, our nations, our countries collapse. And it leaves one country in the world towering above everyone else! And that one country is Israel.

 

I don’t want to be ruled by Israel. I don’t want to be ruled by Zionists. I want England to be ruled by Englishmen for English men! And I don’t want to see Western nations belittle more than military puppets for a Zionist regime that cares nothing about White people!

 

Dean McIntosh: That almost sounds like the, what was it? The melting pot, Kalergi Plan?

 

Mark Collett: Yeah, that’s what it is.

 

Dean McIntosh: And for those that don’t know, they should go have a look at it. Something about every nation becoming a well, no ethno-states anymore, essentially, wasn’t it?

 

Mark Collett: But yeah, but there is one. That’s the point. So powerful jews in the West campaign for multiculturalism in every Western nation. They pass laws that discriminate and silence, discriminate against and silence ethno-nationalists. They support mass immigration, they support all kinds of policy Reform and social changes that reduce White birth rates. But they do the very opposite in Israel.

 

So there is only going to be one group of people in the world who have a homogeneous, powerful ethnocentric state! It’s not going to be us.

 

Dean McIntosh: So why do you think they’re pushing this?

 

Mark Collett: I think it’s pretty obvious from what I’m saying. They covet power and they want to be the, … They understand that power comes through ethnocentrism. That power comes from understanding in-group preference and understanding that if you have in-group preference and you stand together as a group when everyone else is either divided, atomized or pursuing individualism, your group will be the most powerful.

 

So let’s say you have a room full of a hundred people, 100 people. Now, if there’s a group of 20 amongst that hundred who work together and look after each other and act as a group and always have each other’s backs, no matter what, numerically they are still a minority. They only make up 20% of those in the room. But if the 80% are all bitterly divided and act only as individuals, the 20% can dominate the others. Now imagine that on a global scale, every nation is at war with itself, riven with division. Every nation is, or all White people pursue this individualism. Then ethnic groups come to Western nations and it all gets divided. They all become multi-ethnic sectarian societies where people compete for resources, they compete for money, they compete for a better slice of the pie for their particular group. So they’re all divided.

 

But in the Middle East, there is this one nation that acts for itself, that acts for the good of its people to make sure that it is the pre-eminent state in the region. They have this huge amount of power by sticking together. And we just don’t have that. And largely we don’t have that because policies that the jewish diaspora, both social and legal policies that the jewish diaspora was pushed for in the West, has left us atomized and isolated. You know, our family units have been broken down. People pursue materialism. Rather than wanting to have children. We are all looking after ourselves. We’re all looking after, you know, short term our desire for short term pleasure.

 

Dean McIntosh: Okay, okay.

 

[48:46]

 

Mark Collett: And if anyone doubts me, right, I think we’d all agree, everyone watching this is probably going to agree that the feminist agenda has been damaging to the family unit in the West.

 

The idea that women should, rather than embrace a man, they should compete with a man and attempt to do sort of male centric tasks to prove that women can do everything. And in doing that, they certainly shouldn’t marry a man or settle down or have children with a man, because that would undermine their individualism, their strength and their ability to show men that they can do it all on their own! Well, who’s pushed feminism? Just go on Wikipedia and type in list of jewish feminists. It’s pages long! Pages! Who brought about feminism? Who’s pushing pornography? Who owns OnlyFans? Look who owns it? Who owns Pornhub? It’s a rabbi! It’s a rabbi!

 

Dean McIntosh: Is it really? I didn’t know that.

 

Mark Collett: Who is pushing all of these things upon our people? Who owns the media? There are charts out there that list all the people. Who writes the books about, “White privilege”? Who are the professors in university that are teaching young White people to hate themselves and to rebel against their ancestors and despise their history?

 

Now, I’m not saying it’s all jews, and I’m not saying it’s only jews that do this. But jews are vastly over-represented in the kind of activities that I’m talking about. And are often people who play roles in these activities that could be described, they could be described as “instigators“. They are people that play central roles in getting movements started that are ultimately detrimental to our long term survival.

 

Dean McIntosh: Okay. That’s a lot of food for thought, to be honest. But I just want to bring it back to the point about Western nations being divided. I’ve seen more and more of it as I’ve got older, and I’m 40 this year. And it was never this bad.

 

I mean, yeah, you’d have like the occasional, we all knew some twat who was a bit of a racist or someone who’d make a gay, … There was always someone who had a gay joke or whatever. And I remember, I think we peaked in the 90s where nobody gave a fuck!:

 

“Okay, you’re gay. Oh, I don’t agree. You don’t agree. Whatever. People don’t agree. But okay, that’s your business. Oh, you watch porn, that’s your business. Oh, you’re black, you’re Muslim, it’s your business!”

 

All of a sudden. I’ve seen over the past, call it 15 years, there’s this massive sort of merge of everything being a problem now. Where do you think that has come from?

 

Mark Collett: Well, it’s come fundamentally from hate crime laws. It’s come from a huge shift to essentially cencored speech. I mean, what’s wrong with making jokes about gay people? What’s wrong with making jokes about anyone? Because you sure as hell can make jokes about White people! You can make jokes about straight White people, White families, you can make jokes about Christians, so why can’t you make jokes about Muslims? If you make jokes about straight people, why not about gay people? If you can make jokes about White people, why not about black people?

 

The fact is, the policing of our speech has been something that has accelerated drastically, both in terms of legislation through the government and in terms of the way the media have weaponised the idea that if you say something that’s unpopular, you should be hounded, you should be banned off social media, you should lose your job, and you should face social repercussions which are so strong that it leaves people sat in their houses feeling as if they can’t speak their mind and bottling everything up.

 

Now, look if you happen to be gay, which I don’t think you are, …

 

Dean McIntosh: I’m married! [chuckling] To a woman. To a woman!

 

Mark Collett: But if you’re gay and you want to do that in your bedroom, it’s up to you. Right? But why do we have to have grown men walking down the street in bondage gear, performing sex acts on each other on a Saturday in broad daylight in the middle of August, in front of families going out shopping. Why has it gone?

 

Dean McIntosh: Actually, it was the podcaster, Andrew Gold. I met him last year at the Battle of Ideas in London. He actually said, I’m sure it was him. He was at a Pride march, just good to see what it’s like. And he saw two men doing that in the middle of the day.

 

Mark Collett: Yeah, but why do we have to see that? What you see, this is an interesting thing, isn’t it? Why has it become normalised? Why have the people in power made it normal for two gay men to perform sex acts on each other in broad daylight at a festival and then termed it “Pride”?

 

Well, again, it’s an attack on the family unit, it’s an attack on decency, it’s an attack on morality, and it’s attack on children.

 

And ultimately, that last point is more prescient than ever, because you can see what they’re doing to our children. It’s constant sexualisation, abuse, trying to get children to accept things which are absolutely sick and twisted!

 

And a lot of this then is all wrapped up in careful marketing. The word “pride, rainbows, love is love”. Well, is any of this good for us? Does any of this make life better for regular folk? Is any of this actually helping? Because they would talk about safeguarding, don’t they, safeguarding children, whilst a Drag Queen is reading to them. And the Drag Queen’s associated with another Drag Queen who’s committed sex offences against children and then goes on to die after having sex with a dog! You know, those are the sort of people that these people say, “love is love”, want your children to be exposed to. And women take this, because one of the core British values, we’re told, is “tolerance”. Well, I say that tolerance is not a virtue, it’s a sickness! It’s a sickness that has been pushed upon us. And many Western people now are afflicted with that sickness.

 

And we need to purge that sickness, and we need to be less tolerant. Because, remember, tolerance isn’t a good thing. You tolerate something that you don’t fundamentally like. You take a walk to the shops and you tolerate the stone in your shoe because you’re thinking:

 

“Well, it’s going to be a short journey and it’s raining, so I don’t really want to stop and take my shoe off and get the stone out.”

 

[55:28]

 

But the stone’s hurting your foot. You tolerate things that you don’t like or that harm you, and you tolerate them to your detriment until you can tolerate them no further.

 

Why is it a virtue to tolerate things that harm you and your family? It’s a virtue because the people in power have twisted everything and turned it against us. Even our core values that now apparently underpin our society are actually evils that do anything but underpin our society.

 

They destroy traditional British society! They destroy any last ethnocentric pockets around the country in order to leave White Britons as isolated, atomized individuals who are then prey to ethnocentric groups brought here from overseas who are handed everything on a plate and often learn to hate us when they arrive here. Because as soon as they get off the boat the first thing they’re probably given is a nice hotel room and some money. But if they start doing some watching of the television or some reading of the books, they’ll soon learn about how the White man is evil, how British people oppressed everyone, how we’re basically demons in human skin that have this great privilege and have been keeping them down for not just decades, but for centuries, maybe even millennia! What is this? Well, it’s a system of not just replacing us, but it’s a system of turning us into a hated minority who are preyed upon by those brought here to replace us.

 

Dean McIntosh: And that’s a very sort of deep point as well. I know we’re sort of getting pressed for time. We’ve got about 15 minutes left. I know you, …

 

Mark Collett: Look, this is why people like Andrew Gold won’t debate me. There’s people like Andrew Gold and Liam Tufts and Tommy Robinson, fundamentally cowardly people. They would never debate somebody like me because I can actually answer what they are saying. I can actually put these points over in a relatively articulate and engaging way. And it’s why I’m so heavily banned. I’m not banned because I’m making ridiculous points. If I was making ridiculous points and I was some kind of racist caricature, I would be on X and I’d be boosted to the moon, because then everyone would laugh at me and say:

 

“Look, this guy is ethno-nationalism. That’s why we don’t want to be ethno-nationalists!”

 

So they get rid of people like me, and then you have people on X who do things in such a clownish way. They’re getting millions of views, but they look like complete idiots and they embarrass our cause. They’ll turn up and do street stalls with two or three people dressed in what looks like a Hitler cosplay outfit. They’re allowed on X and they will get millions of views for doing that because people are laughing at them.

 

No one’s gonna let me go on X and get millions of views because what I’m saying is relatable. And when people do upload clips of me on X, like Jake Shields recently did, they go viral, you know, hundreds, thousands or millions of people see them and go:

 

“Why isn’t this guy on X? I agree with everything he said. How is it I’ve not heard of him?”

 

You’ve not heard of me because I’m basically the most banned man in Europe because what I say makes sense! And anyone that fact checks it the points I’ve made about IDF planes killing civilians and killing aid workers, they’ll find out it’s all true! And then they’ll be like:

 

“Well, why didn’t I know about this?”

 

Well they didn’t know about it because there is an aggressive agenda in place to keep the truth from you.

 

Dean McIntosh: Okay, okay.

 

So what does the future look like? If we could fix things, what would the future look like if, say, I’m a Harry Potter wizard and you’re Prime Minister tomorrow, Mark, what are you going to do to fix the country?

 

Mark Collett: Well, like I said the first thing you do is you’d stop immigration. You would then start a system of repatriation or re-migration. As I said, and I laid it out earlier, you would put in place lessons in schools which taught White Britons to be proud of the great things that their ancestors did. Why is it wrong to have national pride? Why is it right to teach White kids that their ancestors were evil slave owners, when in fact Britain was the one country that on a global level opposed slavery and essentially brought it to an end? So if slavery is the big evil, why aren’t our kids taught, well, you’re actually the descendants of people who ended slavery! That’s what the British Empire did!

 

Dean McIntosh: It did. Yeah, yeah.

 

[59:55]

 

Mark Collett: Instead we’re told:

 

“Oh, your ancestors were White. White people own slaves! You know, self flagellate a little more, White man, hate yourself a little more!”

 

These are simple policies that could turn things around. Repeal the ridiculous hate crime laws, tear down the facial recognition systems, put an end to digital ID, enshrine things like jury trials, have free speech for everyone in Britain, build an ethno-state, a high trust, high IQ, ethno-state for indigenous Britons, where our children are safe to play in the street, where men and women feel safe to voice their opinion when something’s going wrong. Build a country where you have a representative democracy that really represents the people!

 

Why is it a taboo to point out that democracy, which is another one of these apparent “British values”, doesn’t work? How many people are there in Parliament that actually represent our views? 2, 3 out of 650 seats? We just want a better world, and we don’t just want it for White Britons. If you said to me:

 

“Mark, what about other people?”

 

Well, yeah, I want the same for the Japanese. I want the same for the Indians. Let India be an ethno-state! Let Afghanistan be ruled by the Afghans! I was against the war in Afghanistan. If Afghans want to live under the rule of the Taliban, as long as they don’t threaten their neighbours or us, let them. If the Japanese want to live proud, ethnocentric Japanese men and women that honour their ancestors, just let them. Let everyone control their own destiny, live within their own areas. We can trade. We can visit each other. There’s no reason why we can’t have the Olympic Games or the World Cup. We can even learn from each other, if we wish to.

 

But the fact is, good fences make good neighbours! Every group of people, every ethnic group, has their place in the world. But why should it be on the same street here in England? It shouldn’t! You know, Japanese people in Japan, Nigerians in Nigeria. Why should they all be on the same street in England competing against each other for a slice of the pie?

 

Dean McIntosh: Mark, that’s a brilliant, brilliant end to this episode. Thank you ever so much for your time today.

 

Mark Collett: Well, thank you so much! If people want to hear more from me, check me out on Rumble, check me out on Telegram, check me out on Gab. I mean, all those good places. I produce regular content like this.

 

And if you do give me a sub, I will be very grateful. Thank you so much!

 

Dean McIntosh: I’ll put all the links down below in the description.

 

 

[1:02:09]

 

 

 

END

top

 

 

 

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

 

Youtube Comments

top

(Comments as of 3/22/2026 = 484)

@evolassunglasses4673
2 weeks ago
Brilliant guest.
In group preference is completely normal around the World. Mankind is tribal. White people are finding this out the hard way.
123

@DMLaments
5 days ago
Thank you kindly
1

Hide replies

@lynnescott6842
2 weeks ago
Can’t argue with a word he’s said. All very reasonable.
88

@Keribou109
2 weeks ago
Thank you for having Mark on
69

@DMLaments
2 weeks ago
Thank you for watching
11

Hide replies

@homebusiness8166
2 weeks ago
Britain, England, Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland.
63

@HopyHop1
10 days ago
Ireland has the same problem.
5

@Livinginlanguage
5 days ago
I think Britain is England, Scotland and Wales while the United Kingdom includes Northern Island,
2

Hide replies

@disillusioneddisappointed
2 weeks ago
most of our ancestors were HUMBLE POOR FARMERS. NOT rich slave owners!
48

@Lakers-u2v
2 weeks ago
Exactly! I hate when you have people like ian wright constantly go on about whote this and white that. It’s our country!! Dont tell else what we have been. Get out of you dont like us.
9

Hide replies

@Benjamin-j5t5u
2 weeks ago (edited)
Mark is a true Patriot who loves his country and it’s people. What is wrong with that. Restore Britain
82

@Veyron1967
9 days ago
Maximum of 38 months to next election yet Rupert hasn’t even registered his party.
I can’t decide whether Lowe has been tricked by the establishment to dilute Reform’s vote, or if he just hates Farage so damn much he’s willing to risk another eight years of left wing destruction.
2

@evolassunglasses4673
7 days ago
​ @Veyron1967 Reform have on solutions. Its better we start building something new NOW
2

@manchesterlass600
3 days ago
@Veyron1967 untrue – the application is in and just waiting for approval by The Electoral Commission

Hide replies

@JacksonFairweather
2 weeks ago
Good to see Mark Collett back on Youtube. He has been banned by every platform possible, and deserves to be heard.
68

Hide replies

@PatriotViolet
2 weeks ago
Wow your guest has put into words my every thought
51

@LegendofLovecraft-b7r
6 days ago
Hail Collet!
7

@maxhession9797
5 days ago
Mark Collet has ball of fucking steel and deserves ALLL of the respect and ALLLL of the love. We as british people have the duty to protect this man
6

@ayupmeduck5708
5 days ago
Fluent use of the English language is a must, no exceptions.
6

@kevinsavage808
2 weeks ago
Best interview from Mark for a long time. Allowed to speak and answer good questions put to him. Good Interviewer….
48

@DMLaments
2 weeks ago
Thank you kindly
14

@paulsmith8858
12 days ago (edited)
No, he didn’t challenge him on anything!!!

@kevinsavage808
12 days ago
​@paulsmith8858he didn’t need to, all true, you can’t argue with the truth
9

Hide replies

@Gudha_Ismintis
2 weeks ago
the ‘Frankfurt School’ has a lot to answer for
65

@Wjfiswjei183
2 weeks ago
Oy vey!
26

@nationalist9904
2 weeks ago
Very true, Professor Kevin MacDonald goes over Frankfurt school and others in Culture of Critique. Essential reading to understand how we’ve been subverted
12

Hide replies

@Costa_del_Artlepool
2 weeks ago
He’s always on point and a very compelling speaker. It’s plain to see why they make life so hard for him.
72

@johnlondon5516
2 weeks ago
He said AIDS was a kind disease because it targeted gay men and drug users.
3

@Costa_del_Artlepool
2 weeks ago
@johnlondon5516 Kind AND based then?
13

@johnlondon5516
2 weeks ago
You don’t have to agree with homosexuality, but being that cruel and callous is terrible optics. Most normal people in the developed world are repelled by cruelty.

@Costa_del_Artlepool
2 weeks ago
@johnlondon5516 Get over yourself, Princess. There are bigger problems afoot.
7

@johnlondon5516
2 weeks ago
@Costa_del_Artlepool I forgot we only have the capacity to deal with one problem at a time.
Room temperature IQ.
1

@Costa_del_Artlepool
2 weeks ago
@johnlondon5516 The big problem tends to throw your lot off roofs.
5

@EnglishFemale
13 days ago
​@johnlondon5516 be careful you don’t snap your string of pearls
3

Hide replies

@stevestone4346
2 weeks ago
Great guest. Mark is the real deal as far as I’m concerned. I hardly ever find anything I can disagree with him on.
37

@Occident.
2 weeks ago (edited)
He’s consistent. I shared a stage with him in Darlington back in 2002. He was a young dude, but delivered a great speech. His position has not shifted. He has stuck to his views. Good on him.
19

Hide replies

@tonyaughney8945
12 days ago
Great interview. Mark is a top man.
9

@ScepticalWoman
2 weeks ago
Rupert Lowe is the acceptable face of the views
expressed here. This gentleman was ahead of his time. That time has now come.
17

@shanetomlinson4604
5 days ago
Powell wasn’t listened to, Griffin wasn’t listened to, Lowe is our last chance
2

@historyandculture6369
3 days ago
Mark hit the nail on the head though and pointed out that anyone ‘on the right’ espousing Zionist views
, is usually a snake in the grass. I’ve yet to see what Lowe is all about when it comes to Israel.
1

Hide replies

@ThisIsJamesL
2 weeks ago
Proud to have Mark as my friend
13

@edmundblackaddercoc8522
2 weeks ago
When you know you know.
33

@mesolithicman164
2 weeks ago
I know.
6

Hide replies

@PpHT9217
2 weeks ago
Great to see Mark getting his say ,talks total sense
10

@DrChunkyBiscuit
2 weeks ago
Top man is Mark!
40

@shaunhalliwell7544
2 weeks ago
Been consistent in his views.
7

@jackdoe4632
13 days ago
@shaunhalliwell7544 Been consistent in his grifting too. Simon Tomlin certainly has the measure of Mark Collett when it comes to grifting. I know people who gave Collett money for one of his events, then couldn’t attend due to sickness but he wouldn’t return them their money.

Hide replies

@geraldfisher5683
2 weeks ago
Very good interview. Mark talks a lot of sense. We urgently need a policy of Remigration. It is the only way to get our country back.
15

@carpetsonline3718
2 weeks ago
” is this good for Jews” as they break out in a cold sweat….
17

@DrChunkyBiscuit
2 weeks ago
First time Mark has been interviewed by Orson Welles.
29

@DMLaments
2 weeks ago
Compliment of the day! Makes a change not being called Temu Carl Benjamin
16

@arslongavitabrevis5136
5 hours ago
@DMLaments face-green-smilingface-green-smilingface-green-smiling

Hide replies

@WolvesRugeley
5 days ago
Very interesting interview
3

@fishtherapy100
13 days ago
THIS IS COMMON SENSE. COMMON SENSE HAS BEEN CRIMINALISED. THIS WAS A BOG STANDARD VIEW IN THE 1970’S. I HAVE NOT CHANGED MY STANCE AT ALL.
6

@AJC298
2 weeks ago
Really good interview that. I have a lot of time for Mark and have read his book.
19

@DMLaments
2 weeks ago
Thank you
5

Hide replies

@juliemathews5115
8 days ago
They want to bring back Babylon and rule over it
5

@juliemathews5115
8 days ago
Dude was born when I graduated highschool. I’ve watched all of this happen since the 80s. Every year it’s worse and worse
5

@BritishNaturalist-vb8hj
9 days ago
Mark makes a lot of sense & only describes the way this Country was during my childhood growing up in the fifties & the sixties.Our leaders have completely betrayed us.
4

@homebusiness8166
2 weeks ago
Great Video Paul with the truth.
17

@evolassunglasses4673
2 weeks ago
Everything the BNP predicted, particularly Jonathan Bowden is coming true.
They had a much better understanding of the long-term trajectory of Liberal Capitalism / The Global American Empire/ Z0G than the centre Right.
64

@Occident.
2 weeks ago
Met that great man twice in the N/E. Blucher Village in 2006, and Jarrow in 2008. Brillient Orator Smashing fellow.
13

@anthonygreen7063
13 days ago
​@Occident.A brilliant orator.
1

@mesolithicman164
2 weeks ago
In politics timing is everything.
8

Hide replies

@Dim3nsion_78
2 weeks ago
Labour have repeatedly stated it has been left with a £22bn blackhole in its finances. Yet continues to spend billions on hotels and welfare for migrants. The government could easily cut its expenditure and reduce the debt – but it hasnt. This isnt incompetence, they want the migrants here.
23

Hide replies

@ColtPython22
12 days ago
It’s refreshing to see an interviewer who lets their guest speak without interrupting.
7

@DMLaments
12 days ago
Thank you kindly
2

Hide replies

@disillusioneddisappointed
2 weeks ago
Schools LIE . Schools LIE to children. Schools NO LONGER teach the Truth and Facts.
31

@PaulD330
2 weeks ago
He’s just a nationalist, eth nat is a made up term.
44

@Occident.
2 weeks ago
To be a Nationalist, was to be an Ethno Nationalist. It literally went without saying. However since the controlled opposition Tommy Robinson and others appeared, with their brand if multi-racial (fake) Nationalism, the term “Civic” was coined to describe that movement. Hence we have the two. “Ethno” and “Civic”. Only the former is real Nationalism. The latter is a half measure, a cowardly cop out doomed to failure.
18

@PpHT9217
2 weeks ago
It’s been coined due to the likes of Tommy or Farage civ nat aka fake nationalists so it helps to distinguish who’s on the side of the indigenous white population that being ethno nationalists
4

@mesolithicman164
2 weeks ago
​ @PpHT9217
Dud you see Robinson and his “Not White” quote. I find that very troubling. And Spanish resident, Paul Thorpe, is exactly the same. All calling for Unity on their terms. Suspicious agenda.
4

@PpHT9217
2 weeks ago
​ @mesolithicman164 you only need to follow the money who his handlers are ,Steven is a puppet for Jewish Israel interests, he does not care one bit about the indigenous white populations in Europe becoming a minority
4

@anthonygreen7063
13 days ago
Since Blair’s time, we’ve been sold the idea that to be British is to hold a passport and sign up (officially, at least) to ‘liberal’ values, not ethnicity. That’s why we need to disringuish between ‘Ethno’ and ‘Civic’ Nationalism. I say this as a man with a Chinese wife, and two mixed race sons. She is a British citizen, and a good one, but she wouldn’t dream of claiming to ethnically English or British.
2

@mesolithicman164
2 weeks ago
No. 2 things.
1

Hide replies

@bullseyecooper1739
2 weeks ago
Tolerance is Not an English or Christian value! There is no such thing as British values, that term was coined by Tony Blair!
15

@RosemarieMaders
6 days ago
This person speaks the absolute truth
2

@Ann-u5k5n
10 days ago
The English Constitution is the solution for us all
3

@SerenaJB3
2 weeks ago
Mark is a great person and a true patriot.
20

@jackdoe4632
13 days ago
And a grifter. Simon Tomlin certainly has the measure of Mark Collett when it comes to grifting. I know people who gave Collett money for one of his events, then couldn’t attend due to sickness but he wouldn’t return them their money.

@PpHT9217
11 days ago
​ @jackdoe4632 he takes those super chats to live , like to see how you get on being completely de banked
3

Hide replies

@PeterFrance707
2 weeks ago
We’d prefer not to be rubbed out thank you very much
26

@filled_soda
8 days ago
This comment section fills me with hope.
3

@EnglishFemale
2 weeks ago
If they silence you it’s because you speak truth .
6

@lowbrow
2 weeks ago
Agree with every single word
45

@Stanley_1215
7 days ago
And thats why they’ve silenced him and won’t debate him. He eloquently speaks researchable facts!
I’m ashamed of not caring about politics until the referendum. I’m ashamed i fell for tommy 10 sheckles. I’m ashamed i fell for the smear campains against this man.
I’m glad I have the humility to admit it.
A lot of gen Xers like myself were too busy living hedonistic lifestyles to see beyond the bottom of a bear glass.
Thanks for having the courage that other podcastsers lack. I love anyone who can laugh at themselves Orson Wells I saw your reply
Subbed
6

@DMLaments
7 days ago
Welcome to Laments
1

Hide replies

@djsioux2265
2 weeks ago
This sounds like what Rupert Lowe has planned.
Restore Britain
33

@ooWodensEyeoo
7 days ago
Yes but this is proper..
1

Hide replies

@lynnescott6842
2 weeks ago
And he’s not far right. He’s just right.
29

1 reply

@julianmorris9951
12 days ago
Hypothetically, if you’re a black man in the absolute middle of nowhere on your last legs and suddenly see three groups of say 50 men, one group is white the other Pakistani and the third group is black, who do you walk towards?????, you would 100% walk towards your own ethnicity and there’s nothing wrong with that
8

@juliemathews5115
8 days ago
Look at what their talmude says and kaballah
6

@maxhession9797
5 days ago
Fucking incredible to see Mark Collet! Love Mark! Saw the interview with russel brand from 2002 and was woken the fuck up!
3

@andreroswell1561
2 weeks ago
Great interview.
14

@DMLaments
2 weeks ago
Thank you, much appreciated
3

Hide replies

@naedprary1721
13 days ago
there are also those with citizenship that came here illegally and are now legal; these must go as well
22

@bullseyecooper1739
2 weeks ago
If you were born in the 70’s you would have a very different opinion as you would have seen a total collapse of English society!!!
13

@ShamanKyrick
12 days ago
I was born in ’90 and can say the exact same
2

Hide replies

@ClintBeastBud
12 days ago
The guy speaks complete sense and truth fair play to him.
4

@djsioux2265
2 weeks ago
Just found your channel, it poped up in my feed.
The youtube algorithms are working well atm, finding lots of decent channels talking sense.
Great interview
17

@DMLaments
2 weeks ago
Thank you kindly, more interviews due to be released
7

@djsioux2265
2 weeks ago
​ @DMLaments I have notifications set for your channel so look forward to more discussions.
4

@DMLaments
2 weeks ago
​ @djsioux2265 thank you. There’s a lot more coming, various topics and people
2

Hide replies

@belindakennedy5828
2 weeks ago
The natives can’t afford having large families also no housing to even think about having large families,somehow our replacements seem to have no problem in the UK doing those things with extra help from governments past and present.
18

@Occident.
2 weeks ago
All part of the deliberate replacement policy. One bunch behind it.
11

@DC3RejuvationGB
2 weeks ago
​@Occident.We node
1

Hide replies

@filled_soda
8 days ago (edited)
I literally just finished Dutton’s review of Naziboy. This popped up afterwards.
Mark’s a legend.
3

@jagi1484
13 days ago
I don’t understand the world has gone mad. All this is two men having a sensible conversation.
3

@BasedSaxon
12 days ago
Always liked Mark
9

@nadimovitch9237
5 days ago
Let’s see if Rupert kisses the wall.
2

@WingBroJoseph
2 weeks ago
EthNats for the win!
29

@myt110
2 weeks ago
Aim high, vote Lowe
7

@NotOnMyWatch-i8n
13 days ago
Does this mean I can’t move to Florida and get given a free house and some cash? Damn! I was relying on that.
6

@johngammon963
2 weeks ago
This is true
14

@waxingmiracle
2 weeks ago
Good chat and discussion thanks.
7

@homebusiness8166
2 weeks ago
Paul, we live and learn, we hope.
6

@juliemathews5115
8 days ago
That’s the problem. Everyone has turned a blind eye
2

@endrominastercermilenio642
2 weeks ago (edited)
We are a huge problem in our democracy when people like the guest today, Mark Collet, are cancelled.
I can’t argue against anything that he said. And I am an immigrant that he would like to repatriate!
9

@DMLaments
2 weeks ago
He was cancelled a while ago, as well as debanked and is barred from majority of Europe
1

Hide replies

@lisalisalake
2 weeks ago
don’t ignore the absolutely connected and dangerous biblical/religious aspect to all of this…the imposition of noahide law in every nation… jewish sharia if you will…
10

@gabemore1766
7 days ago
It’s a genocide
6

@stuka80
2 weeks ago
man i remember mark colet from years ago. dude disappeared for yearse. im happy to see him again.
4

@stephenparker5241
2 weeks ago
Nationalist are ethnats, but they try to portray them as white supremacists which as far as I can see this isn’t the case
8

@smithjones9130
13 days ago (edited)
It must be frustrating for Mark. 20 plus years he’s been banging this drum & now the overton window has shifted far enough to make his talking points mostly acceptable, he can’t because he’s banned from everywhere.
7

@kirstypalmer33
12 days ago
MAKES PERFECT SENSE TO ME
2

@sparticale1954
5 days ago
36%, 25%, 16%. Better to be an Ethno-Natinolist than the victim of Ethno-Genocide.
1

@cimmerian_savage9736
5 days ago
If caring about the survival of your own race is tribalism, then tribalism is simply the natural, default behavior of any organism that exists in populations rather than as isolated atoms.
A Nation body of people having a common descent, history, culture, or language but without a separate or politically independent territory.
2

@bigjawontour9679
2 weeks ago
Mark came out of the English working class and knows his stuff. One of the only men in the UK who has ALWAYS stuck to his principles.
11

@Multiverse82
8 days ago (edited)
Money doesn’t buy you class

@Heimbach1966
13 days ago
He’s not working class. That’s why he’s never had any real traction
PA is just middle class people.
1

@bigjawontour9679
8 days ago
​ @Heimbach1966 after a quick search on wikipedia, I stand corrected. From a middle class town and privately educated. PA do know what is going on rather than being paid up zio shills imo.
2

@MayeDaye01
12 days ago
@Heimbach1966 Who cares what class he is – Tommy Robinson claims he is “working class,” yet is stinking rich by most standards, shrills for Israel and grifts money of his gullible supporters.
6

Hide replies

@robhunt-watts8908
5 days ago
I liked & subscribed because I too am an English ethnonationalist.
1

@robertlestylo6085
2 weeks ago
Excellent interview. My contribution: the Paradox of Tolerance (Karl Popper – Austrian philosoper). To those unfamiliar: Look it up.
5

@teaattiffanys
2 days ago
Absolutely and we have to be proud of who we are . And thats not another state of Islam we will be another Iran unless we vote Restore Britain. No other party will put the indigenous first
2

@Martine-c3t
2 weeks ago (edited)
So me being a kind English white lady gets called more names as an adult then I did as a child but maybe that’s because as a child everyone looked like me I always wondered why god put us in our own countries?? Could it be because we don’t really get on with each other or does saying that make me a racist?new subscriber
28

@djsioux2265
2 weeks ago
Spot on I hear you as a boomer, we didnt have these issues back in the days!
9

Hide replies

@wobwub8188
12 days ago
Take the first two minutes, how do you disagree or argue with that?! I can’t.
4

@Livinginlanguage
5 days ago
As Mark says – it is PATriotic Alternative. PATriotic (British English) – PATEriotic (American English). When did so many of us come to speak American and why? (Fine, of course, for the Americans.)
2

@CaroleHoward-g6p
13 days ago
Thanks for the video very informative
5

@Pumpemup
2 weeks ago
I agree with everything this man said
15

@TheArtofTheBrave
2 weeks ago
Mark talks a lot of sense, especially his closing remarks. the stumbling block is that certain people would find it impossible to parasitize the populations of western ethno-states, and they will, and do do all they can to prevent that……..
6

@eyemallears2647
13 days ago
This is crazy. How am I struggling to find fault in any of his points???
7

@piercerockwell2588
12 days ago
Why are you trying to go against an Englishman that wants England to be White? What’s wrong with you
3

@BlueRadleys
6 days ago
Because it’s impossible to find fault with the truth.
2

@benjaminchadwick3749
6 days ago
There are no faults!!! Hes spot on with all of it bravo
1

Hide replies

@venx4733
2 days ago
Simon Tomlin is not a Walter Mitty , he is the real deal ….he’s always been a Nationalist….
1

@winstonsmithstaxi
2 weeks ago (edited)
I used to disagree with PA on repatriation and ethic identity stopping non Brits from standing for public office. I have now changed my mind. I will add that while we should try to make change politically, we need to be realistic and accept that a conflict is inevitable
26

@ryan-audax
13 days ago
You think a civil conflict in the UK is inevitable?

@BlueRadleys
6 days ago
Took your time getting there
Followed you for years buddy, hope the family are well.

Hide replies

@stephenwellstriggers
2 days ago
Mark is a legend
1

@YJB8CCFC
6 days ago
All the hatred and divide is being caused by Western Governments and the Jewish state of Israel. The Jews and the west want total control of the Middle East for its oil rich reserves. It’s causing upheaval to the people there, causing waves of migration to the west. That’s the big issue. If we(The west) and Israel didn’t interfere in Middle East politics, they’d all still be there. And this has been going on since WW2
3

@juliemathews5115
8 days ago
Yep everything and all our countries have been bought and paid for by them.
1

@lynnescott6842
2 weeks ago
Britsh society. Wtf is that. Currently its based on invasion. Who would want to uphold that.
7

@disillusioneddisappointed
2 weeks ago
The thing that really gets my goat is the lack of any Christian traditions in schools. Lack of respect for Christians in schools. My son being told to hide his cross ,whilst a dominant religion is rammed down their throats constantly,even colouring in geometric patterns handed out to the children are labelled islamic patterns?!?!? well,to me they looked like stained glass window,Church patterns!
21

@johnfused8281
13 days ago
We aren’t a Christian country. We are a pagan country. What does christianity have to do with Britain?
5

@auntsally5683
9 days ago
@johnfused8281 a lot if you look into it, crusades, the national flag, christian names, the law………it is fused with pagan traditions as well.
3

Hide replies

@naedprary1721
13 days ago
makes sense to be an ethnonat
3

@keithswood6205
12 days ago
Good interview and not one unreasonable point. The host was good and I recommend he follows up on the points Mark made about some of the key actors behind every single subversive movement of the last century. Its worldview shaping stuff.
4

@DMLaments
12 days ago
Its on my “to do” list
Thank you kindly for watching

Hide replies

@AliceEngland-n8w
2 weeks ago
I absolutely agree with everything that dear English gentleman Mark Collett has said in this stream, thank you @DMLaments for interviewing him. I am highly educated and have done mass research and know what Mark is saying is true. God bless you and every native British.
28

Hide replies

@DaveRhine-h4g
2 weeks ago
Wow! At about 37:31 the host declares that he doesn’t know about Israel getting away with the genocide of Gaza in sight of the whole world. At this point in time how could you not be aware of that?
10

@Multiverse82
9 days ago
Genocide in Gaza??!!

@DMLaments
13 days ago
I dont follow Israeli news
3

@historyandculture6369
3 days ago
@DMLaments Its world news my guy, it’s all interconnected. The way of Palestine will be the way of the world.

Hide replies

@bullseyecooper1739
2 weeks ago
Surely he’s just a “Nationalist”?
This term “Ethno” is pure gaslighting and deflection!
16

@danielarcher1459
2 weeks ago
Mark is brilliant, thank you.
4

@jackdoe4632
13 days ago
Simon Tomlin certainly has the measure of Mark Collett when it comes to grifting. I know people who gave Collett money for one of his events, then couldn’t attend due to sickness but he wouldn’t return them their money. Brilliant at grifting.

@danielarcher1459
13 days ago
​ @jackdoe4632 I have been invited to those events too and before you make the payment it states very clearly ‘All sales are final and non-refundable’. Perhaps if you spent as much time advocating for our people as Mark does and less time gossiping you would command more respect, but you come across as petty and deconstructive to the cause.
2

Hide replies

@arslongavitabrevis5136
6 hours ago (edited)
Excellent interview. Mark Collett is a true patriot. He put up with a lot of abuse and harassment, like Laura Towler and Sam Meliá, but carried on fighting. I wish him and PA all the best. Simon Tomlin is a despicable creature who has been abusing and slandering Mark, Laura Towler and many other honourable nationalists. According to him, he is the ONLY decent, true nationalist. He is either a psychopath or a troll working for the government.

@belindakennedy5828
2 weeks ago (edited)
Why would any country feed the ones who attack them,Egypt, Jordan also shared a border with Palestine,but they also closed their borders to Palestine.arabs are not native to those parts either.
7

@juliemathews5115
8 days ago
I love this guy!!! This is what Jesus was preaching. Jesus Christ is King and I can’t wait till He is ruling the entire earth again. Come soon Lord
6

@psychodrilla
23 hours ago
Ruperts plan will never happen – the half past twos have bought and paid for all this. Ask Barbara Lerner Spectre!
1

@trance.vault.official
5 days ago
Simon tomlin is a true nationalist look him up
2

@paulmorrisrotga77
11 days ago
Great video, subscribed and here is a comment.
3

@DMLaments
11 days ago
Thank you kindly
1

Hide replies

@Alma-q6m
13 days ago
It is immigration policies. It is immigration policies. Restrict and limit the state. Embrace the free market system. The ingenuity of the Brits is amazing. Get back to the community. Civil disobedience, where you refuse to pay taxes that are working against you.
1

@TheGreatWhiteLight
2 weeks ago
So the right has been completely gobbled up by Tories
6

@mesolithicman164
2 weeks ago (edited)
That was the Tory job, keep the Right out of power. So no room for people like Enoch. Now Farage is tge last attempt to corale the RW vote, but he’s failing. Reform is dropping like a stone.
And Restore is on the way up.
So it needs to keep fools like Ben Habib and Robinson out of the party.
12

Hide replies

@Rusty-Hinge
13 days ago
Came for the Collett interview, left because of the advert volume.
2

@Jimmy-i9g2s
2 weeks ago
If not for Isreal, the world’s opinion of Hitler and co would be very different.
There are many reports of people welcoming the Germans into their countries. The victors of war write the history books.
22

@Occident.
2 weeks ago
Sometimes it takes 100 years to really appreciate the work of a Painter.
11

@Freyjawitch
2 weeks ago

@Occident.And sometimes it takes no time at all

@Freyjawitch
2 weeks ago
How did that work out for them?

@vincemarshall8550
2 weeks ago
​ @Freyjawitch well how’s it working out for us ?
6

Hide replies

@domestinger8805
2 weeks ago
nationalist = ethnonationalist
you have fallen for the language trick
16

6 replies

@MayeDaye01
12 days ago
Brilliant guest – I agree with everything Mark says. However I have to say that I find it a very strange interview style from the host – he asks a question for a second time – eg “what would you do on you do on your first day as PM” when Mark has already answered that at length.
2

@DS-it9ef
2 days ago
If we ban halal they will start stealing and slaughtering our farmers cattle and continue to kill our wildlife
2

@DMLaments
1 day ago
So you’d let it continue?
1

@DS-it9ef
10 hours ago
​ @DMLaments no, we need to be more serious with our tactics. They only respect strength. They think politeness and kindness is a weakness. That’s why they have been taking advantage of us for decades

Hide replies

@lynnescott6842
2 weeks ago
Power
2

@JaneBarlow-z7y
2 weeks ago
Im not being snotty, but instead of guests why dont you Brits submit FOIA requests to all the city/ town councils in England, Wales, Scotland? Put the heat on them. Make them produce their records, finances, expenditures. And then do this for agencies, govt offices, etc. Talking does nothing. We do this here in America. Its YOUR country and money.
11

@edmundblackaddercoc8522
2 weeks ago
Depends on what you request as to whether or not you’ll recieve the information. If you request information that is ‘sensitive’ they just send you a message saying ‘not in the public interest’ and that’s the end of it, we’re being blocked at every turn.
10

@NoNeed2No
2 weeks ago
Lewis Brackpool has been really good on this, he’s a citizen journalist who makes frequent FOIA requests.
6

Hide replies

@raymondwoods2304
12 days ago
Restore will not harm Reform as Reform is merging with the Uniparty (so leaving the Right/Centre for Restore). Reform is harming Reform because Reform is engineered to fail.

@INCOMING-UK
1 day ago (edited)
Israeli’s are leaving the promised land by boat, they are heading for European countries to claim asylum.
How many are Farage, lowe, Robinson and the flag shaggers willing to take into their homes. Are you going to give them mobile phones, cars and cash ?
Will Rupert and Nigel welcome their votes ?

@Michealst1
1 day ago (edited)
All seems simply basic stuff……Vote Restore….VVOVV Mark has it all vvorked out sounds real good to me.

@ThomasBoyd-r7l
2 weeks ago
Has Labour government England London tighten up asylum seekers yes it old Thatcher conservative governments immigration policy Thomas it Home office they forced into by England. .
1

@juliemathews5115
8 days ago
It’s kaballah
2

@dandoc5160
2 weeks ago
every 5 minutes there’s an advert ffs
9

Hide replies

@benjaminchadwick3749
6 days ago
Brilliant great interview Mark speaks so much sense..If most the normies could watch this especially the Israel bit it would change so many minds…No wonder the Jews hate him
Great interviewer too letting him speak, asking great awkward questions no one else seems to ask..Great stuff….
1

@DMLaments
6 days ago
Thank you kindly
More to come..

Hide replies

@paulreader7353
9 days ago
You missed a group there
1

@ThomasBoyd-r7l
2 weeks ago
You going to hustings Glasgow Anniesland yes April 14 6.30 to 8 o’clock . Brilliant content. Edinburgh parliament yes 34 politicians lose their seats jobs. Reform uk party that gained politically. Third place in Scotland politically.

@parade1996
6 days ago
Mark collett the state asset.
1

@DMLaments
6 days ago
Evidence?

Hide replies

@Jimmy-i9g2s
2 weeks ago
If I click the subscribe button it will unsubscribe me!
4

@DMLaments
2 weeks ago
Thats odd

@KingHumphrey
2 weeks ago
@DMLaments He’s saying he’s already a subscriber. Please turn your brain on.
3

Hide replies

@PompeyfcPUP1898
13 days ago
Simon Tomlin doesn’t hate everyone he likes Dean Neil, the traditionalbricklayer. Mark also has a dislike for nick Griffin. Not taking sides, I like both of them.
4

@dd7521
13 days ago
He seems to hate most though.
3

@MayeDaye01
12 days ago
Tomlin only likes Dean Neil – so that’s just ONE person – everyone else he hates – Laws, Collett , Lowe etc etc. He has even started having a go at young Charlie Downes and Connor Tomlinson who is not even a spokesman for Restore. When I first came across Tomlin on YT he seemed good but his constant punching right is getting so obsessive and repetitive that I can no longer watch him. Tomlin clearly imagines that he should be the great leader of the right – maybe the fact that he can’t get on with anyone would have something to do with it! Mark by contrast has forged alliances with a number of people on the Right and he is not the only one to be critical of Griffin’s leadership style so he is not alone in that.
3

@Purp00000
12 days ago

@MayeDaye01 He offers a paid subscription to “remigration action” which entails people handing out leaflets on remigration…truly a mastermind of politics. Let’s not forget his little plot to takeover the BNP by flooding it with members which went NOWHERE, and was doomed to fail.
2

Show more replies

@PompeyfcPUP1898
11 days ago
​@MayeDaye01to be fair Connor went to israel, I wonder if he kissed the wall? Lowe has also said in a x post a year or so ago that we must defend israel. Im wary of a lot of these people.
2

@Purp00000
12 days ago (edited)
I went off him a while back and I was there since probably his first video, every accusation he dishes out is more like an admission…not to mention his fake “hunted by the police stories” which just exist to make him sound more edgy and interesting. Not to mention his “I have secret information that will come out soon” regarding Nick Tenconi which was just a free to view searchlight article on Nick’s sex life…Genuine, pure, grade A bullshitter. Oh yeah, I still have a screenshot of a comment he deleted where someone criticised his merch for being made in the third world.
1

Hide replies

@gman0068
13 days ago
57:57 who was that

@John-d5y2d
6 days ago
99.9%

@parjau4554
6 days ago
Re: “Jews” wanting all the immigration. Admittedly, this is sort of true but the reality is these are just left wing, mostly atheist, liberals who happen to be born Jewish. Actual Jews do NOT want that!! For a very good reason.
The most important thing for real Jews is Israel. And right now, Israel generally has the support of powerful, armed Western Nations. But mass immigration to the West is mostly coming from Muslim countries which means that the demographics are changing such that in a few years, there will be many Muslims in society and in power. And this huge number of Muslims will influence these Western countries to do what? TO TURN AGAINST ISRAEL. And without Western support, Israel will be bombed out of existence! So, No. Real Jews do NOT want mass immigration!
And BTW, Israel is not a Jewish ethno-state in the way you said. It is 20% Muslim. And these Arab Muslims are full Israeli Citizens.

@puddlestoo1
14 hours ago
I don’t get it. Why would Israel not want any western nation to be an ethno state? With many slowly becoming Islamic states where does that benefit Israel? I would say it does the opposite as their enemy (Islam) would now have acquired nuclear weapons! Makes no sense.

@jamestower4473
2 weeks ago
The opposite is happening
1

@DMLaments
2 weeks ago
Which part?
2

Hide replies

@tancreddehauteville764
13 days ago
The only issue I have with Rupert Lowe is that he gives the impression of being a gin soaked golf club Tory. He needs a decent, ordinary guy, with a good brain, from a lower middle class or upper working class background to work alongside him and push some of the economic policies to the left, in order to attract white working class voters, especially women. We cannot win without women’ support.
1

@Purp00000
12 days ago
millions of working class people voted for boris johnson over the socialist “down to earth” corbyn
2

@MayeDaye01
12 days ago
Working class people don’t care about what class you are if they like your policies – they all flocked to Farage back in the day didn’t they! By all accounts Downes and Pitt are more economically to the left than Lowe as a lot of zoomers are anyway so that solves that one.
1

@DebbiejBurgess
12 days ago
Lowe is a fraud

@Multiverse82
9 days ago
Yeah I don’t wanna spend the afternoon with him but I want him to restore Britain. Your point is insinuating people aren’t intelligent enough to vote for the policies he’s offering.

Hide replies

@matthewbazeley2984
4 days ago (edited)
Britain had no division before mass immigration?? Don’t make laugh. The class system is incredibly prejudiced and it’s the elite that gave us mass immigration.
1

@Natalya.57.Volkova
2 days ago
And that is how you dilute relevant discussions allowing enemies to change the subject and win, congratulations
1

@matthewbazeley2984
2 days ago
And that is how you throw toys out of the pram. Maybe take a nap?
If facts and accuracy allow your enemies to win then you are not on the side of truth

Hide replies

@DuruttiVisca
2 weeks ago
Rupert Lowe is a Zionist so not a nationalist
4

@vincemarshall8550
2 weeks ago
I haven’t heard him say that but I did ask him if there was any Zionist financial backing of restore and got no answer
4

@Lothnar5070
6 days ago
Making up crap without evidence is weak. Maybe you can also accuse Santa claus with the same bullshit?
1

Hide replies

@ianoliver3779
10 hours ago
too many adverts on this channel.

@DJAA21M
2 weeks ago
What about an english man with an asian wife?

@Robin-Chats
2 weeks ago
RUPERT LOWES Restore Britain will make it easier for foreign spouses to come here.. it’s a policy he’s talked about.
7

@DJAA21M
2 weeks ago
​ @Robin-Chats Is it?

@DC3RejuvationGB
2 weeks ago
​@DJAA21M it’s always about me me it’s , our island and our Eth are being at risk of gn cdcd and you say what about my Asian wiffe
6

@DJAA21M
2 weeks ago
​ @DC3RejuvationGB Yea you got a problem with that, I have a right to know?

@DJAA21M
2 weeks ago
​ @DC3RejuvationGB I agree with Mark Collett and Rupert Lowe, I am against globalism, I am a nationalist in that I think all nations should be sovereign and embrace their culture, I wouldn’t go to my wife’s country expecting them to adapt to me or expect their way of life declining and their race being replaced, my wife doesn’t expect that here, she was happy to see the union jacks and george crosses being put up everywhere but you have to understand my family is my priority so I need to know about that before I support something, otherwise that would be irresponsible of me wouldn’t it, you clearly don’t give a sh!t about the many people in my situation so get off your high horse
2

@tyronekelly-e6z
2 weeks ago
I think what Tracy means is there are no organized grape gangs from the Philippines or Thailand or Japan operating in the UK, but there is obviously a problem with organized grape g@ngs operating all around the UK from other Asian “communities” that are so protected by the state we cannot even mention the ethnicity of said groups but here is a clue it starts with Pak and ends with stani
1

@DJAA21M
2 weeks ago
​ @tyronekelly-e6z I agree with that but I want to know is my family safe in Mark Collett’s or Rupert Lowe’s vision of Britain?
2

@tyronekelly-e6z
2 weeks ago
That’s what divorce courts are for
13

@francesaquatech3696
2 weeks ago
​ @tyronekelly-e6z
5

Hide replies

@Purp00000
12 days ago
All you need to know about Collet is that he recommended Mein Kampf as a must book to read in an interview.
2

@Lion-Roar1
12 days ago
My struggle in German. Your point is?
6

@Purp00000
12 days ago

@Lion-Roar1 I don’t really care if you think you have any relation to Germany, I don’t have a particular point here to make..I simply wish to inform people.

@Lion-Roar1
12 days ago
​@Purp00000
Your totally irrelevant in my world also.
5

@Purp00000
12 days ago

@Lion-Roar1 The contents of Mein Kampf and the context of why Collet reccomended it is also irrelevant it seems.

@ooWodensEyeoo
7 days ago
​@Purp00000 Seems like you got ratiod on a centrist channel.. The people are starting to break their shakles.

@DMLaments
12 days ago (edited)
Would you have an opinion on The Communist Manifesto? Genuinely curious
3

@Lion-Roar1
12 days ago
​ @DMLaments
Why should I?

@DMLaments
12 days ago
​@Lion-Roar1it shows the mindset of a Marxist

@Purp00000
12 days ago
@DMLaments The Communists are wrong because historical materialism outside of a few select and specific class analysis situations is utterly stupid and inapplicable. It assumes that if you restructure economic relations, human nature will obediently follow. I can’t really give you a whole analysis but that in particular stuck with me. Should you read it? Maybe, I read it to better understand Marxism which I am opposed to.
1

@DMLaments
12 days ago (edited)
​@Purp00000I’ve read both books, just for the record.
I understand Hitlers book getting the flack it does but I dont think it should be banned, or not talked about etc
3

@Purp00000
12 days ago
@DMLaments Me too I agree, books should not be banned. But it’s not like he recommended this book for the purpose of historical insight. He does it because he is a Neo-Nazi – and make of that what you will. I just wish he would stop the deception and just say what he is. That type of thing makes me dislike someone. Dishonesty in politics is never good.

@DMLaments
12 days ago
​@Purp00000when was politics last honest?
3

Hide replies

@Row1and
9 days ago
mark the mi5 agent
1

@DMLaments
9 days ago
Evidence?
1

Hide replies

@MagicEZvil
2 weeks ago
He has not called out Nigel Farage for the Grifter he is. Not to be trusted. HIs words do not match the reality of the Reform Policy – ‘Say what is popular to get into power’.
2

@DMLaments
2 weeks ago
Somehow, I dont think Mark is part of Reform UK..
4

Hide replies

@anniestephenson6296
9 days ago
Oh , please return the wealth that’s been stolen for the last 400yrs .

@VincentComet-l8e
2 weeks ago
Surely, rather than aiming at non-British people, shouldn’t the criteria be whether they have skills we need, will work productively, and also have a Western mindset and want to integrate into our way of life?
1

@dd7521
13 days ago
5% would cover that.
5

@MayeDaye01
12 days ago
The bottom line is we need to be at least 95% in order to maintain ourselves as a majority. The emphasis will be on training our own. If we do need some foreigners with very high skills in the interim then they will be included in the 5%. The “integration” fairy tale clearly hasn’t worked and people need to be weaned off that story.
5

@VincentComet-l8e
12 days ago

@MayeDaye01
Yes, I certainly agree that we have to do whatever is needed, in order to maintain ourselves as the clear majority demographic…

@julieobrien8252
2 days ago
What about teaching the needed skills within our education system by making said system work in our favour rather than political indoctrination tripe? Then in a fairly short time the skills needed would be more home grown. Is that not reasonable?
1

@VincentComet-l8e
2 days ago
@julieobrien8252
Of course, home grown talent is far preferable.
But our ‘education’ system is far from perfect and/or functional.
And firmly captured by the Left.

@julieobrien8252
2 days ago
​ @VincentComet-l8e let’s hope the education system is reclaimed to fulfill its proper purpose for the long term prosperity of England.

Hide replies

@g.a.m.b.i
7 days ago
Marks not english, the plum
is Italian buahahahaha
1

@JohnCollins1981
2 weeks ago
Maybe there is a compromise on this?

@PpHT9217
2 weeks ago
There is no middle ground,we either get the demographic replacement to stop or we die out that’s your choice
4

Hide replies

@Mazen7600
12 days ago
Mark, you have all my respect and admiration!! You always say the things that I think about
1

@jackdoe4632
2 weeks ago (edited)
Simon Tomlin certainly has the measure of Mark Collett when it comes to grifting. I know people who gave Collett money for one of his events, then couldn’t attend due to sickness but he wouldn’t return them their money.
2

@MayeDaye01
12 days ago (edited)
Tomlin is always reciting fairy stories about everyone – so I wouldn’t believe what he says.
As for the donation you mentioned – the events do not have entrance fees – so if someone donates to help set up and organise the event and then doesn’t attend it is not like they bought a ticket – ie the money has been donated for and spent setting up the event so why should it be refunded? Tommy Robinson for example asks for donations to help with setting up his rallies – I doubt if anyone would get the donation back if they asked as the donation is to help with setting it up not attending.
2

@jackdoe4632
12 days ago

@MayeDaye01 Except that at the time it was not conducted in this manner.

@MayeDaye01
11 days ago
@jackdoe4632 You are being very vague -there are really only two types of events in politics – as I said marches and rallies which don’t have entrance fees or tickets anyway so as I said if people donate to help with setting it up they can’t expect to get a refund just because they don’t attend and if it was actually something in the style of a party conference then tickets like that are never refundable – if you can’t attend a Tory conference or Reform conference or whatever you would not be refunded.

@jackdoe4632
11 days ago

@MayeDaye01
Mark Collet is on record as saying his is an entirely different genre of politics to mainstream parties.
However, according to what you are saying, there is common ground between him and them when it comes to money eh?
Take note I use the word money and not “donations” because there is a wide gulf, fixed, between the two.
He has cheated far too many fellow nationalists. Far too many times he has treated them with contempt where money is concerned as well as backstabbing one who passed away but he’s not alone in that.
At least now, it’s out in the open. Exactly where he doesn’t want it to be.

Hide replies

@franitfcful
2 days ago (edited)
There’s also Palestinians living in Israel approx 2.1 million research it ! As for knocking Tommy Robinson when you can muster 2 million people behind you then come back to us …when you spend most of your life including solitary confinement in prison for speaking up then best you stop the hate towards him .I hope this man can walk down the street safely without fear of being killed like Tommy faces every day of his life

@Veyron1967
9 days ago
Was with this guy until he said Israel was an ethno-state – it has two million Arab Palestinians living and working there. Or that it never gets sanctioned – it is the most sanctioned nation on the face of the earth – mostly by the 56 Muslim countries in the UN known as the OIC.
Advice: Israel has nothing to do with our governments policies. Once you invoke Israel or joos more moderate Brits will tune out.
1

@DMLaments
9 days ago
So people will tune out because they hear someones ideas they disagree with and or dislike?
3

@Veyron1967
8 days ago
@DMLaments it’s not hard mate, he’s advocating for a more indigenous England, so why bring Israel into it at all? He is diluting the message and giving the ‘refugees welcome’ brigade an opportunity to attack something irrelevant to the argument.
Mass immigration in the UK is the problem, not Israel. People can see what is happening to our high streets so keep the message simple.
3

Hide replies

@DMFS7
12 days ago
Agree with most of what Mark says but he talks absolute bollocks about Tommy Robinson being paid millions of pounds by Israel! Too bad he wasn’t asked for evidence of that claim just to see the arm waving (he doesn’t have any).
Also, he is being very disingenuous when he whinges about being cancelled and debanked without mentioning the “Young, Nazi, and Proud”.documentary in which he “starred”: it is the main reason that he is considered by many to be beyond the pale. It’s a shame because it was decades ago and we all change a lot in 20 years, but there it is and let’s not pretend it isn’t still tainting him.
1

@Purp00000
12 days ago
he’s a loud mouthed fool

Hide replies

@blueberrycheesecakesupremo
2 weeks ago
I wish Mark would just go away. He stinks so bad. I agree with most of what he says but he is repellent to most human beings. Please don’t support Restore because you will put people off voting for them. This is our last chance man. Please stop talking.
2

@dd7521
13 days ago
Why does he ”stink so bad” especially when you say you agree with most he said?
3

@blueberrycheesecakesupremo
13 days ago
@dd7521 I’ve been watching Mark since he was leader of the young BNP and he has been caught several times genuinely supporting an Austrian painter. People are desperately trying to paint Restore with the same brush and we don’t need to give them any ammo. If we want to get any real power we need to get the support of the general public and the truth is that Mark is to toxic for most people. He needs to step aside. If we don’t get this right this time we are finished. I want my country back and I don’t want someone like Mark messing it up.
3

@dd7521
13 days ago
​ @blueberrycheesecakesupremo fair enough, thanks for your reply.
2

@MayeDaye01
12 days ago
@blueberrycheesecakesupremo He is only “toxic” because the liberal media want to continue the narrative – haven’t you learned that by now? You say you agree with most of what he says but then talk about the “general public” as though you are not part of the general public yourself! The “general public” are waking up and going further to the patriotic right
1

@Purp00000
12 days ago

@MayeDaye01 The liberal media did not force Collet to send death threats to Nick Griffin…

@JohnnyRollocks-v1z
13 days ago
We tried all that with the BNP I personally joined in 1989 been there and done it all still do a few protest now problem with the British people they still listen to scumbag politicians lying main stream media just look at fake farage and his circus
2

@blueberrycheesecakesupremo
13 days ago
@JohnnyRollocks-v1z Yeah I know, Farage is a joke
1

Hide replies

@jamesquinn9971
12 days ago
Hes an absalute bell end

@alpine7891
12 days ago
Well you’d better get used to it lad cos the people are finally waking up.
7

@jamesquinn9971
12 days ago
​ @alpine7891 are you insecure?

@alpine7891
12 days ago
​ @jamesquinn9971 I can’t wait! Honestly, it’s gonna happen, we are going to win and get our country back! Woooohooo
2

@jamesquinn9971
12 days ago
​ @alpine7891 youl just be forgoten like nich griffen was

Hide replies

@JohnWayne-d6y
13 days ago
The problem in the USA is birth right anchor babies… once they have that birth certificate they are legally American Citizens regardless of where or who they are… what a mess the Democrats have made
2

@PeterFrance707
2 weeks ago
Elon, are you listening?
7

@IrishScouse10
6 days ago
good man Mark great interview
1

@lynnescott6842
2 weeks ago
Why’s the doom goblin saying it can’t be done, he’s sold his soul.
5

@PpHT9217
2 weeks ago
To the juice
2

Hide replies

@SEKreiver
3 days ago
Collett has been fighting the good fight. Great guest!
1

@MrPopeye007
8 days ago
Mark the brave
1

@Pacex76
2 weeks ago
If i said what i think should be done id be arrested
2

@ArthurShilling-f8c
10 hours ago
Nothing about this should even be considered as unreasonable. In fact, this MUST happen and sooner rather than later. If not, the consequences will be dire.

@VikingSimonStabilis
1 day ago
Ethnonationalist, what does that mean?

@lynnescott6842
2 weeks ago
What about the illegals that arrived and where given leave to remain by the home office.
2

@BasilGanglia-b7g
13 days ago
I thought he was a young Ronnie Browne from The Corries. LOL!
2

@DMLaments
13 days ago
Kenny Rogers
1

Hide replies

@lynnescott6842
2 weeks ago
I’m angloist
3

@niallmurray8654
13 days ago
Well I’m Irish descent born and bred in England and Angloist too
1

Hide replies

@jamesquinn9971
12 days ago
To judge other people on the colour of their skin is pathetic
1

@Multiverse82
9 days ago
No one is doing that character and culture. Skin colour doesn’t come into it.
3

@jamesquinn9971
9 days ago
​ @Multiverse82 to judge people because they have a different back ground is pathetic

@jamesquinn9971
9 days ago
Britain has always had different peoples coming and going the last 2000 yrs has seen all kinds of people , read some history books pal

@Multiverse82
8 days ago (edited)
@jamesquinn9971 but to judge people that inflict harm on others is valid. So your argument is pointless. Your saying we should accept harm and abuse just because if we don’t it’s prejudice. You need your head checked. Do by your standards if it’s someone’s culture to rape children that can’t be judged? If someone’s character is evil that can’t be judged? Insanity!
3

@Multiverse82
8 days ago
@jamesquinn9971 I’m not your pal by any means
2

@jamesquinn9971
8 days ago
​ @Multiverse82 are you insecure?

@jamesquinn9971
8 days ago
Did your mummy not love you argh poor boy

Hide replies

@damthebloodandlandthirsty
8 days ago
small minded little englander – is he unaware of the brits that emigrated to ‘the new world’ – simply recall anyone with british heritage back = instant 99.9% majority

@WatchEuropaTheLastBattIe
2 weeks ago
Mark Collette is rumoured to be a honeytrap operator to get real NationaIists Iocked up . .
I am of the uItra far right spectrum so to speak.. but I would not trust Mark at all, because he isn’t careful enough.
Please beware of this feIIa because many people say he is dangerous !
4

@AliceEngland-n8w
2 weeks ago
There are many of us that actually know Mark, and those rumours are designed to stop anyone listening to him!
12

@apollo53122
2 weeks ago
What people need to be mindful of are people like this who go around spreading malicious rumours about others.
4

@tyronekelly-e6z
2 weeks ago
Simon Tomlin
3

@MayeDaye01
12 days ago
@tyronekelly-e6z aka Walter Mitty!
1

@aconcernedcitizen6056
2 weeks ago
Why are you listening to rumors Mr “ultra far right”
Have you met Mark?
Have you ever even attempted to join a real world movement?
15

@DMLaments
2 weeks ago
Who says that he is dangerous?
Who says he is a “honeytrap”?
Im genuinely curious, I haven’t read that anywhere
11

@stevestone4346
2 weeks ago
@DMLaments Simon Tomlin. Never shuts up about him.
7

@alpine7891
2 weeks ago
How is he getting people locked up? He doesn’t advocate for those things that Simon has led you to believe.
6

@KingHumphrey
2 weeks ago
@alpine7891 Tomlin has said, many many times, that people close to Collett keep getting sent down. Sadly, that is true. There’s Sam Melia, the Longshanks fella and another close friend of Mark’s whose name escapes me at the minute. Now I’d argue that these people have done what they did independent of Mark and made their own choices, but it’s still true that people close to Mark have been sent to prison while him and Nick Griffin both got off and still find themselves free of police intervention. I think that’s because Mark doesn’t break the law.
5

@alpine7891
2 weeks ago
​ @KingHumphrey I mean, Tommy Robinson has been sent down so should we now believe he is to be trusted and telling the truth
It’s more likely Mark has been careful, but who knows in actual fact. But he seems to be doing a great job in waking people up to real Nationalism. He doesn’t slander people and certainly doesn’t punch right and I’ve never heard him advocate or simp towards NS
And he also tells people to avoid NA.
6

@alpine7891
2 weeks ago
​ @WatchEuropaTheLastBattIe Yeah it was a very long time ago mate.. He was young and immature and admits he’s embarrassed by it. We really should get past that, we’ve all made mistakes. But he’s doing more to waking people up to real Nationalism.. Now if only he still had his YouTube channel with 100k followers…Oh yeah Simons still got his YT and x accounts hasn’t he.. How strange, makes you wonder
2

@alpine7891
2 weeks ago
​ @WatchEuropaTheLastBattIe Exactly mate

@PpHT9217
2 weeks ago
​ @KingHumphrey they were locked up prior to being involved with Patriotic Alternative, need to get your facts right
3

@ThomasSukhoi
2 weeks ago
Everyone is a fed.
Don’t trust anyone.
It’s hopeless.
1

Hide replies

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

See Also

top

 

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

I appreciate that as well.

 

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

 

And finally you can write to me at mark@thefallofwesternman.com. Although I didn’t answer emails this morning, again under the weather. So sorry guys, back to things on Monday. Unless I’ve got some kind of horrible illness that drags on past then and sort of takes me out, which I’m sure I haven’t. That’s quite a morbid thought. Anyway! We are going to get into it now, but before we do that, let’s go around the group and we’ll introduce everyone.

 

Now, the first is of course Natty. You know him from the Nationalist A-Team and also from numerous other streams that he’s done with me in the past. Natty’s a guy that’s been around since the beginning of PA. He’s been to all the meetings, at conferences, camps, etc, and he’s always someone that everyone likes hearing from.

 

In fact, I always say that if I had a wingman on PWR, it would be this guy here. Natty, how are you doing, my friend? I hope you are well.

 

Natty: Yeah, I’m good. I’m enjoying watching Tel Aviv burn. I’m sure we’re gonna talk about the ins and outs of what that means, but yeah, I’m good apart from that it’s been a bit of a crazy week trying to keep up with everything and I think my wife has suffered constantly looking across at me and seeing my face buried in my phone because I’m trying to, I’m monitoring the situation. But yeah, it’s very interesting times.

 

Mark Collett: Do you ever get it where you’re out on the sort of a supposed family event and the wife’s like:

 

“Why aren’t you paying any attention? All you’re doing is sitting on the phone. What can be so important that you need to be on your phone at this family event?”

 

And you’re like:

 

“Look, you know, Israel is on fire. Tel Aviv is being hit with hypersonic missiles. Chill out!”

 

Natty: It’s like:

 

“Honey, there’s cluster munitions going off above a suburb in Tel Aviv. This is really important. [chuckling] I’m watching it right now! It’s amazing!”

 

Mark Collett: Well, yeah, [chuckling] that’s kind of that’s kind of the str. I’d say that that’s the struggle that we have.!

 

Anyway, we’ve also got Yuro with us tonight. He’s obviously famous because Yuro used to do The Absolute State of Britain podcast.

 

And again, he’s a very able wing man. He has been on the National A-Team standing in for Sam. He always has good takes, he’s a funny guy and sometimes I bully him a bit, which is a little unfair, but that’s because I love him and see him as like my little brother, My little brother who needs the odd sort of monkey scrub and jab in the ribs, but he’s like my little brother, so I still love him.

 

Anyway, Yuro, how are you doing, my friend?

 

Yuro: I’m good. I’ve also been keenly paying attention watching Middle East Spectator and other such channels on Telegram. You know, it’s, I think there’s a lot more censorship obviously during the 12 Day War that was going on between Iran and Israel before. It was very much like:

 

“Well, what can we believe? How much are they not showing you?”

 

And it’s just that more. So we see all of Iran’s failures and then some things that’s like disinfo and we see all of Israel’s successes and then some, and some of that’s disinfo. And it’s kind of hard to even know what’s real.

 

[04:47]

 

Natty: That’s a good point actually because just briefly, it does seem like the information blackout from Israel was way more intense during the 12 Day War. And it seems like now because of the scope and the breadth of everything, just more is getting through or you’re able to find out more. And I’m sure this isn’t true, if you check the BBC or just some other like ZOG regime outlet, you’re not going to be seeing anything hitting Israel. But that’s what everyone’s interested in. That’s what everyone wants to see. [chuckling] You know, how many hypersonics hit Tel Aviv? This time, you know what US asset has just been blown up by a drone in Saudi Arabia or Bahrain or wherever it is. That’s what people are interested in seeing. They want to see the underdog smacking the bully in the mouth. And that’s what happens when a cheap Shahed drone gets through a multi-million dollar interceptor screen and like blows up a THAAD [Terminal High Altitude Area Defense] radar system or something. That’s what everyone’s into, right? Everyone wants to see that. No one wants to see like Iranian suburbs being like caught on fire and hit with JDAMs and hit with Tomahawk missiles because that’s just brutal civilian casualties, which is what ZOG [Zionist Occupied Government] is good at.

 

Yuro: Well, the funny thing is to see America in this war using the copy of the Iranian kamikaze drones. They’ve got their own basically one to one copy of the Shahed drone that they’ve now rolled out and they’re starting to fire back at the Iranians. Because it was just like the near perfect design that they’re like:

 

“We can’t make any better than this. We’re just going to copy it.”

 

Natty: Yeah. You know, for the grand and mighty American empire is reverse engineering Third World brownoid country drones [chuckling] that sound like lawnmowers when they’re flying through the sky!

 

But yeah, that’s what America’s up to these days. I mean, you can’t really claim it’s the European heritage stock that’s like the most genius country in the world. It’s just not that anymore, I’m afraid, guys.

 

Mark Collett: Well, I agree. But we’ve got a lot to talk about. So and we do actually have just. We do have a little sort of running order as well, tonight. I’m not going to read it out, but I was going to post it actually and say:

 

“Look, these are all the things we’ll be discussing.”

 

But there’s a lot to discuss and we’re going to go through things from the start. Now we’re going to speed run some of the bits we talked about on the Nationalist A-Team because for anyone who watched the Nationalist A-Team and enjoys it, look, it is a banger of a stream, except for when I get killed by somebody and get upset.

 

But other than that! It is a good stream. And if you want to watch it, there’s some takes there. And also there’s the Patriarch there as well who provides quite a lot of good comedy.

 

Anyway, so we’re going to start with the wider justification for this because there’s nowhere better to start than the official justification. Now, I’ve seen these videos where Netanyahu, they’re sort of like compilation videos of every time Netanyahu is claimed that Iran is sort of five months, five weeks, you know, two years from getting the atomic bomb. And he’s been doing this, believe it or not, for over 30 years!

 

So the first example I’ve seen of Netanyahu saying that Iran is just moments away from like nuclear weapon capability was actually all the way back in 1995. And the reason that’s interesting, …

 

Yuro: There are people dying in this war on the American side who have not been alive longer than Iran was supposedly two weeks away from a nuclear weapon!

 

Mark Collett: That’s a very good point. That is Yuro. But you get minus points for butting in. You’ve been told about that.

 

Natty: Oh, no [word unclear] battalion!

 

Mark Collett: Wiffle bat to give you a spanking. Right. So these fake nuclear claims that are interesting for two reasons.

 

Firstly, because they are blatantly fake! It’s been, to my knowledge, 31 years. And Yuro does make, … Look to Yuro’s credit, he makes a very good point. You know, the idea that this has been going on longer than some of the people on these American battleships have been alive is incredible!

 

But one thing that struck me immediately with this was I remember living through the time of the Iraq war. And at the time of the Iraq war, Weapons of Mass Destruction became one of the most maligned phrases to have ever been used in British Parliament, to the point that where if you now say “Weapons of Mass Destruction”, it’s sort of synonymous with war crimes, lies and a regime that took us into what was essentially an illegal war. You know, there was no Weapons of Mass Destruction.

 

But one thing that shocks me is this is the kind of thing where people just seem to have either forgotten this or put it to one side.

 

So the Daily Mail is a classic example of this. The Daily Mail is sort of the populist Right-wing, you know, vote Reform, consider voting Conservative newspaper. And they were all against Blair and the Weapons of Mass Destruction and exposing his lies and speaking out about it once it was exposed via the Chilcot inquiry.

 

But now the Daily Mail, like:

 

“We need this war. You know, usually we’re against war, but in this instance, this needs to happen!”

 

And you’ve got all these shill commenters in the sections underneath the Daily Mail articles in the comment sections, and they’re all saying things like:

 

“Oh, I’m against the war, but this is an exception.”

 

And I don’t know whether these are real people, idiot Boomer types or that’s not all Boomers. But you know, the sort. I mean the kind of person that says:

 

“Oh, well, I’m against the people on the small boats, but I would let the genuine refugees in all. Yes! And if somebody comes here and learns to speak English, well, he’s as British as Yorkshire pudding, isn’t he!”

 

Those sort. Is it one of them or is it a shill account?

 

[11:04]

 

But I think it’s really interesting that exactly the same justification for the attack is being used, as was used in Iraq. But the Iraq, War retrospectively is possibly the most maligned conflict and the conflict seen as the most unjust conflict. Probably post World War II. I’d have said that would have gone to Vietnam at one point, but Iraq seems to have, maybe because it’s more recent, seems to have eclipsed that.

 

So what do you guys think?

 

We’ll start with you, Natty. Obviously this is what they’re saying and we’re going to discuss next the real reason and what we think the real reason is. But what do you think to this sort of fake reasoning for going to war?

 

Natty: Well, just listening to you there, I haven’t done this because I was just reminded by what you said. But I’m fairly certain if you went back to the 2000s and had a look at the lead up to the Iraq war, you, amongst the Daily Mail articles, you wouldn’t find opposition to the actual war itself, because none of these publications were really opposed to it in any meaningful way and certainly weren’t like trying to rally people against the war. So you know, post Iraq war when everyone was kind of saying what disaster it was, I’m sure the Daily Mail were jumping on board that.

 

But as even now publications that you would think would be against the war in Iran are kind of talking around the edge of it whilst not decrying the war and certainly not being like anti-war, like proper anti-war publications and laying out all the connections between the Epstein regime and the people connecting in it like Mandelson and like Boris Johnson and Tony Blair and all the rest of it.

 

But yeah, it’s striking. I mean, one of the things I put in the chat earlier was that before this happened. Well, okay, let’s let me take it back a little bit. Before Iraq, the reason why the term “Weapons of Mass Destruction” became such a big thing is because the media and the government, Blair’s regime spent so much time and energy trying to get public approval for it, because they felt like, they obviously felt like they needed it. They needed a justification. They needed something to sell to the British people as to why it was a good idea, why it was necessary to go into Iraq.

 

Now that just hasn’t happened this time. Because I think they understand that the forces controlling the “Epstein Empire” as people are calling it, which is fairly apt, simply are not in the shadows anymore. You know, this stuff has been laid out. Israel is pulling the strings and it’s pulling the strings of America and it’s America’s pulling the strings of Europe because essentially Europe is just a colony of the United States. So they don’t feel they need to justify it so much.

 

Now, obviously there’s like regime mouthpieces and stoolies like Tommy Robinson and Douglas Murray, the Daily Mail and all the rest of it, who are now going out there and running cover and trying to make this war popular or make it so that it seems like:

 

“Well, it’s not a job any of us want to do, but it’s necessary and we need to do this for stability and peace!”

 

But I just don’t think the public are buying it. And the public for the most part didn’t buy it with Iraq, but that doesn’t stop that happening. And they’re not buying it with Iran either.

 

But there hasn’t been a groundswell of opposition to it in the same way as Iraq because they haven’t spent so long trying to justify it. And for a lot of people this just came out the blue. Not for anyone who’s kind of a properly dissident to the kind of Epstein Empire. This didn’t come out of the blue. This was fairly predictable. But probably just for your average person sitting at home and getting on with life, this kind of immediate blow up in the Middle East, where oil prices are about to skyrocket, petrol prices creeping up and we’re probably about to experience an energy crisis, just came out straight out of the blue! And the justifications, unlike Iraq, are all post hoc. They, it wasn’t a media build up to a war, it’s like a media cover plot after the war has started.

 

Yuro: What I find interesting as well is as you say, with the Iraq thing, there was a lot of build up and there was:

 

“Let’s get the UN involved, let’s condemn them, let’s build a coalition, let’s get Britain involved.”

 

But the other thing is they never said Iraq has a nuke. It was always this nebulous “Weapons of Mass Destruction”. And it’s kind of like the, well, we’re going to say that they have Weapons of Mass Destruction and that’s like we will say:

 

“Oh, actually they have chemical weapons which we’re going to classify as Weapons of Mass Destruction. And we’re going to hope that we can gin that up in people’s minds to be like, ‘Oh, they have a nuclear weapon’.”

 

And it was like:

 

“We won’t explicitly state they have a nuclear weapon. We’ll just try and make people think they have a nuclear weapon.”

 

And then there was the thing about:

 

“They can strike us in 45 minutes with their Weapons of Mass Destruction!”

 

But now they just come out and say:

 

“They’re building a nuke!”

 

It’s not Weapons of Mass Destruction. And as you say, that’s because the term is just completely lost all validity. You know, people at the moment, they hear that, they just know it’s Iraq, War 2. But they’re not even like trying to do that lesser thing.

 

It’s kind of like what they do with racism, where you’ve got like the small definition and the big definition. The Weapons of Mass Destruction is like what they do with racism.

 

So if you’re a “racist”, it’s like you just think that different people are different and you care about your own people. Well, that’s a racist. But the moment you get labelled a racist, it’s like you’re a “supremacist who wants to murder everyone who’s not you”. Well, the Weapons of Mass Destruction is chemical weapons could be a weapon of mass destruction, but the moment you get labelled with that, all of a sudden:

 

“You’ve got nukes, you’re dangerous!”

 

[17:31]

 

Natty: Yeah. And the 45 minute claim was like, they can hit the tip of Cyprus. If they drive a Scud launcher right to the edge of the Iraqi border and fire it, they might just be able to hit Cyprus! And that was translated into British headlines as “British territory”. Yeah:

 

“They can hit us in 45 minutes! Oh my God, the sky’s falling!”

 

And the reality was, it was Scud missiles and some Sarin gas artillery shells which have a range of about 10 or 15 kilometers, which they used in Halabja [1988 against Kurds] apparently. I mean, we saw, I, we got trained on that in the CBRA regiment of what happened in Halabja with the Sarin gas shells. But that was passed into, like you said, Weapons of Mass Destruction. Very nebulous. Well, not easy to disseminate term, but very little detail and very little meaning. And you could say to people:

 

“Well, they’ve got Scud launches on trucks which can fly however many kilometers it is, and they’ve got some Sarin gas shells.”

 

But these, in terms of where the United Kingdom is and the rest of Europe, these are absolutely meaningless! And again, it was just to justify the Greater Israel Project and take out one of Israel’s enemies and destroy one of Israel’s enemies.

 

Yuro: Well, I was having to think about this before we started this stream. And I said to myself, you know:

 

“There is one state, there is a rogue state in the Middle East that has Weapons of Mass Destruction.”

 

And by that I mean a boatload of actual nuclear weapons. And they have the capability of targeting Britain, …

 

Natty: And if rumours are to be believed, then the Samson Option is a real thing and Israel is the lunatic state that has no compunction about using these things. Now, I don’t know if that’s a real thing or whether that’s just something that gets disseminated to scare everyone.

 

But you’ve got to remember the only people who have used nukes as an actual weapon of war against living targets is the Epstein Regime in the Second World War. And I don’t separate the people who are running America now from those people. I mean, it’s the same group of people.

 

Yuro: If you look at the way that they behave on the world stage, the way that they behave against the Palestinians, the way that they behave against the Iranians, it wouldn’t be out of character for them to just lash out at everyone else for “not defending them hard enough”. But according to the publicly available information, they have intercontinental ballistic missiles with a range of 11 and a half thousand kilometers, which basically means they can hit everywhere on the planet with the exception of kind of east Australia, New Zealand and some bits of South America.

 

Natty: So those parts of South America where all the Nazis fled to, so unfortunately they [chuckling] can’t touch them!

 

Yuro: The parts where Javier Milei, who’s converted to Judaism, is currently in charge.

 

Natty: Oh no!

 

Yuro: And they might also not be able to quite hit Mexico where (((Claudia Sheinbaum))) is in charge.

 

Mark Collett: Oh, dear! Well, talking about the control that jews wield, let’s talk about what we think is the real reason for this.

 

Now, I’m going to go straight out and say it. I believe the real reason for this is the Greater Israel Project. I think the Greater Israel Project is something that has gathered pace in the last few years, especially under Trump. We’ve seen the attacks on Gaza, we’ve seen the attacks on Lebanon. We’ve seen the fall of the Syrian regime, which was obviously heavily influenced by Israel, who were helping Islamic terrorists in the region. You know, the head chopper ones that we’re told are the great threat to peace and justice and decency, yet Israel is actually supporting those people!

 

And we’ve also seen Israel be involved in the fall of other regimes. Israel were famously involved. And this came out in the Chilcot Inquiry. I actually did a video on this. Israel were very famously involved with meeting, … And Tony Blair admitted this under oath in the Chilcot Inquiry. He met influential jewish leaders from the then current Israeli regime. And he said:

 

“The meetings had nothing to do with military intelligence. They had everything to do with overall strategy and long term goals.”

 

So take that as you will. But I’m taking that as they were heavily involved in getting rid of Saddam Hussein.

 

[22:24]

 

And I think it’s obviously within Israel’s interest to topple almost every sovereign regime in the region. And they do this quite openly. They are doing it more openly now. They’re getting away with it, sadly. And this is a blatant example of that. Although they’ve loosely talked about the nuke thing, like we said, Natty did make an important point that they felt it’s less necessary to sell this like they sold the Iraq, War. And in some interviews, members of the American regime have simply said:

 

“Yeah, we just want to kill these people. We want to kill them, we want to take them out. This is about regime change. This is about Israel.”

 

And I believe it was Marco Rubio, the Secretary of State, who said:

 

“It was Israel who forced our hand. They began this and we are there to defend them and assist them. So when they began the attacks, we were forced into going along with it.”

 

Now, Trump then furiously denied this, but it’s a very interesting admission from Marco Rubio.

 

So I think this is all about the Greater Israel Project. And I believe that has been the driving force or the driving ideology behind the destabilisation of the Middle East.

 

Natty: Yeah, totally! And it kind of behooves me to say this and to get people to realise that whereas we’re living kind of day to day and prices of things go up and you’re worried about your children. We’ve been totally separated from any idea of our history and our lineage and where we’ve come from and where we might be going.

 

So it’s kind of hard to understand for us the jewish mindset. And this is a plan that’s been in the making for a very long time, years, decades, where once Israel was created and they have a vision of the Greater Israel Project. There’s a whole, there’s a list of countries. Libya, Syria, Iraq, Iran, Egypt. And through various machinations, they’ve all been, one by one, they’ve been taken out or pacified. Egypt is basically paid off by the United States and is under the sway of Israel, has a border with Israel, but it doesn’t do anything about their genociding of the Palestinians and the destabilising and eventual collapse of the Syrian state. What happened in Libya with Gaddafi ending up with a bayonet up his bum, dragged out into the street, and the subsequent flooding of Europe with migrants, which is a kind of side issue we can get onto if you want. But all of this, …

 

Mark Collett: I’ve got that further down the line, mate, that comes at the end, if you look at the show notes, I’ve actually said:

 

“You know, what are the actual repercussions for this, both for the West and for the Middle East?”

 

And that’s one of the things we will talk about.

 

Natty: Yeah, for sure. And it’s clear now, I mean, in my opinion and the opinion of other people who have been following this, that the reason Trump was so heavily pushed into a second term was that the people who are running him and the jews in Israel believe that he was the best chance of getting this done. You know, this final push to topple Iran, which basically gets rid of the last bastion of resistance to Israel. And you’ve got to think:

 

“Well, why is Israel so hell bent on getting rid of people who resist them?”

 

You think, well, the people who are opposing them, the only real people who are opposing them, committing genocide in Gaza, Europe was on board with it. The United States was supplying them with bombs and had carrier groups in the Mediterranean. The United Kingdom, our own government, was flying surveillance flights over Gaza and letting Cyprus be used as a refueling and an air base for Israel. So Europe was aiding in the genocide in Gaza.

 

And it was only Hezbollah and you know, funded via Iran that was really attacking, and the Houthi rebels in Yemen, who were attacking Israel and trying to hold them account for genociding the Gazan people. And that’s unacceptable for Israel to have that resistance in the region, even though the attacks on it are totally justified and being used as like, defense against people who are being hurt and destroyed in this like, brutal way by this lunatic, lunatic group of people who have been squatting on the edge of a Mediterranean.

 

So the justifications the real justification is the toppling of Iran as a coherent state. And I’ll touch on this before I pass this over to Yuro. But there’s talk of regime change. You know, that’s what they say:

 

“We’re trying to enact regime change here.”

 

But that isn’t quite true. They’re not really interested in a regime swap where they swap one regime for another. What they’re interested in is total destabilisation! Just like with Syria, just like with Iraq, just like with Libya, where these are just failed states with tribal warlords with like Mossad and CIA run groups running around HTS, ISIS, all of these people. Which means no coherent defense, no missile bases, no civil defense, nothing! Just a load of groups that you can pay this group to fight this group and you know, you can pay these guys or stop paying these guys and just let chaos reign while Israel just expands and expands and expands and gets to do what it wants.

 

You know, kind of reminiscent, I’ll just finish on this. Kind of reminiscent to how if you import millions and millions of foreign people into a small island nation, it also becomes destabilised and coherent resistance or coherent defense or coherent politics kind of become very difficult and a very well motivated minority can rule the lot! So there’s your answer as to the real reasons for this war.

 

[28:45]

 

 

Yuro: A few things I wanted to pick up on there. Just as Mark was speaking, you kept using the term “regime”. And that’s like one of those MKUltra trigger words that they’ve put in people’s minds that like “regime is bad, regime is authoritarian, evil government”. It was all it was always the “Saddam regime” and the “Iran regime”. They’re just governments. They’re a different form of government. You know some of them are more or less Democratic than others, but it’s like this regime thing is a trigger word. And along that same lines, Natty, you mentioned the Houthis as “rebels”. I think the ones that we call Houthis are pretty much just the government of Yemen now. I mean, and they have pockets of what’s left of the people that they overthrew. But they’re basically just the government of Yemen. They’re not rebels anymore. They’re not a regime, they’re just that government.

 

But obviously this was all part of a plan. This is something that they’ve been going at for a very long time. They had the Project for a New American Century [PNAC] where they said we want to hit like seven countries in 10 years. And they’ve basically got all of them.

 

I mean, they wanted to get Iraq, they wanted to get Syria, they wanted to get Libya, and of course it’s neocon jews behind it all.

 

So that’s been happening for a very long time. There’s a reason why they caught a bunch of jewish Israelis dancing on 911*, already filming before the first plane went into those towers. They were dancing around, they were happy because they knew that was the excuse that they needed to start their own genocidal campaign. And it’s like dominoes falling. They get this one, then they get that one. And I mean, what happens to Libya? He, Gaddafi, gave up his weapons, chemical weapons and things like that.

 

[* 9/11: A false flag carried out by ZOG with Israel being the lead behind its planning and execution. The aim was to unleash the War OF Terror on the countries around Israel, among other aims. See See Also links below, especially the work by Christopher Bollyn.]

 

And as soon as they were gone, they were like:

 

“Right, well he’s defenseless, we can go in there and kill him now!”

 

So that’s what they proceeded to do.

 

And the other thing as well, like looking at what they’re doing to Iran, I mean, you talked about them wanting to destabilise them. As far as I understand, because they can’t really hit these military targets. They don’t know exactly where all the underground bases are and where they’re being launched from. So they’re targeting, I mean, apart from like primary schools for girls and things like that, which they do just because they’re evil and want to blow up kids when they’re not abusing kids in other ways, they’re just like targeting police stations and things like that. Just like blow up all the police stations in the country and hope it destabilises that way!

 

And of course they had this gayop a few weeks ago, maybe a month ago now, where they tried to incite some sort of terrorist uprising in Iran and that failed.

 

And obviously they wanted to coincide these two things at the same time.

 

Natty: But I was going to say that was obviously hilariously mistimed. [chuckling] Right? So they fermented this terrorist uprising and meanwhile they haven’t got all like the military assets in place to strike it. I mean, you might have a better idea of this than me, you guys, but maybe they thought in the January uprisings that they like funded all these terrorist groups to try and overthrow the government of Iran. Maybe they thought that it was still going to be going on now while they moved all these carrier groups and pulled their troops out of the Gulf oil state bases. Maybe they thought it was still going to be going on and that the Iran government was still going to be fighting these guys, but it was crushed within like a few days. Right!

 

Yuro: I have a feeling that maybe they were trying to like wait a little bit longer, but it was about to be compromised and they thought:

 

“If we don’t do it now, we miss the opportunity entirely.”

 

So they had to launch it. And they spent so long getting carriers into place to attack Iran because they’ve had these problems with the sewage system on the Gerald Ford, which obviously some people are saying that’s like a deliberate thing, that soldiers or sailors have clogged the tubes on purpose to destroy the system because they don’t want to go and die and be the next false flag. But they’ve had problems with that before. So it’s not entirely out of the realms of possibility that it is sort of coincidental to some degree.

 

But yeah, obviously that was something that delayed them. So I mean we can be glad about that because it’s meant that Iran’s not facing these two things at the same time.

 

Natty: I’m not sure. Look, I’m not a, like a military analyst or anything, but I’m not sure even if the like Epstein empire, the Epstein regime, had fermented this terrorist uprising whilst they carried out this first strike against Khomeini in a little girl’s school for some reason, whether if those two things occurred, coincided, even then, whether they’d have been able to pull off this kind of toppling of the regime. It seems like, …

 

Yuro: Regime?

 

Natty: Look, [chuckling] it’s the word everyone uses here! I can try, but I’m as susceptible to the MKUltra* terms as everyone else. Right? I’m just not sure it would have worked even if they had pulled it off at the same time.

 

[* MKUltra was a covert program run by the CIA from 1953 to 1973. Its primary goal was to explore methods of mind control and behavior modification through various means, including drugs and psychological techniques. MKUltra is widely condemned for its unethical practices, including: Lack of Consent: Many subjects were unaware they were part of experiments. Abusive Techniques: Included torture, isolation, and drugging without consent. The term MKUltra is a CIA cryptonym: “MK” is an arbitrary prefix standing for the Office of Technical Service and “Ultra” is an arbitrary word out of a dictionary used to name this project.]

 

Mark Collett: Well, look, we’re going to go on to that anyway, so let’s move a little bit further forward because there are other things we want to talk about.

 

Now, I think the next thing we need to talk about, we’ve placed this into context, talk about the Greater Israel Project. Now I think the next thing that’s very important is discussing the issue of these fake negotiations that America has had with the likes of Iran before all of this kicked off.

 

And they obviously had similar sort of fake negotiations with, I think it was Venezuela, didn’t they? And then they go in anyway. This is something that America started doing, you know, fake negotiations, but then we come and get you anyway.

 

[35:06]

 

Yuro: I think they had a similar thing with the, like Hezbollah and Hamas, didn’t they?

 

Mark Collett: Yeah, there’s multiple examples.

 

But what I’m getting at is a real, and we won’t labour this because we spoke about this extensively on the Nationalist A-Team the other night, but when we were talking about that, we did make the point that fundamentally at one point the idea of going in somewhere you know, negotiating, but then using negotiations as a reason or as an excuse to then hit another country. So the negotiations aren’t real negotiations. They’re cover that gets the other side to drop their guard. So, it’s like walking up somebody in a bar saying:

 

“Look, mate, let’s just settle this amicably. Let me buy you a drink. What do you want?”

 

And when the other guy turns to have a look at the list of craft beers, you sucker punch him! You know, that’s an underhanded thing to do. Everyone would be like:

 

“Wow, that’s pretty much scandalous! We don’t want to see that kind of behaviour. That’s the kind of behaviour that’s not becoming of an honourable man.”

 

And there used to be this narrative that the West was honourable, that we were the good guys. And I’ll say these fake negotiations are being used as a means to cover up an attack which is I’m imminent. I do think that is a really shady thing to do.

 

And I think that as time goes by, we are going to see more and more people be unwilling to negotiate with the West. Like, why would Vladimir Putin or China or any other nation, North Korea, negotiate with Trump? Why would any foreign leader trust going to America or sitting in a negotiation room with the Americans when they assassinate leaders, carry out fake negotiations, use the hand of friendship to lock their opponent’s hand in place before they sucker punch them? You know, it’s like holding one hand out to shake the other guy’s hand and when he starts giving the handshake, you just sucker punch them! You know, it’s awful! I mean, what do you guys think to this?

 

I think this is going to fundamentally change the way, the implication of this, is going to change the way that every other nation does business with America. And it’ll put America on a even people like the Europeans, who are essentially vassal states of America, are not going to be trusting of Trump again or America.

 

Yuro: Well, Europe is already not going to be trusting of Trump and America because of the whole thing with Greenland for a start. But I mean, I hope at the end of this, obviously Iran’s going to hold out. They’re going to continue to resist until America and Israel, …

 

Mark Collett: This is the summation, what you hope for comes at the end, like, stay on, …

 

Yuro: It’s related to this! It’s related to this. I was going to say I hope that Israel and America run out of interceptor missiles. Iran fights them to a standstill. And they say:

 

“Right, we will negotiate with Trump in this place.”

 

He goes there to negotiate, and then, …