Henrik Palgren: And welcome back, ladies and gentlemen. Thank you for tuning in here. I’m Henrik. Glad to have you with us here on Red Ice today. If watching live on Rumble X Twitter, Red Ice TV, Red Ice members, however you’re tuning in, thank you for being here.

 

So, yes, we obviously are going to follow up on the topic we covered a little bit yesterday in terms of the shooting down at Bondi beach in Australia. We have Thomas Sewell back on the show today to cover this. Not only, of course, what’s happened with the shooting, the potential political fallout from this, but there’s other issues, of course, happening. It is interesting, though, because this has been called basically “an intelligence failure” by the Australian, you know, intelligence services, ASIO [Australian Security Intelligence Organization], I think it’s shortened. As and they’ve been observing obviously the National Socialists, all the Nationalists in Australia, they’re the ones kind of under scrutiny. They’re the ones being investigated, they’re the ones being followed around, arrested, all these things, right?

 

And then you have this blatant, kind of hole here. We will get into whether or not this is intentional. Did they drop the guard? What’s really happening? I have a lot of questions, as always. As you should, I think, which is healthy around these events and how it’s being used.

 

But it’s clear just on the official level, if you look at it, what they’re saying that this is. Obviously this is a massive failure then in the sense of not observing the actual terrorists in the country like this. Well, first of all, he was Pakistani. Then they’re coming back and saying now he was originally born in India, but who cares? What’s the difference? Right? So, Tom Sewell, welcome back. Good to see you again. How are you?

 

Thomas Sewell: Good, thanks. Thank you for having me on the show again. And yes, it’s been eventful as always. There’s plenty to talk about and very exciting times ahead. A lot of controversy. Did you want to start with Bondi first?

 

Henrik Palgren: I think. So why don’t we clear, well, it’s not just clearing it off the plate. It’s such a big thing. It’s really the main story we should lead with here, obviously. I’m not sure we have to reiterate it, but obviously, yes, we had a shooting on the 14th Australian time then. So it’s on the 14th, December 14th. And obviously, yeah, just explain what you, what your initial kind of, I guess, you know, way that you view this is not strange. We knew that this is like “part and parcel” now of being in a multicultural, multiracial country like Australia has been turned into against all of our desires. But still, were you surprised by this?

 

Thomas Sewell: No, absolutely not! And myself and most of the leadership of the organization have commented that we’re surprised that it doesn’t happen more often and that it took this long considering the rhetoric we’ve experienced from Muslims in Australia over the past couple years.

 

And I’m not just talking about rhetoric in terms of the Palestinian protests in the city every week. I’m talking about just everyday Muslims that you might come across on job sites or if you train at a commercial gym, whether it be a fighting gym, or a lifting gym. The rhetoric out of Muslims has been very extreme! Like we would call it Fed postie. We don’t get away with that kind of rhetoric.

 

But it’s just commonplace within the Muslim community to sort of talk about and advocate for this sort of stuff. So yeah. Where do you want to go with this? I can go into more detail.

 

Henrik Palgren: Yeah, so we talked about it yesterday a little bit as well, obviously of the shooters and everything else. And first of all, do you trust what you’re hearing from the police and the mainstream government sources on this?

 

[04:04]

 

Thomas Sewell: Well, I don’t. As a general rule, I don’t trust the police and the mainstream media. But this is something that’s too big to fool.

 

I mean, there were thousands, … I mean, there’s a lot of Americans sharing kind of schizophrenic conspiracy theories about it. There’s a few odd videos that I do admit there’s a few videos that look, the guy was probably just missing his shots. I don’t think he was shooting blanks. There’s a whole bunch of schizo theories out there. Most people don’t know how populated Bondi [pronounced bond-eye] beach is in Sydney, Australia.

 

So most Americans, they can’t fathom that this happened at the most populated place in Sydney, like almost more populated than the CBD. If you’ve ever been a Bondi beach, there are just potentially tens of thousands of people there are thousands and thousands of witnesses. Yeah, I really dislike the way that so many people on the dissonant right are trying to transmute this into some sort of conspiracy theory. Sometimes Muslims just kill people!

 

Henrik Palgren: So strange1 No!

 

Thomas Sewell: And in this case, they very obviously targeted a jewish event. A predominantly jewish. Well, not a predominantly jewish event. A jewish event that had maybe a couple hundred people attend. But again, it was at a beach where there’s tens of thousands of Aussies and tourists.

 

I mean, I’ve parked my car literally by that bridge. Like, when I’ve gone to Sydney, I’ve visited Bondi Beach, I don’t know every second time that I’ve gone to Sydney, so probably 20 or 30 times over my life. And I’ve parked my car at that very spot. I know exactly where that is. You know, where that big, surf house is, the big clubhouse there. You have lunch just on the other side of the road from that shooting.

 

So it was recognizable immediately. The reaction from the police was to be expected. It was typical. I mean, seeing the police just take so long to react, that’s pretty common in Australia. If you’re a White nationalist, they’ll pull the gun out on you like the millisecond. [chuckling] I think they rev themselves up when they come to your house. I think the police in Australia are a bit different to the police in America. They’re not sort of combat aware, they’re not psychologically trained to deal with these sort of scenarios.

 

Whereas I think in America the threat level of gun violence is so high, or at least they’re trained to expect a high level of gun violence. Whereas in Australia, the police don’t have any balls unless they’ve got like two hours to psychologically prepare for kicking your door in. Because every time I’ve had issues with police, you know, there’ll be 10 or 20 of them and they already have the guns out and they’re ready to shoot you while you’re trying to answer your door.

 

But when there’s an actual active shooter situation, I mean, they’re just hiding behind cars and you saw like two of the female police officers have mental breakdowns. It was just really embarrassing.

 

What else? I mean, yeah, my understanding was that, sorry, I’ll let you go. There’s so much to cover.

 

Henrik Palgren: So of course we had Arsen Ostrovsky coming out early. And of course this is one of the reasons why I had questions about it I mean, he literally came to Australia. He said in the clip here we could play it in a moment, but like three weeks ago to fight anti-semitism, and this was heightened. The whole jewish community has allegedly like, warned that this was going to happen. There was a number of posts from the Australian jewish Association. They were talking about this was very foreseeable and stuff like that. And of course I’m gonna say:

 

“Yeah, they’re probably right.”

 

Because they’re knowing what’s happening here. Right?

 

Thomas Sewell: And it’s very foreseeable because you have an ongoing war between Zionists and I guess just jews in general and the Palestinians in the Middle East. And they’re killing, I don’t know, somewhere between 10 and 100 Arabs a day over in the Middle East. And the way most people’s brains work, and especially the way Arabs brains work is. Yeah, they don’t recognize borders, they don’t care. And these weren’t even Arabs, technically, this father and son team. I guess they were Arabs in the sense of what etymologically the word Arab means, which is mixed. They’re a mixed population. They’re a mongrel population.

 

But I believe these two were half Indian, half Italian.

 

Henrik Palgren: Really?

 

Thomas Sewell: And yes. Yeah. So the father is an Indian national and the son was born in Australia to an Indian father and I believe an Italian mother. So he’s mixed race, and he’s converted to Islam, which is what Islam is. It’s a mongrel rape gang. It’s where all the mongrels go and convert and join the big brown alliance gang together. And he received a little bit of training in the Philippines, so he probably went over to the Philippines to not just do military training, but also to probably get a blessing from ISIS, because there is an ISIS cell in the Philippines.

 

Henrik Palgren: Yeah, Right.

 

Thomas Sewell: So that’s what the Intel is saying is that this guy was on a watch list from 2019 or 2020 that ASIO were keeping an eye on him because of obviously what he was posting on the Internet and the mosque that he was hanging out at. So he was actually a junior scholar at one of the more further down the line Sunni mosques here in Sydney. And he was not an imam or anything like that. Not highly trained, but he’s obviously gone through to religiously study Islam. He’s not just like a Friday Muslim that’s just casually gone down there. He has actually completed like his basic diplomas in understanding Islamic studies. And clearly he’s educated in Islam enough to know that if you want your 72 virgins, you got to go kill jews.

 

So he completed his education with that act. You could say if you understand Islam. And his father, I don’t know much about the father, but I do know that he’s an Indian national.

 

[10:39]

 

Henrik Palgren: The father was killed.

 

Thomas Sewell: The father was killed. The son just came out of the coma, just today. The news was saying just today he’s awoken from his coma.

 

Henrik Palgren: Okay. Yeah, because you saw random other Aussies attacking the crew there on the bridge obviously too. And the police couldn’t, like, they didn’t know what was going on. They didn’t have any control of the situation. And guys were just moving in. They were even going after another random brown guy, … They were like these White Aussies, … [chuckling]

 

Thomas Sewell: The footage I saw was that the first guy on the bridge to try to disarm them was a brown guy. And the one of the cops shot at him while he had his hands up.

 

Henrik Palgren: Wow!

 

Thomas Sewell: And then a whole bunch of Aussies jumped the bridge and tried to attack. Yeah, this is the footage here. So a bunch of Aussies are attacking because he’s wearing a black Tshirt.

 

So it’s like an Arab in a black Tshirt. And so people obviously thought that was the same guy, but he was actually the first to run up there to be a hero and then the next two Aussies that went up there to also be heroes. That’s one thing that’s interesting is you’ve got female cops literally hiding behind cars and having mental breakdowns. And you’ve got Baz here with his shirt off, two other Aussies and an Arab guy running up there hero style, unarmed to try to tackle these guys and disarm them.

 

Henrik Palgren: Yeah.

 

Thomas Sewell: And you’ve also got, I think earlier you had that old jewish, … Oh no, he wasn’t jewish, he was a Coptic Christian. I think old Coptic Christian guy, another Arab, attack him and take the shotgun off him, but not shoot him because apparently the shotgun was out of ammunition and then he ended up getting shot I think in the arm.

 

So it’s a chaotic situation obviously. There’s nothing suspicious about it in my opinion. I think that we should really focus on the principle that we need to be a sovereign country here in Australia. And this incident is caused by the fact that we have warring tribes in our nation! And the fault of this is the government for allowing the jews and allowing Muslims into our country when they have no place! They have no place in our country. And it doesn’t matter whether one is the victim and one is the attacker. This is caused by inter-ethnic or inter-religious conflict overseas and these problems are here. And I would have the same opinion if it was any group of people. But I especially have this opinion when it’s non-White people, when it’s brown people or desert people that are killing each other. We just don’t want these dramas here.

 

And this is the result of not just multiculturalism, but it’s also, yeah, the result of having a very powerful jewish lobby in this country. I mean this jewish event, these weren’t nobody jews. These were actual serious Zionists, they were serious jewish leaders.

 

And I think it’s a very fair assumption to make based off the full 10 minute footage that I’ve seen that these two went down there, these two Indian Muslims went down there with the intention to kill as many jews as possible. And I think that they also wounded about 40 other people.

 

Henrik Palgren: Yeah, right.

 

Thomas Sewell: And we don’t have the full list of names of all the people killed and wounded, although at least half of the names of those killed have been released already. And they appear, I think 11 out of the 12 that we have the names of do appear to be jewish. There’s one name there that appears to be potentially, … Is that one is that, …

 

Henrik Palgren: That guy, Peter Meagher. He was there as a freelance photographer to actually shoot some photos for the Hanukkah party, I believe. But that’s one White guy.

 

I was looking at the bridge, and you can see. I mean, again, I don’t know what the like, how big was the field that the jews were in at the Hanukkah event there. But he fires this way, this way, that way. It looked like he was just shooting, like, everywhere on the beach that he basically could. That’s what it looked like to me. So first I was just kind of like:

 

“Was it a coincidence?”

 

You know, because that could happen. But I don’t know. Maybe it was publicly announced or something.

 

Thomas Sewell: It was a publicly announced event.

 

Henrik Palgren: Yeah.

 

Thomas Sewell: By one of the, I think it’s a Chabad. I don’t know if I’m pronouncing it right.

 

Henrik Palgren: Chabad. All in there.

 

Thomas Sewell: Yeah. It was a publicly announced event, and it’s very obvious. Again, I don’t have any more information than the media have already put out, but I think based on the Facebook posts of this, I mean, one of the jews that was killed was a pretty serious rabbi that had just gone back from Israel, and he was signing munitions over in Israel.

 

[15:32]

 

Henrik Palgren: Yeah, look, it was an international event. There were jews from France there, there was at least a couple from Israel, I think, and, of course, Arsen Ostrovsky was one of them. And, it’s a different mindset. Right. Like, if I’d be in a situation like this. I’d be like. I wouldn’t take a selfie at that point. I wouldn’t kind of push so hard politically.

 

But then you realize that’s how motivated these people are, that if these pieces lined up the way that they did and he just happens to be there, what is it? A human rights lawyer out of Israel or whatever to fight anti-semitism in Australia, he happens to find themselves there again, you can have questions about it, I think, but you don’t have to go into conspiracy.

 

But the point is, this is how they’re thinking. That’s what I want to say, Tom. If this happens, it’s immediately use it!:

 

“Like, second one, boom! Let’s go! Propaganda, push our issues!”

 

That’s what happens.

 

Thomas Sewell: Yeah, look, I got a few things to say on that.

 

Henrik Palgren: Yeah.

 

Thomas Sewell: When Carl Rittenhouse shot into a group of Antifa. When he was getting attacked, he took out two pedophiles.

 

So when you, not randomly, but when you’re getting attacked by Antifa, and if you take down two of them, there’s a strong chance that they’re a pedophile, that they’re a sex offender. And I don’t think it’s suspicious that two Muslims planned a terror attack to kill a bunch of jews. And it happened to be, out of the couple hundred jews that were there, there happened to be human rights lawyers and like, huge Zionist advocates. And I think you’d find it in a crowd of two or three hundred jews, especially, … And these weren’t secular jews. That’s an important point, is this wasn’t a secular jewish meeting. This wasn’t like:

 

“Hey, jews, come to the park and hang out!”

 

These were jews from the local synagogue in Bondi. And Bondi is a relatively jewish area. So it’s a touristy area, and it has a huge amount of rich White people that live there, but there’s also quite a large jewish population there. There’s, like a jewish enclave there, a wealthy jewish enclave there.

 

So there are some synagogues in Bondi, and this was one of the local synagogues that organized this. And they’re like:

 

“Yep, let’s do our thing down at the beach.”

 

So, yeah, there’s really nothing suspicious about this except there’s one video of the old man missing, like, three or four shots. And I mean, I don’t think that’s overly suspicious. I mean, it’s at close range, but, I mean, adrenaline, who knows?

 

Henrik Palgren: Right? Yeah.

 

Thomas Sewell: I haven’t seen anything other than that one video of him missing three shots. Like what? Yeah, it’s not Call of Duty. There’s just a lot of firearms experts on the Internet. There’s a lot of people that are just really quick to call:

 

“Oh, it’s Mossad! It’s Mossad! It’s Mossad!”

 

And it’s like, no, sometimes Muslims just kill people. And we have a really bad, you know, sort of subculture, I think, within the broader spectrum of White nationalism and dissident politics, where:

 

“Everything’s a conspiracy! And everything is like Mossad’s behind everything! There’s Mossad in your skirting board listening to you!”

 

And it’s like, this is just paranoia. Sometimes it’s just an actual terrorist attack. Now, if I’m presented with evidence that there was a Mossad connection, but all I’ve seen is AI, fake edits. Yeah, just Photoshop. I’ve just seen garbage! I’ve just seen the most low rent garbage! Psyop! You know, the real psyop is people thinking everything’s Mossad. I think that’s the real Mossad psyop.

 

Henrik Palgren: Yeah, interesting point. Yeah. No, I’m not the one who immediately that’s, …

 

Thomas Sewell: Did you see Baz? That’s what put him in the coma.

 

Henrik Palgren: Yeah, I figured. Right. Because I’m not sure if the other guy there, he, …

 

Thomas Sewell: Sorry. No, no, that’s the wrong one. No, no, sorry. It was a different head stomp. There was a different guy that kicked. So Baz kicked the father, old man in the head, but another younger guy, a fitter younger guy with tattoos, kicked the other one in the head.

 

Henrik Palgren: Yeah.

 

Thomas Sewell: So before this footage.

 

Henrik Palgren: Yeah, so okay, so moving on from whether:

 

“This was it a planned event! They knew it was going to happen. They knew the worst cops that day was, … They were running the shift then, these females. Because then you have mass impact.”

 

Okay, putting that to the side for now. It is what it is. We’re just looking at it for what it is. It’s then you come back to the official, you know, world in terms of the failure of the police, of the intelligence services. And the point of priority too, right? Because there is a kind of a, there’s blame here.

 

Like as much resources and effort and time and ultimately then money and manpower is being spent on you and on your group and people around you. Joel [Davis] and [Jacob] Hersant, all these people around there to monitor you and to arrest you and keep an eye on you and spy on you go to the park to box and then there they are. They have men assigned to just watching you guys. Right? That kind of stuff.

 

Thomas Sewell: Yeah.

 

Henrik Palgren: Is this gonna force them to get their act together? Are they going to start taking the Muslim issues seriously? Is it going to be enough pressure from the jewish community that then that’s when they listen, right? When jews are murdered now they’re going to actually do something about this. What do you think they’re going to happen here, the next stage in this?

 

[21:01]

 

 

Thomas Sewell: In theory, you’re correct. In theory, when jews are affected, then you’ll see genuine pressure against Muslims. But what you’ll find is the jews are experts at transmuting any anti-Islamic energy into just being energy around anti-semitism in general. And you can already see the Labor Party for those that aren’t aware in America, the Labor Party here in Australia is kind of like our version of the Democrat Party. It’s the center-Left, so-called center-Left party. And you’ve got Tony Burke who’s the sort of, he heads the State Department. I think he’s the Home Affairs Minister. You’ve got the Prime Minister Albanese and you’ve got another guy who I’ve never seen on TV before, which is funny, they keep him hidden from TV. I think he’s the Defense Minister. His name is I think Murphy, and he is the gayest I have ever seen on Australian television. No, not Murphy. Marles. His name is Marles.*

 

[*The minister for defence is the minister of state of the Commonwealth of Australia charged with overseeing the organization, implementation, and formulation of strategic policy in defence and military matters as the head of the Department of Defence. The minister for defence is responsible for the Australian Defence Organization, including the Australian Defence Force (ADF). The current defence minister is Richard Marles, who is also concurrently serving as deputy prime minister of Australia, having been selected by Prime Minister Anthony Albanese in May 2022 following the 2022 Australian federal election.]

 

And all three of them senior Labor Party guys, they are just getting roasted at the moment for their failure. And they are basically trying to transmute and put the blame back onto Nazis saying:

 

“Well, our government has done the most to shut down hate speech. Our government has done the most to stop anti-semitism. Our government banned the Nazi salute. Our government has been going after these neo-Nazis!”

 

And on several occasions journalists have cut them off and have said:

 

“Hang on a minute, what are you going to do about these Muslims?”

 

Because obviously even though the media are very controlled in their nature, it’s really hard for the media to hold the party line together that the Labor Party are trying to hold together, which is “that this is a broad stroke anti-semitism issue” and then transmute it from broad smoke, broad stroke anti-semitism onto:

 

“Look how much we’ve done to stop Nazis!”

 

And the mainstream media even covered the deportation of Matthew Gruter after [before] this terrorist attack. So those that don’t know who Matthew Gruter is, he’s a member of our organization. He was a South African national that was here on a work Visa who attended an “expose jewish power” rally. I think it was “Abolish the jewish Lobby” rally. And he was doxed and deported. He was raided within, I think a day or two of him being doxed and he was put in a camp and then deported from that camp.

 

And so look, there’s nothing, the Australian government’s got no issues with putting people in camps and deporting them, which is interesting. And the media even mentioned:

 

“Well, hang on a minute, this guy didn’t break any law and he was deported.”

 

And yet this son and this father were both, … Yeah, you’ve got the old video there.

 

So there’s a new video where they actually started talking about him in reference to the fact that these two terrorists had traveled in and out of the country on several occasions to potentially receive military training.

 

And so you have people that are on a watch list for being involved with the Islamic State and training with the Islamic State and they own firearms. That’s another important point.

 

So this is Tony Burke. This is one of the faggots that personally had Matthew Gruter deported. He’s going to be deported to the Congo. We’re going to make sure that this faggot here, Tony Burke, is deported to the Congo. And that’s Penny Wong, the Chinese foreign minister.

 

Henrik Palgren: What could go wrong! [chuckling]

 

Thomas Sewell: But, yeah, Wong! Yeah. A former Australian Prime Minister:

 

“Two Wongs don’t make a White!”

 

Like back in the 50s or 60s, I think it was Harold Holt, or whoever came after him said:

 

“Two Wongs don’t make a White!”

 

Back then we were based and someone tried to bring their Asian war bride over from the Korean War and they denied access to the war bride or maybe they snuck her into the country. And then they were basically trying. They were trying to deport like, the one brown person that had been let into [chuckling] the country that year! And yeah, the prime minister said something like “two Wongs don’t make a White” when the media asked him why he was being deported. And even though technically be one Wong.

 

But anyway, yeah, so where was I going? I mean, it’s just they’re trying to obviously transmute this atrocity or this terrorist attack into being another battering ram against White Australia, against Neo-Nazis, against anti-semitism in general. What can they do? I don’t think they can do much except hot air. They’re not going to be able to change the laws in any way that’s going to be able to stop us from operating.

 

The way that the Labour Party has reacted to this has caused a huge amount of mainstream media condemnation. I mean, the mainstream media even played on national television, these Labor Party MPs, both state and federal MPs, rocking up to press conferences and getting booed by the public and getting booed by the jewish community.

 

So that’s very rare! They don’t usually show that on television. So the Labor Party is definitely just getting smashed at the moment.

 

But again, it’s that usual trick of “jew Left and jew Right”. And what they’re doing is they’re now really promoting the Liberal Party as being the only party that’s going to save the jews, and the Labor Party doesn’t have the balls to save the jews. And there’s a lot of layers to that.

 

So for example, the reason why these senior Labor Party like the Prime Minister, the Defense Minister and the Home affairs minister, the reason why they won’t call out the Muslims and why they’re trying to deflect it onto neo-Nazis is because the Labor Party can’t get elected into office without the Muslim vote and without the Indian vote. And these two were both Muslim and Indian!

 

[27:00]

 

So they don’t want to talk about the fact that he was an Indian national and he should have been deported. Obviously we shouldn’t have any Indians in the country. But even by their own metrics and by their own standards of fit and proper person checks, which is another important thing to bring up, is that it is quite hard to get a gun license in Australia if you’re a political dissident. It is not hard to get a gun license. The way that Australian gun laws work. Because I know Americans love saying:

 

“You guys gave up your guns. You, Australia doesn’t have any guns!”

 

That’s not true at all! And that’s just like what we don’t have is civilian access to military style firearms like semi-autos. Yeah, we don’t have access to semi-autos unless there’s a caveat to that, which is unless you’re what’s called a primary producer, or a professional hunter.

 

So if you have a contract, even if it’s just as low as like, I don’t know, $5,000 a year to contract shoot on people’s property, to shoot pests. Even if those pests are like foxes or something, or rabbits. You can get access to an AR15 in this country.

 

So it’s not true that we don’t have guns in this country. We have quite high gun ownership as a nation. And to get a CatAB which is basically rim fires and center fires, but in bolt action or pump. So we can get pump and bolt action. Like the rifle that this terrorist was using is called a Cat B rifle.

 

So what that means is it’s a bolt action rifle, it’s center fired, high powered and there’s not even a magazine capacity on it. Usually when you buy the rifles they come with a five or ten round magazine. It’s not actually illegal to own larger magazines. It doesn’t look good when the police come to inspect your safe. Which again, if you’re not a political dissident. It will very rarely happen. Most licensed firearm owners might only get a safe inspection once every five or 10 years. And it’ll just be two local cops. They’ll knock on your door, they’ll usually call you 24 hours beforehand and they’ll say

 

“Hi, I’m Sergeant so and so from the local police station, I need to come check your guns. I’ll be there tomorrow at nine o’ clock in the morning.”

 

And then you obviously make sure you’ve got all your shit squared away. They rock up to your house, they knock on your door, you let the two cops in, they have a look at your safe, they talk to you about what the weather’s doing and you know, how the Labor Party’s gay and try to be a friend and then they leave. And that’s basically what the local firearm section of the cops do. Because they know that every gun owner is all the vast, vast majority of gun owners are Right-wing and they’re just patriots, but they don’t have any views outside of just very common sense, low level patriotism and gun ownership or libertarianism. And there’s really very little dramas there.

 

So you can get that rifle that he’s shooting there, you can get that by just going down to the police station, filling out some paperwork, doing a one day course on firearm safety and then applying to become a member of any gun club or getting a Crown hunting permit. So a permit to hunt on Crown land.

 

Henrik Palgren: Do you have to be a member of a gun club?

 

Thomas Sewell: Yes.

 

Henrik Palgren: Yeah. Same as Sweden, basically.

 

Thomas Sewell: You can’t own a rifle in Australia for the purpose of self defense.

 

Henrik Palgren: Right.

 

Thomas Sewell: You have to either you either own it because you target shoot at a gun club or you own it because you go hunting on Crown land. And all you need to do is, I think to hunt on Crown land, I think you pay 50 bucks a year or something. I used to be a licensed and registered gun owner. Obviously when I got involved in dissident politics I sold my guns and transferred them into other people’s names, just so that I didn’t have any ownership of guns. Because I could predict that they would use that as an opportunity to raid my house. And I’d heard of people that were involved in dissident politics, they went from never having a gun safe inspection to having like multiple gun safe inspections per year. And it was never just the two local cops. There would be two local cops that would come down and they’d have a weird look on their face like:

 

“Oh, hi!”

 

And they would rock up unannounced. That was another thing. Whereas normally they would always call you. And they would have six guys in suits, you know, rock up with them.

 

And it’s like:

 

“Oh, who are these people? What?”

 

And they’re just like:

 

“Oh, we’re just here for the gun inspection. Oh, what police station are you from? Oh, we’re from the city. Oh, what are you doing here? Oh, we’re just having a look.”

 

And then they’re not looking at your guns, what they’re doing. The two cops are looking at your guns, making sure that it’s all stored properly.

 

The other six cops are walking through your house, going through your drawers because they’re the STASI* and they’re going through your bookshelf, they’re going through your drawers, they’re going through your cupboards. And until you tell them to stop and get out of your house, they’ll go through everything. They might even ask if they can go through your phone.

 

[* Stasi: Official state security service of the German Democratic Republic (East Germany) The Ministry for State Security, commonly known as the Stasi, was the state security service and secret police of East Germany from 1950 to 1990. The function of the Stasi in East Germany resembled that of the KGB in the Soviet Union, ⁠ in that it served to maintain state authority and the position of the ruling party, in this case the Socialist Unity Party of Germany. Wikipedia]

 

And if you’re an idiot, you’d be like:

 

“Oh, okay.”

 

So there’s a lot of naive people that get screwed over.

 

Henrik Palgren: Right.

 

Thomas Sewell: But yeah, I’ve never seen anyone that’s a face doxed nationalist be allowed to keep their guns.

 

Henrik Palgren: Right.

 

[31:57]

 

Thomas Sewell: So that’s when we talk about system failure, the government does not let face doxed nationalists own guns, no matter how tame you make your talking points.

 

And yet these guys they can get up to what they’re up to and at no stage do they, because the law is very subjective. We don’t have the right to own guns. What we have is what’s called a “fit and proper person” check, which is completely subjective. There’s no legal definition of that. There isn’t. I actually went to the Magistrates Court to prove I was a fit and proper person because they try to take my, … I used to be trained to be an Armor Guard. I never actually did Armor Guard work, I did unarmed security work, but I was trained to be an Armor Guard, so I could have bought a pistol if I wanted to because I was trained to be an Armor Guard and I had an a pistol license, even though I never owned a pistol and I had issues. I did a pistol shoot one time and the police called me and said:

 

“Hey, you’re not allowed to do a pistol shoot, you’re not fitting proper.”

 

And I was like:

 

“Yes, I am. I have a gun license.”

 

Even though I handed my guns in and stuff. I still had my gun license. And they said:

 

“Hey, you got to go to the Magistrates Court and sort this out immediately or you’re going to get charged.”

 

And so I went down the Magistrates Court and did like, it was called like a section 109, fit and proper person thingy. And the Magistrates Court confirmed that I was in fact fit and proper. And I was like, “phew”, you know what I mean? Like, kind of wiped my brow. This is really early days when I was really early involved in politics.

 

But it was a big stress, like I was going to potentially, and I had a clean criminal record back then, so I was really stressed about having a firearms offense. But I had the court confirm I was fit and proper. And yeah, these guys should not have been able to be classed as fit and proper.

 

Henrik Palgren: Right. Well, that’s the thing. Right.

 

Thomas Sewell: Completely subjective.

 

Henrik Palgren: Well, yeah, obviously. Right. Unfortunately, that’s just those other conditions now with these people in charge of the governments.

 

“Bondi terrorists given gun license after ASIO investigated son’s, …”

 

Thomas Sewell: Sorry to interrupt. It’s pronounced ‘Ay Zee Oh’.

 

Henrik Palgren: ASIO investigated son’s Islamic State links.

 

Thomas Sewell: So again, here’s another interesting thing to interrupt. Sorry.

 

But when the labor government came to power. Sorry, when they were re-elected, they. When they did all their like, banning of the Nazi salute stuff. Banned the Nazi salute, they banned the swastika, but in the same legislation they actually decriminalized the ISIS flag.

 

Henrik Palgren: Really?

 

Thomas Sewell: So the Liberal Party made the ISIS flag a terror symbol and they made it illegal. And the Labor Party changed the legislation when they came to power and banned the swastika and then decriminalized the ISIS flag. So you can own an ISIS flag in Australia, but you can’t, … Sorry. You can publicly display an ISIS flag in Australia, but you cannot publicly display a swastika.

 

Henrik Palgren: Huh, Interesting!

 

Thomas Sewell: Yeah. So that’s pretty funny. They didn’t need to do that. Like this ISIS flag was already banned and they didn’t need to touch that legislation. Why did they decriminalize it?

 

Henrik Palgren: Well, it’s a feature maybe not a bug. So I don’t know!

 

Thomas Sewell: There’s a huge Muslim voting bloc in Australia and, …

 

Henrik Palgren: Right.

 

Thomas Sewell: Obviously you’ve got an understanding of European politics like Nordic politics. But most Americans in the dissident Right, I think they’re really blind to the Islamic issue.

 

I mean, I noticed after the Aug 31st rally which was that big March for Australia rally where I spoke in front of, I don’t know, somewhere between 20,000 and 50,000 people. You know, is it from the TRS? Is that what they’re called? The Right Stuff? Eric Striker.

 

Henrik Palgren: Yep.

 

Thomas Sewell: I saw Eric Striker, … Well, I was in jail, so someone mailed it to me. But while I was in jail, I got mail. And it was a screenshot of like an Eric Striker tweet saying that:

 

“I’m like a judeophile and that I love jews and that you know, I’m against Muslims because I love jews.”

 

And just crazy shit! Like, I’ve been an anti-semite, a public anti-semite for probably six or so years.

 

Henrik Palgren: You’re a proven anti-semite! [chuckling]

 

Thomas Sewell: I am [chuckling] a proven anti-semite and everything. But he was dissecting that part of my speech where I said:

 

“When the people waving the Palestinian flags and the Aboriginal flags came charging at us, we fought back.”

 

Henrik Palgren: Right. Yeah.

 

Thomas Sewell: And I haven’t had a chance to clarify that on stream. That actually happened. I haven’t done a response to that, but I want people to know that actually happened.

 

And this idea that we should not fight back against Palestinians when they’re punching us in the head or communists waving Palestinian flags so that we can one struggle with them against the Zionists, that’s fucking crazy! We’re in Australia. I’m not in the Middle East. Like, I’m not picking a side on the Middle East in the Middle East. I’m picking Australia, in Australia.

 

So to be fair to the Palestinians, to be fair to the Palestinians and the Arabs to give some context to that, usually they rally every weekend in Australia, in Melbourne, in Sydney and Brisbane, there’s a big rally of Arabs every single weekend in the CBD. And it’s usually 3/4 or 7/8 Muslim, you know, Arabs and 1/4 or 1/8 communists that are trying to subvert it and control them. And what they’ve done is they’ve created a brown alliance where they’re waving Abo flags and they’re waving Palestinian flags because they’re trying to convert the Muslims to being on the side of the communists for the Aboriginal issue.

 

[37:46]

 

Henrik Palgren: Right.

 

Thomas Sewell: So:

 

“We’re not anti-zionists. We’re anti-colonialists! And the Zionists are a problem because they’re colonialists. It’s not because they’re Zionists. It’s because they’re colonialists. And because they’re jewish nationalists.”

 

Which I guess is what zionism is.

 

But it’s not a specific form of anti-semitism. They’re trying to, instead of it being counter jewish or counter anti-semitism, the communist groups are trying to convert all these Arabs to the cause. Now they’ve been very unsuccessful broadly, but they have converted a small percentage.

 

And so on that day, on August 31st, the vast majority of Arabs didn’t show up. The vast majority. So normally that weekend rally, that pro-Palestine rally, is normally, as I said, 7/8 Arab, 1/8th communist. On that day it was almost the other way around. It was probably 3/4 communist, 1/4 Arab. So the vast, vast majority of Arabs. And we had leaks because we’ve got people in their group chats to keep an eye on. We had leaks from their group chats saying:

 

“We ’re not going down, this is the reason why we’re not going down, don’t attend, we’re just going to have a week off. We still care about the cause, obviously, but it’s not a good idea. We don’t want a front on confrontation with March for Australia because it doesn’t achieve what we want to achieve, which is we want Australians having sympathy for Palestine. And so if we let the March for Australia people rally this weekend and wave the Aussie flags, we should stay the hell away from them so that it doesn’t interfere with our kind of our optics.”

 

They were optics cucking. They were like:

 

“We’re not going to rally this week.”

 

And so the vast, vast majority of Arabs did not come down. They didn’t want that confrontation. But some still came down.

 

And so it’s just crazy, like, yes, and it’s similar to this Bondi incident. So the context of the Bondi incident is, did he wave away most Arabs and most White Australians? You can see in that 10 minute footage the two terrorists on several occasions wave away, the young guy at least, waved away heaps of Aussies and Arabs that were swearing at him, that were carrying on, that were getting close to them. There was a lot of people, a lot of Aussies that were coming up from the other side, not from the beach, but from the other side that were saying like:

 

“What are you doing? Stop what you’re doing!”

 

Like that kind of rhetoric. And there was a bunch of women screaming like:

 

“Oh my God, stop!”

 

Like that’s gonna help! And he was just, you could see him, he’s like waving him away. He’s like:

 

“Piss off! Go away!”

 

And a lot of the guys like having a go at him had beards, whether they were Aussies or whether they’re Arabs. So obviously he wasn’t going to shoot anyone that was like Arab looking with a beard. So he did pick his target, that’s very clear. But that doesn’t mean that White Australians weren’t shot on the day.

 

Henrik Palgren: Right.

 

Thomas Sewell: So again, again, I’m getting ankle bit by individuals who are saying:

 

“Oh, he put out a post about White Australians, but this was an attack on jews.”

 

And it’s like, I’m aware that it was predominantly an attack on jews and the media have been talking non-stop about jews since it happened and our responsibility is White Australians. I don’t have a responsibility for jews, I have a responsibility for White Australians.

 

So I think it’s very important that we try to retake some of that narrative because the politicians have said nothing about how this is an attack on Australians, let alone White Australians.

 

Obviously the politicians aren’t going to say this is an attack on White Australians.

 

Henrik Palgren: Right.

 

Thomas Sewell: But I mean, I saw one of the opposition leaders come out with a post just today and, sorry, it was a video, and he said:

 

“This terrorist attack is an attack on the jewish community. And although it’s disrespectful to Australians this is the primary issue is that it’s an attack on the jewish community and it’s about hatred and we have to stop hatred of jews.”

 

And it’s like, hang on a minute. Disrespectful to Australians? Like there’s a little bit more than disrespectful to Australians! Yeah, I mean the idea that shooting at Australians is:

 

“It’s disrespectful, but it’s not driven by hate of Australia and Australia’s values. It’s driven by hatred of jews!”

 

Henrik Palgren: Yeah. So the call that you’ve seen then is obviously, yes, the jewish community seems to be mobilizing around, targeting Albanese and the Labor government, obviously that they want them out. I think I even heard, is it Sharri Markson* on Sky News, the jewish host there? She was talking about how Albanese had, I forget exactly what the word is. I’m paraphrasing, but it’s like “have emboldened or aided Hamas” or something in Australia. Is there any truth to that? Or is it like, …

 

Thomas Sewell: Yes.

 

Henrik Palgren: Okay, yeah, give me your take on that.

 

* Sharri Markson (born 8 March 1984) is a Jewish Australian journalist and author. She is investigations editor at The Australian and host of the Sky News Australia program Sharri, which airs 8-9 PM Monday to Thursday. She is the winner of numerous awards in journalism, including two Walkley Awards.]

 

[42:32]

 

Thomas Sewell: The Right-wing jews in Australia are very connected obviously with the Liberal Party. And the Liberal Party has never been doing worse in the history of its existence in the Australian political spectrum.

 

So what’s happening in Australia in the last four or five years is the Liberal Party has gone from a serious contender at winning the 51% of the, not the primary vote, but the total vote. When you get all the preferencing schemes or the minor parties or the satellite parties all funnel all their votes into the Liberal Party so they can win the 51%. They went from a serious contender to that, to basically total party death. I mean the Liberal Party is on its way to becoming no longer being one of the big two. And Australian politics is fracturing on the Right.

 

And so the jews, the Zionist jews especially, are absolutely petrified that they’re losing that conservative Right, You know, the control, what’s it called? The gatekeeper. They’re losing their gate-keeping party. The “Containment Right”, sorry is the word I’m looking for. They’re losing control of the Containment Right.

 

And so the jews are shifting between One Nation which is the slightly more Right-wing party, led by a redhead lady called Pauline Hanson, who was fish and chip shop lady that said racist things about Asians and now she’s like the biggest judeophile in the country.

 

And so they’re shifting support towards One Nation and the Right-wing faction within the Liberal Party. And there is truth to the fact that the Labor Party has aided and abetted Hamas in the sense that the Labor Party gains a lot of its vote from the Muslim blocs and does everything it can to not upset the Muslims. And when this war in Palestine was going on, the Labor Party was in a very difficult situation because a lot of the people that make up the Labor Party are, … And also their main alliance, which is with the Greens, which is a very Left-wing party that’s very pro-Palestine. The Labor Party are caught between a rock and a hard place where they’re really pro-jewish but they kind of have to be anti-Israel. Similar to like the Jeremy Corbyns, …

 

Henrik Palgren: I was gonna say, it’s like UK. Even Sweden has that dynamic too with the Social Democrats. They’re extremely in with the Muslim faction and trying to bring them aboard and they’re kind of infiltrating the party and they are actually taking more power.

 

And so the kind of conservative opposition is therefore kind of forced to take an even more pro-stance. Even the Sweden, Democrats were like led into the fold of like being unofficial ties with Israel. They went to a trip over there recently and they were of course so happy about it. But just to reiterate that point. You are right that there’s a lot of people in America that don’t understand the Muslim dynamic, that they just think that Muslims are simply, … Has it been used like that? Of course! I mean, even opening the borders partially to Muslims. Right. Have been kind of a geostrategic demographic plan, if you will, right from the War on Terror with the neocons, which displaced a lot of these people. They used that as the excuse and now we have to let in Muslims.

 

So there’s a sure, there’s a functionality in that. Not every one, obviously, but some doesn’t seem to understand just how big of a problem that that is and that the Muslim organized community actually is. And they just think them as pawns of Mossad and Israeli interests essentially. Right.

 

Thomas Sewell: And also the dynamic in Australia is very different to America. So in America you have predominantly a Mexican and an African problem.

 

And so you have whole suburbs taken over by Mexicans or you have whole suburbs taken over by Africans. We don’t have that in Australia. There’s no suburb in Australia that’s taken over by Mexicans and there’s very few suburbs, like there’s probably only two or three suburbs in Melbourne and maybe one or two suburbs in Sydney that are taken over by Africans. But what we do have is we have entire regions of our cities, like we’re talking 3, 4, 5, 6 suburbs at a time, taken over by Arabs. And we have huge Islamic, you know, voting blocks. We have huge Islamic organizations. The Muslims are very organized. Like I used to work in the northern suburbs just as a casual worker when I was doing the residential care. And there was a resi home in the northern suburbs and I was looking after some drug addict teenagers, and you know, taking them to play footy and stuff like that. And they were the only White kids in the whole area.

 

I mean, there was three mosques in that suburb. And I’m telling you there was probably 5,000 Muslims per mosque, all fighting age men, all fit, all healthy. It was an army. There was probably, there was like more than a division, more than a division, like a World War II size division, like probably 15,000 fighting Muslims in that one suburb.

 

And I mean, we’re talking about guys aged between 18 and 40 you know, on the steroids train at the kickboxing gym. You know, I mean, like when you talk about “tribe and train”, they were organized on another level! And so and they’re political, they’re religious, they’re not low IQ niggers running around shooting each other with guns. They’re much more intelligent. They’re probably like averaging a 95 IQ, which is in that zone where they can organize effectively in very large numbers. The Africans can’t do that. So, if there’s societal collapse, if there’s a breakdown, you’ve got potentially tens of thousands of Muslim fighters as a fifth column in your country, that’s a way bigger threat than just like the chaos and anarchy of a hundred thousand Africans just in this city.

 

So I think some Americans probably do understand it. They might live in particular areas and they might be observing what happens in Europe and our situation is closer to Europe than it is to America’s.

 

[48:41]

 

 

Henrik Palgren: Right, exactly, exactly!

 

Thomas Sewell: Yeah. With the added factor of the Chinese and the Indians. So yeah, they’re obviously less militant, but they’re equally as organized at an economic level.

 

Henrik Palgren: Yeah, exactly! It’s a major problem. And they’re kind of there’s this alliance, as you said, between the, usually the Labor government, the Left-wing governments and the Muslim faction kind of thing.

 

So I’m very familiar with it now that’s played out in Sweden. It’s very detrimental and yeah, so basically it’s a multi-pronged attack. It’s Chinese, it’s Indians, it’s Muslims, it’s jews. It’s like everyone!

 

Thomas Sewell: Social cohesion. It’s social cohesion.

 

Henrik Palgren: Yeah.

 

Thomas Sewell: That’s what the so the government. I’ve never heard this word used so much in the last six months. It’s like they got the patch, like they got the software patch, they got the software update. Every media station, every politician on all sides, Liberal, Labor, all they talk about now is “social cohesion”. Every press conference, “social cohesion”.

 

Henrik Palgren: Interesting!

 

Thomas Sewell: Every arrest, social cohesion! Every law change they’re trying to make:

 

“We got to improve social cohesion!”

 

And you know when ASIO gets up on the TV, like Mike Burgess, when he gets up on the press releases:

 

“Social cohesion! Social cohesion! Social cohesion!”

 

It is the running meme of 2025 here in Australia is the government will not stop talking about social cohesion, which really is about public trust in the institutions, public trust in the government and the fact that we’re in a multipolar society, that guns or no guns, people are breaking away from each other and everyone is getting way more racist.

 

All people, all Whites, Indians, Muslims, Chinese people, we’re going into that mode where boundaries between suburbs are becoming more clear and White flight is becoming far more obvious. And, yeah, people are starting to stick to their own areas more, which in America you’ve probably had for a really long time. You’ve had probably that breakdown in social cohesion.

 

But here in Australia, we had this, like crazy salt and pepper multiculturalism where every suburb just had a light Dusting of high IQ, non-White people that we just stole from the Third World. But now we’ve got all the foot soldiers here. So now the social cohesion’s properly broken down now.

 

Henrik Palgren: Do you think they intend to actually use it in the way we use it, or did we have to integrate them, then better? Is that the kind of the, …

 

Thomas Sewell: No, they’re not even bothering with that’s the brilliant part of it. Their strategy is so ineffective, they’re not even bothering to talk about assimilation anymore. They gave up on assimilation about five years ago. I haven’t really heard that word used by any of the parties, except maybe One Nation. They’re probably the only one still trying to die on the hill of assimilation, which is good. I’m glad that there’s a controlled opposition in that area so that they can die on the hill of assimilation, because it won’t work.

 

Henrik Palgren: And that’s Pauline Hanson.

 

Thomas Sewell: Yeah, it’s Pauline Hanson.

 

Henrik Palgren: Okay.

 

Thomas Sewell: Yeah. So she’s gone from a pretty explicitly White nationalist position where it’s like her maiden speech, she said:

 

“Australia is being threatened by being flooded with Asians!”

 

And the whole mainstream media just mocked her. They didn’t argue against it. They just mocked her and said:

 

“That that’s insane! That’s ridiculous!”

 

And this is in 1996. And she was right. And now that she’s right, instead of doubling down on her position that Australia’s now flooded with Asians, she’s now got Asians and Indians in her party. And she’s saying:

 

“Oh, but these are assimilated. They’re assimilated Asians!”

 

And so she’s gone like, she’s doubling down on Civnattery and the assimilation method.

 

Whereas the Liberal Party and Labor Party. The Liberal Party has two factions. It has the Right-wing and Left-wing in it. So it’s meant to be a Right-wing party, but it’s actually been taken over by Left-wingers.

 

And I’m not just talking about the Overton Window shifting. It actually has had a coup, like an internal coup. And basically the Right-wing faction was more aligned with that One Nation rhetoric. Like they want to maintain the assimilation lie, whereas the Left-wing faction:

 

“No, that’s racist! You can’t say ‘assimilation’ because that implies that our culture is better than theirs. So they shouldn’t be assimilating into our culture.”

 

So that’s fucking awesome! That’s great news. I don’t want these people assimilating or attempting to assimilate.

 

Henrik Palgren: No.

 

Thomas Sewell: And the ones that have attempted are being outnumbered now by the ones that don’t even give a fuck and don’t have any respect for our culture and society. And so, yeah, social cohesion is at an all time low.

 

Yeah, that’s basically the situation in Australian politics. And now they’re calling for deportations, but they’re doing it in a very soft way. They basically want to try to just more of the same. They want to deport and block anti-semites coming in the country. And the rhetoric is not really around like anything like Donald Trump where he’s talking about people from shithole countries. That rhetoric is not on the menu here in Australia.

 

[53:42]

 

Henrik Palgren: Right. Yep. Nope. Exactly!

 

Thomas Sewell: Pauline Hanson’s broached it a little bit, but nowhere at the same level.

 

Henrik Palgren: Yeah.

 

Thomas Sewell: So basically the Right-wing in the United States or Donald Trump, like the MAGA camp is more Right-wing than the party that’s broken away from. Not to sound too complicated, [chuckling] but like One Nation has basically tripled in size in the last couple of years because the Liberal Party, after there was a Left-wing coup in it, is just in shambles.

 

And so I guess this leads into the next point which is about building up our party and the kind of support that we’re seeing.

 

Henrik Palgren: Exactly! No, I want to get into that. And guys, I’ll get to some of your chats and questions for Tom here too in a moment. I appreciate the support there too. We’ll get to that.

 

Just quick, regarding the gun there’s a couple of things in terms of the fallout here. I think you have the next election in 2028 and again, I’m not staring myself too blind on this, but it’s just an interesting dynamic in terms of like will the current government been able to push through then a couple of things when it comes to additional gun laws or maybe then restricting these, even these hunting license, you know, hunting licenses that they’re handing out right now! And what do you think will happen in regards to the hate this was one headline from GB News here:

 

“Racial Hatred laws must be tightened in the wake of Bondi beach massacre!”

 

So are these the two main things that the Labor Party will deal with, do you think?

 

Thomas Sewell: Yes. So Jack Eltis, the state leader [of NSN] for New South Wales, put out a very good post recently where he basically explained that it’s sad that the government is going to take away more rights of freedoms or privileges of the Australian population, but it’s ultimately a net positive in the sense that Australians do need to get shocked into reality. They need to wake up from their slumber and realize that no matter what happens, good, bad, indifferent, the result it’s going to be mutated into taking away their rights. That there’s never going to be a solution to deporting all these Muslims. There’s never going to be a solution to stopping the level of crime. Any law that’s passed is just going to affect you. And that these laws are constantly just, yeah, mutated to affect White Australians when White Australians are not the cause of the problem.

 

So I know a lot about gun laws in Australia because I used to be really interested in it as a subject prior to really dedicating myself to White nationalism. Really there’s not much they can do, there’s not much the government can do except hot air. What they will do if they want some sort of nominal victory is they will ban all the niche firearms that aren’t bolt action.

 

So at the moment in Australia we’ve got a whole bunch of firearms that kind of circumvent the law in the sense that they aren’t actually bolt action rifles, but you can get them on a Cat B license, which anyone can get if you join a hunting club, which is what this young Arab, this young half Indian Muslim dude did. He just joined, I think the Zavasta Hunting Club, which is like Serbian hunting club. It’s just connected to the Serbian community. Not that they’ve got any implication in this. That must have been his local hunting club. He joined that club, therefore he gets access to a Cat B.

 

But he didn’t use a strictly bolt action rifle in the attack. He used a straight, what’s called a “straight pull”, which, Beretta make one, I think Ticker makes one. There’s a whole bunch of gun companies that make niche rifles, but they’re always very expensive. A bolt action rifle in Australia would cost somewhere between six hundred and twelve hundred dollars. Like a decent one, or a half decent one. The straight pulls are usually the more bougie end of the market. Like two and a half, $3,000. Three and a half thousand dollars. So rifles are very expensive in Australia.

 

And what they would do to get a nominal victory is they would change the law and say:

 

“Straight pulls, they’re rapid fire bolt actions, they’re too fast! And we can’t let people get them!”

 

So that means the next terror attack will be like 20% slower, right? Instead of 15 people being killed, maybe 14 or 13 people will be killed.

 

Henrik Palgren: So just send more cops and the amount of kills will be the same. Or more female cops.

 

Thomas Sewell: Well, shit, one of the female cops almost killed just a random Arab on the bridge.

 

Henrik Palgren: Well, of course, [chuckling] yeah, yeah.

 

Thomas Sewell: So the death toll almost got higher! You know, insert the Sam Hyde clip. Fuck!

 

Yeah, they scare me genuinely, especially when they’re at the door.

 

But yeah, I’ve had a male cop tackle me like with his gun out. And I wasn’t in fear at all! I was just like:

 

“I’m not resisting, I’m not resisting!”

 

Like, I was just chill.

 

But when I see a female cop with a gun out, I freak out! I’m like:

 

“This is it. Hail Odin! Like it’s over. [chuckling] Yeah, take me!”

 

Henrik Palgren: Take you to Valhalla? Yeah, if a female cop shoots you, …

 

Thomas Sewell: The Valkyries have come to take me! Oh no. Because they’re just so scary, because they’re shaking and shit! Like they get the brief. Like:

 

“He’s a terrorist! He’s a maniac! Be on guard!”

 

Henrik Palgren: Yeah.

 

Thomas Sewell: And you say that to a woman with a gun before they’re like kicking your door. And fuck! It’s like they’re on speed. Like their pupils are so dilated its scary.

 

Henrik Palgren: Oh gosh!

 

Thomas Sewell: The look in their eyes is scary. Yeah, it’s like you can’t tell where they’re predator or prey. It’s a mixture of both. They’re prey with a gun. It’s crazy!

 

But anyway, I’ll stop with the “misogyny”, because it’s not the point of the stream.

 

[59:13]

 

 

Henrik Palgren: Let’s have some more. [chuckling] Come on! Okay. Yeah. So you know, again you have the Port Arthur massacre.

 

Thomas Sewell: You know that definitely is very suspicious!

 

Henrik Palgren: Yeah, I mean, undoubtedly. Right.

 

Thomas Sewell: There’s questions and it’s not because one’s a Muslim and one’s not. It’s not about that. The Port Arthur massacre is extremely suspicious and there’s a lot of good docos that have been made on it. An associate, I wouldn’t say an associate that might get him in trouble, but someone I’ve actually met before in the alternative sort of political space a decade ago, a guy called Paul Moder*, he actually made a documentary called Wasp on the Port Arthur massacre. And he spent about 10 years researching the Port Arthur massacre. And yeah, I won’t go into detail because I don’t want to do a conspiracy stream today, but it’s very obvious that what they’re telling us about that situation is just not true.

 

[* Film director and actor Paul Moder has embarked on a cinematic retelling of the Port Arthur Massacre, which goes into full production 2019, under the title of WASP. But unlike the current wave of “true crime”, Moder attempts to unpick the official version of events and create a rare piece of Australian revisionist-history cinema. Well before it’s made, WASP is already very controversial, but it continues a lineage of pessimism and historical revisionism that started in late 1960s with films like Blow Up, Parallax View and reaching crescendo with Oliver Stone’s JFK in 1991. https:// www.pureshitauscinema.com/interviews/moder.html]

 

Henrik Palgren: Yeah. And then end result of that, a lot of the guns were, it was a buyback program. Right. That happened after.

 

Thomas Sewell: So it’s a bit misunderstood. Even in Australia, most people don’t really know what happened. So John Howard* [former Aust PM] passed laws saying you can’t own semi-autos anymore, again unless you’ve got this special Cat C, Cat D license, whereas you used to get all firearms all on the same license.

 

[* John Winston Howard (born 26 July 1939) is an Australian former politician who served as the 25th prime minister of Australia from 1996 to 2007, holding office as leader of the Liberal Party of Australia. His eleven-year tenure as prime minister is the second-longest in Australian history, after that of Sir Robert Menzies. Since the death of Bob Hawke in 2019, Howard is the oldest living Australian former prime minister. Howard was born in Sydney and studied law at the University of Sydney. He was a commercial lawyer before entering Parliament.]

 

And I think some states, they didn’t even have licenses. I’ve heard stories of people, they could go into Kmart and buy a gun and like just buy it off the shelf and just take it on the train and go home with it. I’ve actually spoken to people in person that have said that they used to be able to, when they’re 18, they could walk down to the sports shop and buy a gun, get on a train, take the gun home on the train. No one would even blink an eye. And that was the Australia they grew up in. So some really similar to how America used to be. But after Port Arthur they changed the law so you can’t have semi-autos and they Instituted more licensing sort of schematics.

 

But what they did was they did it, they did a buyback program, but the stats of it are not publicly known. They’re publicly available, but they only got about 700,000 rifles in that first year. Obviously they got a few more later on, but they only got back about 700,000 rifles.

 

And I think 4% of the rifles they got back in the buyback were semi-autos. And to put that into context, 600,000 SKS is, were imported into the country in 1995 and 1996. So the year that the gun buyback happened, more SKS came into the country than SKS were handed over.

 

Henrik Palgren: Oh, interesting.

 

Thomas Sewell: Really any rifle that was handed over, almost.

 

So yeah, there’s a lot of law in this country about, there’s a whole generation of guys in their 70s and 80s that have all just got like crates of SKS is buried on their farms. Now, I’ve personally never seen it, I’ve never witnessed it, never touched one, never heard of one. They all got lost in fishing trips as far as, …

 

Henrik Palgren: Tragic boating accident!

 

Thomas Sewell: Yes, tragic boating accidents. I got no knowledge of anything like of the sort! But there’s a lot of like folklore about those hundreds of thousands of SKS that came in the country in 1996. As I said, only 4% of the 700,000 rifles that were handed back were semi-autos. And actually they’re not SKSs. They were actually SKKs.

 

So they’re like a Chinese SKS that could take AK magazines. And very occasionally there’ll be a shooting between like bikies and the cops. And you’ll see it’s full automatic fire coming out of one of these SKKs, shooting the helicopters or something crazy like that.

 

Henrik Palgren: So.

 

Thomas Sewell: Yeah, but again that’s all very old, like, …

 

Henrik Palgren: Yeah, right.

 

Thomas Sewell: It’ll be in the Cosmoline oil* or whatever in the crates in the ground and 99% of them be forgotten about if the bikies don’t get their hands on them. But the Arabs actually have AKs and Glocks, all these like organized crime groups. There’s a whole shipment of Glocks that went missing years ago.

 

[* Cosmoline is the genericized trademark for a common class of brown, wax-like petroleum-based corrosion inhibitors, typically conforming to United States, Military Standard MIL-C-11796C Class 3. They are viscous when freshly applied, have a slight fluorescence, and solidify over time with exposure to air. The main ingredient in cosmoline is aliphatic petroleum solvent, which is volatile and evaporates over time.]

 

There’s been two terrorist attacks on Australian soil in the past by Africans of all things. And they got AKs from the local mosque. So there’s a huge amount of illegal firearms to that have been imported in the country since 1996 that the Arabs and Muslims have control over. Because they’re involved with organized crime.

 

Henrik Palgren: Correct? Yeah.

 

Thomas Sewell: They control the vast majority of organized crime in Australia, similar to Sweden.

 

Henrik Palgren: Yep, that’s right. Exactly! Yeah. Guns came in. I figured it’d be a little bit more complicated with Australia being an island as opposed to the EU. You can basically just drive in with them from like some Balkan country or something.

 

[1:03:51]

 

Thomas Sewell: But they get them in the same way they get drugs and they just get them in on shipping container. If a whole bunch get caught, they don’t care. They can bring in a thousand at a time.

 

Henrik Palgren: Yeah, they’re the arming themselves and they’re being allowed to also. Yeah, I mean, let’s be honest. It’s a feature and not a bug, I think, to be honest.

 

Okay, so the next thing that we’re going. Yeah, okay, so Hate Speech laws. Anything else you want to say about that? What do you think? So they banned the swastika and the roman, you know, things like this. What’s next here? What do you think you’re looking at?

 

Thomas Sewell: It’ll just be more funding to this new task force they’ve built, the AFP, Australian Federal Police, which is basically trying to convert itself into the FBI.

 

So the Federal Police, my understanding of the Federal Police for the last couple decades has really focused on organized crime, has focused on importing and shipping like drugs into the country or guns into the country. It’s been focused on white-collar crime as well.

 

So really big frauders, really big scammers, kind of Wall Street crime, white-collar crime, people stealing money that work at banks. I know there was some young guys that got done with some sort of banking fraud scheme. And that’s all AFP. The state police don’t handle a lot of that. More expertise crime. That’s really what the feds have been doing for a long time. And what they’re converting the Federal Police into is. And it’s very clever the way the government do it. They basically have control of the budget. And so they’ll say:

 

“Hey, we’re giving this much money to the Federal Police. Oh you’ve got less funding now. You’ve got to shut down some of your departments.”

 

And so they shut down these departments and then like they do the budget and then the next year they go:

 

“Oh, actually you’re getting 500 million more than last year!”

 

And then it’s like:

 

“Oh, and here are the new departments that we recommend you set up.”

 

So there’s an article that came out today. So when the ASIO director general, Mike Burgess*, came into position in charge of ASIO, back in 2019, they fired 10 of the most senior, kind of staff of ASIO, And they would have done the same thing. They would have said:

 

“Oh, we don’t have money. You know, we’re too top heavy. We’re too top heavy! It’s a boys club at the top and they’re all on a good salary and we got to save money. We’re too top heavy!”

 

[* Michael Paul Burgess is an Australian intelligence official, and the current Director-General of Security in charge of the Australian Security Intelligence Organization (ASIO). Prior to his appointment to this role on 16 September 2019, Burgess was director-general of the Australian Signals Directorate (ASD). Burgess was born in England, and immigrated to Adelaide, South Australia in 1973 at the age of seven. He was the first member of his family to study in higher education, receiving a degree in electrical engineering from the South Australian Institute of Technology in 1988.]

 

That’s what they’re doing. They’re trying to do that with defense at the moment. But really it’s always a coup. And it’s known in the Australian inner circle as being “The Red Wedding”. That’s what they called it. It’s like the Red Wedding where they basically couped and they killed off, they retired, they forced retired like 10 of the most senior counter terrorist experts at ASIO. That were probably like racist Right-wingers that were like they’re the post 9/11 intelligence people* that are like:

 

“Yep, let’s catch these Muslims!”

 

And they got rid of those guys. And that was around the time this Bondi shooter was being investigated by ASIO, So what you have is then you had the Brennan Tarrant incident [in New Zealand] happen. You had the top 10 senior staff of ASIO getting fired.

 

[* Who would well know that 9/11 was a ZOG false flag engineered from Israel. See ALSO LINKS below.]

 

And then you have the new funding come in after they’re getting fired. And that new funding came in, and 40% of their budget now is Right-wing extremism. And the budget for these state police forces, Federal Police forces and ASIO varies anywhere from 40 to 70% of their budget of their task force, of their manpower. Really, that’s what it means, is dedicated to anti-semitism from the Right-wing perspective, as opposed to from the Muslim perspective or just terrorism from a Right-wing perspective, as a set of terrorism from a Muslim perspective.

 

And so what we would be looking at is more funding to these task force. So that would mean more offices, that would mean a bigger budget, that would mean more raids, that would mean more intimidation, that would mean more charges are going to get laid.

 

And so it just means that people just got to be more, I guess, sensitive with their rhetoric. There are things that I have said in the past, back in 2018, 2019, that I, after those reforms came in, there’s no way I would say them in 2022, 2023.

 

And likewise, there are things that I’ve said online, 2023 that I just simply would not say today. And it’s not because I’m a, it’s not because I’m fucking optics cucking and:

 

“Oh, I’m a moderate now. Now we’ve got mainstream coverage and we’re a household name now I’m changing my rhetoric and betraying my base!”

 

It’s like, no, it’s just that I don’t want to go to jail for two years for fucking saying the wrong thing on the Internet. I’m okay with going to jail for a couple months for punching people in the head. That’s cool. But I’m not okay with going to jail for two, … Like what’s happening to Joel [Davis] right now? I mean, what did he say? “Rhetorical rape”?

 

Henrik Palgren: Right.

 

Thomas Sewell: That’s crazy! And he’s done like two months now, so he’s done almost as much time, … He’s got a bailout coming up on the 23rd, so that’ll be what, a month in jail or more? It’d be almost six weeks in jail!

 

Henrik Palgren: Have you spoken to him recently?

 

[1:08:45]

 

 

Thomas Sewell: No, I haven’t because he has to call me. So it takes a long time to get names and numbers added to the callers. So I haven’t received a phone call from him unfortunately. But I expect one soon. But I’ve spoken obviously with the lawyer and there’s obviously confidentiality so he can’t go into detail, but he can pass on regards and tell me about his general well being.

 

So yeah, I have spoken to people that have spoken to him. But yeah, he seems to be doing okay. He’s just frustrated. And as you would be.

 

Henrik Palgren: Yeah, he missed his birth of his son, I believe.

 

Thomas Sewell: Yeah. His first child.

 

Henrik Palgren: And they’ve been going after his girlfriend as well. Some headlines out, right?

 

Thomas Sewell: Yes.

 

Henrik Palgren: Are you in contact with anyone else around him and how they’re dealing with it, the situation?

 

Thomas Sewell: Yeah, my missus and his missus are in contact. Obviously she needs a bit of space with everything that’s going on. But you know, she’s reached out and yeah, we’re in contact with her. She’s got a little bit of support in Sydney from some of the partners over there and also her family are quite supportive.

 

So yeah, it’s disgusting that that journalist that went and harassed her. I think it was like two or three days after she gave birth where she’s putting nappies in the bin and they’ve got a private investigator out the front taking photos of her. That same journalist came to my family, my in law’s house and twisted words that my family said through a fly screen door.

 

And they also went to Matthew Gruter’s house as well and Matthew Gruter’s wife had just given birth as well. I think they had a two week old baby. And yeah, when they went to my family, my in-laws house, we’ve got a brand new baby as well. Like we’re not brand new but like a six month old baby and a toddler. And they’re attacking, they’re coming after the women, they’re coming after our wives and you know, it’s obviously abhorrent. But and it’s radicalizing, it’s really radicalizing. You know the expression:

 

“You don’t hate journalists enough!”

 

And this is a classic example of it. Like imagine the mentality that a journalist would have to go:

 

“Oh, this woman’s just given birth.”

 

Because they know, they know the details because it was mentioned in court that she was due within a week. And so imagine going:

 

“Oh, she’s due within a week. Let’s cause as much stress and harm and cortisol to her as possible!”

 

Henrik Palgren: Yeah.

 

Thomas Sewell: And put her in the news and put her in the media either while she’s just about to have birth or give birth or she’s just had the process.

 

And anyone that knows anything about childbirth, labor, postpartum, they know that that’s the most absolutely critical time for a woman to balance her hormones and to not have any unnecessary stress. It’s when they need the most amount of sort of oxytocin. They just need love, they need cuddles. Like usual, but on another level, women need just cuddles in general.

 

Henrik Palgren: Yeah.

 

Thomas Sewell: But they really just need cuddles and support before, during and after that whole process. And these journalists would know that they would know that. She’s a woman, she would know that. But these people are evil and they’re possessed by demons and the demons attack the vulnerable. They attack the weak and the vulnerable and they attack women. They attack women when they’re at their most vulnerable. I mean my missus didn’t get attacked like any day of the week while I wasn’t in jail. But she’s getting harassed and attacked by journalists when I’m in jail. So when she’s alone. So they come after you when you’re alone. They come after you when you’re vulnerable. They come after you when you’ve just given birth, you can barely walk because, you’re still recovering.

 

I mean, yeah. What we’re going to do to these journalists when we take power in a legal and lawful manner is going to be like, I’ve got experience with how the system has treated me over the years for being a political dissident. And yeah, these people are really silly! Like the way they’re behaving, they don’t know who they’re messing with. They just don’t know who they’re messing with! They don’t realize that we have really long memories and we are never going to forgive them! Ever! So keep going, see what happens! I mean they may as well keep doubling down because they’re already going to get the worst! [chuckling] Like the worst thing I can think of is what’s going to happen to these journalists, to do this to Joel’s missus and by default to Joel. But Joel’s fine, he’ll be right. But to do this to his partner is just disgusting!

 

Henrik Palgren: Yeah, media has always been a fifth column, right? Always an operative for the state, an additional element or something that you can use in your war, in your effort to target someone who is an undesirable to the system, essentially. Right.

 

So yeah, it’s absolutely disgusting!

 

Okay, so yes, tell us and then we’ll get to some questions here too, guys. We appreciate you get a bunch of questions to get to, and comments.

 

But yeah, the party then. So tell us about how these ideas formulated and the fact that you were at a point here, like the legal process in Australia makes it fairly easy as far as I understand it. And I’m sure there’s hoops you have to jump through as always. But in terms of actually registering it and even the possibility of getting a seat in a county, I’m not sure if you call a county down there, but explain this to us a little bit.

 

[1:14:22]

 

Thomas Sewell: Okay. Well, from the start, Australia has two houses. It has what’s called an Upper House and a Lower House. Our Upper House is a Senate and you get elected based off the, a larger, … How to explain it?

 

So you can get Senators in quite easily if you broadly get a vote across the state. So even though it’s a federal election, you might only need somewhere between 1 and 10% of the state to vote for you. And again, it’s not a straightforward, it’s not an exact percentage that you need. Some people get 7% of the vote and they don’t get a Senator. Some people get 2% of the vote and they get a Senator. It’s all about preferencing schemes and deals and there’s a lot of dodgy stuff that goes on in the Australian system, which should all be eradicated, but we just have to work with what we’ve got.

 

But if you get say 10% of the vote, you’re almost guaranteed to get a Senate seat, and that’s 10% of the vote, regardless of where they are living in that state. And then each state, I think has, I don’t know, I think there’s like 49. No, there’d be more than 49. I think it’s 75 Senators in total, something like that. And they’re spread out across the state at a federal level.

 

But then you have the Lower House, which are called MPs or it’s the House of Representatives and you have to actually win the majority of the vote within what you would call a county. We call it an electorate.

 

And so the state is broken down into say, I think 49 electorates and or it actually depends. I think it’s 120,000 people per electorate, roughly. Some are 100,000, some 140,000, but roughly it’s 120,000 people or 120,000 voters, one or the other. And you have to win 51% or 50.1% of the vote to get that seat. Now you don’t have to win 50% of the primary vote, you have to do these preferencing schemes with all these other parties, because we’re not a two party system like in America where it’s Republican or Democrat. The Labor Party might get 34% of the vote, then the Green Party might get 8% of the vote, that makes 42. And then as long as their coalition is bigger than the coalition of the Liberals, then they get the seat.

 

So there’s like, I don’t know, 200 MPs across the country and 75 Senators, something like that, or those aren’t exact numbers. Just go on Wikipedia and you can find out exactly! But what’s important to know is that we have these two different houses. Kind of like how you’ve got Congressmen and Senators and kind of like how in the UK they’ve got the House of Lords and then they’ve got the ministers, or, sorry, not the ministers, the MPs.

 

So we have MPs and we have Senators and they’re different, they’re elected on different bases. Now we’re not really going to contest the Lower House. Even though there’s more seats available, those seats are much harder to get because you need to actually be the dominant political force in that area, which if you’re not in the major parties, is almost impossible.

 

For example, the Green Party in Australia is the third biggest party in Australia and they have 11 Senators or 10 Senators. And I think they only have one MP. And that could have been from a defection. I don’t know if actually. No, it might have been an actual victory in the Lower House.

 

So that’s basically all the MP seats are controlled by the Liberal Party and Labor Party, the two big parties. They’ve got like a monopoly on the Lower House, duopoly, or jewopoly.

 

And then the Senate is actually more diverse. It’s got all the micro parties in it. It’s got One Nation’s got four or five seats. The Greens have got 10 seats. There’s all these niche parties with one or two seats. So they have a lot more power in the Senate. And how that works is the Lower House passes bills. So they’ll say we want to introduce new legislation or we want to introduce new laws. And they’ll draft it up, they’ll write it up. They have to make their deals in the Lower House to get the Bill to pass through the Lower House, which is where the Prime Minister is. We don’t have a president. So the Prime Minister doesn’t have any executive power at passing bills. His executive powers come from his cabinet.

 

So it’s more about the management of the country. That’s where his power comes from. He can’t manage the Lower House. He’s just the Prime Minister. He’s the prime speaker in the Lower House. He doesn’t have like, I don’t believe he has any veto ability. If he does, someone in the chat correct me, but I don’t believe the Prime Minister has any vetoing ability. There’s all sorts of niche crazy laws. Because we’ve got like the British Parliament system, we’re basically operating a British Parliament that’s slightly modified. So there’s a Speaker of the House and there’s a Leader of the House, all sorts of stuff going on.

 

But the general rule is that once the Bill passes through the Lower House, it then has to go to the Upper House, which is the Senators, and then has to be passed through the Upper House as well.

 

So if we can get guys in the Senate, we can block bills that are bad for White Australians and we can agree to bills that are good for White Australians. And we can quite easily in the next one or three between one and three election cycles. So between three to nine years from now, we can quite easily, quite easily, hold the balance in the Senate!

 

Henrik Palgren: Interesting!

 

Thomas Sewell: So what that, what that would mean is we might only need five seats in the Senate and we could quite easily swing, … A lot of these bills. They can be swung by one or two votes in the Senate. So it might pass easily through the Lower House, but then it gets the Senate, it won’t get through the Senate. So we can block some bad stuff coming through. And obviously that can then tie in with our general political strategy.

 

Obviously, we don’t believe that there’s a pure Parliamentary solution. Obviously, we’re working in so many different ways to build parallel society and parallel function in this country.

 

And obviously the meta-political shift and the cultural shift that we’re trying to make, which is our primary concern is getting Australians to identify as White people. The problem is that they don’t identify as White people. Well, they’re starting to. And that’s where we’re seeing our success, is they’re starting to identify as White people again, which is how it was. And we need to get back.

 

And what we’re seeing with this Bondi thing, for example, is for the first time ever, in the “most successful multicultural” country in the world, we’re seeing actually a lot of mainstream criticizm of multiculturalism. So multiculturalism is like the golden calf in Australia. They worship it. They absolutely worship it! Multiculturalism is the replacement to the White Australia Policy.

 

So for the first, no one’s allowed to criticize multiculturalism. If you criticize it, you have to criticize it in a way that:

 

“Oh, they’re not assimilating enough! Of course I support multiculturalism, but I just want a better version of multiculturalism.”

 

You know, I mean that’s the only way that people really criticize multiculturalism in Parliament, within the political realm. But what we’re finally seeing now is genuine criticizm and a grassroots dislike of multiculturalism in Australia. But there’s not one political party that’s against multiculturalism. We’re the only one.

 

So can we get 5% of the vote? Can we get 10? Can we get 20? Can we get 30? I don’t know. I don’t have the answer to that at this stage. Time will tell, and we’ll see how bad the country gets and how radical and how racialized politics becomes. But we are succeeding in what we’re doing. We have about double the amount of people that are signed up to support us. However, only half of those people are signed up to actually go on the registrar, which is a private form with the AEC. It’s not the government. The AEC is a third party that is obviously a government institution, but it’s a unique third party that has never leaked data of membership lists.

 

Henrik Palgren: So this would be the first! No, I’m just joking! Because it would, …

 

[1:22:10]

 

 

Thomas Sewell: It would be the first time. Well, how they doxed the One Nation list back in 1998 or 1999, but they didn’t dox it from the AEC. The AEC didn’t have a breach of privacy. They’re a professional institution. They’re civn ats mostly, but they’re professional institution, and they’re a patriotic institution in that sense. But the way that the list of One Nation members got leaked was by jews in the party. Jews in the party leaked it!

 

So they had, there were jews in the party that had access to the list and they leaked it to their friends that didn’t like the party. Whereas we don’t have any jews in our party.

 

Henrik Palgren: First time in history!

 

Thomas Sewell: There’s only about four people in the organization. Maybe a fifth. Yeah, there’s four or five people that have access to the list. I am one of them, obviously.

 

But yeah, it’s held in the absolute tightest of circles. There’s some state leaders that don’t even have access to the list. If they asked for it, we would give it to them. I would let any state leader see the list.

 

But yeah, it’s a very, it’s a secret document. I mean, ASIO would probably be able to see the list because they could probably hack into our computers. But look, what are they going to do with it? What are ASIO going to do with it?

 

Henrik Palgren: No, sure. No, I get the point. I’m just saying, …

 

Thomas Sewell: The fact is there’s 3400 people on the list, so I wouldn’t be concerned. So there’s some Australians:

 

“I don’t want to sign up to the party because then ASIO is going to know I exist!”

 

It’s like, look, you’re probably already on a list from being racist on Facebook and liking The Noticer. You know [chuckling] what I mean?

 

Like if you follow particular pages on Facebook, you’re probably already on their list. I guess you would just be on a maybe a different list.

 

But again, I’ve said this for years. It’s strength in numbers. It’s strength in numbers. And we share the risk. We share the risk. When there’s 10,000 names on the list, which maybe in a year or two there will be, what matters? Why does it matter if you’re one of ten thousand? I mean, if you’re one of ten thousand, what’s going to happen to you? The police, I mean, how much resources they’re going to have to harass? The way the police harass us is they prioritize who’s most important to harass. So they harass the leadership. 90% of our membership have never been harassed by the police. They’ve had no issues with the police.

 

Henrik Palgren: Yeah.

 

Thomas Sewell: And I mean, that’s membership of our activist core. I’m not talking about membership of the party. I’m saying 90% of our activists because we’re so big now, the vast majority have never even been tested. So only the kind of guys that have been around four or five years have really any experience with repeated harassment from the police.

 

So, yeah, I would say that’s the party website. Well, that’s the org website. Obviously, the party is a part of the org. We’re looking at putting forward our four big policies in January next year.

 

[1:24:54]

 

So we just had a series of seminars where we covered our four policies. They’re not on the website yet. I’ve copped a little bit of criticizm for that, but it will be up on the website soon. We’re just polishing them. We had a seminar last weekend across all the States except New South Wales because they’re preparing for nationals. Where we covered, we had one speaker per policy. And the four policies are simple.

 

We want the White Australia Policy to be reinstated, meaning we don’t want Australia to be a multicultural country anymore, we don’t want it to be a multiracial country anymore. And we want to start reversing the demographic avalanche of White people and start going back the other way and making Australia more White. And with the ultimate goal of making it entirely White.

 

And obviously that is going to involve a combination of mass deportations and also re-migration strategies. So we’d be looking at changing a whole number of laws. Is that going to happen anytime soon? No, but what we can do is start moving things in the right direction by taking a little bit of state control. So our biggest priority is protecting our demographics.

 

And so if we can protect the demographics of this country then all the other sort of Weimar conditions are fixable. You know, demographics are well not permanent. But demographics are destiny obviously. And that’s really our priority as a party. That’s why it’s policy number one is just protecting White Australia, protecting our demographics. And not just protecting it, but advancing our demographics. So we’ve gone from 99% White to about 66% White or 67% White in a period of around 50 years. So what we want to look at doing over the next 50 years or less, ideally a lot less, ideally over the next 10 years. But I’m realistic, it might take a bit more than 10 years. We want to look at going back up towards 99% and beyond.

 

Policy number two is called “End Debt Slavery”. So we’re going to ban obviously in the same principle as the White Australia Policy, the first principle of End Debt Slavery is we’re going to ban interest on family home loans.

 

So we’re going to guarantee every single Australian family an interest free home loan. They’ll get money lent to them by the State bank. So we’re going to take back the state bank.

 

So we had a state bank in Australia called the Commonwealth Bank. It’s since been privatized in 1996 and it’s worth, I don’t know, something like $1.3 trillion. And we’re going to take back ownership of the state bank and we’re going to use the state bank, the Commonwealth bank, to lend money to young families that are married, that are White Australians and they’re going to get interest free loans to buy houses.

 

And that’s how we’re going to fix the housing crisis is we’re going to deport millions of non-Whites which is going to massively free up the market. And then White Australians that want to buy a home or White Australians that currently have a home, all the interest is going to be wiped off the principal. So any new loan will be no interest. And any current loan, not only will you not pay interest going forward, but also any interest you have paid is going to be refunded to you off your principal.

 

So a lot of people are going to have their homes basically instantly paid off because most people have already paid more than their homes worth in interest. If they’re like Gen-X’s for example, if they’re more in the older sort of family bracket, they’ve got teenage kids and stuff, a lot of these people have already paid off their homes in interest alone. So that’s policy number two.

 

Policy number three is we’re going to do something called a “New Magna Carta”, or a Bill of Rights. We’re going to create an Australian Bill of Rights. Australia doesn’t have a Bill of Rights. So policy three is we’re going to introduce a series of rights and duties, a series of freedoms that we think are fundamental to being Australian and members of Western civilization, members of the White race. And we’re going to introduce these things in order to curtail the ever increasing Police State we live in and the powers of the tyranny of the government. So we want to reduce government power and increase citizen power.

 

So that’s things like a First Amendment. So like free speech, we don’t have that in our constitution. We have an implied right and that’s not good enough, because it’s being twisted and turned. We need to have a really explicit principle so that we get rid of all this hate speech legislation and all this religious vilification legislation. We want to get rid of all of that and give Australians the right to freedom of speech. And the right to criticize the government, even criticize us as much as we’re, you know, authoritarians, we’ll cop fair criticizm, obviously.

 

Other principles include, we want to do like a maximum 10% income tax. We want to include gun rights, but we’re going to be very tactful for how we include gun rights. So I want to do the Swiss model personally. I’m flexible and I’m open minded to how we could implement a Second Amendment in Australia.

 

[1:29:48]

 

Bu I want to do it in the Swiss model. Meaning you would do a national service at a high school. You would get issued a firearm during your national service and then you would retain that military style semi-automatic rifle or fully automatic rifle, but you would maintain that rifle as you would never be a civilian again. You would do your national service and that would make you a citizen. Kind of Starship Troopers kind of Fascism 101.

 

But it’s also just Athenian. It’s an Athenian model. It’s actually the foundation of democracy in some ways, the citizen soldier.

 

So that’s how we would look at implementing it. It wouldn’t be a strict Second Amendment the way you guys have it in Australia [America], because we need a lot of cultural change. We need, I think a few generations or at least one generation to breathe. To fix a lot of these issues. We don’t want to just have like guns galore just overnight without those kind of cultural changes.

 

And then policy four is re-industrialization. So that’s pretty simple. It’s really about taking back our infrastructure. Australia being an economic powerhouse again. Not just getting stripped of all its natural resources and being sent off to the developing world. We want to build all of our stuff here again. We want to build cars here again. We want to build ships here again. We’re an island. We should have a massive shipping capacity. We’re so reliant on trade. We should be a naval superpower. We should be we’re already a resource superpower. We have all the raw materials to do it. We need to re-industrialize.

 

We need to invest, take control of the RBA, the Reserve Bank of Australia, take control of the Commonwealth bank and do some serious, serious economy building in a completely different direction using high tech manufacturing and reclaim our economic autarky, or at least a large percentage of it.

 

So those are the four policies that’s what we’re putting forward.

 

Obviously there’s a lot of things mixed in amongst that you know, people talk about education Reform and you know, getting rid of multiculturalism will do a lot of what we want for education reform.

 

Henrik Palgren: Right.

 

Thomas Sewell: There’s a lot to take in. No, obviously everyone needs to visualize that.

 

So the website, we’re going to have nice little graphics made up and there’ll be a little write up of each policy. And when you check the website out at some point, either late, probably not late January, probably February, but the policies will be announced soon. And I assume the website will be very neat and tidy by February with the policies.

 

Henrik Palgren: Very good. Nice. Holden, was that the car the Australia used to produce?

 

Thomas Sewell: Yeah, [chuckling] right. Yeah, we made Fords as well. Fords and Holden, Yeah.

 

Henrik Palgren: Like a version of Ford Australia, right?

 

Thomas Sewell: Kind of yeah. And Holden’s just General Motors.

 

Henrik Palgren: Oh, okay, I see. Did you have any like native cars that you actually like?

 

Thomas Sewell: Holden is the native brand that was eventually owned by General Motors.

 

Henrik Palgren: We’re gonna have an Aryan future Tom. They’re gonna be flying cars. Okay!

 

Thomas Sewell: Oh, there’s gonna be all. Look, I’m not gonna go too much into policy four because it’s a bottomless pit of what we can do.

 

Henrik Palgren: Powered by vril!

 

Thomas Sewell: We’re gonna do the craziest shit! We’re gonna do stuff no one’s ever seen before. We’re gonna terraform Australia. We’re gonna actually terraform it.

 

Henrik Palgren: There you go.

 

Thomas Sewell: We’re gonna do crazy shit! We’re gonna do inland lake, high speed rail, flying cars, …

 

Henrik Palgren: That’s the spirit! That’s the spirit right there!

 

Thomas Sewell: It’s gonna be vriltastic!

 

Henrik Palgren: Vriltastic. I just want to play this.

 

Thomas Sewell: We’re gonna give Australia a sense of purpose again. It’s not just about race and it’s not removing the slavery.

 

Henrik Palgren: Yeah.

 

Thomas Sewell: White Australians without debt or without interest still have a demoralized attitude. What we’re trying to do is raise that spirit. It’s about a spiritual revival.

 

And I think part of that, because I’m not too big at talking about economics, although I’ve studied it a fair bit in my own time, but where economics is important is that most people, 99% of men need to go to work Monday to Friday. They need to. It’s a big part of their identity. It’s a big part of their purpose. And where most White men are lacking in purpose is not just from a racial perspective and not just from a demoralization in terms of the culture and the media and the movies they’re watching and the music they’re listening to. And the way that they’re being completely subverted at an economic level. It’s also when they go to work, what are they doing? Like, I worked in the construction industry for about five years, almost six years. And you go to work and you’re building what we call Jeet boxes. A Jeet box is these fucking shitty little townhouses with like all these different multi-roofs on them. They’re just the dumb. This is the dumbest fucking architecture style you ever see in your life! It’s the most ineffective, inefficient way to build a house you could possibly imagine. And it’s a dog box with no room on it, no backyard. The roofs are all touching each other, so they’re a separate dwelling, but not really. And it’s just so demoralizing just putting a roof on something like that. It just feels disgusting!

 

And then one day a month, you get a contract, or a cashy or something, and it’s some guy on a farm and he’s got 200 acres and he needs a new roof on his shed. And you go out, you drive an extra hour and a half to go to this guy’s farm. And you put the roof on the shed and you have a beer with the boys afterwards. And you just look at each other and you just say:

 

“What if every day was like this? What if every day was like this? Like, how good did today feel?”

 

Like the weather could have been awful! It doesn’t matter. And it just feels so good to just be on some land and just to build something and then and you can have a relationship with the guy you’re building it for. Like the farmer comes out of his house, he’s like:

 

“How you going boys? You know, you wanna iced coffee or something? I’ll get the Mrs to make you one.”

 

And like you, after work you can sit back and you can chat a bit and then you get in the car and you drive home.

 

[1:36:24]

 

 

But when you’re in these jeet boxes, like the dust and the muck and Indians are coming out of their house next to you and oh, it’s just so demoralizing. It’s just, why am I doing this? Why am I building this disgusting, ugly, grotty filth for these people to just replace me? So we want to bring back the Australian dream. Not just in the:

 

“Oh, I’ve got a nice house and I’ve got a nice backyard and I’ve got a golden retriever and a white picket fence.”

 

It’s not just about getting it back in that sense. It’s, well, what are you doing to get it? So we want to completely revolutionize the economy in a way that people actually feel a sense of pride, going to work again. Which I think Australians and Americans and Europeans, they probably had that 50 years ago.

 

Henrik Palgren: Yeah, I think you’re right. Absolutely! Yeah. I wanted to play this clip here and I’m going to take some of the comments and questions from the audience watching here. But Robert Menzies, he was the 12th Prime Minister of Australia. He served from 1939-41 and then his second term from 46. Was that all the way to his retirement in 1966? Did he serve that long? Do you remember? Was that long? Or it must have been interrupted.

 

Anyway, it doesn’t matter. I want to play a clip with him. That’s the point on the White Australia Policy. Right. So listen to this here. I’m sure you’ve seen the clip, but let’s play it for the audience here.

 

Stewart Lamb: Do you believe that the White, the so-called “White Australia” policy will always be a stumbling block?

 

Sir Robert Menzies: I don’t think it’s such a stumbling block as people pretend, but that it’s important for us, I haven’t the slightest doubt!

Stewart Lamb: That we should maintain it the way it is?

Sir Robert Menzies: As long as we possibly can we ought to aim at having a homogeneous population!

I don’t want to see reproduced in Australia the kind of problem they have in South Africa, or in America, or increasingly in Great Britain. I think it’s been a very good policy and it’s been of great value to us.

And most of the criticizm of it that I’ve ever heard doesn’t come from these oriental countries. It comes from (((wandering Australians))).

Stewart Lamb: For these views of course, in the past, Sir Robert, you have been described as a racist.

Sir Robert Menzies: Have I?

Stewart Lamb: I have read this, yes.

Sir Robert Menzies: Well, if I were not described as a racist, I’d be the only public man who hasn’t been! That’s one of these jargons, isn’t it? One of these modern words, you call a man a “racist”.

 

[END]

 

All right, what do you make of that? That’s how it used to be. Right? So this was like an idea. This is what I’m saying. What you’re proposing here is not some new radical thing. This is just basically going back to what the intention of the country was to begin with and the people running it.

 

Thomas Sewell: Yes. I really. A little bit of a red herring, but I really like the way he describes jews as “wandering Australians”.

 

Henrik Palgren: I figured that’s what it was! [chuckling]

 

Thomas Sewell: Yeah. That was a dog whistle back in the day. Yeah. You know:

 

“We don’t get this kind of criticizm from the Orientals. We get this kind of criticizm from the wandering Australians.”

 

Henrik Palgren: Exactly!

 

Thomas Sewell: Same thing as Nixon, because this is around the same time as Nixon. This is where you’ve got the conservative Right in power and back in the 60s, and they’re starting to realize that the jewish problem is what’s trying to destroy the nation. And it’s very clear from day dot that the jewish community here in Australia and obviously in America and Britain have been working fervently hard to dismantle the homogeneous White population and turn it into Babylon, so that they can hide in the mess that they make and they can hide their crimes. And yeah, as you said, that is how Australia was.

 

Another thing that’s interesting is how much the accent has changed. I obviously don’t have a pure Australian accent. I’m referred to a lot as a South African, but I’m actually not a South African. I have extended family in South Africa, but my accent is because my parents are both English.

 

So you can actually tell from these old politicians. Australians actually spoke with more of an English accent. They were more connected to the mother country in that sense. And the accent has definitely degraded, I think. And it’s more, it’s too ocka now. It’s become more and more uncouth. I know that I can’t really talk much. Also there was an increase of, there was just so much English immigration into Australia. So that would have maintained the properness of the English accent.

 

[1:40:08]

 

But yeah, what can you say about that? What I see as a statesman, we used to have statesmen in charge of the country. If I was living in 1966, would I have agreed with Menzies? Probably not. There probably would have been someone more racist than Menzies. I probably would have been like:

 

“Menzies a cuck!”

 

Or whatever [chuckling] the 1966 version of that was. Like:

 

“Menzies is too soft on the (((wandering Australian))). We need a, we need a more strict approach to the wandering Australian question!”

 

But yeah, it’s definitely obvious that Canada, Australia, even America to a large degree. There’s a lot of infrastructure, sort of rhetorical infrastructure in the founding of our nations. And you can find it.

 

I mean, I did a speech, a 45 minute speech on the weekend and I mentioned in the speech I had a legal friend who’s looked through the Constitution very thoroughly. The founding father of Australia or the first prime minister of Australia, Edmund Barton. Someone was arguing with him while they were drafting the Constitution in 1898. So it came out in 1901, but they spent about three years drafting it. And in 1898 he had an argument with another politician and they were asking about:

 

“Why have you put this race, this specific race power law in?”

 

And the first Prime Minister of Australia said:

 

“Basically we need a race power law because we need to be able to mass deport non-Whites when we don’t want them.”

 

And he didn’t even use the term “non-Whites”. He basically said:

 

“Inferior people and races, inferior and colored races. We should be able to deport them as a whole, when we don’t need them.”

 

So like if we need them to pick sugarcane, for example, like the way that you had blacks picking cotton, we had Pacific Islanders picking sugarcane in Queensland. The idea was before Federation we had, I can’t remember what they call them. “Coolies” [refers to Chinese workers], I think, or Kanakas*, I think they had a slur for them.

 

[* Plantation owners in Queensland had experienced difficulty in hiring laborers for their plantations, especially for the pay rates that were being offered. It was said that this situation was hindering the economic viability of those rural businesses. Many pastoralists had used convicts as laborers, but when the transportation of convicts to New South Wales ended in 1840, this meant that the plantation owners lost a major source of cheap labor. The lack of cheap labor for cotton and sugar plantations in Queensland led to the advent of Kanaka immigration. Kanakas (as laborers from the Pacific Islands were called) were imported in large numbers to work in Australia (especially in Queensland, but also in northern New South Wales). The term “Kanaka” means “man” or “person” in the Hawaiian language. Souce: Https:// www. Australianculture.org/the-white-Australia-policy-kanakas /]

 

But they had these Pacific islanders come in and pick sugarcane and they wanted to make sure there was legislation that if they brought in a thousand of them, they picked the sugar cane and then they could force them on a boat to go home when it was done, so that they could keep Australia White. And he won the argument and they put it in the Constitution. So in the Australian constitution, there’s a race power law where we can just mass deport people on the basis of their race.

 

Henrik Palgren: All right!

 

Thomas Sewell: That’s the kind of country. Yeah. So we’re doing well here. We’re doing well here.

 

Henrik Palgren: Nice.

 

Thomas Sewell: So I’m very excited. I’m very excited. We’re breath of fresh air for the political system. The Australian people are begging! They’re begging for a real Right-wing party. And we’re getting a lot of support. And we have a lot of people come down to our seminars, our political meetings, and say:

 

“Hey, look, I’ve been a Liberal Party member my whole life. I’ve gone to Liberal Party meetings my whole life and I’ve never seen anything like this. I’m so glad to see proud, patriotic Australians!”

 

And the feedback has just been amazing! The feedback, especially the older generation, like all the Boomers coming down, just saying thank, like basically just:

 

“Thank you, finally we’re seeing men that are just red blooded!”

 

And I’ve haven’t been to a Liberal Party meeting in a really long time. But I’ve had friends go and some of our members get paid to go to Liberal Party meetings [chuckling] because they got to fill seats. And the young guys that don’t have jobs, they’re like:

 

“All right, I’ll take the 100 bucks.”

 

And it’s that embarrassing, the Liberal Party at the moment. But they just report back and they just say:

 

“It’s just old people that are dying, that are just like falling asleep. And the people speaking are just homosexuals!”

 

It’s just homosexuals and girl bosses and that’s it. And they just useless rhetoric. And it’s just uninspiring. It’s just boring. And it’s just a freight train just running out of steam basically.

 

Henrik Palgren: Yep.

 

Thomas Sewell: And that’s the system. It’s just a freight train running out of steam. They’ve got the momentum of decades and decades of organizing behind them.

 

Henrik Palgren: Yep.

 

Thomas Sewell: And I mean, the parties are shrinking. The political parties here in Australia have never been so small. I think the Liberal Party has gone from like 60,000 members a decade ago to like, I think they’re barely getting 20,000 now. And I mean, just in the last election cycle, I think they’ve gone from 30,000 to 20,000 just in one election cycle.

 

Henrik Palgren: It’s fascinating! So, like, everyone’s checking out, but like the bureaucracy, the paperwork, the same. The scum that have the motivation, I guess, just to kind of get into that dirty world and keep it going. That’s what just is causing it to move on for now.

 

Thomas Sewell: We haven’t even put policies on our website yet and we’re already tracking to be the sixth biggest party in Australia out of the like 100 parties that are in Australia.

 

Henrik Palgren: That’d be hilarious!

 

[1:45:04]

 

Thomas Sewell: So the hype is real. The hype is real! Like a lot of people are hyping it online. And I don’t want people thinking like:

 

“Oh, we’re gonna have Prime Minister Thomas Sewell!”

 

That’s not likely. I want to make it clear that’s not likely at all! The chance of that is probably 1%. It’d have to be really happening for something like that to happen. It’d be like Ron Paul would have a meltdown. It’d be that kind of happening.

 

Henrik Palgren: And as we know, nothing ever happens.

 

Thomas Sewell: Until it happens. Nothing ever happens until it happens. And then one day it happens!

 

Henrik Palgren: Let me ask you this, Tom, though, because obviously you will be, as you know, and I’m sure you’ve thought about this too, you will be dealt with or treated on a totally different level. I mean, you would potentially see for the democratic system to defend itself, it would basically unravel the very definitions and guardrails that makes it being able to term itself as a democracy. I would reckon. What do you expect the pushback will be? And the way they will just say:

 

“No, you can’t do that!”

 

Right?

 

Thomas Sewell: Just empty words. Just empty words. I think there’s probably less than a 10% chance they’ll be able to block us. I’m very confident it’s all going to go ahead. The black pillers need to be gassed! All the black pillers, just gas them!

 

Henrik Palgren: Oh, no! And I’m not. When I bring, …

 

Thomas Sewell: I’m not saying you’re black pilling.

 

Henrik Palgren: Sure. Yeah.

 

Thomas Sewell: What I’m saying is there’s people online, I see comments every now and then where it’s like:

 

“They’re just gonna shut them down and make it illegal! And they’re all gonna go to jail!”

 

And it’s like, shut up! You’re either a jew or you’ve got your dick taped between your legs. Like, it’s just the most disgusting, demoralized, weak kind of energy. It’s so anti-Australian. Australians, we’re on a frontier we’re the frontier of the world and we’re surrounded on all sides by non-Whites. We’ve got a very harsh landscape, you know, we’ve allegedly got all these animals that try to kill us and to be like. And to be like:

 

“Oh, the government’s gonna shut us down, we can’t do anything!”

 

Is just the most weak cunt energy, like just fuck off! Go live somewhere else. This land is not built for weak cunts! This is hard cunt territory here and we don’t tolerate that shit! And those people, a lot of the time I think that they’re just jews. I think a lot of the time it’s just jews trying to sow fear in people that support us. The chances of the government blocking us is very low because they don’t have the framework to do it. They would have to nuke the whole system to do it. And are they prepared to do that? I don’t think they got the balls. I mean, you’ve got some rogue, really rogue politicians like Christopher Minns, who’s the New South Wales premier, saying that:

 

“He’s going to block the party and we’re not going to let this party come to power. And we’re going to dox all the members!”

 

And the AEC came out and made a statement saying:

 

“You can’t do that.”

 

And you’ve got like all these other Senators and all these other political leaders coming out and saying:

 

“Well, actually, we can’t do that. We have to let them. If they follow the rules, we have to let them.”

 

So it’s just basically kevtching like a bunch of losers. And it’s good. The more they kevtch, the better because it shows that they’re afraid and it doesn’t pass the pub test. And the average Aussie sees that on the news and goes:

 

“What? You want to ban this party? Why?”

 

And then they go on the website and they’re like:

 

“Oh, cool, I get all the interest paid off my mortgage and there’s less Indians. Fuck, that actually sounds all right!”

 

What we’re doing is really controversial from the concept that the country’s being destroyed by people that hate it! But it’s not controversial to the average Aussie, it really passes the pub test. And the idea that they want to ban it. The way the Australian psyche works is very clear. If the government wants to ban something, the average Aussie has this rebellious nature where they go:

 

“Why? Why does the government want to ban that?”

 

And they’ll look into it.

 

Henrik Palgren: Well, and that was my point, right? Bring it up. It’s a win-win regardless, right? It will expose the system or you actually have a foot in through the door. And either way it’s a plus.

 

Thomas Sewell: We’re inevitable no matter what our strategy is. And we’ve got insurance policies, we’re not putting all our eggs in this one basket. But we see it as part of a matrix of power. And you can’t just build a political party. You have to build everything. It’s all about the back end. A political party is just, it’s not a front, but a political party it’s just the presence of power.

 

[1:49:50]

 

 

The real power of the Labor Party, for example, is not the Labor Party. It’s all the trade unions they control and all the non-White community groups that have all as a bloc joined the Labor Party, as a mosque, as a church, as a Chinese community center, as a, whatever it is.

 

Again, going back to the Liberal Party, whenever there is an influx of members in the Liberal Party because they just, every year they’re getting less and less and less members. But one branch might have an extra 200 members this year compared to last year. And how did that happen? How did that happen? How have they got 200 extra members? Well, we might have a friend, or a colleague or an associate that is, on paper, a member of that branch so that they can keep an eye on it. And they’ll tell us, they’ll report back to me and they’ll say:

 

“Oh, yep, some rich Chinese businessman just joined the party. He made a deal with the people that run that branch and he just got 200 of his laborers to sign up at the party.”

 

So he just signs up all the people that work for him and says:

 

“You have to do this. You work for me. You have to do this.”

 

Because they’re Chinese, they’ll just be like:

 

“Yes, sir.”

 

And they do it.

 

Henrik Palgren: Yeah. Yep, Correct.

 

Thomas Sewell: And that’s the only way the Liberal Party or the Labor Party are getting these massive influxes. It’s just like rich Chinese or rich Indian businessmen or community leaders. The Chinese operate primarily through business, so they don’t have community leaders the way the Indians and the Muslims do, or the jews do. Well, the jews have both, obviously. They have business leaders and they have community leaders. But the Chinese, because they don’t have a religion and because they can’t organize as the, CCP, they organize as a front for the CCP, which is through CCP business here in Australia.

 

Henrik Palgren: Yep. Correct.

 

Thomas Sewell: And they bring in all their workers, they get their workers PR [Permanent Residency], then they get their workers citizenship, and then they start becoming a voting bloc.

 

Henrik Palgren: All right.

 

Thomas Sewell: The hype is real! The Whites are leaving the major parties in droves, and the major parties are only retaining their numbers through the influx of browns.

 

And that’s why multiculturalism is their death rattle. That’s why they won’t ever give it up, because it’s the only way they can maintain their party.

 

So we’re forcing the dialectic. We’re heightening the contradictions. Everything that we’re doing is tactical. Everything we’re doing is strategic. And people for years have been saying:

 

“Oh, they’re wignats, they’re dumb, they don’t know what they’re doing. You got to join the Republican Party and you’ve got to subvert it from the inside.”

 

It’s like, these people are not creative thinkers and they’re not high IQ and they’re not morally courageous. The way you change the demographic destiny of the country is you have to schism the forces. And you have to put your flag up high. You have to raise the banner high! That’s the song. That’s the song! We’ve got the song, the Banner High!

 

Henrik Palgren: Yeah.

 

Thomas Sewell: You know, you got to raise the flag high and you got to say:

 

“Hello! Hello! We’re the Whites! We’re doing the White people thing!”

 

Henrik Palgren: It’s time.

 

Thomas Sewell: Yeah. In America, that’s really hard! But it’s hard becauseyou guys haven’t laid the framework over the last 50 years, and we haven’t either. In Australia, we’re only picking this up. Well, there has been some that have tried, and obviously in America, people have tried, but we have built the meta-political energy that can be converted, or a portion of it can be converted into contesting a system that’s not a duopoly. You know, we’ve got that European style politics, but it wasn’t always like that. 20, 30 years ago we had the American style politics. The Greens were like 1% of the vote and that was like the third biggest party. Like you had the Australian Christians and you had like the Nationals, but the Nationals formed a coalition with the Liberals and then they became known as the Coalition.

 

And so you had like 95 plus percent of the vote in two parties. Now it’s like 70 or less. So it’s moving more and more into that European style and you have to just do the framework. So you just have to do the groundwork, you have to do the legwork.

 

Henrik Palgren: What I like about it is that it’s a different approach to it. Right. And you’re seeing that elsewhere too, that with numbers comes power and you build something else first as opposed to doing like, here’s a new political, well, who’s going to join a new political party, kind of thing. Right?

 

Thomas Sewell: Yeah, what caliber of people as well.

 

Henrik Palgren: Well, yeah.

 

Thomas Sewell: How do you put a hierarchy?

 

Henrik Palgren: Exactly!

 

Thomas Sewell: Because there’s so much to do. I mean, yeah, we have a lot of people joining the party now that want to tell us what to do and they don’t want to be part of the organization.

 

So now we’re in a situation where we’re dealing with, well, how are we going to constitutionally frame the party and the organization together? Because there are a lot of people that are looking at the party and going:

 

“Holy shit! This could work!”

 

This not necessarily work in terms of take over the country, but this could become the third biggest party in the country quite quickly, or at least the fourth biggest party in the country quite quickly. This could be the Right-wing’s alternative to the Greens. And we could see One Nation form a coalition with the Liberal Party. But what we’re seeing is so much fracturing on the Right. We’re seeing a real contender on the Right coming out from the hardest possible position and they’re going:

 

“I’m going to get in this early.”

 

But they don’t want to be involved with the community. They don’t want to do the activism, they don’t want to do the push ups in the park, but they might have a good understanding of policy.

 

[1:55:14]

 

 

And so what we’re dealing with at the moment is having that conversation with these people and say:

 

“Hey, look, we’ll take your feedback. You can help advise us.”

 

I mean, depending on their skills, depending on what they are. But if you want to be a decision maker in the party, you have to join the order. And that’s rattling their minds a little bit because they’re used to:

 

“Oh, I joined the Liberal Party and I became the branch leader of the Liberal Party because I won a popularity contest.”

 

Or they join One Nation and same thing:

 

“Oh, I’ve joined this political party and I did this and I joined that political party. I did this.”

 

And then they’re joining our political party and then it doesn’t work like that.

 

And so that’s where we’re trying to balance democracy, which is an innate instinct of the public. They want to have a voice. They want to be involved and engaged in the process. But yeah, but at the same time, we’re a hierarchy. We’re building an order of men that are committed to fixing the country. And you have to be part of that order of men if you want to be within the leadership of the political party, or if you want to run as a candidate, for example.

 

Henrik Palgren: Very good.

 

All right, let me take some of these questions and comments here. Albert, first out the gates. Thank you so much, Albert. Huge dono. He says:

 

“Hi, Henrik. Looking forward to tonight show. Thomas Sewell is always one of my favorite guests. Especially looking forward to hearing his take on the Bondi beach shooting. Great show yesterday too. Take care.”

 

Thank you so much, Albert. We appreciate you so much. Thank you for your incredible support. Derek Rance, good to see you as well. Derek says:

 

“Thanks in advance for the show. It sounds like they are preparing Canada for the next extreme event to tighten the laws here.”

 

I’m sure they are. Good to see you, Derek, as always. Dercherso says:

 

“Good episode, good guest and good takes.”

 

Thank you, dear. Shabir, Gustav says:

 

“Hi Henrik. Finally able to catch the show live for change. Very impressive by Sewell.”

 

Yeah, we all are. Very good:

 

“Keep fighting the good fight, both of you.”

 

Thank you. Archie:

 

“Fascinating information. I missed the beginning. White power!”

 

Well, there you go. Thank you, Archie. Appreciate it. We got Alcion as well. Good to see you. Says:

 

“Happy to see Tom again. My question, Tom, so many of us around the world respect you tremendously and are taking notes from your group’s success. Do you think world jewery is hitting you especially hard because they understand your significance not just nationally, but globally?”

 

And he ends with:

 

“Hail Volk. Hail Red Ice and hail White Australia!”

 

Comments?

 

Thomas Sewell: World jewry has already done 99% of what it can do to us. And so now it’s got one left, one thing left to do to us. And I’m not sure if it’s prepared to do that one last thing. So there’s nothing more that it can do. I don’t have a bank account. I go into the bank, I can’t set one up. Yeah, I’ve been locked in solitary confinement. I’ve been framed, I’ve been imprisoned. You know, I’ve had unjust treatment through the courts. What else?

 

I mean, I’ve lost all the jobs. I can only work for friends now. The only work I can get is from people that are connected to our community, which is why building community is so important. You can’t just run away and hide from doxing for the rest of your life:

 

“I just don’t want to get doxed! I just don’t want to get doxed!”

 

That’s not a solution to the problem. That’s not even a band aid. That’s not even a band aid! Conflict avoidance doesn’t solve the problem.

 

The only way to solve the problem is insular communities, whether that’s big or small. Ideally, the bigger, the better. The bigger it is actually the more protected it is.

 

But we need to have communities. If you only know people on the Internet, you don’t even know their name. You’ve never even met their wife, you don’t even know what they do for work. Because people so worried about getting doxed, like everything’s hush hush, everything’s secret, like that’s the psyop! Not doxing yourself!

 

I mean, what more can the jews do other than kill me or try to kill me? I don’t know. There’s nothing more that they can do. There’s simply nothing that they haven’t already tried and failed. That they cannot stop what is coming. They cannot stop our determination, our will from triumphing. So well, it’s just assassination. That’s all they’ve got left.

 

So, Valhalla, here I come! I don’t care! I’m gonna keep going.

 

Henrik Palgren: Well, yeah, I mean that’s the spirit you have to have, undoubtedly. And again it’s this is not gonna just go away. These sentiments, this mentality, the problems we’re faced with here and the reality of the situation is not just going to kind of morph into something else tomorrow on the Internet, because that’s a hip new topic to be into or something. I mean, this is not going away.

 

So, yeah, I’m with you. I think this is an inevitable trajectory for, again, I’m not saying the majority of White people, but a substantial enough portion of White people in order to make some real changes and clawing back control of our nations once again. I think it’s going to happen, you know, undoubtedly.

 

[2:00:12]

 

Thomas Sewell: I think it’s intergenerational as well. I think that in Australia this is the first time we’ve probably had an intergenerational movement here in Australia, which shows you how far behind we are from Europe. What I’m talking about is we’ve got the first generation of 18 year olds coming through now whose dads are members of the organization or have been for a long time. You know, so that is kind of embarrassing that it took to the year 2025 to have that.

 

I mean, the Muslims don’t have that issue. Like any Muslim you meet on the street. I’m pretty sure their dads are Muslim. I’m pretty sure their granddads are Muslim. I’m pretty sure their great granddad’s a Muslim. I’m pretty sure they’ve been organizing politically as Muslims for their entire existence.

 

Henrik Palgren: Yep.

 

Thomas Sewell: So as White people, we need to have intergenerational White nationalism. That’s the only way we’re going to survive.

 

So we’re finally seeing that now here in Australia. And there’s a lot of power in that. We’ve got young guys that are being brought up in the community and the government fears it, like the government at the moment, the thing that they were talking about the most on the media about us in the lead up to Bondi, before the Bondi thing happened, other than imprisoning me and imprisoning Joel Davis, was the home-schooling network. They are petrified at our home-schooling network! And we don’t even have much of a home-schooling network. It’s just in its infancy. Literally, it’s in its infancy. We’ve mostly got toddlers because most of the men in the organization are young men and we’ve only just started having kids in the last five years. So, we don’t even really have a proper home-schooling network set up. We’re just going with it. We can’t even send our kids to kindergarten anyway because you have to be vaccinated in Australia to send your kid to kindergarten.

 

Henrik Palgren: Yeah.

 

Thomas Sewell: It’s a matter of necessity. It’s not just a matter of choice. It’s like even if we wanted to send our kids to kindergarten hypothetically, we actually legally can’t. We’d have to forge documents because our children are not allowed to go to kindergarten.

 

Henrik Palgren: Insane! Yeah. Homeschooling is banned in Sweden. Germany too.

 

Thomas Sewell: Of course.

 

Henrik Palgren: So no option. Incredible! Mr. Marsh Wood says:

 

“Hey, Tom, just want to say thank you for all what you guys are doing. I had a great time at the Victoria seminar and hope to attend more.”

 

He says. Do you have any comments? This was a local, for White Australia, the organization. That’s where you had the Victoria seminar?

 

Thomas Sewell: Yeah, we had it in Melbourne. So all the capital cities except for Sydney, New South Wales, had a seminar last weekend. So we’re syncing everything up and we released the policies for the first time on Saturday.

 

Henrik Palgren: Nice. Awesome! Based rat 1488 says:

 

“Hey, Tom, these conspiracy theories are opening the light to show that the jews are at fault for this attack either way, for funding the Australian government to spread multiculturalism in Australia. BR.”

 

Not sure if you have any comments on that.

 

Thomas Sewell: Yeah, sure. Of course the jews are behind multiculturalism in Australia. Yes. But I don’t think anyone in the media are talking about that. Like we are talking about it in our circles. But that’s very insulated.

 

And also you have to think tactically about it. You know, you can bring up that point. You can certainly approach that point. It could be considered a good time to approach that point. But the primary thing I believe that the movement needs to focus on when there’s a terror attack by Muslims against predominantly jews at Bondi beach, the primary point we need to come at it is that we don’t want either of these people here, that we want a sovereign country and that multiculturalism and the government are at fault. And yeah, I’m an anti-semite. I’m one of the most outspoken anti-semites in the fucking world! And I’m saying:

 

“Hey, guys, tactically it would be smart if we pile pressure on the government at this point. Like not to give away the tactic. But you gotta join the dog pile.”

 

Everyone’s attacking the government and for the right reasons or sometimes the wrong reasons. But, it’s not just all about, hey, let’s dogpile the jews while they’re being fucking shot. It’s like, look, there’s a time and a place to dogpile the jews, but it’s probably tactically smarter to dogpile the government when the jews are getting shot.

 

Henrik Palgren: Yes. About working with the energy, right? It’s like:

 

“No, no, it’s not the Muslims fault!”

 

You know, I’ve seen that too.

 

And that’s the thing with the:

 

“Well, that’s a false flag. The Manchester bombing was this or that.”

 

Thomas Sewell: These people have never met a Muslim!

 

Henrik Palgren: Right.

 

Thomas Sewell: Anyone that’s met a Muslim. Look, I don’t know any Muslims. I’m living quite insular at the moment. But because I’m not allowed to go to a commercial gym. I get banned from every commercial gym I go to, but I don’t care! We’ve got our own gyms, but sometimes I like training at like proper fight gyms. But like some of the boys train at proper fight gyms and they’re saying to me that when it happened, all the Muslims at the fight gym are just like:

 

“Inshallah, brother, more dead jews. This is awesome!”

 

Just like openly in front of Aussies, in front of like multiculturalism. Like they don’t give a fuck l like the Muslims don’t give a fuck! All right. So they say:

 

“Oh this guy’s not a real Muslim!”

 

It’s like:

 

“Nah, you don’t understand where we’re at. It’s not 2000 fucking, … It’s not 1995 anymore. Like those days are fucking gone! It’s fucking race war! Everyone knows it.”

 

 

[2:05:46]

 

Henrik Palgren: That’s right. Ghost Dogman says:

 

“Thomas is a great field expert on the Great War on Whites. I hope to see more from him on Red Ice TV. Free Joel!”

 

That’s right, Ghost Dogman. Thank you. J.C. Henderson, 94 says simply:

 

“Heil Red Ice. Heil Sewell. Thanks for doing what you’re doing.”

 

Well, thank you. Brian. 7316 says:

 

“Hi, and it’s great to see Tom on Red Ice again. He’s an Aussie hero. Like the Sewell’s charge against Antifa. Smiley face.”

 

There you go. Exactly! Very nice. Protector podcast:

 

“Hey Tom, I’m 15 year old from Australia that has been getting really into nationalism and National Socialism. I can’t join the NSN. I’m pretty. I’m a pretty tall and fit guy, at what age can I join?”

 

He’s asking you.

 

Thomas Sewell: As a general rule, we don’t accept applicants under the age of 16. Just as a general rule. Yeah, so.

 

Henrik Palgren: So you have to wait one year. Might just have to wait a year.

 

Thomas Sewell: Yeah. And even then between 16 and 18, we’re pretty discriminatory just because we don’t want to risk having someone join under the age of 18 that is a fucking, is an idiot! You know what I mean? We’ve had a lot of issues with people joining and not being honest to their parents.

 

And so we really only accept applicants under 18 now that have a good relationship with their parents. Because what we’ve got now is a whole state infrastructure set up where parents can now basically rat their children to the Stasi. And then it basically the parents can sign away their kid’s life to the government. So you know how like all that shit with like Britney Spears and how her dad like controlled her?

 

Henrik Palgren: Yeah, unfortunately I do remember that. Yeah, yeah.

 

Thomas Sewell: Do you remember all that garbage? Yeah, it’s like it’s got a name to it. I can’t remember what the word is. But basically, if you’re under 18 and you join the Org and your parents are like full blown, like normgroid retards, they can basically call the government and be like:

 

“My son has joined NSN! He’s doing boxing at the park. Is he gonna be a terrorist?”

 

And then like a hysterical retard. And then basically the cops, then you’re just like chilling at home playing Minecraft or Roblox. And then the fucking feds rock up at your house and your parents let them in and then they come into your bedroom, they take your computer, they take your phone, they sit you down for like four hours and abuse you and tell you that you’re being brainwashed by maniacs:

 

“They’re gonna strap bombs to your chest and have you run at Muslims and have them blown up!”

 

And like just the most insane shit! Like some of these young lads that have had this, had to go through this, they’ve recorded the conversation. So I know what these piggies are saying to 16 year olds and how insane they are.

 

And I’ve listened to the most insane conversations where these piggies are saying like just the craziest shit to try to like brainwash these kids. They’re doing exactly what they’re accusing us of doing! They’re literally brainwashing these kids into believing the most insane shit, and then to make it even worse, your parents then sign off and you’ve got to do a de-radicalization course, which means you have a government friend now that comes and buys you KFC once a week and talks to you about your feelings for the next like year and a half. And you just don’t want to go through that! If you don’t have sick cunt parents, just fucking do your push ups, get a trade, finish high school, talk to your mates about this stuff. You know what I mean? And be careful how you talk to your mates about the stuff. Because a lot of guys that have reached out to the org, that aren’t in the org but have reached out and said:

 

“Hey, I’ve been forced to this DeRad thing, do I have to do it?”

 

And we say:

 

“Oh, what happened? Like, we’ve never heard of you. How are you on a DeRad thing?”

 

And they’ve said:

 

“Oh, I was talking about the Holocaust in class. And some kid in my class told the teacher and the teacher called the government and now I’ve got a government friend.”

 

And it’s like:

 

“Fuck dude, like, you got to be careful!”

 

But [chuckling] like, the Zoomers aren’t careful. They say crazy shit at school and they don’t realize that the teachers are trained to inform on them, if they say anything remotely like nationalistic. So you got to be very careful if you’re a young guy.

 

But if your parents. Look, if your dad is willing to meet with myself or whoever the state leader is or whoever the region rep is, if your dad’s willing to meet with us, then yes, you can join at whatever age.

 

Henrik Palgren: Okay.

 

Thomas Sewell: But it’s basically like parental permission because, …

 

Henrik Palgren: Right.

 

Thomas Sewell: We just can’t be fucked dealing with the government.

 

Henrik Palgren: Like, sure.

 

Thomas Sewell: It’s a joke!

 

Henrik Palgren: Yep. All right.

 

[2:10:32]

 

Thomas Sewell: You can go to Drag Queen Story Hour, of course. Yeah, that’s fine. You can’t join the Nazi boxing club. We will strap a bomb to your chest, apparently, according to police, because that’s happened.

 

Henrik Palgren: I think that answered your second follow up, that Protector podcast too, in terms of what you can do to get involved more in that space.

 

Thomas Sewell: Yeah, talk to your dad. Tell your dad why you want to join and go from there.

 

Henrik Palgren: Yeah.

 

Thomas Sewell: And if your dad’s cool with it. What a lot of the dads say to us, because we do have a lot of people under the age of 18 involved and what a lot of the dads say to us is:

 

“I just don’t want them doing activism.”

 

And we say:

 

“That’s cool! Activism isn’t compulsory. It’s not compulsory. He can come and train, but, yeah, he’s not allowed to do activism.”

 

Henrik Palgren: Very good. Canadian Girl Rumble says:

 

“Much love and support from Canada. Hail Sewell and the NSN!”

 

Thank you, Canadian Girl Rumble. Aussie autist 88, says:

 

“Preferred meal, butter chicken or tikka masala?”

 

Thomas Sewell: Butter chicken. [chuckling]

 

Henrik Palgren: Butter chicken. There you go.

 

Thomas Sewell: They’re all going home. [chuckling] But we got the recipe!

 

Henrik Palgren: We got the recipe.

 

Thomas Sewell: Butter chicken is actually an ancient Aryan dish.

 

Henrik Palgren: Probably. Of course it is. Indo Aryan Oziotis again says:

 

“Our faggot ministers have zero vision. Zero vril. They are all so sterile and impotent. The vision of White Australia will go far!”

 

There you go. Thor’s Rune. Yeah, go ahead.

 

Thomas Sewell: Preach racist, preach!

 

Henrik Palgren: There you go.

 

Henrik Palgren: Thor’s Rune:

 

“Great discussion, great points laid out by Thomas. Standing strong for his nation and our people. Activism is no easy task in a politically hostile environment. Hail from SoCal!”

 

Southern California. Holy smokes. Get out of there if you can. Anyway, my condolences, but thank you, Thorstroom. Appreciate that. But the Bearded Indian says:

 

“Why do you think the Muslim retreated to the bridge instead of charging towards the crowds of targets?”

 

Well, he was on a vantage point. It was up high, obviously, so that was his best view, I would assume. What do you think?

 

Thomas Sewell: Yeah, same reason.

 

Henrik Palgren: All right.

 

Thomas Sewell: They could cover each other from there.

 

Henrik Palgren: Yeah, because his dad. Didn’t his dad have a shotgun? He was like the one who’s going to take care of there’s someone that’s approaching the son. The main shooter. That’s what he looked like to me anyway, But I’m not sure.

 

Thomas Sewell: Yeah, and also the dad was fat and slow.

 

Henrik Palgren: Yep.

 

Thomas Sewell: So it’s just common sense. But anyway, what a silly question. Bearded Indian usually has good questions.

 

Henrik Palgren: Aussie autistic says:

 

“Hail Odin. Hail victory! Enjoy the solstice. Have a good Yuletide.”

 

Well, thank you. Exactly! That’s coming up here soon. The 21st.

 

Thomas Sewell: You’ve got midsummer this year.

 

Henrik Palgren: Yeah, that’s right. You get Midsummer.

 

Thomas Sewell: Yeah.

 

Henrik Palgren: So do you celebrate it upside down, too? Is that how you do it?

 

Thomas Sewell: We do, yeah. We hang out from the, …

 

Henrik Palgren: The Hanged Man.

 

Thomas Sewell: We hang from the trees.

 

Henrik Palgren: Odin.

 

Thomas Sewell: Yeah, The Upside Down.

 

Henrik Palgren: Nine nights. Yeah.

 

Thomas Sewell: I sacrificed myself to myself.

 

Henrik Palgren: One eye patch when Randall Flag says:

 

“Thomas, Australia’s elite are primarily composed of old mining clans. From what I hear, they are the biggest turncoats who sold off your mines to the CCP. How do you propose on retaking your resources?”

 

Interesting question.

 

Thomas Sewell: At bayonet point!

 

Henrik Palgren: What?

 

Thomas Sewell: At bayonet point.

 

Henrik Palgren: Oh, there we go. Okay, well that explains it.

 

Thomas Sewell: Yeah. So many people ask me:

 

“How are you going to do this? How are you going to do that?”

 

We’re just going to do it.

 

Henrik Palgren: Interesting small things to hone in on. But I mean, it’s not small, I guess.

 

Thomas Sewell: But yeah, we’re just going to do it.

 

Henrik Palgren: If there’s a will, I guess. Okay, we got one.

 

Thomas Sewell: The how we’re gonna do it? Well, when we’re close to it.

 

Henrik Palgren: Yeah, well, who knows?

 

Thomas Sewell: If you need to know, if you’re part of it, we’ll tell you, will be part of it.

 

Henrik Palgren: You will find out. How about that?

 

Thomas Sewell: There’s so many spectators. Imagine going down to the football match and you’re a spectator and you’re in the crowd. There’s like 10,000 people in the crowd and you’re just shouting at the coach:

 

“How are you gonna get that touchdown? How are you gonna do it?”

 

Henrik Palgren: It’s impossible!

 

Thomas Sewell: It’s like:

 

“Shut up!”

 

You want to join the team? I’ll teach you. Join the team and I’ll teach you how we’re going to do it.

 

Henrik Palgren: That’s right. That’s a good answer.

 

Thomas Sewell: Sitting on the sideline:

 

“How are you going to do this?”

 

All right, we get why democracy is really gay.

 

Henrik Palgren: Well, yeah, it’s, …

 

Thomas Sewell: Everyone wants a voice but no one wants to do the work. Everyone wants a voice, but no one wants to do it. The way it says, “rights without duties”, that’s the primary issue. So democracy that we’re going to build is “rights and duties”. You’ll get lots of rights, but you got to do the duties! You got to put your time in on the gun. They’re not inalienable:

 

“I’m born so therefore, hahaha, I get everything!”

 

It’s like:

 

“Yeah, that’s how Rome collapsed.”

 

Because that just creates a fat, weak, retarded society. Look what happened to the Romans. They were born with the privilege of being a Roman citizen. They didn’t have to work for it anymore. They have to fight for it! They didn’t have to do any duty. They forgot their own religion, everything. It just deteriorated them, because they forgot how to just put in the work for the race.

 

[2:15:35]

 

 

Henrik Palgren: Yeah, it’s so hard, right? You get success breeds complacency and comfort. And then out of that it’s so hard to motivate the younger people and the kids specifically, obviously, that grow up in that. Right. They have the abundance, the affluence. It’s extremely hard. Right?

 

Thomas Sewell: Someone asked me:

 

“How are we going to take back the Commonwealth Bank?”

 

Henrik Palgren: Is [chuckling] that the priority?

 

Thomas Sewell: No, but we’re going to do it. We are going to do it. That’s part of policy too. It’s like we’re just going to take ownership of it:

 

“What do you mean, but how are you going to do it?”

 

We’re just going to do it.

 

Henrik Palgren: Trust the plan. All right, how about that?

 

Thomas Sewell: What do you want? You want me to write like a 300 page essay on, like, how we’re going to manage all the branches?

 

Henrik Palgren: Needed in writing Tom. Right now!

 

Thomas Sewell: How did they sell it? Did the guy that sold it off, did he write a 300 page? He probably did. Knowing democracy.

 

Henrik Palgren: Legalese wise. Yes.

 

Thomas Sewell: Yeah, they just sold it to their mates. They just got rid of it. They just sold it to their mates. They just had friends. And now it’s 1.3 trillion in the private sector and it was a state asset. They just gave it to their mates.

 

Henrik Palgren: Yep. Of course!

 

Thomas Sewell: We’re just going to take it back!

 

Henrik Palgren: When do they do that by the way?

 

Thomas Sewell: 1996.

 

Henrik Palgren: 96, okay, interesting.

 

Thomas Sewell: They just gave it to their mates. That’s what they did. They gave it to their mates. They gave it to their jewish mates.

 

Henrik Palgren: Of course. Okay, we got one more here. Alufaltruda, if I say that correctly:

 

“What would you say to men who want to participate in the inner activism part of White Australia but aren’t yet physically fit? Would you allow fat guys or twigs to join the park training?”

 

Thomas Sewell: Yeah, we have fat guys and skinny guys at training. Yeah, we do. Like the fitness testing is not:

 

“Hey, you can’t hang out with us, associate with us or train with us if you don’t pass this testing.”

 

That’s not how the testing works. The testing works is we’ve got a hierarchy where you don’t become an official member. There’s like a process where you go through like an initiation phase, like the bikies would call it, like a prospecting phase, like at work it might be called a trainee phase. You go through your apprenticeship, you go through like a trainee phase where you do six months and then you get promoted and you do another six months and you get promoted. But at those promotions you have to meet certain fitness standards.

 

So there’s some guys that have been in the org three years and they haven’t been promoted because they have never worked on their fitness. They just come once a month, they hang out, they stand at the barbecue, they have a cigarette and you know what I mean, it’s like they’re a minority. They’re in the minority. There’s only a couple guys that do that it’s not a good culture if there was a whole bunch doing it. But when it’s just a couple guys coming down, they can keep an eye on things. They can do a bit of security, they can check license plates, they can help with the vetting. You know, they can be part of other operations that not everyone has to train.

 

But again, it is what it is. Different horses. We got Sausage Turners we got security guards, we got all sorts of people.

 

Henrik Palgren: All right, the Bearded Indian has a second go here. I guess he must do a better question.

 

Thomas Sewell: Let’s go round two.

 

Henrik Palgren: NSN must publicize the shit out of this. Every politician who promoted diversity is responsible for the mass murder. Job for the clippers to tether those politicians face together.

 

Thomas Sewell: Yeah, absolutely! Yeah. Now the online warfare is really important. And I mean the politicians, their reaction, I mean Burke, Marles and Albo, they are shaking! They are shaking in their boots. You can hear it in their voice. They got gay lisps. I mean, it is embarrassing!

 

I mean, there’s one video. You got to play it quickly. You got to play it quickly. I’ll find it, I’ll send it. I’ll DM it to you.

 

Henrik Palgren: Okay.

 

Thomas Sewell: You’ve got to play this video. Oh, it is embarrassing!

 

Henrik Palgren: I’ll take the other one here.

 

Thomas Sewell: This is Australia’s Defense Minister.

 

Henrik Palgren: Find that there.

 

Thomas Sewell: I found it. I found it.

 

Henrik Palgren: Okay, yeah, send it to me. I’ll pull it up here.

 

Thomas Sewell: Check your DMs. You got to play this video.

 

Henrik Palgren: Oh, it’s through. Okay, let me save that down real quick there then. We’ll get that one.

 

Of course I got some, the Rumble channel up in the meantime here as well. Well, I download that for White Australia. You guys are obviously on the main website. There is WhiteAustralia.org or simply WhiteAus. I think you can go to as well, dot org to get to the website.

 

[2:19:54]

 

Thomas Sewell: They both redirect. There’s a whole bunch of things that redirect to White Australia.org.

 

Henrik Palgren: Okay, here we go. Let’s see if that downloaded here. I’m going to import that down properly. Doesn’t seem like it hopefully works. No file format. Oh, it’s still downloading. It’s slow as hell! Okay. Also in the meantime that. Well, I’m just waiting for that. Just be a couple of seconds. There’s a Telegram page obviously for White Australia as well. Then you have your personal one. Tom Sewell uncensored on Telegram. Any other social media links website where people can, …

 

Thomas Sewell: I got a Gab. Thomas underscore Sewell. But I just don’t use it. I need to, but I just keep forgetting. But Gab feels pretty dead lately. I don’t know. We’re banned from Twitter.

 

Next year I’m gonna try to get on Twitter and Instagram and just see how long I last. But we’re going to launch the policy parties first. I’ve got a list of priorities and then I’m going to just do like I’m going to spam videos and social media stuff and if I get a week, I’ll be really happy.

 

Henrik Palgren: Okay, here’s the clip. It’s down on Defense Minister Richard Marles. Here’s his comments. Check it out.

 

Sky News: Do you feel like there needs to be and should there be a greater emphasis on hate speech from Muslim clerics in the Western part of Sydney?

Richard Marles: I think. Look, I think as I said earlier, what we’ve done is criminalize more forms of hate speech, and we’ve criminalized the Nazi salute. Obviously that’s in its own context, but we need to be looking at all of this. And it is really important that we have., …

Sky News: So should there be a greater emphasis on this hate speech from Muslim clerics, then?

Richard Marles: I don’t want to. We will go through all of this. I emphasize that we have done more in terms of criminalising hate speech than we have seen from any other government. But we need to look at all of this and we need to make sure that we’ve got the right laws in place and that we are doing everything we can to keep safe that the vibrant multicultural society, …

 

Henrik Palgren: There it is! [chuckling] There it is! Oh, my gosh! All right.

 

Thomas Sewell: Please, please, Yahweh, send me your gayest, most retarded enemies. [chuckling]

 

Henrik Palgren: That is funny!

 

Thomas Sewell: That’s Defense Minister of Australia, a gay retard!

 

Henrik Palgren: He seems genuinely rattled!

 

Thomas Sewell: Tony Burke has got like this high pitched, I’ve never heard his voice go high pitch before. Tony Burke is like. He’s got like the fear complex at the moment when the media are asking questions. And he got booed. He came down to the memorial and the jews all booed him. And this is the guy that deported a neo-Nazi for the jews! And the jews are booing him.

 

Henrik Palgren: Doesn’t matter. Yep, exactly!

 

Thomas Sewell: You deports Nazis, but you didn’t deport the Muslims.

 

Henrik Palgren: Well, they do that right, though. And it sounds like:

 

“Yeah, you’ve been very good. You did this great. We’re very happy!”

 

No, at that point, you have the opportunity to push really hard to get just much more of what you want. And how do you want the politicians to act for you on behalf of you? They know how to do that. Okay, we got two more here, Tom, before we let you go here. Line Crosses said:

 

“The police must have had so many angles on those shooters. Shooters were exposed, evident by the many camera angles on them. Sloppy.”

 

I mean, I heard one rabbi there, they interviewed him was like:

 

“It must have been 20 minutes.”

 

Or something. And it’s like. I don’t think it was 20 minutes. It probably felt like 20 minutes for the people that were there. But five maybe, I don’t know, maybe 10, I don’t know.

 

Thomas Sewell: Oh, it was almost 10. It was almost 10 minutes. Yeah.

 

Henrik Palgren: Which is a long time.

 

Thomas Sewell: Which is way too long. Like Bondi, the traffic’s bad, but there’s always cops at Bondi Beach. I’ve never not seen cops at Bondi Beach. I’ve always seen police at Bondi beach, usually in teams of two or teams of four.

 

So the fact that it took 10 minutes to get to the shooting, to resolve the shooting, and took probably I don’t know, five minutes to get there. There’s video footage of cops driving past the bridge. So they had an angle to shoot out the window up that bridge. There’s cops driving past and they didn’t stop. They just kept going. So, yeah, despicable!

 

But fat Chungus. Not the Chungus that arrested Joel, but another Chungus was the one that got the killer shot on the dad. Really small Chungus.

 

Henrik Palgren: Okay.

 

Thomas Sewell: Yeah. There’s footage of the Chungus. There was a fat Chungus cop that got the shot off. So he wasn’t a beat cop. He was in a suit. So that just shows you know, there’s cops in dress shirts walking around, right?

 

Henrik Palgren: Yeah.

 

[2:24:50]

 

Thomas Sewell: How did he get there? How did he get there before the cops that were in uniform. He’s not wearing a bulletproof vest either.

 

So the cop that got the shot off was just a fat Chungus from the office that might have been just getting lunch. I don’t know the story yet. But another interesting thing that I forgot to mention was the media, because a whole bunch of lifeguards tried to assist in the process as well. And there was lifeguards that were there on the scene before the cops got there, as well as the Aussies that just like stomped the two guys on the ground on the bridge. But there was a guy trying to read out the names of the lifeguards that had helped save people’s lives. And helped try to deal with it. And the media wouldn’t let this guy read out the names of the lifeguards. Because the media here in Australia, all they’re saying on the news is just:

 

“Look at this brown guy that saved the day! Look at this jewish guy that saved the day. Look at all these heroes of multiculturalism!”

 

And it’s like, they won’t read out the names. And they’re like:

 

“His name was Al Hamid Muhammad!”

 

And then they just say it like 20 times.

 

So, yeah, you turn on the news and it’s like:

 

“And the hero was Al Hamid Muhammad!”

 

And it’s just, on repeat, on repeat, on repeat!

 

And it’s like, they wouldn’t let a guy read out the names of the lifeguards that tried to help because it’s like Ben Stewart, Thomas Stevens. You know what I mean?

 

Henrik Palgren: Yeah, exactly! Right.

 

Thomas Sewell: All Aussie names.

 

Henrik Palgren: I mean, the solution, therefore, is:

 

“Let’s bring in a million more Muslims to protect us from the Muslims!”

 

Right? [chuckling]

 

Thomas Sewell: We need migrants to stop us from migrants!

 

Henrik Palgren: Exactly! See, the good ones cancel out the bad ones, I guess, but they kill White Australians in the process, obviously. Yeah. People are asking chat here:

 

“What’s a chungus? Chubby, thick, large?”

 

Is that the definition?

 

Thomas Sewell: Yeah. Chungus is like a big fat chungus. You know, like a Big Chungus. It was like, I’ll just Google it. Big chungus. They don’t know the Big Chungus.

 

Henrik Palgren: That’s like the, … Bugs Bunny! Exactly! Yeah, that’s the bunny. Exactly!

 

Thomas Sewell: If you don’t know the Big Chungus.

 

Henrik Palgren: Home of the Brave says:

 

“The most white pilling is listening to Tom Sewell. Absolutely no one wants to step up in America, so I guess I’m gonna have to do it!”

 

Well, that’s the spirit. That is not true, by the way. But that’s the spirit obviously. If you don’t think anyone does, then, yeah, you do it:

 

“Thanks for giving me hope and vectorizing the Vril.”

 

Hail home of the brave.

 

Thomas Sewell: Yeah, I get a lot of DMs from Americans and they all want to be Australia’s Thomas Sewell. Sorry, America’s Thomas Sewell. I get a lot of DMs. I get a lot of people unsolicited in the DMs on Telegram and they’re like:

 

“Check out my page, Tom. I’m the next Thomas Sewell!”

 

And then I check out the page and it’s got two subscribers. And I’m like:

 

“Dude, I’m not going to be your third subscriber. I’m sorry, you’re going to have to put your time on the gun. You have to build up a bit of a following yourself.”

 

They’re like:

 

“Tom, can you share my page? I’m America’s Thomas Sewell!”

 

No, you’re not. You’re unfortunately not. I’m sorry.

 

Henrik Palgren: Oh, we got another Thomas. Does a good job. Yep.

 

Thomas Sewell: There’s Hammer. There’s all sorts of guys. There’s lots of guys in America. There’s a lot of guys that are not necessarily like doxed, like not name fagging, as they say on the chins. There’s a lot of guys that just, they just put in the work. They just build the active club or they build their organization. You know, they just put their folk first and they do it without the glory. And yeah, also a little bit off topic. I was in jail, so no one told me. No one told me Chris Cantwell’s a faggot! What the fuck happened? What the fuck is going on?

 

Henrik Palgren: I don’t wanna, …

 

Thomas Sewell: He sent me a message like a week ago. He’s like:

 

“Hey, man, can you share this post for me?”

 

And I’m like, I didn’t say:

 

“Yeah, all right.”

 

But I was like, in my head:

 

“Yeah, all right.”

 

But I always read everything first before I share. Always. And I’m like scrolling through and it was like something about gay sex. And I was like:

 

“Hang on a minute. What the fuck!”

 

And then I read it again and I replied to him:

 

“Chris, what the fuck are you talking about?”

 

And then I sent it to the boys and they’re like:

 

“Yeah, bro, did you not know?”

 

I was like:

 

“No one told me. I was in prison. No one told me!”

 

And then I went through his page and he was like:

 

“When I was 14, I had sex with a man. He wasn’t attractive.”

 

It’s like:

 

“What the fuck Chris, you fucking weird cunt!”

 

Henrik Palgren: Imagine that!

 

Thomas Sewell: Holy shit! He fell off.

 

Henrik Palgren: Imagine that!

 

Thomas Sewell: He was a bit of an oddball, but fuck, he fell off.

 

Henrik Palgren: Some things kind of makes sense.

 

Thomas Sewell: Eric Striker likes biting my ankles. I hope he’s biting Chris Cantwell’s ankles. Hopefully he doesn’t get AIDS.

 

Henrik Palgren: Well, yeah, that’s, …

 

Thomas Sewell: Why are people having a go at me when there’s cunts like that! I should be, …

 

Henrik Palgren: I don’t think anyone’s giving him a pass, to be honest.

 

But yeah, I get your point.

 

[2:30:01]

 

Thomas Sewell: No one’s giving him a pass, but how did that fucking slip through to the keeper? Someone must have known!

 

Henrik Palgren: Probably.

 

Thomas Sewell: You know, that’s one of our vetting questions. You know, that’s one of our vetting questions is that:

 

“If someone tells you in secret something like that, would you share it with other people? Or would you keep it a secret?”

 

That’s one of our vetting questions.

 

Henrik Palgren: When did you start being gay? That’s the vetting question. [chuckling]

 

Thomas Sewell: Yeah, exactly! [chuckling] I shouldn’t be giving away our vetting questions. Antifa’s probably got through stage one. They just probably don’t get stage two or stage three. But like, that’s in stage one. Like, are you a fag sympathizer? We don’t want you. That’s how we got this problem in the first place.

 

Henrik Palgren: I’m sure they answer honestly on that.

 

Thomas Sewell: Because in politics, there’s not many forces worse than gays. Like, there’s jews. Jews are worse! But like gays are fucked! They’re insidious. They’re absolutely insidious. They have to be just completely rooted out of every single organization. That’s how politics have been taken over. Like people that can be blackmailed. You know what I mean?

 

Henrik Palgren: Yep.

 

Thomas Sewell: And yeah, gays are all ashamed of themselves. That’s why they have to take drugs to do it. They’re freaks! They’re disgusting freaks! There’s no normal gays. There’s no such thing as a normal gay. They’re all freaks! Don’t associate with them. Anyone that associates with gays, I don’t associate with them.

 

Henrik Palgren: I agree.

 

Thomas Sewell: Even straight people. I just can’t tolerate anyone that’s like:

 

“Oh, I’ve got a gay friend.”

 

Like:

 

“Nuke! See you later. Don’t talk to me again. Do not contact. Lose this number.”

 

Henrik Palgren: We got Line Cross:

 

“Small fat chungus has the most testosterone in the force.”

 

Yeah, that’s interesting. Isn’t that interesting? Megawatts 80:

 

“Hi, Tom!”

 

Thomas Sewell: Hi.

 

Henrik Palgren: There you go. I was waiting for a hi back. Line Cross again:

 

“I can’t help but imagine the media crap storm if a member or two of the NSN was there and foiled that attack.”

 

Thomas Sewell: Oh, they probably wouldn’t have done much except get shotgun to the face!

 

Henrik Palgren: Taking them out too.

 

Thomas Sewell: Yeah. I mean, to be fair, that one guy did disarm the fat chungus that ran down. It didn’t even make sense. Anyway, I won’t go into.

 

Henrik Palgren: Rob Jasimer here says:

 

“We must secure the existence of our people and a future for White children!”

 

Correct. Thank you, Rob.

 

Thomas Sewell: Yeah. All right.

 

Henrik Palgren: I think we’re caught up there. Thank you, Tom, so much for joining us today. I appreciate it. Always pleasure talking to you. Keep up the good work, the excellent work, the fantastic work you’re doing down there. We’re all watching and very interested in the development, not only, of course, the political kind of faction of this, the arm, the wing of what you’re doing, obviously, but yeah, it’s always a pleasure having you on, man! And anything else, closing thoughts you want to run through here before we wrap up for today?

 

Thomas Sewell: We’re gonna win! Yeah, I don’t have a closing spiel. I think I’ve said a lot today and yeah, just gas all the black pillers! Just don’t associate with black pillers. The worst humans in this movement are the black pillers. Just don’t associate with them. They’re like a social disease in the movement. And we have made so much progress over the years because we just gas the black pillers! We just get rid of them. We just don’t associate with them.

 

Now, you can be a critic, and you can be a fair critic and you can be realistic.

 

Henrik Palgren: You want that part of it for sure. Shoot holes in everything. Right? But, …

 

Thomas Sewell: But you don’t want people that by their very nature they’re unhappy, they’re unlucky, they’re pessimistic. Don’t associate with these kinds of people because they will destroy your clique. They will destroy your movement, they will destroy your business, they will destroy your organization, they will destroy your family. Don’t associate with fundamentally unhappy, weak willed people! Just don’t associate with them. They’re just the chaff. You know what I mean? They’re just the chaff and they’re not going to make it. They’re just not going to make it.

 

And all the progress we have made as an organization has been this “triumph of the will”. You, when you get involved and you do five years or even less, like maybe within two or three years you might start to feel, you might feel the energy. Like you can feel the winds of change or the vibrations or whatever is. You can feel it and you can feel that progress coming from just these high vril, high energy like people, men and women, it’s male and female energy, in different ways. It’s obviously predominantly male energy in the movement. But that energy, that high virile energy, like there’s so many face doxed people, there’s so many people that aren’t face doxed, but they work really hard behind the scenes and they just love it! You’ve just got to love it! You’ve got to learn to love the struggle. You’ve got to learn to love this battle we’re in. And when you’re faced with adversity, you should always just see it as a challenge. You should always just see it as:

 

“Oh, that’s what they’re throwing at us now. Oh, that’s where my life’s at now!”

 

Just take a step back, breathe, calm down, get your bearings and get stuck back in. Get back to work! And yeah, that’s the success of my organization. I don’t tolerate it. We just get rid of you.

 

And that’s why we’re growing. There was a point where we got stuck at 20, 30 guys. And building a little active club with five guys is pretty easy. It’s really easy. Almost everyone can do it. Almost anyone that’s not a retard can do it. You can build four or five guys in an active club. When you get to 20 to 30 guys, it becomes very difficult. You really need to have some leadership qualities.

 

[2:36:06]

 

But also you start to realize that not all 20 to 30 men are equal. And that you need to have a really good core. You need to have people that really have good energy and good commitment level and they’re there for the right reasons. They’re not just loser freaks that hate society and are looking for any kind of vagrant group to attach themselves to. You want to just stay clear of the loser freaks! You just don’t want losers! That doesn’t mean everyone has to be as corporate or like high paid or like big earner, tradesman, driving a nice car.

 

It’s not about status and it’s not about money. It’s about work ethic, it’s about integrity. Yeah, that’s way more important, that’s way more important than money. Don’t think that it’s about money. It’s got nothing to do with money. You’ll find that there’s lots of people with money that have really bad work ethic. They just know the right people, they went to the right school, their dad’s friends are wealthy, blah blah, blah. And that’s why they drive a $200,000 car.

 

Whereas there’s men driving around five thousand dollar cars and they got a great work ethic. They’re hustlers and not in a gay cringe, corporate capitalist mindset, in terms of a political mindset. They get home, they’re video editing, they’re doing shit, they’re on Twitter, they’re Twitter maxing, they’re in the gym, they’re fighting.

 

Okay, so what? They drive a $5,000 a car, who cares? You know what I mean? Like they got a good work ethic.

 

So yeah, you want to surround yourself with people that are willing to work for nationalism. They’re willing to put in the work. And pessimists and black pillers, they just want to sit there and just sink the boat, you know, Imagine you’re on a journey, you’re on a mission. You want cunts on the fucking oars! Get on the fucking oars! Let’s go!

 

Henrik Palgren: Correct. Yep.

 

Thomas Sewell: And if you’ve got a skill, if you can navigate, if you can navigate, you got to first do your time on the fucking oars. We don’t need all this dead weight on the boat saying:

 

“Oh, we should go this way or we should go that way!”

 

Shut up! Get on the oar. All right.

 

Henrik Palgren: Yeah. Learn to work as a team first. Right? Kind of thing.

 

Thomas Sewell: And get in the rhythm.

 

Henrik Palgren: Get your individuality, your emotions to the side. Just get rid of all of that and create a unit that can cooperate and then from there you can do that.

 

And as you said, I mean, yeah, you should surround yourself with people that are smarter than you, that are better than you, they know more than you. And that creates an environment where you are all feeding off each other. You grow, you become better.

 

Thomas Sewell: Yeah. And you should lift people up that aren’t.

 

Henrik Palgren: Oh, 100%.

 

Thomas Sewell: But don’t waste time on people that are fundamentally broken. And the younger you are, the more time you waste on broken people. When I was young, I wasted years on broken people trying to help them.

 

Henrik Palgren: Yeah.

 

Thomas Sewell: And yeah, as Adolf Hitler says:

 

“God helps no one that doesn’t help themselves. And German people, help yourselves!”

 

And I believe that about us as Aryans, as White people. Like we need to help ourselves. And yeah you don’t want to like cut off people too quickly. You want to give people time. Some people take six months, some people 12 months.

 

But yeah, you’re not always going to find yourself surrounded by people that are making more money than you or that are smarter than you or whatever. Sometimes you’re going to find yourself surrounded by people that are are less fit than you and, or, whatever the metric is that you’re measuring. And yeah, what mateship is about is about lifting up the guys around you know, and a good amount of positive bullying, a good amount of positive work. Inclusive bullying.

 

Henrik Palgren: Shaming and bullying works 100%.

 

Thomas Sewell: Lift up the guys around you. That’s one way that an organization grows is that guys join and it’s not that you’re joining a self improvement society. Go join the Freemasons if that’s what you’re looking for! You know what I mean? Like our organization, the purpose of it isn’t a self improvement society, but I do believe that’s a side effect on it.

 

Henrik Palgren: That’s a positive side effect of it.

 

Thomas Sewell: Yeah, exactly! Yeah. It’s a side effect of brotherhood.

 

Henrik Palgren: Correct.

 

Thomas Sewell: It’s a side effect of an effective brotherhood. All effective brotherhoods are do that. And what we have at the moment is like veterans organizations and men’s clubs and stuff like that. They’re all just like pity parties. I don’t go to them because I know that they’re gay as fuck, but I know people that go to these like guys that I was in the army with and you know, tradesmen, they go to these like groups that aren’t our group. They go to these like socially approved groups after work and it’s just like they’re just getting lectured by some faggot about toxic masculinity. And it’s just like:

 

“How do you fucking put up with this? Like you don’t need friends that bad, dude. Like, just go to the gym!”

 

[2:40:44]

 

Henrik Palgren: Just making friends there, nothing else.

 

Thomas Sewell: Yeah, like a lot of the veterans organizations, for example, a bit off topic, but a lot of them are just that what you feed grows pity parties. They’re just like:

 

“Oh, I have nightmares.”

 

Henrik Palgren: Yeah.

 

Thomas Sewell: It’s just like, fuck, man!

 

Henrik Palgren: Yeah.

 

At some point you have to like a new vision, Focus on something new, fresh. And I know it sucks! I’m not trying to diminish it. But I’m saying also at some point you got to kind of keep busy, right? You got to get active and busy.

 

Thomas Sewell: If you’ve got depression, for example, and you go to the depression week and you’re like:

 

“I’m so depressed I can’t get out of bed in the morning!”

 

Is that ever going to fix the problem?

 

Henrik Palgren: No, no, it’s not.

 

Thomas Sewell: You just need a fucking injection of Vril!

 

Henrik Palgren: Yep, Correct.

 

Thomas Sewell: Just get out of fucking bed. Find a purpose.

 

But yeah, anyway, I’ve said enough.

 

Henrik Palgren: No, no, it’s all good. All good. Dr. Jenstein:

 

“Thanks guys. Great stream!”

 

Yeah, I really appreciate it. Great conversation, Tom, as always, I appreciate you. And again, thanks. Salute to all of you and the guys over there. Hope Joel gets out soon.

 

And as always, of course, …

 

Thomas Sewell: 23rd, hopefully.

 

Henrik Palgren: 23rd. Oh, really? Okay. So day before Yule. Okay, nice.

 

Thomas Sewell: Yeah, a week.

 

Henrik Palgren: All right, well, say hi to him from us here at Red Ice. We’re thinking of him.

 

All right, Tom, have a great Yule. Christmas done. Coming up here shortly, soon.

 

Thomas Sewell: Thank you for having me.

 

Henrik Palgren: That’s right.

 

And obviously I suppose you say Australia for the White man! We’ll see you later, Tom.

 

Thomas Sewell: The rest must go!

 

Henrik Palgren: The rest must go. [chuckling] There you go.

 

All right, cheers. Take care. Thanks.

 

All right, guys, there we go. Thank you so much to Tom again for joining us. We appreciate you.

 

All right, we’re gonna wrap up right there. I do want to say thanks to our executive producers though, before we let you go, but a little plug here for tomorrow. We’re talking with Sven Longshanks and of course he was imprisoned by the UK system for essentially podcasting. That will be live at 2 PM Eastern, which is 8 o’ clock Central European time. Eight in the evening, obviously. We got Flashback Friday coming up on Friday.

 

After that, 5 PM Eastern. That’s 11 in the evening, 2300 hours Central European time. And then we’ll take a little break about a week or so. we’ll take a little yule break and then we’ll be back with more after that, obviously, but a few more shows before we take a break. So also before we wrap up here, where are you guys? Where do we want to find my executive producers? You’re hiding somewhere. Great way to support us, of course, is to get a membership. I can do that plug while I’m looking for that too. Redicemembers.com we have Red Icetv.locals.com subscribestar.com Redice. 10 bucks a month helps us tremendously. Might not make that much of a big, big difference to you individually, but the more of you guys who do it helps us tremendously. So we can continue to do this and do more and do better and do all the things we want to do. So do consider it.

 

And by the way, if you do want to get a, if you want to get that down, it’s about 10 bucks a month. But if you get a longer sub@redismembers.com you can get it all the way up to two years. That gives you about 20, sorry, 35, almost 40% off. So that’s a great way to save a little bit as well. Gets cheaper per month that way.

 

Here we go. Here’s our executive producers for today as well. Albert. Arctic Wolf, first out the gates. Thank you so much, Albert, for your incredible support. We have William Fox from America First Books as well. Thank you, William. We got Angry White Soccer Mom. Thank you for your support.

 

We also have Purple Haze. Thank you for being an executive producer. And we got Glenn. Thank you, Glenn. Appreciate your support as well. Also Down Under, I believe. Thank you, Glenn. We got Red Pill Rundown. Thank you for being there for us so we can be there for you. We got President Obunga. Thank you for your support as well. Then we got Teutonic Werebear. We’re appreciate you. Thank you Werebear.

 

We got Good Luck Lap. Thank you so much for your support. We have number one, Jeeves. We appreciate you as well. Thank you. Then we got Hungarian Mom. Thank you to the whole family. We appreciate your support. We also have Santoso. Thank you, Santoso for your support. I’m starting to Lisp a bit, the Australian politicians are rubbing off! Sun Destroyer 520. Thank you. Appreciate it. We also have the Deplorable Extraordinaire. Thank you for your support. And the Booman, our latest edition for the executive producers.

 

Then we have Charles Turner Jr Johansson, Lero Dumont. Eyes open single action army, Lord H.P. Lovecraft. We have Trevor, Der Schwabe, Alcyon, Aurelion, Perfect Brute, Greg M J Barr, Chris W and Skarzinski. That’s our producers. You guys are like five subscribers so thank you so much! Our executive producers are like 10 so we appreciate you guys tremendously. Thank you once again. If you want a shout out at the end of the show, special thanks from us at Red Ice. Go to RedIcemembers.com or subscribestar.com Red Ice and get one of those tiers.

 

All right guys, that’s it done for us today. Thank you so much for joining us again. Thanks to Tom. Great show as always. We’ll be back tomorrow with Sven Longshanks actually. Folk first ladies and gentlemen. We’ll see you tomorrow.

 

Now do make sure that you follow us on our Rumble channel for more Red Ice TV on Rumble.com or on X @redice TV. You can of course go to Redice dot TV as well. Tune in to our live streams and shows. Flashback Friday live on Fridays at 5 PM Eastern. No go zone Wednesdays at 5 PM Eastern. We also do interviews, videos, clips and Western Warrior is available Tuesdays exclusive for our supporters and subscribers@redicemembers.com or on our locals Red Icetv.locals.com or subscribestar.com slash Red Ice get a membership, check out everything that we do and support the show.

 

 

[2:46:29]

 

 

END

top

 

 

 

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

 

Rumble Comments

top

(Comments as of 12/30/2025 = 107)

107 Comments – Latest at top

BeornBeorning
5 hours ago
Great guest!

RestitutorOrbis1028
VerifiedLocals Supporter
2 days ago
Australia was batshit crazy & cruel during Cοvid; I will never forget it. Ontario & British Columbia (Canada) come in close behind.

Soozysuz
Supporter
3 days ago
Also the government are so dumb, they don’t even know they have created this right wing movement. There’s no stopping it when they have forced us into this situation. If they weren’t over controlling fuckheads, we could all be living in peace and enjoying life.

Soozysuz
Supporter
3 days ago
The government are terrified of you guys. After your speech at MFA in August, I had to find out what you were all about, brocade it certainly wasn’t what they were trying to tell us. If been a keen listener ever since. As a woman in my mid 50’s it makes me so happy to see strong young men prepared to do what it takes to take this country back. I grew up in the best times and never imagined we’d be where we are now. Australia is barely recognisable. I really hope we can turn this ship around Hail

6millionbagels
3 days ago
Brilliant interview

Jaymeo1
4 days ago
Tom is the future

Bee1970Something
4 days ago
Israel and their puppets keep causing bullshit and the current so-called leaders all fleece us for this greed

PansophicGothi
4 days ago
Greg Johnson is a normal gay man, and Joel Davis did a live stream with him in 2025. I get the tendency to act like zero tolerance, but that doesn’t really mesh with reality, it’s usually more complicated and nuanced. (Chris Cantwell went off the deep end though.)
1
0

BeornBeorning
5 days ago
“…doing everything we can to keep safe the vibrant multicultural society…” LMAO
1
0

Lueger
6 days ago
41:00 Striker and those around him have no f’g idea about the obnoxiousness of the mohammedans in Europe and everywhere else they exist outside of the US. The Jew-S has traditionally filtered out the above-average to below-average sorts and allowed in only the absolute top-level, unislamic intellectuals. I went to Europe as a convinced opponent of semitism, and learned in Europe that opposition to semitism must include opposition to all semites. Jew and arab alike have an ideology of perpetual innocence, mixed with an inclination to communism and lasciviousness. They are both disgusting and should properly be confined to their deserts, pushed off of the coasts of the eastern Mediterranean.

Vasili1
6 days ago
you may be interested in watching– Jews in Australia 2 – Ernie Rolando Dec 2025 (+ Critical Race Theory) https://www.bitchute.com/video/KbCDmGx8xsOK

HeartcloudTeaTreeKoala
1 week ago
Ah you’re an anti-semite (You said that around 2 hours in). Well I guess that means I should go and protect the real Whites then, the negative blood types (myself inclusive). Jews aren’t the real semites, but if you have all connection with Christ by blood well then we negative blood types deserve better than being annihilated by the jews, directly targeted and abused not only by people on Earth, but wondering why almost all our lives we’re being targeted by demons and fallen angels so much and jews trying to replace us and then also annihilated potentially by neo nazi’s and replaced there too? I’ve cried deeply enough, shed enough blood and sweat. We’ve gone through enough us negative blood types, don’t deserve attacks instead of being cherished and protected and also considering how much we’ve also done, which means none of you would be here otherwise to even be able to fight. Most of us didn’t even know that we were blood of Christ and his ancestors until only a few years ago, even though the jews have known and tried to cover it up all along. I’ve connected with negative blood types the last few years and they’ve all pretty much said the same thing, we’re being hunted more so than anyone else in the world and almost all I spoke to were Christian or I didn’t know and I’ve spoken to quite a few groups. I’m against multiculturalism of all non-Whites with Europeans, Scandinavians (Greenland inclusive) and Whites I don’t know how it’s going to go with you lot not accepting we’re actually the real Whites if that’s how you’re going about it. I’d like an apology at least from the UK people from hating on me throughout school when I was a little girl because they were fucking racist against Polish people and framing Polish people for what the nazi’s or rather the jews actually did. Sick. I think there’s clear reason, negative blood types have to protect our own community worldwide. I might as well go pass on the msg because I don’t need anyone not being loyal to us.

‹ Hide 1 reply
boicotinho2
1 week ago
lmao, “the jews arent the real jews”. what a nonsense
1
1

‹ Hide 2 replies
HeartcloudTeaTreeKoala
1 week ago
“What a nonsense?” lol Have a look at yourself in the mirror and then you’ll see what real nonsense looks like. If you want to be roasted, mate, I have all day and shit ton load of experience, (no pun intended and frankly it ain’t shit but since you’re so literal worse than an actual autistic then lets go with heap ton load instead). I’ve grown and healed through these time loops like you can’t imagine despite the BS torture I’ve had to endure. You’ll tire out quicker than it takes a cork to blow from a shaken up bottle of cheap sparkling (not even champagne). Jews are not the real line of Christ and his ancestors. Happy? I can’t fucking edit these posts and they allow only 2,000 characters as you well know so it doesn’t let me say everything to a dumbass like you. People with half a brain or holes in it know what I’m saying, you can’t, you’re that retarded? I don’t have time nor energy for shitty connection, do better. Be kind, instead, takes healing. You eating your wild blueberries? (Clearly not).

whitehonkymonkey
3 days ago
he’s obviously unhinged, pity the poor minded
1
0

HeartcloudTeaTreeKoala
1 week ago
Sorry for the many posts but each post only allows 2,000 characters. So it’s not just the demons that need to be killed, it’s also the fallen angels. If we don’t kill the core of the problem, those fallen will just manipulate people on Earth again, get them accepting & loving their demons & doing sick shit like they did at the Colosseum. According to Anthony William attacking family members because they were forced to while the whole stadium was screaming. Plus people doing things like what they are today, today’s style canaanite. Joshua, Saul & David (those negative blood types) killed all these jews that went rancid because God directed them to. This is a battle that’s been going on for thousands of years but for some reason what is God waiting for with the fallen? How is it that our God tells Joshua NKJV 7:10-12 to kill the filth amongst him & won’t be with Joshua unless he does, yet Jesus our God doesn’t kill all the filth amongst his realm & the spiritual. We have to investigate further what’s going on here. Either way, the audiobook is: “Angels, Demons and Spiritual Tools,” you can get it on Spotify as well. Takes 7 hours to listen, about 10min a day to do the excersizes even if you don’t believe in them. For me when I even just started listening to it, my life situation improved & I became more confident against the spiritual & celestial realms that house these filth demons. You can bet all the sick jews are turned demon in the afterlife because satan comes to collect if God’s angels don’t come to collect you. The afterlife, is another battle, unfortunately & I don’t know about you lot, but I’m already exhausted by the immense full blown attacks I’ve already received in a frickin’ time loop that I was forced to endure repeats of as well, still am. I know a lot, don’t know too much about how to get myself out of a time loop, any Jesus Christ following Christians know? Anyway, otherwise I’m going to have to wait until Christ comes & that could mean we lost.

‹ Hide 1 reply
RestitutorOrbis1028
VerifiedLocals Supporter
2 days ago
On a social-media post, if you cannot write a concise comment within a few sentences, you need to fundamentally reconsider your language & communication skills. Honestly, trying to provide constructive criticism. Do your best to shoot for a few sentences, one paragraph. Cheers

HeartcloudTeaTreeKoala
1 week ago
1:30:00 thereabouts, none of the flying cars & the proper architecture & all of us getting along won’t happen until the demons in the spiritual realm are killed & everyone needs to be taking THAT seriously. Unfortunately I have to quote Anthony William even though that audiobook was actually half me because he took my personal previous situation where I was screaming at my v2k attackers & crying hysterically from the heat & the spike protein stabs within my body & senses. I didn’t realise at that point that they had given it to all the cows as well (so everyone is vaccinated unfortunately, need to eat their wild blueberries & all the powders from Christian brand Vimergy, can also get it from the floweroflife.com website to clean that nano out). They just keep dumping nano at us daily, in the air, it’s part of the chemtrails, it’s in the water, dairy, you’re around vaccinated you literally can’t get away from it. You can minimise your exposure though & clean it out daily so you’re as close to God as possible, not as close to those cia agents & their ai as possible. At that part of the loop a few years ago Russia & America (jews) were threatening the world with drones that could kill you upon impact using facial recognition & were using them at Ukraine border. Poland had a machine to zap them upon impact, I realised checkmate wasn’t really checkmate, I screamed what he is saying now in the audiobook made one loop after it happened. He really should have co-authored me but he supports some jews, apparently the better ones & I refuse all jews. That situation you can truly know how evil these satanists are when they abuse their power & think no one is around to help you or that you can’t help yourself, which is all I had. Not only that but demons power the energy for these satanists, people have said that the reason Clintons are so powerful is because they used sex magic to attach demons to their soul this was a purposeful intent not always does sex magic do this.

HeartcloudTeaTreeKoala
1 week ago
You neo nazi’s may also be interested to know, that Hitler actually had his own hypnotist and he was using him throughout all the crowd speeches he did. It clearly was greatly effective, how do you think mesmeric techniques from Anton who used to live in Germany in the 1800s ended up actually freeing Germany from them jews? Biggest mistake Hitler made was going after Poland though. That was dumb. Jesus Christ knows all about hypnosis and mesmerism. It was used over 5,000 years ago as a healing modality. The history of Hypnosis and where it’s going in each country is actually kind of fascinating. In other words, you don’t attack God’s children!

‹ Hide 2 replies
whitehonkymonkey
3 days ago
loving your uneducated comments.

boicotinho2
1 week ago
Jewsus Christ is just jewish mythology!
0
1

‹ Hide 1 reply
HeartcloudTeaTreeKoala
1 week ago
At 21min, JimmyDee on YT (hope I spelt that right) he’s got about 10k YT following, one one of his videos he mentions this video & this person & showing a photo of him getting painted with red paint and the video from TV. He also mentioned, ‘so all of a sudden this guy has no more head split’ I can’t remember exactly the quote, but it was along those lines, I thought that was a really good point. Young guy, mixed race, hates muslims as well & love the fact he calls out the jews in everyone of his videos. VizzGitt on YT is also good at that too but less often, but they don’t seem to have a lot of subs, I don’t know if it’s brainwashed people that don’t follow them or it’s the jews that are punishing them with algorithms. At 1 point I thought Mel Gibson was bad when I started getting attacked heavily with the microwave weapons attacked while cleansing, because I wondered why they were using mesmerism to try and hypnotise me so much that I had to block the signals with scalar healing aka longitudinal hz frequency, which does block negative frequencies from the 5g & breaks hypnosis without being killed because CIA they do that kill switch within you. I’m pretty proud I actually was 1st to figure it out but it was also because of that lady that researched and developed scalar wave healing. I did add her I forgot her name now but you can still find her on YT. But CIA with the nano were using what I sensed as Mel’s voice or something it was the sound behind his voice it was like oh it’s so tough to explain, like water has sound waves, when you speak it’s the subconscious waves that come through from the neurotransmitters of the heart, I could pick up on that because I did Heart Math. CIA Ai betrayed Mel and all of us they used his energy without his consent & used it to attack me with. I’m pretty sure they also tried with the strongest hypnotists in the world. Pauline Hanson hates muslims and ching chongs, but supports the satanists, the false jews. It’s nuts.
1
0

HeartcloudTeaTreeKoala
1 week ago
As a professional from what I call “unhypnotist” which was my own technique when I asked God what I needed to do with my life decades ago and I had to unravel what the TV and the radio signals were doing to peoples brains by helping them lead them into their subconscious so they could clean it up with Jesus Christ’s guidance. If only I could help more people, but I’ve been attacked to not unhypnotise people from the media, I think more people in Australia would have be woken up and not woke. I also know what the CIA have done. I was trained by the same man (who is Aussie) that taught Mel Gibson and traveled to America to teach him. So yes, Mel Gibson is in fact also a Hypnotist and we were taught the strongest method from Anthon Mesmer, his techniques are still used in Germany to get rid of varicose veins. They don’t give you pain medication nor local anesthetic, they use rapid inductions to destabilise the pain immediately and within a few seconds make a few slits and rip out the varicose vein, apparently it’s painless. I have recently found you can heal varicose veins naturally with wild foods. Anyway the reason I mention hypnosis is because CIA hypnotised a guy after many days and convinced him to kill himself by walking out a high story window, don’t remember if it was 2nd or 3rd level building. All those shooters are heavily hypnotised, CIA also know mesmerism but they’re not as good as us here in Western Australia, the most amount of mesmerists in the world, let alone hypnotists. What they teach you in uni alongside Psychology is a watered down version of hypnosis there are no rapid inductions. It’s the Ericksonian technique developed by an American, only useful once a person is actually in hypnosis because it’s using visual imagery to clear out old patterns, your brain responds well with visual imagery. Fucking Wong. She’s probably a clone made in China then sent to be a handler to the government leader. I wonder when she’ll start falling apart.

corella64
1 week ago
Rumble censorship blocks personal views
on these issues.
1
0

corella64
1 week ago
One indian is too many indians in Australia.
1
0

BBrand89
1 week ago
Bikes grape kids

corella64
1 week ago
Globalism, mass immigration and multiculturalism is -anti-white- majority. The enemy from within and without. Bad DNA admixed with northern european DNA for future generations is deranged, corrupt, debased, degenerate etc. Defend you DNA stock, quality over quantity!

corella64
1 week ago
Both semitic tribes, jewish and islamic and their extended religious nationalities at war with white european majority nations, and winning at Bondi.

TVR_
1 week ago
Hail Thomas Sewell

scootera
1 week ago
Great Conversation

katana17
1 week ago
[Red Ice TV – Bondi Beach Shooting & White Australia with Thomas Sewell – Dec 17, 2025 – Transcript] https://katana17.com/2025/12/18/red-ice-tv-bondi-beach-shooting-white-australia-with-thomas-sewell-dec-17-2025-transcript/ [In this live stream video Thomas Sewell from White Australia joins Henrik to talk about the effort to take back Australia, the Bondi Beach shooting and the political aspirations of White Australia party. Points discussed include: The shooting occurred during a Hanukkah celebration at Bondi Beach on December 14th [2025]. The attackers were a father and son duo, one of whom was born in Australia to an Indian father and Italian mother. The son had converted to Islam and received religious training; he was also linked to ISIS. The attackers allegedly targeted jews specifically, though many others were injured. “We’re surprised it doesn’t happen more often,” said Sewell, referencing Muslim rhetoric in Australia. Sewell says Muslims in gyms and job sites often express extreme anti-Jewish views. He criticises conspiracy theories suggesting the attack was staged or fake. “Sometimes Muslims just kill people,” dismissing Mossad-related theories. He says the jewish event was not random—it was advertised and attended by prominent Zionists. Arsen Ostrovsky, an Israeli human rights lawyer, was present at the event. Sewell notes Ostrovsky arrived in Australia weeks earlier to “fight anti-semitism.” The father was killed during the attack; the son was recently brought out of a coma. Some Aussies tried to intervene and were mistakenly targeted by police. Sewell contrasts police response to White nationalists vs. Muslim terrorists. “If you’re a White nationalist, they pull the gun out on you immediately.” Female police officers on the scene were ineffective and had “mental breakdowns.” Sewell describes the police as cowardly and unprepared for real violence. He criticises the Australian government for focusing on “Nazis” instead of real threat. And more, …
1
0

Delete
Spectroscopy_
1 week ago
anyone know what happend to stormfront?

JWMickleMusic
VerifiedSupporter
1 week ago
another fantastic interview. Hail Victory! \\\

Henry000
1 week ago
Excellent interview. All Australian Whites should vote for his party. They have nothing left to lose.
2
0

J0hnConn0r
1 week ago
Shadow banning comments fucking pathetic
2
0

palacepony
Supporter
1 week ago
The islanders brought over to Queensland in the old days for the sugar cutting were the Kanakas.

Winstein_Synagoguehill
1 week ago
Eric Striker is such a brain dead shut in. Every serious Nationalist considers him a fool.
1
0

Anglojim4
1 week ago
This is not a criticism. It was a great discussion and Thomas Sewell is a highly intelligent leader with some great policies. But perhaps he could curb using lots of swear words. I understand it’s the way blokes talk. But Mr Sewell is the leader of a party, which has great potential in Australia, and could attract votes from a wide range of men and women from different age groups

‹ Hide 2 replies
PansophicGothi
4 days ago
Typically I agree with you (re: Joe Rogan etc), but it does seem to be that’s just how normal people in Australia talk, different culture. You might as well try to get them to stop using the ridiculous accent.

whitehonkymonkey
3 days ago
i expect tom will be more tactful when he’s dealing with politicians and the like. yes he could be more statesman like , however we are lucky to have him.

Seppl88
1 week ago
Jews and Fags are at the centre of all evil. Himmler understood the Fag problem.
2
0

katana17
just now
[Heinrich Himmler – Speech about Homosexuality to the SS Group Leaders – Feb 18, 1937 – Transcript] https://katana17.com/2014/10/30/heinrich-himmler-on-homosexuality/

Delete
nemo74
1 week ago
Nobody gives a fuck about what you don’t like. If people have theories, people have theories fucking deal with it dummy. Typical Australian. Wanna stifle freedom of speech. Guess you shouldn’t have given up your guns. Eh mate?

‹ Hide 2 replies
RealPolitiko
1 week ago
Go suck off some muslims u retard

whitehonkymonkey
3 days ago
up the meds laddie, sounds like you need it.

kingogondo1
Verified
1 week ago
Fantastic show. Every minute.

BattleAxe77
1 week ago
Yet its the Jews who love Cultural Marxism and mass migration. As long as they can have their Jewish state Israel
1
0

SkoobyDew
1 week ago
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⡀⠠⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠘⡁⠶⠡⠈⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠨⢄⠰⠠⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⠈⠃⣃⠐⠂⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠠⠂⠀⡀⢨⣄⣠⡰⣤⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠠⠁⠀⠀⣸⣿⣿⣿⣿⣯⣀⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣰⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣷⣤⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢠⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣶⣄⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣦⣤⡀⡀⠀⠀⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢠⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣟⣯⠖⠁⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣀⡀⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⢿⠿⣿⡿⠿⠿⠿⠿⠛⠉⠄⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠈⠈⠛⢿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡟⣉⠄⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣀⡐⠀⠁⠀⢀⠀⠀⢀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠐⡀⡔⠃⣻⣿⣿⣿⣏⣤⣴⡧⠤⠚⠀⠀⠀⣻⡷⠀⢰⡐⠘⣔⡐⠃⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠰⣰⡀⢿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣧⠀⢀⣼⣽⣿⣟⠀⠀⠙⣂⢆⠐⢂⢰⡄⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢻⣿⣾⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣷⣿⡿⢿⣿⣿⣿⠀⠀⠀⢼⢣⡟⣮⠖⠠⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢿⢿⢹⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⠆⢈⣿⣿⣿⡀⠀⠀⠸⣿⢸⢁⠰⠁⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡿⡹⠀⡻⠛⠿⠋⠁⠀⠀⠀⡖⢡⠊⠔⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠘⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣷⣾⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⡑⠢⣉⠒⠀⠀⣀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢰⢿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡿⠻⠄⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠣⠔⠀⠀⠀⠱⠀⠠⣐⣒⡂⠄⣀⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣾⡞⣿⣿⣿⣿⣟⢀⣠⣴⡶⠒⠀⠀⠀⡀⠀⠄⠡⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠹⣚⡽⣖⠙⠿⣷⣶⣤⣤ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⣼⣿⣷⡙⣿⠿⣿⡼⣟⣏⣃⠀⣀⣀⣀⡰⡀⠀⠀⠂⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠘⢹⡆⢅⡀⠻⡿⢿⣿ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣴⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣦⡳⢎⡉⢿⣿⣿⣿⡿⡟⠿⠡⠑⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢈⠄⠹⢠⠂⠄⠀⢹⣿ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣠⣾⢻⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡏⡵⣍⡂⠍⠉⠁⠀⠈⠀⠁⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠈⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢂⠁⡍⠌⢂⠀⠩ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⣴⣿⠃⣼⢸⣿⣿⣿⣟⡻⠛⢵⠈⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢊⡀⠄⢂⠐⣈⠢⡈⠄ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢠⣾⣳⣟⢠⣿⠊⣿⣿⣿⣿⣯⣷⣀⡌⠚⢰⠃⠐⣀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢂⠷⠈⡠⢇⢈⠖⡡⢫ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⣼⣿⣿⣿⣿⣾⡄⢿⣁⠹⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣴⣥⠂⠁⣀⣠⣤⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠐⠀⠀⢁⡞⣓⠄⢣⡈⢲⢅⠹ ⠀⠀⣠⣾⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡇⠘⣿⣶⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⠏⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⡀⠀⠀⠀⠈⠀⠰⢬⡑⣮⠔⡘⡡⢎⡘ ⣰⣿⣿⣿⣿⡿⠛⠿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣧⠀⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣙⠿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡿⠀⠀⡀⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠂⠐⣭⠀⣠⠄⠌⡒⡬⢷⣗⢶⡡⣟⡘ ⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣮⠛⡗⠀⠀⠂⢹⣿⣿⣿⡥⡛⢤⡌⠻⢿⣿⣿⠁⢠⢖⡳⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠁⢎⠄⣗⠢⢵⣜⣷⣿⣭⡟⣤⠋ ⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡋⢿⡿⢰⢀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠙⠿⣷⡿⠀⠙⣼⣆⠀⠙⠁⢠⠔⡤⠄⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢘⠰⠃⣜⡲⣿⣿⡷⡺⣵⢉ ⣿⣿⡉⢿⡏⠀⡇⢸⠃⢸⠀⠀⣄⠀⠀⠀⠀⠙⢻⣄⠈⣷⢿⢆⠀⠒⡠⢂⠁⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠂⢹⢠⠿⠵⣿⣚⢗⡧⠏ ⣿⢿⣧⣘⣇⠀⡇⠀⠀⣿⠄⠈⢿⡅⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⢨⢕⡸⢿⣿⢶⣄⠳⡌⢌⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠐⢘⢞⠭⢓⠋⡋⠇⣃ YOU SHOULD HAVE LISTENED
3
0

WheresMySpaceship
1 week ago
While those men should never have been in your country. You don’t hate them enough! If only anti-white zionists and jews died… (you know the people who all stick together but try to destroy you if you do, want you dead, humiliated, broke, powerless, and to genocide anyone non-jewish) Uh… Nothing of value was lost. The only issue is any government crack down. Disagree? (Check my logic versus yours. Understand I’m not the one with the mental illness… You are!)

Garbear78
Supporter
1 week ago
white power!!
1
0

Brandonkane
Verified
1 week ago
Holy Crap you’re on Rumble? This is amazing. I haven’t been able to find you guys in so long
2
0

Tmizzle89
1 week ago
HAIL THOMAS SEWELL

BurningCross
Supporter
1 week ago
we can have guns. Just nothing practical for self defense and you have to beg the police and get formal training and get licensed and then the cops can raid your house whenever they want. cope more ozzies

boicotinho2
1 week ago
Not super convinced about their arguments from 21:00 onwards. I find it too much of a cohencidence that this propaganda lawyer was also an october 7 survivor
1
0

‹ Hide 1 reply
RealPolitiko
1 week ago
You’re most likely brown since you’re one of those retards who always say muslims can never do nothing wrong, it’s always someone else’s fault. Like Thomas said: jews and muslims both need to get out of our White countries.
1
0

‹ Hide 1 reply
HeartcloudTeaTreeKoala
1 week ago
He’s not the first one to say it though.
1
0

J_Cheever_Loophole
1 week ago
Don’t forget, tiny Rhodesia was fighting, and winning, against both Chinese backed communist terrorists, and USSR backed communist terrorists….what made them lose the war and hand the country back to the blacks was American embargoes and the US bullying the UK into cutting them off too, just as they did with Cuba and more recently Venezuela, as my Great Aunt who lived there said, “You can’t win a war without bombs and bullets” And just a few years later, the US bullied the rest of the world into supporting embargoes against South Africa and the exact same thing happened…forced to had over control to the blacks and to watch as their country was utterly destroyed….and many forget, South Africa was a nuclear power until then too… So it is the US you need to watch, especially their money lenders!. They knew they had to destroy those countries or else white men would flee there from Europe and the US… Now there is no white homeland, none at all….but if there is one positive note it is that a tiny military, well trained and well motivated.can win against incredible odds…just beware the USA…

Mogus1488
Supporter
1 week ago
Good stream but I did want to correct that the isis flag is banned still in Australia
1
0

BradC1988
1 week ago
Hail Thomas Sewell, Hail NSN, Hail Victory!! o///
1
0

nicestgoy
1 week ago
sign up whiteaus
1
0

GreenGladeAryan
1 week ago
Hall the Leader o/
1
0

palacepony
Supporter
1 week ago
Chris Minns is insane. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uKMbdLd-jwg&t=584s

Fawkes2
1 week ago
DEPORT ALL SEMITES
3
1

‹ Hide 1 reply
HeartcloudTeaTreeKoala
1 week ago
Excuse you, you mean deport all jews.
1
0

MonThirteen
1 week ago
Thank you so much Henrik, you’re an awesome interviewer. You let Thomas cook. His last interview on jake shields was almost unwatchable. Dan constantly butting in, trying to steer topics to what he wanted. This interview was a breath of fresh air. When you have a genius on its best to listen and not ask stupid questions. Hail o/ FREE JOEL DAVIS.
9
0

‹ Hide 1 reply
boicotinho2
1 week ago
Both inteviews was good. IMO the one with Shields and Belzerian wad even better than this one

‹ Hide 1 reply
MonThirteen
1 week ago
Belzerian is like a newbie in comparison to Thomas. He kept interrupting and steering the conversation to his limited knowledge. When you have Thomas on a show, it’s time to shut up and learn.

renunciate
Supporter+
1 week ago
You’re still “fit & proper” Mr Sewel.
1
0

BroadcastAdvisor
1 week ago
Lot a talk. No solutions. What’s the SOLUTION for AMERICA? Keep waiting to hear something … The Titanic isn’t going to fix itself. We need a new Republic and in the new Republic we’d need ( among many things ), a 4th branch of gov’t. 2 citizens PER official – their only job being watch them for any signs of treason. Pay = $100k + a year. Their reports go to a CIA ( Citizens Intelligence Agency ), for a deeper look. IF treason’s found they get a military tribunal. This, in our enlarged all white CSA II. There ya go. A great topic for an upcoming show.
1
0

yogafiretate
Supporter
1 week ago
The commonwealth bank market cap is 250b not 1.3t bro is retarded

Goat_Moag
1 week ago
Speaking of banners. No foreign loyalties amendment. “No person holding foreign loyalties, foreign passports, or oaths to foreign actors, shall hold political office or government position, or other positions of trust.” Rough draft of course. Something of such importance certainly needs consideration, though the rough draft seems pretty good. The journey being more important than the destination (as far as getting an amendment passed, not that that would be a bad thing). The journey being to build a movement / coalition, and a banner to get behind.
2
0

Bentley2177
1 week ago
Absolutely everything Tom speaks on is 100% correct!
7
0

Bigboy6669
1 week ago
hail
4
0

Knights_Messiah
1 week ago
54:36 Propaganda!! How about our governments boot all the non natives out
1
0

Knights_Messiah
1 week ago
52:32 It’s disgusting. How dare the globalists fuck up the West like this
1
0

Knights_Messiah
1 week ago
100 years on the native whites are slowly waking up and will no longer be bludgeoned by the Holocaust and carrying Hitlers efforts
5
0

‹ Hide 1 reply
whitehonkymonkey
3 days ago
correct i was bludgeoned for over 60 years of allie propaganda,however thanks to people like david irving i have seen the way forward. go the NSN

Knights_Messiah
1 week ago
29:41 This is ridiculous!! Why is the West Infiltrated with non natives!! Whites only in power!!

Knights_Messiah
1 week ago
27:20 Virtue signaling about Anti-semetism. I and I am sure the native white Australians dont care about Anti-semetism!!! I care about white genocide and replacement
1
0

AdamUnsalted
1 week ago
The more Whites notice bad Jewish behavior, the more the Jews open the gates for brown immigration.
6
0

DJTriumph
Supporter
1 week ago
great show keep up the good fight, stay positive
4
0

Megawatts80
VerifiedSupporter+
1 week ago
the best thing about Tom is that not only is he highly intelligent, but he’s also the leader of White Australia because he’s the strongest, and there’s some very strong members of his org, and he is still the strongest. a true icon.
14
0

‹ Hide 2 replies
PansophicGothi
4 days ago
So NSN functions like Orks ?

› Show 1 reply
whitehonkymonkey
3 days ago
the establishment must be looking in and thinking how they can eliminate tom from the system as he’s gone and done a lot of study,which makes him dangerous to the system . i hope the NSN have plenty more like him as back up used to find tom too radical, however the system has gone so radical the other way,that national socialism is the only position left to us. keep up the good work tom your a credit to the whiteman.

Seppl88
1 week ago
I am in Sydney; Bondi is 20 km away. It is a Jewish Ghetto; they like to ghettoize themselves. The media and government are frantic but only in pushing the line that “anti-semitism” is to blame and we need more gun control. Not citing the obvious that multi-culturalism is violent, also these Indian shooters had legal guns. They want to bring in even harsher hate speech laws to curb the White Nationalists’ criticism of Jewish power. This was about payback for Gaza and nothing else. It is unfortunate that this achieved nothing, it has created more sympathy for Jews and has not hurt ZOG, only will punish white interests. Resist the tyranny, Tom is the man with a plan!
19
0

‹ Hide 2 replies
HeartcloudTeaTreeKoala
1 week ago
Make Bondi jew free again!
1
0

HeartcloudTeaTreeKoala
1 week ago
They can’t call themselves semites, they don’t have the blood type, proven by the shroud and Dr Serafini the Italian Cardiologist.

‹ Hide 1 reply
mcdawggg
1 week ago
No one cares. Just get all the foreigners out of our country.
1
0

Globalist_Juice
1 week ago
Always good to hear from Tom, thank you Henrik.
9
0

beautifulphallus
1 week ago
Harold Holt was Prime Minister in the late 1960s

CoomernistFaggot
1 week ago
White is right.
32
0

Knights_Messiah
1 week ago
Tighten gun laws.. Seems almost like Islam did the attack with this consequence in mind. Screw over the white natives even more
4
1

‹ Hide 1 reply
AdamUnsalted
1 week ago
Islam is the broom of israel.
3
0

Callisterz
1 week ago
Keep pushing your limits!
8
0

Malthus
1 week ago
BONDI BEACH JEWISH MOSSAD BS EXPOSED! https://www.bitchute.com/video/Ok14qM0D4Qpz
6
2

‹ Hide 1 reply
DJTriumph
Supporter
1 week ago
Bitchute is banned in the UK
1
0

‹ Hide 2 replies
Malthus
1 week ago
ProtonVPN
0
1

HeartcloudTeaTreeKoala
1 week ago
Use Tor Browser? It’s pretty much just a VPN but free.

Downunderdickhead
Supporter
1 week ago
Good on ya Tom! Only bloke who can pull the country out of this mess! AUSSIE AUSSIE AUSSIE
46
0

‹ Hide 5 replies
liebedich
Supporter
1 week ago
Oi! Oi! Oi!
7
0

HeartcloudTeaTreeKoala
1 week ago
Excuse you, I’m doing a pretty good job too, you all wouldn’t be here without me!

HeartcloudTeaTreeKoala
1 week ago
Besides the fact that you choose a jew, a muslim, a serpent, a grey alien, pick a time and date and weapon of choice was my idea from about 4 years ago. That wasn’t any of the neo nazi’s ideas so if they don’t also credit me they’re in trouble!

HeartcloudTeaTreeKoala
1 week ago
Also you wouldn’t know that cia as in the satanists as in the jews have access to our timelines, if it wasn’t for me speaking out about it you’d all still be wasting your time in arrears you can’t make a dent in because the serpents with the jews will just amend the timeline and outcome back to the way they want it, they can’t do everything though. Through these timelines I’ve watched an American brotherhood kill the jews in America and it got reverted, I also saw other attacks and that also got reverted which Is why I said in the first place that it needs to be a worldwide thing at the same time and then we have to factor in the time travelers and their armies, because they’ll be at us too because having control of the future is a very powerful thing. If I wasn’t speaking out and made it by cleansing in this time loop and a seer from God none of you would know when to attack or where, and certainly not know when. If you want your enemy not to know your next move, you’ve got to cleanse with wild blueberries, why do you think I’m so onto that at the moment hmmm? Go get all the powders from Vimergy. Even jew Harari told you the luciferinase is a weapon “surveillance under the skin” is what he said in an interview it’s still up on YT. No I don’t take drugs, nor drink nor smoke and I’ve been cleansing heavily for more than 5 years with wild foods and even before that with dry cleansing and water fasting from 6yo. I’ve also been screened by 4 professionals and I’m no way delusional, I don’t have bi polar nor any of those kinds of things, I’m not schizophrenic either although I have had the v2k attacks which falsely say it’s schizo when it’s a weapon. Amy Holem has already proven this with her inventions to pick up on the radio signals, the micro waves, that means yes the microwaves and longitudinal waves that are coming at us. Actually I’m not sure if she picks up on the longitudinal because they go passed all devices including your own bones, it’s the make-up of us.

BeornBeorning
6 days ago
Oi!
0

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

See Also

top

 

 

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

Greg Johnson: I’m Greg Johnson. Welcome to Counter-Currents Radio. Today’s guest is Joel Davis. Joel, welcome.

 

Joel Davis: Hey, how you going? Nice to be here.

 

Greg Johnson: Joel is joining us from the future. It is, I believe, Sunday where you are in Australia, is that right?

 

Joel Davis: Yes, Sunday morning. Yeah.

 

Greg Johnson: Okay.

 

Well, I want to talk to you about your recent debate in the form of two articles. One from Keith Woods responding to you, and then your rejoinder to Keith on the NS question; does nationalism today need National Socialism?

 

And I just want to read a Telegram post that was quoted by Keith. This is you. And this is what he was responding for. You write:

 

“There was a long time when I at least partially concealed my National Socialist sympathies and tried to pursue ideological projects which could circumvent the negative stigma. I realised these paths wouldn’t work because they all required rhetorical and often actual compromises upon racial loyalism. At the core of the pathologisation of White nationalism is its association with the spectre of National Socialism as unique and ultimate evil. It’s simply not possible to avoid this association in good faith with without damaging the conviction of your own position. The only solution to this, if you want the White race to survive, is the rehabilitation of National Socialism. There is no other solution. Stop wasting time.”

 

And Keith responded with an article on his Substack where he raises a number of points.

 

And I thought what we could do is we could talk through some of his main points and that’ll give you a chance to expand upon your counter arguments. So let’s just begin.

 

Joel Davis: I also mention for the audience that I also wrote an essay of my own which was in response to Keith. But the essay was largely an essay in its own right, where I thought instead of just writing an essay, just responding to his arguments, I’d rather actually formulate my position on its own basis and then deal with some of his arguments at the end on the basis of what I laid out. So my essay is also out there if anyone is interested in reading that. But yeah, anyway, we can go, …

 

Greg Johnson: Yeah, and I linked both it and Keith’s piece at Counter-Currents in the show announcement, and I’m sure it will be linked presently in the actual comments by our able moderator. So everybody should, of course, familiarize himself out there with both pieces.

 

So the main argument that Keith makes is that, well, there are four arguments that I can discern here. And I wanted to talk to you about this because I’m sympathetic actually, with Keith’s position on this and that I’ve laid out essentially this position myself over the years. There’s an article I wrote on The Relevance of the Old Right, which is a chapter in the White Nationalist Manifesto, for instance, on this topic.

 

So the first point that he makes is:

 

“That if we’re going to have racial nationalism today, ethnic nationalism today, that National Socialism isn’t all that relevant to it because National Socialism really wasn’t a pan-White nationalist position, it was a German nationalist and Chauvinist position. And that the National Socialists sought to aggrandize Germany at the expense of other White societies, principally Poland and Ukraine and Russia. And therefore if we’re really looking for White nationalism and that means self-determination for all White nations, it just doesn’t do to look at German National Socialism. How are you going to really advocate that as a solution for say, the problems of Poland? Are you even going to get a hearing for that?”

 

So I’m sympathetic with that and I’d just like to talk about your response to that.

 

Joel Davis: Yeah, so I mean, first of all, obviously I’m an Australian and I was speaking from a more Anglo spherical context at the very least. If I was Polish, I don’t think I’d be advocating for adopting something as explicit as what I adopt in my activities here in Australia in regards to National Socialism.

 

But nevertheless the stigma and the kind of the entire ideological paradigm, the way that liberalism has been reshaped in the post World War II international order still affects Poland and Ukraine in ways that are kind of suppressing their ability to express nationalism as well.

 

Because at the end of the day they are within the American led international order. They’re within the Liberal world order, so to speak. They’re within a European order of liberal democracies which fundamentally base their conception upon a rejection of National Socialism and its tenets. And that extends beyond anything specific to National Socialism which you could differentiate from broader ethno-nationalism. It actually, the ethno-nationalist aspect of National Socialism is obviously itself has become stigmatized as a result of this association. So there still needs to be work done in a rehabilitation of National Socialism. Even if you aren’t going to adopt National Socialism as a full on ideological doctrine in Poland or in Ukraine or in Russia. There are actually pretty large National Socialist movements in Ukraine and Russia. They probably have some of the largest National Socialist movements in the kind of contemporary world, which is kind of ironic for Keith’s position or perhaps even your position.

 

But it’s not ironic from my point of view because you can see how if you were to view the Soviet Union as the bad guy of the story, well then that kind of changes and relativises how you would conceive of National Socialism from a Ukrainian perspective, for example.

 

[07:17]

 

And of course, as you know, World War II went on, the rhetoric of Hitler and Goebbels and so on became increasingly more pan-European. The SS became increasingly a pan-European force. By the end of the war, the majority of the SS weren’t even German citizens. Many Slavic peoples from many of these nations, nations joined the SS and also many of these Slavic nations actually became allies of the Third Reich. And the rhetoric became increasingly about a battle to save Europe from Bolshevism and the idea that German leadership of Europe would be fundamentally better for Eastern European peoples, not just simply better for Germans. Now that probably isn’t an argument that’s going to appeal to the Polish specifically because of the unique circumstances there.

 

But nevertheless it is an argument that obviously appeals to a lot of people from Eastern Europe because a lot of Eastern European nations literally allied with the Reich, allied with it against the Soviets and sympathize with it up to this day. I’ve met a lot of people from the Baltic States, for example, who are very, they seem to have very strong NS movements in those countries, for example, and different attitudes towards National Socialism in those countries than a lot of other countries because of their visceral hatred of the Soviet Union and the view of the National Socialists as attempting to basically save their countries from the Soviet Union. So you know, and obviously you’ve got phenomena like the Azov Battalion and so on.

 

You know, I think this idea that National Socialism just can’t fly with Slavic peoples and therefore we need to get rid of it so that we don’t offend them to embrace White unity. I just don’t think that actually makes sense historically and it doesn’t explain all these phenomena I just mentioned. And additionally, the National Socialist movement, insofar as it exists today around the world, is fundamentally pan-European is in its orientation it is kind of spread across all White countries and it is clearly focused on race first and foremost more than any like particular kind of nationalism. Although the respective National Socialists of different countries obviously are nationalists with respect to their own ethnic group at the same time there is a recognition that our race has a shared destiny and that it isn’t just the story of any one particular nation, but it’s the story of the race and the civilisation at large, which is pertinent here in political and historical terms.

 

And additionally a point that I made in my essay was that I’m not even going to, I mean, I didn’t necessarily agree with the characterisation that Keith made. I think he cherry picked a little bit because there are counter examples of statements from, for example, Alfred Rosenberg, who was in charge of the Eastern Front, which were sympathetic and made concrete plans towards creating, for example, a post-war Ukrainian nation in the event of German victory and so on.

 

This idea that they were just going to roll in there and genocide the Slavs is a bit of a meme, a bit of a construction of post World War II propaganda. Like General Plan Ost, for example, in my opinion is a fabrication. But I didn’t want to get bogged down in these historical arguments because the most core and fundamental argument, which I think and most relevant argument, because I mean, there was anti-Slavic attitudes in Germany and there was mistreatment in the war. That’s just a fact. So nevertheless, the more pertinent argument is that what concretely was World War II about? What it concretely was about was who was going to lead Europe, who was going to run Europe.

 

And basically what happened was that Europe was divided on the one side to American influence, on the other side to Soviet influence. And it’s clearly been a disaster for our race. Europe under American or Russian or Soviet rule is far worse off than a Europe under German rule, particularly under the rule of a Germany that was embodying the values of National Socialism and therefore of racialism in probably its most extreme possible form. There would simply not have been the tolerance of racial aliens on the European continent under German rule, just simply wouldn’t have been tolerated.

 

In fact, the jews probably would have been expelled from Europe had the Germans won in almost in entirety. So Europe would have become racially purified under German rule. I think that is completely, that’s pretty uncontroversial statement to make.

 

Whereas effectively under American rule or under Soviet rule, I mean, under the Soviet rule, it actually more or less fared better from a kind of just purely racial stance. But you know, as the phrase goes, you know:

 

“Communism rots the body, but liberalism rots the soul.”

 

The development of Western liberalism in the post World War II time period has been the most horrible thing to ever happen to Europe in its entire history! American rule over Europe, which is now almost total, has basically led to a situation in which there’s a kind of like a kind of a mass suicide occurring due to state sponsored, like American State sponsored subversion of institutions, projects of de-Nazification, etc, the necessity for the Americans to in their view to compete with the Kremlin aligned Left in Europe, in Western Europe by basically funding into existence an even more destructive form of Leftism which conservatives call “Cultural Marxism” or whatever. And you can debate whether that’s a legitimate phrase. But we all know what we mean by that. I mean that’s just objectively what happened.

 

[13:19]

 

So the Germans were fighting for a Europe that would be under their control. And yes, that would mean for them to assert their control. You know, you can’t make an omelette without cracking some eggs. That’s just the reality of war. Like in order for Germany to become strong enough to rule Europe, it needed to expand from its shrunken borders after the First World War. It needed to basically become strong enough to compete with rising superpowers to the East and West, namely the US and the USSR. That required a degree of expansion. That’s what the geopolitical logic was in when it came to that. And it also required a kind of you could say an imperialism. It required, you know, Germany asserting itself over the continent writ large as opposed to just simply bunkering down in Germany and saying:

 

“Well, you know what’s going on in the rest of Europe isn’t our business, we’re just going to focus on Germany.”

 

Well, the reality is that would be naive because the Soviet Union had expansionist designs, that can’t be denied. And they demonstrated it very clearly. And there was ambitions in the American elite to use their influence to basically reshape the entire global international order. So you know, these were powers that were universalist in nature that had larger ambitions than simply being concerned with themselves.

 

So in order to confront these twin threats, the Germans had to figure out a foreign policy and had to figure out an orientation that would enable them to compete for basically European domination. There was no other state in Europe that was capable of taking on that responsibility other than the Germans.

 

So to me, when I look at this in a kind of realistic way, and then also pair that to the fact that for me, German National Socialism wasn’t just like some aberration of the 1920s, but was instead a concrete manifestation of a far deeper historical process whereby the German nation rejected many core elements of the Enlightenment. And that gripped obviously the Anglo-American and French world. To me, the Germans were simply asserting a different form of consciousness, a European particularism and obviously a racial particularism against the encroachment of universalist political projects that now due to their success, are literally threatening the very survival of our race and have reduced Europe to its weakest position perhaps ever! At least in recent centuries.

 

So I think when you take that into consideration holistically, it becomes a lot easier to sympathize with the Germans. And I’ve got nothing against Polish people or against Slavic people. And I even said in my essay, you know, developments in racial science have shown that so-called Slavic peoples, and that’s a bad determination because Slavic is a language group, that kind of groups together people that it can be quite genetically different.

 

But you know, Eastern Europe, northern Eastern European, like the kind of northeast of Europe, people native to that area are actually incredibly genetically similar to people from northwestern Europe and far more similar than either of them are to people from southern Europe actually. And particularly Polish people and German people, they’re actually very genetically similar.

 

So the racialist science of the 19th century, that wasn’t informed by genetics in the same way that contemporary racialist science I think exaggerated these distinctions.

 

But you know, even in Chamberlain, I remember reading in Chamberlain in Foundations of the 19th Century, which is obviously foundational proto-National Socialist text, very influential, you know, he saw the Slavic people as a branch of the Aryan race. It wasn’t that they rejected that the Slavic people were not White or not Aryan. They were just a different branch in the Nordic branch from his perspective.

 

So it wasn’t as though the prevailing thought in Germany was that the Slavic peoples were basically non-Whites or subhuman or something. Maybe there were some comments you could cherry pick, but you could also find comments to the alternative. But the point is that now we have a far more informed understanding and we can say:

 

“Well, actually we’re not that different from people from native to Poland or Russia, like the actual, you know, Russ, or you know, people from the Baltic states or whatever, particularly these places.”

 

And so we can be informed by science from a racialist perspective, you know, seeking greater Unity amongst our peoples and hopefully overcoming these historical differences through time.

 

Greg Johnson: That’s all well and good. The next question I have, and this is relevant. So I want to say it now while it’s still relevant, is why couldn’t you say from a very similar perspective, like if you took Frank Salter very seriously, his book On Genetic Interests, which is a very good case for nationalism, you can make a very strong argument for universal nationalism from his work and you can make a very strong argument for a certain amount of solidarity amongst White national nations and from that point of view. And I’ve heard this argument offered by a scientist I know who’s very into our stuff. His attitude as well, from the point of view of this kind of Saltarian politics. We just have to look at German National Socialism and other forms of 20th century and 19th century national Chauvinism and just say well that’s the bad old form of nationalism. The good form of nationalism today rejects that kind of Chauvinism and is things in terms of pan-racial interest.

 

I remember when I was getting into all of this got a quarter of a century ago, it’s been a long time. My background is in philosophy. I’m very interested in political philosophy and I was very interested in nationalism. I was interested in the case for nationalism and I was in conversations with a lot of people when I first sort of got into the White nationalist movement circles. I’m the first White nationalist thing I ever attended was a David Irving talk in Atlanta!

 

[20:10]

 

And of course it was about World War II. And after I filled the first shelf with David Irving books and then a second shelf with other related books that people kept saying:

 

“Well, you got to read this, you got to read that.”

 

I started thinking, you know:

 

“It doesn’t seem logically necessary from a philosophical point of view that the case for nationalism stands or form falls on debates about mid 20th century history, because history and philosophy are very different things.”

 

Now I don’t want to argue that philosophy is entirely a priori or deductive or anything like that, but philosophy should be able to make cases for things like the best sort of political system for European man or man in general, without having to get off into the weeds about again mid 20th century history and specifically the rehabilitation of National Socialism on charges of being imperialistic and totalitarian. You can throw in the Holocaust and that entire branch of literature that’s connected with that, the revisionist literature on Holocaust. But more broadly, revisionism about the war, about the regime and so forth. I get why people are interested in that, but logically it strikes me that you can argue for ethnic nationalism based simply on a philosophical argument. And you could also argue for ethnic nationalism based on something like Frank Salter’s theory of ethnic genetic interest.

 

So where does the actual mid 20th century history come into this? And why do you maintain that we’ve got to rehabilitate the tarnished, stigmatized reputation of National Socialism?

 

Joel Davis: The argument that I made in my essay, you’ll notice it didn’t really have anything to do with refuting the Holocaust or any of these. And I am a revisionist on a lot of these subjects, but it wasn’t actually based in relitigating the Second World War, and was the Allied atrocity propaganda, legitimate or not? And all of this kind of stuff.

 

My argument was a dialectical argument. The core of my argument, I should say it basically had three main points. Point one is that National Socialism is the purification of the nationalist idea. That the nationalist idea has been kind of mixed up with many other ideological ideas historically. And this is particularly true when it comes to the relationship between nationalism and liberalism. You know, from the late 18th century into the early 20th century. Often they came as a package deal. Now that isn’t always the case. There are other examples. But often they came as a package deal. And so like for example, the refrain that I get as an Australian is:

 

“Why don’t you look back to the Australian nationalist tradition that created the White Australia Policy and set up the Federation of Australia and so on and created a White ethno-state in Australia?”

 

And obviously I do know, you know, studying the history of my own country very closely, and I do take inspiration from my forefathers and I value that tradition. But there is a key problem with them, which is that they mix their nationalism with their liberalism. Now that made sense in the pre-World War II international context, historical context, because liberalism, when it first came into existence, it was fundamentally an anti-monarchical, anti-aristocratic movement. That’s fundamentally what it was about. And it saw common cause with nationalism in many contexts toward that end. Because obviously it makes sense that if you’re trying to expand the franchise and empower larger groups of people, you can be speaking on behalf of the nation and say:

 

“The King or the aristocracy, they’re just in it for themselves. We here, we represent the French people, or we here represent the American people.”

 

And you can assert the necessity of a kind of constitutional liberal state on that basis.

 

And also there was other historical reasons, like you think about, for example, Austro-Hungarian Empire and you know, there’s a whole patchwork of smaller ethnic groups, many of which had nationalist movements agitating for self-determination. Well, if you’re agitating for self-determination against the monarchical order, well then it makes sense to obviously to appeal to nationalism and to liberalism at the same time in that context.

 

So anyway, there was lots of we can go into that. There’s a lot of context for that.

 

But my point was a dialectical point which is inspired a lot by Schmitt’s insights, which obviously are quite pertinent and relevant because we’re talking about the greatest German political philosopher of the time period when the National Socialists are getting their movement together, and he ultimately joined the party.

 

And Schmitt’s point in his Crisis of Parliamentary Democracy, which I believe was published in 1923, obviously it’s a broader text, but the core idea in that text is that liberalism and democracy have come as a package deal, but they’re actually based on core ideas which are contradictory. And that this contradiction will come to manifest itself, he prophesied in the 20th century. And that it was already beginning to manifest itself. And these ideas will become divorced from one another and realise they are actually in opposition. And what he means by democracy is the notion of popular sovereignty. And Schmitt appeals to essentially nationalism and frames it in terms of nationalism that in order to have a true democracy, in order to truly have popular sovereignty, you need a homogeneous population, because otherwise it becomes incoherent for the people to have a collective will. And he references Rousseau and how, you know, Rousseau makes the point that the general will, it’s not just the mere sum total of individual wills, it is the will of those who will the common good of the people.

 

So if you’re voting or politically active in the pursuit of your class interest or your minority, whatever group interest or your individual interest, you’re not actually genuinely participating in the exercise of popular sovereignty. You’re only really doing that insofar as you’re thinking about the common good of your people at large.

 

[26:52]

 

And so that requires a definition. You need to actually know, well, who is the demos, so to speak, that is in charge, who is the people. And that then brings you to a nationalist position of a definition of who they are and who they aren’t. And Schmitt, you know makes this point quite well and convincingly in my view. And he says:

 

“Well, this therefore puts it in opposition to the contractarian liberal view which is built around notions of rights and is built around the notion of Parliamentary discussion between heterogeneous elements. Whereas popular sovereignty implies the imposition of a homogeneous majority and its will over the state. Liberalism is built on the idea of basically creating constitutional protections and normative protections for minority interests and individual interests against the state.”

 

And he said these two ideas therefore are going to be on a collision course. And my argument therefore is that what National Socialism was a concrete historical expression of the nationalist idea, completely divorcing itself of all liberal connotations and taking itself to its logical conclusion.

 

And so when it took itself to its logical conclusion, it turned against Parliamentarianism. It embraced a kind of a very anti-bourgeois orientation. It took and it wasn’t communistic, it didn’t, you know, totally nationalise all industry or something, but it nationalised finance. You know, it pursued a kind of autarkic policy subordinating all economic interests to the national interest and also basically building up national strength and self reliance for the nation to be able to assert itself as an independent will in the world.

 

And this also being tied to its cultural programs where all media that was foreign owned or jewish owned or whatever was to be gotten rid of they went in and they broke up the Freemasonic lodges. They banned Marxist organisations. They just simply wasn’t, they weren’t going to tolerate anything which ran counter to their conception of the German people’s will. In, as in its, in a kind of culturally purified sense, a philosophically informed sense, not just whatever German people are currently supporting is the German people’s will. No! It’s only the self conscious German people’s will. And everything which gets in the way of that self consciousness needs to be basically purified from social and political life.

 

And so this is a very radical project which is differentiated from liberal projects of nationalism. And liberalism, then reconstituted itself in reaction to it. So in the post World War II international order, liberalism has now purged itself of the kind of its old nationalist associations as well. And liberalism has also purified itself according to this idea of protecting minority and individual rights and has greatly expanded its conception of its duty to minority groups and to individual groups and radically suppresses majoritarian organisation and the assertion of the majority will.

 

And you get to the point now where most liberal elites say “populism is the greatest threat to democracy”, which seems like an absurd statement. But it makes sense if you see democracy as liberalism, as Schmitt conceives of it. When they say democracy, obviously Schmitt would say, well that’s not democracy, it’s its antithesis.

 

But you know, so according to that dialectical process, which I think is pretty hard to refute, according to that dialectical process, therefore the notion, the very idea of nationalism in its opposition now to liberalism, therefore needs to be contended with as an idea unto itself. And that is therefore mediated by the spectre of National Socialism. It doesn’t mean that every single movement of illiberal nationalism that can come into existence is a one to one copy of National Socialism. But it bears some association, right? It bears some association, very important association.

 

And also I would argue that it’s necessary for nationalism to take on an illiberal form in order to actually address everything that has happened to our country since, like the infestation of foreign races and so on that has occurred. In order for us to become truly independent of these forces it’s going to require a very interventionist state. It’s going to require a very active programme that is going to be highly exclusionary and is going to have to carry out policies which are extreme according to, like the sensibilities of the common man in today’s world or maybe in any world.

 

And so as a result of that, in order to preserve our racial survival, I think we have to then look to National Socialism as an example of the nationalist idea taken to its logical conclusion and say:

 

“Well, we also kind of need to take this idea to its logical conclusion. We also need to purge ourselves of liberalism.”

 

And so we can take inspiration from them even if we don’t want to copy every aspect. And obviously if we’re not Germans, we’re not going to copy their foreign policy. That would make absolutely no sense.

 

And even in today’s Germany, I don’t think would benefit from the same kind of foreign policy. I think now the situation that Europe is in is going to require a far more pan-European solution than ever before because Europe is comparatively far weaker relative to the rest of the world and is more interdependent than ever before.

 

So the form that it takes, basically the foreign policy of National Socialist Germany is the most irrelevant aspect for us today. The relevant aspects, it’s the process by which National Socialism rose to power. The process by which National Socialism turned itself against liberal Marxist jewish elements and took on International Finance and sought to create self sufficiency and self consciousness within the German people and manifest it in a concrete political form that crushed all of its enemies in the domestic sphere. That to me is what I take inspiration from and what is pertinent and what needs to be basically rehabilitated.

 

[33:24]

 

Greg Johnson: So nationalism that’s anti-liberal, basically what you can call national populism today. What do you believe in terms of the idea of sovereignty? This is related obviously to Schmitt both in the crisis of Parliamentary democracy and also the one idea that everybody seems to know from Schmitt about the sovereign being the person who decides to be the exception. It seems to me that there are really two different concepts of sovereignty there and that the most important one is the idea of popular sovereignty. That ultimately what’s sovereign is the common good of a particular people. That is the criterion by which you judge legitimacy. It’s the criterion by which you judge policies.

 

Basically that is what populism is about. When people talk about populism today, they’re really talking about the assertion of the sovereignty of a particular people usually against a liberal, democratic political system that has battened on these societies.

 

And basically liberal democracy is the art of not giving the people what they want. I think it ultimately boils down to in practice minority rule. It starts out with protection of minority rights, but it ends up being the minority veto.

 

And ultimately that ends up being ruled by empowered minorities, political insiders, political elites, and hence populism tends to array the majority against the elites. So I mean there are two senses of the populace and populism. One is the people as a whole and its legitimate interests. And then there’s the many, the majority who are excluded from power by, and have their interests not represented by the people who do occupy power, which are the elites.

 

Joel Davis: Yeah, of course.

 

Well, I mean obviously populism has a kind of certain vagueness in a lot of its manifestations. For example, if we look at like contemporary examples, like insofar as you could call Donald Trump a populist and the MAGA movement populist or whatever, you can see that it’s completely ideologically vapid. That a lot of contemporary populist movements are like this, where they kind of have this vague kind of appeal to heartland’s traditional understanding of what the country is and is supposed to be about and play to their identity in kind of vague ways.

 

But there isn’t really like a very concrete programme that is put forward or even worldview. And so when these movements get electoral success, usually they just become recuperated by the broader system. And maybe the system makes a few subtle adaptations, or maybe even not so subtle adaptations to incorporate it and kind of return to status quo. Which is like what we’re seeing now in the United States, where what Trump’s original movement was about and what it currently is are two very distinct things. I think what Trump’s success basically means now is a recognition in a large portion of the American elite for the necessity to move from a liberal internationalist to a realist foreign policy in order to deal with a rising China and all of its ramifications. And so that’s why it’s been tolerated.

 

And basically the idea that Americans are not going to be galvanised to really face the threat of a rising China on the basis of wokeness, but instead, [chuckling] or something, they’re going to have some kind of, at least the semblance of patriotism, you know, given to them in addition to the kind of assertion of American interests specifically, rather than just this project of like liberal internationalism, America as the kind of merely like the vanguard of liberal internationalism or something.

 

But anyway, that’s besides the point. I mean, the point basically that I’m putting forward is that National Socialism is a totally cohesive ideology that is actually thought through to its logical conclusions, and it is built off, … Well, if we basically purge all other kind of, all liberal notions from the idea of nationalism and just think through, from it up, you basically get something akin to National Socialism in any kind of equivalent context to Germany in the early 20th century. If you are to repudiate it from a moral standpoint, if you can say:

 

“Oh, well, I don’t agree with this or that foreign policy decision.”

 

That’s one thing. But if you’re to repudiate National Socialism as a tendency, what you’re basically saying is that the nationalist idea itself is dangerous. The nationalist idea itself needs to be immunised against working itself out to its logical conclusion, because its logical conclusion is the most horrible thing that has ever happened ever in world history. And that’s the Spectre that we’re living in.

 

And so the immunisation of the nationalist idea results basically in it being rendered utterly impotent. And so when nationalists have to constantly provide these elaborate forms of justification as to how they’re not Nazis. And why all of the aspects of National Socialism, which are scary are not present in our nationalism. Well, what that basically forces you to do is submit to the paradigm moral and ideological of the enemy.

 

And insofar as you’re doing that, you’re basically not asserting your own idea from a strong moral standpoint. You’re not providing a strong projection of will behind your worldview, which really is the whole essence here. The assertion and total victory of the national will over the state is what the project is supposed to be! Now it becomes known, negotiating from a losing position some modicum of national survival within a system that’s fundamentally built around literally the destruction of your people.

 

[39:51]

 

Greg Johnson: Now, there are two points here. One, I don’t know how worked out a political philosophy National Socialism really was.

 

If you look at it, there were a lot of different tendencies. And when Hitler came to power, there was a lot of improvisation and chaos actually in the government. I don’t know if they had a system worked out in concrete political terms or in intellectual terms. There were all kinds of debates that were going on within Germany at the time.

 

And one of the ways to understand that is that this was part of a larger cultural and political movement, anti-liberalism, the conservative revolution in Germany and so forth. And it wasn’t necessarily a worked out political ideology.

 

But the second thing, and this is more important, I don’t see why it’s problematic for nationalists to say there’s a good kind of nationalism and a bad kind of nationalism. And the bad kind of nationalism is the nationalism for me, but not for the position [opposition]. It’s:

 

“Yes, I’m going to take care of my nation and I’m going to figure out all the ways that I can stick it to my neighbours!”

 

Which historically is what nationalism generally means.

 

And this is why you can get people who issue these pious lectures that the reason why we had the First World War and the Second World War was this bad old form of nationalism. And therefore we need to get beyond nationalism. I get that argument and I can say:

 

“Well, wait, but there’s another kind of nationalism which is not beggar thy neighbour nationalism. It’s not nationalism for me, but not for thee.”

 

It’s a consistent position that acknowledges that there’s a plurality of different peoples in the world with different interests and different ways of life. When these people have to occupy the same territory and compete for control of the same government, they generally start hating each other. And come to blows. Fortunately though, the world is big enough for every people to have its own patch of dirt, its own borders, its own state. And therefore we support nationalism, understood as the principle of self-determination for all nations. I don’t see anything wrong with that.

 

Okay, so what’s your critique of that?

 

Joel Davis: First of all, a very obvious point to make is you’re saying the world is big enough for every people to have their own nation. Okay, but the world isn’t equally divided, right? There is obviously some national territories are much bigger than others. Some national territories are more strategically advantageous than others. Some national territories have far more natural resources than others, and so on and so what this creates there is power is a reality in the global system.

 

So if you have some states that are incredibly large and powerful and some states that are incredibly small and dependent on larger states, you don’t really have self-determination of all peoples. What you have is a system that maybe could dress itself up in that language, but ultimately is a system where there’s some very big states that create orders of alliances of subordinate states in antagonism toward one another. Which is basically what we have. So that then has to then be navigated as its own reality. So in the example of Europe, Europe has been remade in the image of, basically American ideology in the post World War II international order. There hasn’t been a self-determination of all European peoples.

 

There’s been an active project of subversion led by foreign power to change the political culture and culture in general of European nations in order to make them more ideologically simpatico with American foreign policy objectives.

 

Greg Johnson: And I grant that’s an undesirable thing. And I would say:

 

“Okay, isn’t that an example of the bad old form of nationalism too?”

 

Joel Davis: But it isn’t nationalism. The American, …

 

Joel Davis: It’s imperialism. Right?

 

Greg Johnson: Yeah, okay, so this goes to an even deeper point and again to bring up Schmitt again and his Concept of the Political. Schmitt, I think, provided a very good prediction and refutation in advance in 1932 when that book was released of what would ultimately be the Liberal international order. By saying that the doctrine of pacifism is either fundamentally non-political, in other words, no one is willing to actually fight for it, or it becomes, paradoxically and ironically, actually one of the most destructive and violent and imperial doctrines ever asserted. If you actually turn it into a political doctrine and you say:

 

“No one is allowed to make war on this planet because making war is itself immoral.”

 

What does that then necessitate? It necessitates an international order to be asserted to act. It proactively prevent war from breaking out, which requires basically global domination of the pacifists. Right?

 

Greg Johnson: I do think that you can create an international order that penalises people from committing aggressive war with their neighbours. And you could do things like the Persians did to the Greeks after they stopped trying to conquer them. I forget which Persian emperor, I think it was Auto Xerxes II, basically enforced peace on Greece by saying:

 

“If one Greek city state attacks another, I will align myself with the victim and put the Persian Empire’s resources behind them.”

 

And it did manage to pacify Greece for the better part of a generation. These things can happen!

 

Joel Davis: That’s the assertion of a powerful empire though. So if America comes into Europe and says, and offers the same deal, which I guess the British kind of were doing, that I guess you could say to a certain extent. Because it’s in their interests for Europe to remain divided as opposed to becoming dominated by one power and unified underneath their control into a more powerful state than the British Empire or America, then that obviously serves their particular national interests.

 

But maybe the European national interests or the European people’s interests are actually served better by becoming so powerful they don’t have to be subordinated or be mutually weakened to the British or to the Americans, but actually could become powerful enough to assert themselves and assert their destiny.

 

[47:24]

 

Greg Johnson: I think that that would be highly desirable and that’s certainly possible.

 

Joel Davis: That’s the National Socialist worldview, basically one of the core tenets, which is that in order for us to assert our destiny in the world, we have to become strong. We have to become so strong that basically no one can get in our way. That we can become, basically develop sufficient national strength to the point at which no one can say anything to us. And that is the ambition basically of every great world historical state is to become so powerful that no one from the outside can impose its ideas and its culture and its power structures upon you. And that often requires expansionism to actually become feasible. That requires active meddling in the affairs of foreign peoples in order to achieve that.

 

And so this idea that the world is big enough for everyone to be able to determine their own destiny, I just think is false! And history is my witness. Because being a small state subject to much bigger states is not actually self-determination. You aren’t determining your own destiny if for Example, you’re a small European state that, yeah, okay, your people get to elect their own representatives, but ultimately your entire political process and culture is being massively influenced by a foreign state that is trying to impose its will upon you, because you aren’t strong enough to be able to build up your own financial, commercial, military, etc., institutions that enable you to become genuinely self reliant and self-determining in a totalizing way. Self determination requires self assertion and requires far more comprehensive, it actually has far more comprehensive requirements than simply having a nominal state called Germany, where the German citizens elect representatives.

 

Greg Johnson: Yeah, well, this brings into play another concept of sovereignty which I think is important to distinguish, which is you have this idea of sovereign states in the world today and there are 200 of them basically. And under international law, sovereign states are equal. Now what does that mean?

 

Obviously they’re not equal in terms of population, military power or anything like that. So in what sense are they equal? They’re morally equal! Meaning that they have certain rights vis a vis one another and that these rights can be violated of course, because having rights doesn’t make you bulletproof.

 

But the point is that the idea of a sovereign state is not a material feature of a state. It’s autarky, it’s invincibility, it’s invulnerability, it’s a moral concept. It’s basically the international equivalent of moral personhood within a legal order. And if sovereignty doesn’t mean that, if sovereignty means basically invulnerability and autarky, then there is no such thing as a sovereign state. Because even the biggest and most powerful state states in the world today are less powerful than the entire rest of the world if it unites against them.

 

And so if you understand sovereignty simply in terms of autarky and invulnerability, there’s no such thing as sovereignty because nobody is autarkic and nobody’s invulnerable.

 

Joel Davis: Those are ideals to aspire towards, like to become as powerful and self reliant as possible.

 

And the more powerful and self reliant you become, the more capacity you have to self-determine. That’s what self-determination means. That you are literally in control of your own destiny, that you are acting and expressing according to standards you derive from your relation to yourself rather than your relation to others.

 

And so obviously the more powerful you are as a state, the more capacity you have to do this. And the much more difficult it is for other states, foreign states, to argue the point and to undermine you. So that’s just a concrete reality. You can argue for this abstract ideal, but in the real world that’s just a fact.

 

And so what I care about as a nationalist is the actual concrete fact of how much self-determination my people have, rather than the abstract ideal where we could say:

 

“Well, wouldn’t it be so great if everyone in the world could all agree to these abstract rules?”

 

And it’s, well, those abstract rules in practice, no one’s actually willing to fight for them unless they’re getting something out of it, generally speaking.

 

And so the current paradigm under which those rules are upheld is either defended by the Americans when it suits them, or violated by the Americans when it suits them, or defended by the Russians when it suits them, and violated by the Russians when it suits them and so on. It’s not a genuine reality. It is a sham edifice.

 

So I’d rather Pierce through that and get to the fundamental and get to the real. And this is also why it’s important to come back to, I think, Romanticism versus the Enlightenment and German philosophy itself, which in many respects is a radical accounting of particularity and in particular national particularity.

 

If you want to look at people like Herder, Fichte, there is a in romanticist German philosophy tied up within German nationalist project originally in the 19th century was:

 

“Okay, we just got ramroded by Napoleon. There’s this giant British Empire that is imposing its commercial will on the world. We need to bring all these kingdoms together into a big German state so that we can be powerful enough to protect German national particularity against these foreign influences and never be run over by a foreign military in the same way Napoleon did, ever again!”

 

[53:49]

 

And so there was a kind of a very strong movement towards recognizing all that is particular as opposed to looking for just simply what is universal rather than this ideal of well, how do we negotiate this international order according to universal principles? How do we actually find what’s particular about being German and what about our own self relation?

 

And again, the concept of national self-determination. You can see why this is actually way more relevant than what is universal about the idea of trying to universalise the concept of national self-determination into just merely a set of like universal principles that could be respected. Instead, let’s look at the actual concreteness of what is our particular national culture, what is our particular national consciousness? What does it mean? And how can it fundamentally be protected? And how can we fight for our particular, in their case, German national expression?

 

And I don’t care about the national self-determination of fucking Libyans. I don’t care about the national self-determination of fucking Syrians or Indians or all these countries that I have absolutely no care or concern for! I really don’t. I would not permit the sacrifice of one drop of the blood of our race to defend any of their nationalisms. I don’t give a shit about their nationalisms! I only care about the nationalisms of people whom I respect, people with whom I have some kind of fealty, some kind of kinship. They’re the only nationalisms that I actually care about that I find relevant.

 

And so for me, as someone who comes from a more romanticist standpoint, I empathize far more with this view that it’s from like, and particularly if you’re a German at that time, it’s like, in order for Germany to have its own culture and not be dominated by these foreign influences, we have to fall in love with ourselves and we have to build a political movement that is for us in particularity, because we’re the only ones that truly care about being German people who are not German. There’s a few Germanophiles, but generally can’t understand and don’t care about our national destiny because they don’t participate in it. So why would they? And that makes complete sense.

 

And then development of German thought. I mean, if you get to someone like Martin Heidegger, well, obviously this is actually quite this is moving into far more abstract territory.

 

But, you know, Martin Heidegger in his critique of technicity or the kind of technological worldview, technological and framing, or the kind of metaphysics of modernity, the reduction of thought, in his view, to a kind of ratiocinative calculating modes of thought fundamentally deprive us of having a kind of a relation to the homeland. For Heidegger, the homeland is something which actually is ambiguous, which is pretty rational. It’s related a lot to myth, to artistic forms, to spirituality.

 

And so, and this is very much what the German, like volkish tradition was also trying to drive at in its focus upon, you know, reviving, you know, ancient German mythologies and Wagnerian operas, you know, pertaining to pursuit of the Holy Grail, and which obviously isn’t particularly German, but it’s Germanic you could say, or it’s Northern European. It’s part of all Northwestern European culture. Trying to drive to like, what is actually the spiritual meaning of what it means to be German as opposed to just simply what is universal about all nations that Germans also possess? Actually, what is particular about individual nations is far more interesting and far more pertinent.

 

And I agree with Heidegger that basically this ratiocinative, universalistic way of thinking actually came into the world through the conduit of my people. It actually came into the world very strongly through the conduit of the Anglo English people. I actually do feel Germanophilic about this. I actually think that’s a tragedy. I think that’s a great problem. And it’s highly contributive to why we became a, not just in England, but in all of our colonial projects, we became essentially a power in the world that enabled the machinations of international finance and commercialism, and jewish ethnic interest and so on to become so monstrous through the prism of that worldview. Through a kind of loss of a spiritual sense of the homeland and our relation to all that which is pre-rational that makes up our identity as a people. And the Germans were resisting that process. The Germans had a lot more of a cultural immunisation and a high cultural immunisation against that process and a rejection of that process.

 

And so I think the Germans were the correct spiritual leaders of Europe. I think we were the incorrect spiritual leaders of Europe, which is what ended up happening Now. Europe has been remade in the image of our culture which is built, which is these notions of universal rights and so on are derived from. And it’s causing the suicide of our race!

 

And it’s also a worldview. And Heidegger makes the point that in the black notebooks that the jewish people, because they lack a homeland, their fundamental orientation towards the world is calculative, is ratiocinative.

 

And so a worldview they can inhabit, a metaphysic that they can inhabit, which is reductive in that sense, is exemplary to the accumulation of their power.

 

Whereas a worldview which tries to reach back into the pre-rational essence of the homeland into the earth from which our particular national world in the Heideggerian language, out of which it arises, but which is kind of mysterious and ambiguous, and not reducible to any kind of like, conceptual schema, that actually is the form of spiritual immunisation and the form of spiritual resistance, of the assertion of our national cultures against this kind of jewish homelessness.

 

[1:00:10]

 

 

Greg Johnson: Yeah, there’s a lot to that. German romanticism, new German philosophy in general is very, especially the anti-Enlightenment strain of it, is very critical of globalisation, basically. And I think that that’s entirely correct.

 

I do think that the British mind, the tendency of Anglos is to mistake their full consciousness for the universal. And that’s very bad! Anglo-Americans, they really mistake their folkish ways as universal, and they think of themselves as avatars of the universal.

 

And that means that they basically promote the destruction of their own people and every other people, because they just don’t think that there’s any meaningful difference. I know that Swedish liberals are like this too. I was speaking to the Swedish woman who’s saying:

 

“Yes, you know, Swedes in their hearts, the Swedish Leftists believe that everybody wants to be just like them.”

 

They can’t fathom that there would be anybody who would want a radically different way of life and that therefore admitting such people into their societies could threaten it. There is something very peculiar about that.

 

But let’s just say that we affirm folkishness and say, yes, there are many different peoples. They have many different worldviews, different ways of life. And again, the best way to cultivate that is to separate them. Because we notice historically that when they’re competing for territory or government favours or whatever, the more diverse the society is, the more unnecessary conflicts that we support self-determination. You still get this question, okay, well, how is that kind of world going to be governed? You can be a complete realist about enmity, like Schmitt, you can say we will never have a world where there’s no difference between the insiders and the outsiders.

 

But you can still ask, okay, given that we accept that this is the world that we live in, what are the best ways of establishing amicable relations across a globe like that? If you affirm nationalism, if you understand that it’s in a way inevitable and you try and deal with the problems that people who are broad thinking face, which is how are we going to live together on this finite planet? You’ve got to come up with some kind of geopolitical vision of how these different groups are going to get along.

 

Joel Davis: So why is “getting along” just simply conceding to the other, like a really effective strategy in getting along with somebody is becoming far more powerful than them. So they fear you and are forced to submit to you. That’s actually a really effective strategy at people being very friendly to you is when they fear you. When they don’t fear you, it’s actually a lot harder to get their friendship.

 

So this idea that we need to have this universal nationalist ideology in order to get along doesn’t make any sense to me! What makes a lot more sense to me is how about we just become really fucking powerful and then we can negotiate from a position of strength rather than weakness in how we’re going to relate to surrounding groups.

 

Greg Johnson: And this is the situation that Whites are in today, and this is the situation that nationalists are in today. I get the image of George Floyd under the knee of a cop, under the knee of a globalist cop. And there are two ways that you can get out from under the knee of this globalist system, and only one of them really works. And that would be to appeal to whatever elements of fairness and decency there are in the guy who’s got his knee on your neck. Now that doesn’t mean that you can persuade everybody in the world, but there are many, many interlocking powers that are screwing us right now and driving us to extinction. And some of them definitely can be appealed to on moral grounds.

 

But the one thing that I know is never going to work is if George Floyd, you know, under the knee is saying:

 

“I’m going to kill you know, let me up and I’m going to kill you!”

 

And that I think is basically the position that you’re articulating. Because we’re in a situation now where we’re going to have to, because we have no power now. We’re the weak, and, …

 

Joel Davis: I fundamentally disagree that Whites collectively lack the ability to assert ourselves on the basis of our own strength. We do have that ability.

 

Greg Johnson: We do if we change our thinking about certain things, and you’re not addressing, I think, the predominant thinking patterns that stand in the way of that. And any kind of philosophy that smacks of “might is right” or something like that, I think is a non-starter for us today because we’re the weak! And if we believe that might is right, then we believe that we should be believing that our enemies are in the Right. And clearly we don’t believe that.

 

Joel Davis: That doesn’t follow at all! The reason Whites are in the position that we’re in is because of our own ideas and our own kind of moral proclivities. It’s not because of the assertion of any other group against us in a way that dominates us against our will. It is a willful embrace of these ideas. If Whites collectively mobilise the willpower to resist what is happening and assert ourselves on the basis of our own strength, we do have the strength to regain sovereignty over at least some territory, if not pretty much all of the like, our historical territories across the West. We are by far collectively the most powerful, richest, most effective fighting groups in our respective nations. Like no other group, even all of them combined would lose to us if we were organised and assertive on our own terms.

 

[1:07:22]

 

Greg Johnson: What’s stopping us?

 

Joel Davis: Yeah, so what’s stopping us? What’s stopping us is moral cuckoldry essentially. What’s stopping us is this universalistic world view that we’re debating. I mean, what’s stopping us is this necessity to process our self assertion through some kind of like universal humanitarian, abstract set of principles of rights. And that is fundamentally a bullshit edifice. It’s not, …

 

Greg Johnson: I don’t think it’s a bullshit edifice.

 

Joel Davis: And it’s derived in a fundamentally flawed worldview from my standpoint, metaphysically and logically.

 

Greg Johnson: Okay, what is that flawed worldview? Just briefly, where does it come from? What are some of the thinkers that articulate this?

 

Joel Davis: First of all, I mean, we’ve been discussing the kind of the concrete ridiculousness of a kind of universal nationalism that it doesn’t actually in practice realise the principle of self-determination, which is the core principle with which it seeks to realise. And so therefore it’s in contradiction with its own principle. So logically it’s just a non-starter.

 

Secondarily from a metaphysical standpoint, I agree with a Heideggerian premise that this attempt at reducing the moral to a kind of universal rationality rather than asserting one’s particularity is again I think fundamentally incongruent with the human condition as such.

 

Greg Johnson: Right, okay. Okay. Yeah, well, let’s start out with that. Okay. I look at Hobbes and I think Hobbes provides us with a path by which you start out with something like a self assertive group, or a self assertive individual with no rules. Right.

 

What did Trayvon Martin call himself? He called himself a “No Limit Nigger”. I think that was the term. Well, imagine a world of “No Limit Niggers” basically all asserting themselves against one another. That’s the world that you’re picturing. That’s the world that realists in foreign policy picture. It’s the state of nature in Hobbes’s terms. And Hobbes make a very good argument that actually if you’re rational, you will want to get out of that state of nature as quickly as you possibly can and establish certain boundaries, of limits. You want to have limits! You want to have limits because in the end it’s in all of your interests. And he actually makes a fantastically cynical argument for equality. As one of my Professors as an undergraduate put it, he said:

 

“Hobbes argument for equality is this. You might be big and tough, but you’ve got to sleep sometime. And when you do, a bunch of skinny guys can get together and shank you. And that’s the end of you. That’s the end of the high and mighty.”

 

And you could do that in individual terms. Think of the prison house, right? The bully in the prison. Or you can think of it in global terms, in terms of countries.

 

And again, there’s no country that’s so big that the rest of the world couldn’t get together and shank it. You’ve got to sleep sometime, right?

 

And that means that, …

 

Joel Davis: Well, I disagree, actually. I mean, Russia and the United States have nuclear arsenals that could completely wipe humanity off the face of the planet. They are in a certain sense impossible to shank!

 

Greg Johnson: Well, if people really want to go to the limit, they can be shanked.

 

But the point is that, and there is this odd little thing that’s happened that’s very disturbing to my view because I love to say, wait a second here. Nuclear arsenal, it’s the ultimate, it’s the ultimate ace in the hole. We’ve recently had a nuclear power invaded by a non-nuclear power. You know, it’s the whole Kursk thing in the Russia-Ukraine war, which is kind of extraordinary because I was really hoping that the you could basically hide behind those nuclear arsenals.

 

But the point is that, …

 

Joel Davis: That’s a bad example because it didn’t, wouldn’t existentially threaten the Russian state. I mean, they weren’t “shanked”! It was a minor border incursion. It wasn’t going to escalate to like dropping nukes.

 

Greg Johnson: Well, but here’s the thing that they, …

 

Joel Davis: They have designs over integrating into their own federation. And they want to win the public opinion of at least the people who live in the territory they’re annexing.

 

Greg Johnson: Yeah, well, but you know, the point is that if you, … Hobbes makes an argument that if you have a world in the state of nature, you will all rationally, both the very strong and the very weak want to move to a conflict resolution, conflict containment model that involves things like rights.

 

Now, of course, the problem with Hobbes’s view is that it implies the necessity of a sovereign. How do you deal with a world, and by sovereign that’s a decider. And how do you deal with that in a world where states are to one another, as Hobbes would recognised, as individuals are to the state of to one another in the state of nature. There’s no overarching power, so what do you have to do?

 

Well, they’ve been trying that for hundreds and hundreds of years, since really the conclusion of the Thirty Years War, to create international law and international institutions to deal with conflict resolution.

 

And there are two models of globalism. The terrifying, horrible model of globalism, in my view, is the commercial model where everything is interlaced on the levels of the economy of desire and everything becomes commodified and everything slowly becomes homogenised because why wouldn’t you listen to Taylor Swift all over the world if you could, right? That kind of bullshit! That’s a terrifying model of globalisation because it destroys culture and peoples.

 

But there’s another vision of globalisation that I think that we have to try and figure out how to make it work, and that is the “conflict resolution” model. How can we have a world independent states, and yet make sure that these independent states don’t spin out of control and create global thermonuclear wars and things like that? That I think is a reasonable enterprise. And yes, you want to be as strong as you possibly can given that these things might not work. Go ahead.

 

[1:15:07]

 

Joel Davis: I mean, you bringing up Hobbes, I mean, is kind of crazy because the whole theory of Hobbes as you kind of just mentioned and then jutted away from, is that the only way to overcome the state of nature is for there to be a monarch that isn’t just simply formally presiding over some kind of constitutional order, but is actually concretely so powerful as such that it can dominate the entire social sphere and is powerful enough to deprive us universally of all of our rights, but then in the pursuit of peace, grant us a limited series of rights. That’s the basic premise. And that what we inherit from submitting and empowering the monarch to become so powerful as to be essentially impossible to resist is that we then inherit a set of limited rights.

 

Well, in the international system, what that would mean would mean that there would have to be one country that is so powerful that it can utterly dominate the entire earth. Now if that country is dominating the entire earth and it has an ideology that is genociding my race, well, that’s fundamentally unacceptable! Now if it’s a country that is dominating the entire earth and it’s like Nazi Germany, maybe I don’t mind so much.

 

So the question is who is going to be sovereign insofar as that cannot exist, you can only really have limited pockets of negotiated relationships. So if within Europe you have one all powerful state that’s just so much more powerful than all the other states combined with, they create a regional order, but you know, that couldn’t then be universalised. You know, they don’t have the power to dominate maybe the entire planet, but they can dominate a region. Right. Like in North America, America kind of functions like that. Like it’s basically almost impossible to argue with the American government from the perspective of, and they can just flagrantly just go and you know, just, the CIA can just like go into Mexico and just start like taking over, engaging in massive covert operations. And the Mexican government barely says anything because they don’t really have sovereignty because their neighbour is just so powerful that they barely have a very limited amount of sovereignty.

 

So there’s obviously the point that I’m making is that appealing to this notion is itself the refutation of this idea of that we can sit down and just have a rational discussion about the morality of national sovereignty and create an international order around that. No! The Hobbesian argument is that we can’t sit down and have a rational discussion about our mutual rights, that the human condition doesn’t allow for that. All we can do is create a centre of power so powerful that it can impose only a limited series of rights and it basically itself be elevated outside of that same order and have the ability to violate it, have the ability and become so powerful you can’t do anything about its violations.

 

Greg Johnson: Yeah, well, I understand that, but Hobbes understood that right on the global level there is going to be no sovereign. And there were other thinkers who came later, really who tried to figure out, okay, how could we have, how could we model relations between sovereign European states in such a way that they can relate to one another without, …

 

Greg Johnson: That obviously failed, didn’t it?

 

Joel Davis: Well, yes and no. There is this notion of collegiality as a model of relationships. What is that? Well, collegiality means that they’re independent actors with common goals and interests, but no overall hierarchy that controls them. And the idea of the comity of nations in international law, it is basically a collegial model for sovereign states to come together and work out their problems. It’s remarkable, though, how many sovereign states have existed for very long times with no power at all! Some of the oldest sovereign entities in Europe are the tiniest and most powerless, like Monaco or Lichtenstein or San Marino. How is that possible? Well, it’s possible because, …

 

Greg Johnson: They pose no threat!

 

Joel Davis: Well, it be you could say that. Or they have friendly relations with their neighbours.

 

Joel Davis: Yeah, but they pose no threat and obviously don’t have the ability to assert themselves. And so therefore it’s unnecessary to develop enmity with them. Whereas the more powerful you get, the more enemies you’re going to accrue, because the more fearsome you become.

 

And also, I’m not saying that nations can’t be friends or recognise mutual interests. Obviously they can. And from my perspective, the nations of Europe should find common cause at this time in history, because we now are in a very different world than we were in 100 or 200 years ago, when the European powers were so far ahead of the rest of the world technologically that their mutual enmity really was the decisive factor of who controlled global destiny.

 

Whereas now the rest of the world has caught up and our race needs to come together to safeguard the future of our civilisation and culture, which is very largely shared. There is a very substantial aspect of the culture of every individual European nation is the collective European culture. In fact, I would say overwhelmingly so.

 

And so in order to safeguard our civilisation, we need to find common cause and put aside old differences which in previous bygone historical contexts were more relevant, actually.

 

And that’s why there were so many wars in Europe and why now there isn’t really the same appetite for war in Europe, but there still is a current war in Europe. Why is that? Because there’s still a clash between two, basically two fundamental power structures over the determination of Russia’s sphere of influence, NATO’s sphere of influence.

 

[1:21:40]

 

 

And so, in a sense, what that demonstrates is that the only reason why you’ve had relative peace in Europe for so long is because of the domination of really big and powerful superpowers that have nukes pointed at each other and Europe’s subordination essentially to the American led international order. So that isn’t Europe creating this ideal of rational discussion where the Polish are coming and sitting down with the Czechs and sitting down with the French and working out their individual differences. It’s the fact that they’re all subject to much larger powers and so they’re not actually able to assert themselves and have genuine [chuckling] differences under these conditions.

 

Greg Johnson: Let me ask you, do you think that Europe will ever become a formidable separate independent block without one European country dominating the rest of the continent?

 

Joel Davis: Well, the reality is that when Europe, so let’s say America keeps going down this path of moving towards a realist foreign policy away from liberal internationalism which I really hope occurs. I really hope that this isn’t a temporary aberration, and I think it’s necessary because the rise of China is necessitating it. And the Americans get out of Europe largely, and Europe finds some self assertion in coming decades as a result of that and further European integration is pursued. And obviously they’re dealing with Russians to the east. And so they need to be strong and powerful to resist Russian advances.

 

And they also need to be able to provide their people with a political formula that can resist Russian subversion which hopefully moves them towards the assertion of Europe’s particularity, that moves them towards the assertion of their actual ethnic and racial identity. And we get policies like re-migration and the borders get shut. That would be beautiful if that happens. That’d be my ideal.

 

If we get into that kind of world and Europe starts to trying to re-inspire patriotism and develop a kind of a national patriot movements in various European nations that align themselves and build up independent military strength, economic strength and so on. When that Europe sits down and meets, right, the leaders of Europe to whatever this future European Union or if it has a different name, whatever, whoever is the leader of Germany, whoever is the leader of France, what they say and what they want is going to matter a hell of a lot more than whoever the leader of Croatia is or whoever the leader of Lithuania is. Right? And that’s just the reality. Now that doesn’t mean that we hate Lithuanians and we hate Croatians.

 

But at the end of the day the power of Europe is more fundamentally concentrated in those bigger, more consequential States, then there’s more minor states. And so therefore, you know, Europe will come under German and French leadership. It will. And we’ll have to go in that direction.

 

Greg Johnson: Will Germany and France fight it out?

 

Joel Davis: Well, I mean they probably will have antagonism, but you know, if they have a mutual animus of greater enemies around the world, that gives them a strong incentive to work out their differences and form a strong alliance. Right?

 

Greg Johnson: Yeah. I mean, it’s possible to come up with a simulacrum of human behaviour that’s entirely based on selfishness as a motivation. And liberals love to do that. Right. And foreign policy realists love to do that’s sort of what you’re doing now.

 

Joel Davis: It’s not based on selfishness though. It’s securing your national community and its future, that is not selfishness. That’s service to your people!

 

Greg Johnson: Well, but you’re talking about selfishness in terms of vis a vis other countries. And I, …

 

Joel Davis: Yeah. Okay. So obviously Germans care more about Germans than they care about Greek people. But there could still be a wider European fidelity as well. It’s not an either or.

 

Greg Johnson: Yeah.

 

Joel Davis: They can also care about Europe at large.

 

Greg Johnson: Yeah.

 

Joel Davis: Like if you’re really awake, you would realise that the particular national destiny of any one European nation is actually intimately tied to the collective destiny of the European people. And so you have to safeguard that to safeguard your own national interests as well.

 

So you can have concentric circles of identity. It doesn’t have to be one absolute identity to the exclusion of all others. There can be multiple layers of identity at play. Just like you’re a member of a family, you’re a member of member local community, you’re a member of a nation, you’re a member of a race. Like all of these things are important and have to be balanced.

 

The point of reducing it to selfishness, I mean, it’s just that only makes sense in your abstract theoretical model. It doesn’t actually make sense in the concrete humanity of what we’re discussing. Patriotism is not selfish. Patriotism is a love of the other, of the direct other of your blood!

 

Greg Johnson: Yeah. I do think it’s possible for there to be non-selfish relationships of amity and mutual respect between different peoples. And they’re.

 

Joel Davis: Yeah, of course that’s possible, but it’s still like, for example, Australia now has an alliance with the Japanese.

 

Greg Johnson: Yeah.

 

[1:27:09]

 

Joel Davis: Now there was one point in which we were massacring each other, in the Second World War and they were a great threat to us.

 

But now Australia and Japan, because of the strategic circumstances surrounding the rapid rise of Chinese military and economic power, well now we have common cause and we have very strong military agreements. Both of our militaries have permission to operate in each other’s sovereign territories, which is agreement that I think both countries only have with the United States and maybe we have similar agreements maybe with the British actually as well. But it’s a pretty like rare agreement for either country to have with another country.

 

So we have very close military relationship now. And I admire Japanese culture. I think Japanese culture has a lot of very compelling things both historically and contemporarily and I think the Japanese people are very respectable people and I’m happy to be allied, and I think it’s a good thing for both countries for us to have an alliance.

 

But at the end of the day, if circumstances were different like in the Second World War where Japanese interests and Australian interests are diametrically opposed, then I am totally fine with killing Japanese people. Right. Because that’s actually what’s good for Australians. Those two things can both be true.

 

So it isn’t about that I respect their universal right to self-determination. I don’t! I don’t give a shit about this universal concept of self-determination! I care about the particularity of how is my region going to be organised and how can I secure a future for my people. If that means respecting the Japanese nation as our ally, then I respect the Japanese nation as our ally. I would also like it if the Chinese state was divided into like 10 states, because that would be fantastic for Australia because then it would completely weaken them and they could all be turned against each other and massacre each other. That would be in my interest as well.

 

So I don’t give a shit about the Chinese right to national self-determination because that right actually is very scary, if it’s practiced! And that’s, I think that’s a totally reasonable worldview. I care about my people more than I care about Chinese people or I care about Japanese people. So it’s all relative.

 

Greg Johnson: Well, I think that’s completely reasonable because there is this, but that’s a universal fact as well, namely that people have a love of their own and given that you have the greatest interest in your own people, it makes sense for you to take care of your own people first. But you also recognise that that’s true of everybody else on the planet. And again, you can posit an international order that respects that fact, …

 

Joel Davis: And I don’t support Aboriginal self-determination. There are people! Because that directly conflicts with my, the sovereignty of my people over this continent.

 

So I don’t actually respect the universal right to self-determination! That’s the thing. I will respect particular claims to self-determination where it makes sense, but I do not support an abstract universal. The abstract universal doesn’t actually exist! It isn’t based on anything. You’re proposing that we negotiate one into existence on the basis of our shared individual national interests. And I’m providing all these counter examples where, well, the universal often isn’t in my individual national interest.

 

Greg Johnson: We can raise the question like this. You can say, okay, let’s say that, let’s use this example. Let’s talk about property rights within Australia. You have private property rights. Now you could go through life negotiating and calculating all the whole time and saying:

 

“Well, you know, is respecting this person’s property rights in my interests in this particular moment?”

 

And oftentimes it might not be, but you might still recognise that as a general rule, having a system of private property in place benefits you as much as it benefits other people. And therefore you want to, you’re not going to go through life thinking:

 

“Can I steal this pen and get away with it?”

 

You sort of get beyond that because you recognise that you’ve got a general interest in civilised rules like respecting other people’s property. And you can go on to you broaden that out. Any kind of general civilised rules. You might be able to benefit yourself by violating these rules in particular circumstances. But in a broader sense you probably benefit from just having these rules.

 

Joel Davis: As a nationalist, I support seizing the property of foreign nationals. I support seizing the property of racial aliens. I support a taxation system that seizes a significant portion of everyone’s property in order to make arrangements for national defense. And the national interest in various other ways. And so I don’t actually respect the universal right to property. I respect the limited right to property.

 

Greg Johnson: It’s an analogy. Okay, I’m not saying, …

 

Joel Davis: That’s the same as what I’m saying on the international basis. I respect in a limited sense, the national self-determination of various other peoples, but I do not support it in an absolute sense.

 

Greg Johnson: Would you be safer in a world where people treated it as an absolute or treated it as something that they renegotiated in every particular circumstance.

 

Joel Davis: We’re never going to live in a world where people treat it as an absolute because it’s fundamentally incongruent with the human condition and with the political as such! The political is fundamentally a question of:

 

“What are you willing to fight for. On what basis can the state legitimate war? On what basis can the state legitimate putting people in prison? On what basis can the state legitimate organise men with guns, pointing them in people’s faces and potentially shooting?”

 

That’s what politics is about.

 

And so there is not going to be a world in which we all put down our guns and sit down and rationally negotiate some peaceful set of agreements. Now with our guns pointed in mutual directions, we can sit down and negotiate alliances or negotiate agreements to prevent us from engaging in mutually destructive conflicts. So we can have a limited negotiation, but we’re never going to have an absolute negotiation. So it’s not only like frivolous question that has no basis in historical or human reality!

 

[1:33:57]

 

Greg Johnson: I don’t think it’s baseless, because the world has been working in one way or another for hundreds of years to create institutions that allow different states to come together and mediate conflicts and avoid conflicts.

 

Joel Davis: But that is the world underneath the domination of the United States of America. This idea of liberal nationalism has only actually been successfully implanted, implemented underneath American global power where the American led international order has been organised around these institutions. But without the American guarantee of power, sovereignty, etc, what the American Navy guaranteeing global trade, American participation in all these international institutions, they would crumble! They would no longer function! And insofar as states have become powerful enough to challenge the American led international order, they challenge these institutions and they’re, and at the same time America itself has destroyed the legitimacy of these institutions by also violating its dictates where it saw fit, for example, in the invasion of Iran.

 

Greg Johnson: Absolutely! Absolutely!

 

Joel Davis: So these institutions are fundamentally, as I said, I use the phrase “bullshit edifice”! It’s a very reasonable assessment. It’s a very reasonable assessment because what it actually is a form of American imperialism. And that’s all it is, basically.

 

But then with a very amicable negotiation, it’s a very good propaganda. It’s a very good way of bringing your junior partners in the empire in and giving them representation and giving them a voice and so on, which is a prudent way to run an empire. But what it isn’t, is what you’re describing it isn’t actually a respect for the abstract universal of self-determination because that same American empire has been utterly destroying in concrete terms our capacity as Western states to have self-determination by literally genociding our race and creating state sponsored programs to destroy our national self consciousness!

 

So according to the abstract universal, well we’re all in all these international organisations that respect Australian sovereignty or French sovereignty or German sovereignty or Italian sovereignty or whatever. But in concrete terms there’s a series of international institutions and organisations and the perpetuation of an international order that destroys the capacity of our nations to have a genuine seat at the table because we can’t even be self conscious. We can’t even assert our national interest within our own political process!

 

So we have a bunch of traitors that will go and sit at these international meetings and represent us. Well, isn’t that fucking fantastic? I feel:

 

“Oh my national self-determination is so respected when they send some communist traitor like Anthony Albanese to go sit at the UN and go and sit down with the Indian Prime Minister and negotiate how they’re going to bring more Indian immigrants into Australia so I can be genocided more quickly!”

 

That’s fantastic!

 

Greg Johnson: Well I was, last year I gave a talk at the Institute for Historical Review in Southern California and I gave this analogy that I’ve used for years about how institutions fail, how diversity hollows out institutions. And I talked about the fire department. It was just an arbitrary thing. I said imagine the fire department decides to go woke and diversify and you know, it’s all fine, it’s all well and good if you lower standards and you spend more time worrying about the gender and racial mix of the people on the department, so forth. It’s great, it’s great for parades, it’s great for propaganda videos. But what if there’s an actual fire?

 

And then as if on cue, [chuckling] right? As if God wanted to prove my point, Los Angeles bur burned down! And we found that part of the reasons why the fire department was so ineffectual was it was being run by a lesbian and it was full of lesbians and they were all doing TikTok videos showing off their diversity, but they weren’t paying attention to what was necessary to actually put out fires. And you can just say that this is an institution that’s been rotted out by a crazed idea. Right?

 

And this is the way I think we have to understand what’s happened with NATO and the EU, and things like that. The purpose of the fire department is to fight fires and the purpose of NATO is to defend its member states. And the purpose of the EU is to pursue conflict resolution and greater prosperity and mutual understanding and respect in Europe, blah, blah, blah. And these institutions unfortunately have been become infected with these insane ideas, this insane woke ideology.

 

But we have to understand that there’s a distinction between the institutions and its purposes and the bizarre destructive goals that they have been wrenched around to by these ideologues.

 

Joel Davis: They’re not just “bizarre”, Greg. They’re not just like this random appendage of ideas that spontaneously emerged within these institutions and just made them retarded! What these ideas are in concrete and historical terms is a social engineering project to actively destroy the national identities of the constituent states that make up this liberal international order. Because of the recognition that nationalism is an idea which contradicts this liberal international order and its fundamental premises itself, embodied in National Socialist Germany. So, but if you understand it historically and dialectically, then that is the case.

 

Like if you look at the motivations of these “woke” academics, so to speak, if you look at the motivations that they explicitly state themselves, particularly in that 1950s, 1960s period where these ideas are being formulated and they’re being actively supported and so on, their concrete motivation is directed specifically at the Third Reich and its conditions. And there was a mutation in Left-wing ideology around the recognition that:

 

“Well, when the White working class is empowered, they didn’t actually support socialism, they supported fascism and National Socialism. And so the Left needs to be reconstituted around a different set of clients as opposed to the working class.”

 

[1:40:47]

 

 

Greg Johnson: Absolutely, yeah.

 

Joel Davis: And so all of, all of these things are fundamentally relevant. And so the rehabilitation of the nationalist idea as something which can stand necessarily has to stand against the Liberal international order. The rehabilitation of a nation which asserts itself in its particularity that doesn’t need to justify itself within these, the shackles of these moral universalisms that you’re so partial to is fundamentally tied to the historical experience of the National Socialist regime insofar as it existed.

 

Now that doesn’t mean that every single illiberal nationalist is exactly the same as a National Socialist. But what it does mean is that nationalism has been fundamentally cucked and morally outmoded from our political process. It can’t represent itself correctly, it can’t assert itself, and in fact is being actively attacked pre-emptively and purposefully to make it harder and harder and harder for any for a nationalist movement to ever exist, that it has any concrete chances of success in any of our respective democracies. In order to preserve this liberal international order where no nation starts thinking about its own interests too hard and starts asserting them too directly and brings down this whole bullshit edifice as I called it, and starts challenging the American led liberal international order.

 

So this is all interconnected! It’s not just like oh, we had this great idea of liberal internationalism back in the 19th century and it went all wrong with wokeness. We could just get back to it. It’s completely non-dialectical, it’s completely ahistorical to think like that!

 

And it’s also just patently ridiculous when you think about how discourse actually works in the contemporary situation. That’s why it works the way that it does. That’s why whenever you start advocating for anything that sounds like White nationalism or ethno-nationalism in any White country, particularly in Western Europe or the English speaking world, immediately you start getting called the Nazi and all of these discussions around National Socialism start popping back up because it is all fundamentally tied. But there still needs to be a level of rehabilitation where we say:

 

“Okay, but the Germans asserting their national interest wasn’t some unique historical evil.”

 

In fact it actually makes sense why they would react against liberalism, why they would react against Marxism, why they would react against jewish subversion in the way that they did, why they would find a necessity to take on the Soviet Union and the Anglo-American world order to try and assert a different idea for Europe and a different political order for Europe. All of this actually makes sense! And is actually things that we can sympathize with and you should sympathize with, particularly in retrospect after seeing what has happened after their defeat, if you actually care about the European race and its destiny.

 

Greg Johnson: My position still boils down to this. I think that National Socialism was the wrong kind of nationalism! It was the bad kind of nationalism in the sense that it was imperialistic, that it was aggrandizing itself at the expense of other primarily White European nations.

 

And basically I think that what nationalists need to do, and I’m going to put this in an intentionally provocative way, is that we need to solemnly swear that we’re not going to do that kind of shit again!

 

Joel Davis: I diametrically oppose you. I think it was the good kind of nationalism precisely because it didn’t cuck itself to these universalist moral limits that you want to impose upon nationalism, and actually took on a form that was actually capable of asserting itself in a totalizing way against the enemies of nationalism, which were foreign and domestic. And that in order for us to free ourselves as a race of all of these forces, whether it be the Leftists, whether it be jews, whether it be what have you, structures of international finance, capitalist elites that are diametrically opposed to nationalist goals, all the rest of it. We need to take on a similarly uncompromising ideological project that seeks to seize state power and then use state power to utterly destroy and eradicate them from our lands and push them back. Create an international order in which they fear us too much to attack us.

 

That is ultimately the only way in which we can genuinely have self-determination as a race is to become powerful enough to do that, to actually defeat our enemies! And actually be sovereign over our own territories. And that’s what those are the principles in National Socialism, not necessarily the, … Now German Chauvinism I, from the perspective of culture, I do think the Germans had the greatest culture of any nation in Europe. They are the cultural and spiritual Guardians of the European race, particularly in the modern world. You could make historical arguments as well, but particularly in the modern world because okay, you want to cry about Poland. Where’s Poland’s Beethoven? Where’s Poland’s Wagner? Where’s Poland’s Hegel? Where’s Poland’s Nietzsche? Where’s Poland’s Heidegger? Where’s, … The list goes on. The Germans and their contribution is exceptional without equal in the modern world.

 

[1:46:16]

 

And also it is antagonistic directly to the ideas of which have destroyed Europe. The Germans were the great power in Europe that actively, on a cultural and political basis provided the most resistance to the development of this hellscape that is what has become of modernity.

 

So the Germans should be Chauvinistic to a very large extent. They should see themselves as superior because they actually are on a cultural basis. But I don’t necessarily mean that doesn’t necessarily mean they should be genociding the other European peoples. It doesn’t mean though that the other European people should be looking to German culture for leadership as opposed to looking to Anglo-American culture for leadership, which has been a total disaster! Which is what has actually happened due to our imposition. And what that means is jewish cultural subversion and leadership to a very large extent because we’re infected with this.

 

So that’s what has actually become of Europe’s destiny, which has been a total disaster! So I think Germanophilia is actually necessary for the White race because the Germans did provide, in their political thought, in their philosophical thought, in the development of their particular nationalist movement, the most spiritually powerful refutation of all of these forces. And then they then created, in a political form, the most politically powerful opposition to all of these forces.

 

And so, of course we should take inspiration from it. Of course we should defend it. Absolutely!

 

Greg Johnson: And yet they were defeated by liberal internationalism. Is there any lesson in there?

 

Joel Davis: Yeah, they were defeated by an ideology that is genociding our race. So you could say:

 

“Hey, this ideology that is genociding our race won against an ideology that was trying to defend our race. So maybe we should side with the ideology that genocides our race!”

 

No! That’s not the lesson to be taken away.

 

Greg Johnson: Okay, well, I mean, we’ve almost run out of time, so I don’t want to go, … I’m envisioning a huge digression here, which I don’t want to get into. Because I don’t want to digress from history, from philosophy into history again, because I do think that that’s the for me, I wouldn’t say that I wasted my time reading David Irving, but it was a digression from philosophy into history. And to the extent that I learnt anything from it, my feeling is that the rest of the world has a justified suspicion of people who say:

 

“I want nationalism, like Germany between the wars.”

 

Joel Davis: I have a justified suspicion that of anyone who claims to be for our race, but proposes that we frame our nationalism within the ideological and philosophical framework that is precisely antagonistic to nationalism, which is what liberal variants of nationalism are.

 

Greg Johnson: I just don’t think that they are necessarily antagonistic to nationalism properly understood. I think it’s possible for there to be distinct nations that are proud of their identities and wish to pursue their own destinies and that do so without being bad global citizens. And that’s the fear that is constantly being evoked whenever nationalism comes up.

 

And of course, in part, it’s being evoked in bad faith, but it finds purchase in people because they think:

 

“Well, yes, maybe there’s a better way of doing this.”

 

And this is why I do think that I think we should try and get beyond interwar and let’s just not even say National Socialism, but interwar nationalisms, because I think we need a new Right. And that we need to understand that it’s possible to advocate for a plurality of different nations.

 

Joel Davis: We can’t have a totally free discussion about what form that can take in the contemporary world unless National Socialism is at the very least rehabilitated enough to be relativised and for its ideas to be seen as a series of options on the table that should be considered and debated, as opposed to it being like before we even discuss. Start the discussion the premise is that it’s immediately beyond the pale.

 

Greg Johnson: Well, I would agree with that.

 

But I do think that if we had that discussion, and maybe we’ll continue this discussion, because I’d like to bring you around to my thinking, which is to basically say:

 

“We need to step over this.”

 

We need to relativise it. We need to understand it in its context. We can even appreciate it as long as it remains dead. But that we have to create something new for the world situation that we’re in today. And it’s not just because of National Socialism, but they always bring it up.

 

But you know, even if none of the unpleasantness of World War II had happened. Let’s say there was only one World War, you would still have globalists with their pious lectures about the evils of nationalism that led to the First World War. I think it’s bunk, but we have to respond to them.

 

Joel Davis: But the moral weight of these pious lectures is only something that has been able to be asserted through military victory. If the Germans were successful in a military sense in the Second World War, and they were obviously successful at convincing Germans and convincing also substantial portion of other European nations to side with their metaphysical war is what I would describe the Second World War as fundamentally, of the particular against the universal. They did win the argument with a lot of people in the European continent. It wasn’t like they didn’t have a compelling position that was just refuted because it was inherently objectionable. They did have a compelling point of view. They did have an inspirational point of view. Incredibly inspirational point of view. What political leader had a more inspirational point of view than Adolf Hitler? None! He’s the most inspirational politician ever! Right.

 

So they had a very compelling idea. And the reason why that idea is now marginalised is not because it wasn’t compelling. It’s not because it doesn’t carry weight. It’s been marginalised through a totalizing suppression by the State, through mass indoctrination imposed through a military victory of a hostile foreign power, multiple hostile foreign powers. Powers which are fundamentally rooted in evil ideas that we wholeheartedly must refute in defense of our race and in defense of nationalism as an idea! So that you’re not really contending with properly. You know, you’re not really actually acknowledging that reality, which is, I think, impossible to avoid.

 

[1:53:28]

 

Greg Johnson: I’m not sure of your point, because I don’t think it’s true. I think the main stigmatisation of nationalism is based on war! It’s based on unnecessary suffering caused by one nation basically trying to, …

 

Joel Davis: You can describe the Second World War in just as plausible way because you can’t tell me that the Allied narrative on World War II is 100% historically accurate. In fact, they make it illegal in a lot of Europe to even debate the Second World War openly.

 

Joel Davis: Yeah.

 

Greg Johnson: So one side of the argument is entirely suppressed, even in countries like ours. Well, I mean you don’t live in America anymore, but in countries like ours, like in the English speaking world, it is still legal to debate the Holocaust in theory, but in practice, any actual historian who tries to do it they’re not going to be able to work at a university. They’re not even going to be able to get their books published by any kind of mainstream publisher. They’re totally marginalised from mainstream discourse.

 

So that’s not a reasonable:

 

“We’ve sat down and we’ve had a reasonable and rational accounting of the Second World War and of early 20th century European ideologies. And we’ve come together as a society in a spirit of rational discussion and free thinking. And we’ve come to this conclusion.”

 

That’s laughable as a premise! In an actually open discourse where both sides can present themselves the National Socialist sympathetic or fascist sympathetic view of the Second World War, which portrays it as a result of the encroachments of Anglo-American universalism, of the Soviet Union and so on, the revision, the so-called revisionist narrative would be compelling to a very large amount of people.

 

In fact, insofar as it is being able to be to kind of poke its head up on the Internet, it is actually showing a lot of organic popularity right now!

 

So you’re kind of presenting it as if the ideas on your side are just like so incontrovertible and they’re just so compelling and the ideas on my side are just so ridiculous and so morally objectionable that no one would ever consider them!

 

Greg Johnson: Oh no! I would never present things in that way. Not at all! You misunderstand me. What is the root of liberalism? Ultimately, the root of liberalism as an ideology is dealing with the Thirty Years War, and other religious wars in Europe after the Reformation. That’s what drives it! There’s an essay by Judas Schlar called The Liberalism of Fear.

 

And I think liberalism in many ways is driven by fear, fear of insane violence! And I think the Liberal international order is driven by fear of insane violence. Like the First World War, like the Second World War, and the fear of nationalism. Nationalism is scapegoated.

 

And of course, it wasn’t just nationalism that was at the root of these wars. It takes a world to have a World War. And not all the parties were fighting for national self-determination. Obviously Stalin wasn’t doing that. But that aside, people want an alternative to a Third World War, another world at war. And the rehabilitation of interwar fascisms is going to be very difficult, there’s an uphill battle. And it’s not just the battle that’s been set in place since the Second World War. It’s an uphill battle against problems that people have been pushing back against since the Reformation.

 

Joel Davis: But also, you also have the other side of that coin, which is that. Well, yes, like often major conflicts can be quite shocking to the communities involved in them and they can retreat into a more pacifistic set of doctrines for a period of time.

 

But then there always comes a point as well in history where a particular paradigm becomes so intolerable and a different idea in opposition to it becomes so compelling that eventually you get another major conflict. And that’s part of the human condition.

 

And right now our race is being genocided! Right?

 

So this is existential. This isn’t just a battle of ideological preference or something on the basis of these values or those values. This is a fundamentally existential question. Are we going to continue to exist as a race or not? And that is in a very precarious position. And the entire establishment of the Liberal international order is basically in an agreement that. Yeah, that this is either unimportant or that they actively support it. Right. In most cases.

 

So under those conditions, an ideology that is violent or that has violent potential is actually alluring. An ideology which limits itself purely to moralizing and rational discourse and so on lacks appeal because we do not have a rational and sympathetic interlocutor with whom we’re negotiating our survival. Here we have an existential enemy. And an existential enemy can only be confronted through force, through active resistance.

 

Joel Davis: Yeah, yes and no.

 

Greg Johnson: That is why my ideaactually has incredible relevance to the contemporary situation, because I do not believe that we’re going to negotiate our survival under this order. I think we’re going to need to assert it.

 

[1:59:26]

 

Greg Johnson: I disagree with you on this because what we have is we’ve got an existential enemy that’s a rather small party, a rather small number of people spread around the world in key positions. But these people depend upon a large number of other people who are basically just goofy liberals. And these goofy liberals can be persuaded. Especially because even from their point of view, there’s something ridiculously unjust about, say, the idea that:

 

“It’s okay for China to be for the Chinese, and Africa for the Africans, but White countries are for everyone.”

 

There are things about this ideology that’s promoting and greasing the way towards White genocide. They’re just flagrantly immoral by liberal universal standards!

 

And frankly, what we have to do to beat the enemy, which is an existential enemy and is not going to be persuaded, but to beat them, we have to start reducing the number of people who are on their side! People who take their phone calls and take their money and make this shit happen! We have to reduce the number of people on their side. And the way we can do that most easily is not playing into the stereotypes of the 1930s, but by using patient arguments that appeal to moral universalism, ideas of fairness and things like that. Because there’s nothing unfair about nationalism for all people.

 

Joel Davis: What you’re now appealing to is, first of all, a quantitative rather than qualitative argument. You’re saying:

 

“Well, if we remove the moral barriers to entry for the largest number of people, this is going to ultimately be what best serves the nationalist movement.”

 

I believe in quality over quantity. I believe that what is actually necessary is to cultivate a spirit of radicalism and of sacrifice.

 

Because the reality is in politics, there is a Pareto distribution of political influence. A very small amount of people have pretty much all the influence.

 

Joel Davis: Absolutely.

 

Greg Johnson: And most people are not that politically active at all! They maybe vote once every four years, if that. And they don’t really have a very well developed political worldview. Only a very small minority of the population is politically engaged enough to even have an ideological worldview, and is engaged enough to be participating in the political process in a more direct way.

 

And those people fundamentally set the paradigm. So going for broad spectrum mass appeal with people who are largely indifferent towards politics is not going to be that successful. We already have the opinion polls, right? In basically every White country. Nationalist political policies are more popular than their alternatives on basically every metric. What actually will create political power is a committed group of radicals who are willing to devote their life, their resources, their time, their efforts to struggle for political victory. An ideology, …

 

Greg Johnson: I absolutely agree with that.

 

Joel Davis: Inspiring those people than an ideology like mine. An ideology like yours, the spirit of compromise, the spirit of kind of reducing oneself to achieve mass appeal is going to actually turn off those who seek after ideological coherence, those who seek after purity of thought, those who seek after purity of principle.

 

And also your worldview is fundamentally already conceding defeat in many respects to the enemy. It is fundamentally lacking in confidence in our own people’s innate capacity to assert our collective will.

 

Greg Johnson: I absolutely have enormous and reasonable doubts about that! Until they are given, … I mean, people. This is a very cynical thing. People are only as good or bad as they are, … You know, basically, they’re as good as they’re permitted to be, or they’re as bad as they’re permitted to be. What permits them? Well, ultimately it’s going to be their consciences.

 

But there’s another thing about the sort of political process as I understand it, that needs to be brought in here. I do think that most people are politically passive. I do think that our enemies are highly, politically, active. But they exist in tiny numbers. But around them is a group of people who are more politically engaged because they’re cogs in the machine. And it’s those people. And that would include, you know, educated people with above average social capital, people with above average incomes. These people count more. And these people are being held in bondage basically, to the woke idiots who are running our race to ruin by certain moral principles that they hold. I think that that moral consciousness has been hacked and distorted and turned against our interests and that we can, by appealing to them, change things around. And we can’t do that by enacting 30s fascist stereotypes.

 

And there’s no way of doing that!

 

Joel Davis: Let me respond to that though, because number one, what you’re basically saying is that, yes, the issue is the moral state of our people. What I believe the solution then is to create an inspirational, romantic, idealistic notion in direct opposition to those moral values. Because frankly, the vast majority of Whites do not go along with Left-wing ideology, or Leftism gone mad, whatever it is. This ideology of White self-erasure on the basis of its internal compunction and they’re like deeply committed to it, to its values. It’s simply a product of social inertia and a fear of social exclusion and other social penalties. It’s easier to just internalise and believe the prevailing worldview to basically go along to get along. There’s only a very small minority of Whites that are actually active Leftists that really, truly and deeply and viscerally believe in these principles. And they’re obviously largely motivated by themselves being very spiritually and psychologically defective to the point of a collective self hatred which I diagnose as most fundamentally being a consequence of seeing this ideology as a way to drag down their superiors within our own race.

 

[2:06:39]

 

[Remainder of Transcript in Progress]

 

[2:50:10]

END

top

 

 

 

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

 

Odysee Comments

top

(Comments as of 10/22/2025 = 107)

unHerd
6 months ago
If NS didn’t matter the Jews wouldn’t be working so hard to try and stamp it out.

21
0
HH
6 months ago(edited)
Greg Johnson : “1930’s Nationalism gives people bad global citizens concerns”. Conveniently forgets the entire globe was carved up by three liberal democracies Britain, France and the Netherlands all at the peril of a sword/gun.

18
0
Hide replies

@v0lum3
6 months ago
Hitler dindu nuffin

2
1
Show reply

@W_Poe_White
6 months ago(edited)
Britain. France and the Netherlands weren’t anything even close to a democracy when they built up their empires. Nor are they really democracies today. They are liberal plutocracies, not democracies.
Plutocracy is the problem, not democracy as such.
A constitutional ethno-democracy where only members of the ethnos can possess citizenship and vote or hold office, and, furthermore, with a national socialist economic system, would work just fine.
OTOH, a one-party dictatorship is no panacea.

Hide replies

@v0lum3
6 months ago
Democracy is retarded in any context. The Greeks figured this out 2500 years ago.

1
0
Show reply
HH
6 months ago(edited)
Those details you outline matter none. The fact is 90 percent of the modern world views
them as liberal democracies, the original ANTIFA, the antithesis to Natsoc, Fascism and Nationalism. So the statement stands, the swords and guns that actually took over the world were made in democracies and used by the soldiers of liberal democracies. But “ooooo Hitler, the mad man, wanted to rule the entire world”. Of course people who read CC will know this may not be entirely true but to the normal who thinks in terms of global citizen, the actual description of the type of governance does not matter.

1
0
Hide replies

@W_Poe_White
6 months ago
What things are and what people call them can be very different things. You can deal with the illusion if you please. I’ll stick with the reality. Plutocracies, not democracies.
The actual point: decisions for the US, UK, Netherlands and France to go to war are NOT made democratically. They are made behind closed doors by wealthy elites and the politicians who serve them.
“Democracy” is a covering screen for authoritarian rule from the shadows by unaccountable plutocratic elites and their clients in office.

Hide replies
HH
6 months ago(edited)
Again you’ve failed to understand the psyche of the masses.
1930’s to 90 percent of the public: Britain/France Netherlands = liberal democracies therefore good, and no one cares that between them they carved up the entire globe with swords and guns made in democracies.
1930’s to 90 percent of the public: Germany = Nationalist, fascist, authoritarian therefore bad, so bad global citizens.
That’s how 90 percent of the Western mind interprets that time. What you and I may understand about democracies being nothing more than an illusion does not matter. We are in a tiny minority.
Point stands, Greg Johnson overlooks that democracies have been far worse global citizens than any Nationalist one.

Hide replies

@W_Poe_White
6 months ago
You’re failing to realize that public opinion has been manipulated by the plutocrats who own all the media and control education as well. The public has been massively lied to and conditioned to believe what is useful for the plutocrats – who have been increasingly led by Jews as time has unfolded.
However, some of the support for democracy is indeed authentic and this is fine so long as this democracy would be limited to members of the ethnonation, i.e. ethnodemocracy. Jews would lose their citizenship along with all non-Whites and not be able to participate.
I am not advocating a simple one-man one-vote system, but a moderately democratic system involving voting by a subset of “active citizens” who have demonstrated serious commitment to studying public affairs. Active citizens’ votes would be weighted to count as, say, 2/3rds of all votes for President and the Senate. Alternatively, only their votes might be counted in selecting the President and Senate.
The office of the President would also be strengthened by giving Presidents 12 year terms and a Constitutional authority to issue executive orders which would have the same force as laws passed by both houses of Congress.
General elections involving all citizens might be used for selecting the US House of Representatives and for selecting state legislatures and governors. Or, alternatively, weigh active citizen votes more heavily.
Furthermore, there is an absolute need for a more egalitarian and populist economic system.
Eliminating plutocracy eliminates Jewish control of the media and education since it takes away the Jewish money power necessary for monopolizing control of media and education.
Taking away citizenship from Jews and reinstating disabilities on them in combination with ending plutocracy solves the JQ. The solution is to reverse the error of Jewish emancipation while eliminating the means by which Jews rose to power in the first place – i.e. their money power.
Less

Hide replies
HH
6 months ago(edited)
Am not going to read all that given your refusal to understand you’re in an absolute minority.
It’s very simple, the Western world sees Britain, France and the Netherlands as democracies and the NSDAP as baby murdering, oven baking, brain washed psychos. One of those groups ruled the entire world between them and the other is constantly accused of being bad because they wanted to rule the entire world but didn’t.
Democracy good regardless of the millions murdered by them.
Natsoc bad.

Hide replies

@W_Poe_White
6 months ago
You’re flogging a dead horse. Who’s defending liberal imperialism around here? In point of fact the Western nations were not, and are not, democracies. They were, and are, plutocracies with managed public opinion. The “Western world” is not a monolith with a unitary opinion set in stone forever. Western public opinion has been massively manipulated by its ruling liberal plutocracies monopolizing the mass media and education. Opinions are mutable. Especially when they are based on gross propagandistic manipulation and lies.
“Democracy good…Natsoc bad”
Aren’t you simply taking the opposite, dogmatic, equally Manichean, position “Natsoc good; democracy bad”?
1930s German National Socialism is not a panacea nor is democracy necessarily a problem. OTOH liberalism, understood as plutocratic class rule, is definitely bad and needs to end. But a constitutional ethnodemocracy with a national socialist economic system is very different from the so-called “liberal democracy” which has existed in the West.
This is what I am proposing: a CONSTITUTIONAL ETHNODEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC with NATIONAL SOCIALIST (anti-plutocratic) ECONOMIC SYSTEM.
I take the best features of both “liberal democracy” and national socialism while jettisoning their bad (or at least problematic) features. Liberalism/plutocracy is rejected from “liberal democracy” and the fuehrer principle (individual and one party dictatorship) and the spirit of militarism from German National Socialism.
What is wrong with this? Why must there be dictatorship? Why must there be a spirit of militarism? Why must we embrace romantic nationalism as Joel exhorts and believe in extravagant conceits of mystical White superiority (rather than merely substantive innate difference)?
Less

Hide replies
HH
6 months ago
Again not reading all that. Stopped at the first sentence. You clearly have knowledge of esoteric descriptions of different styles of governance and whether they are what they say they are but this does not matter to the masses.
Fact is to the masses : Britain, France, Netherlands all good because democracy and ANTIFA. (Actually ruled the world at sword/gun point.
:NSDAP bad because Nazi, Fascist, nationalist wanted to rule the world (but didn’t). Even the supreme leader Greg Johnson is not above this thought trap.

Hide replies

@W_Poe_White
6 months ago
“Again not reading all that. Stopped at the first sentence.”
You’ve plainly closed your mind to any ideas which challenge your dogmatic beliefs. So I’ll leave you to the “based” echo chamber.

Continue Thread

@W_Poe_White
6 months ago
“Greg Johnson overlooks that democracies have been far worse global citizens than any Nationalist one.”
Replace the word “democracies” by the phrase “liberal pseudo-democracies” and I would agree. I’m not sure Greg would even disagree. He didn’t deny the bellicosity of Britain, France and the US. He simply (and unfairly) accused Hitler of aggression.
Hitler’s hand was forced in Poland. I’m not referring merely to the terrorist attacks on Germans living in Poland. Stalin was building up the Red Army to prepare for the takeover of all Europe (Suvorov’s The Chief Culprit and Meltiukov’s Stalin’s Lost Opportunity). If Hitler had not invaded Poland in tandem with Stalin in 1939, the Soviet onslaught in 1941 would have fallen first on Poland which would have quickly been overrun. The Red Army would then have invaded Germany on the offensive rather that being caught on its back foot as it had been by Barbarossa.

ThinRedLine
6 months ago
Greg conceded every single point of discussion yet still maintained that NS was the bad kind of Nationalism

18
4
Hide replies
HH
6 months ago
Greg Johnson suffers from boomer brain combined with the usual angry liberal mindset.

12
1
HH
6 months ago
Johnson gets emotional towards the end as his points were taken apart and reverts to “NATSOC lost though nuh nuh nuh nuh nuh”. What an emotional response.

16
2
Hide replies

@hhhhwhitepill
6 months ago(edited)
What is such a point intended to even convey? The German military lost owing to a few strategic blunders and an evil (collapsing) British Empire. The latter owing to the Eternal Anglo Problem.
It’s a bit more than a “stretch” to suggest that natsoc was “defeated” in any meaningful way beyond the decidedly narrow lens of warfare. We can’t bring it back? Why not? Because it “failed?”

7
2
Hide replies
HH
6 months ago(edited)
Johnson is effeminate and often exhibits female energy. It was nothing more than a chic lashing out because she’s losing an argument.

4
1

@EverybodywakeUp
6 months ago
Defeated the greatest , people and regime in history. To then pass a empire over to the worst cucked jew, nigger loving country in history, only nigs who have patents come America ffs it’s a disgrace.

ThinRedLine
6 months ago
Germany was defeated by a far larger powers it was a simple numbers game

12
3
Hide replies
PavlovPuppy
6 months ago(edited)
Why are you implying that National Socialism inherently requires Imperialism, Unfriendly Foreign Affairs, Denial of Foreign Sovereignties, Desire for War, Genocide etc?? I think your still falling for some Jewish propaganda, which is hard to believe because your clearly very intelligent. What the hell is going on here Overall I agree with Joel more than you, but you do make some good arguments. I am less might is right than Joel as I think friendly cooperation should be prioritized but there is also a requirement for power, leverage of trade/goods and military strength. However, preservation of the Race/Nation is always number one and it’s requirements can become very situational. I think there is a synthesis to be found here which would create a perfect system. Also I think National Socialist Germany was much more in line with some of your values than you and even Joel seem to think. They really were not Imperialists as much as they were cooperative with foreign states. They were certainly not genocidal, they did not want war, at all. They took the Sudenten which was theirs and was reasonably needed for living space. Other than that they temporarily occupied states for their own protection as well as a shield against communist forces for Europe as a whole. They were literally the friendliest occupations in history lol. They were welcomed with celebration, parades, literally showered with kisses and flowers at their feet in most cases especially in Eastern Europe where they were seen as liberators. Ultimately they did save Europe from becoming one big Bolshevik genocide and they deserve the credit for that. Anyways, this was very intelligent and thought provoking, you guys did a great job staying respectful, not interrupting etc. Its great to see! Be more National Socialist my friend, it is the way!! Hail Victory!
Less

9
1
Hide replies

@EverybodywakeUp
6 months ago
Yeah America. have led everyone into a jew washed state. America is the only place to worship blacks and jews then pushing it into Europe. You have Hollywood and let jews push this bullshit, Hitler said you’re a jewish cesspool and negroid dump who has nothinh in common with Europe. You basically armed isral to the teeth also never kicked them out once apart from cuddle and protect them.

4
0
Earthling Carl
6 months ago
Easy Joel W.

10
3

@filled_soda
6 months ago
Hail Joel, Tom, Blair and Jacob ○/

9
2

@Six
6 months ago
we are all nationalists. so is the socialism the problem? a redundant question unless you think we can have national capitalism. i think thats the proven failure here

7
1
Hide replies
ThinRedLine
6 months ago(edited)
You can’t be a Nationalist with out socialism

10
3
Hide replies

@Six
6 months ago
ties a nice bow on it doesnt it…

7
0
Hide replies
ThinRedLine
6 months ago
it does

5
0

@Arilando
6 months ago
Of course you can.

0
1
Hide replies
ThinRedLine
6 months ago
If you don’t care about the lesser of your people how can you call your self a Nationalist ?

2
0

@Scythe
5 months ago
No I don’t think that’s the issue Keith and Greg have. Free market capitalism obviously isn’t compatible with any form of nationalism. As far as I can see, Keith and Greg’s problem with National Socialism is a matter of taste, optics, genuine ideological difference, and a matter of what is realistic. Though I do sympathize with where they are coming from, and can’t say I’m a proper National Socialist, I think we do need to change the way people view the Third Reich, expose the lies around ww2. As this is the founding mythology of the postwar order. Unlike Joel and many others however, I don’t think we should necessarily change peoples views
from allies good, axis bad, to allies bad, axis good. Because it’s not that simple. We should merely stick to the facts and not narratives.

odysees dumb comment system
6 months ago
Aussies are lucky to have such awesome guys. Ive been following their stuff and they just seem to get it over there. They dont have all this gay infighting. This was very civil, but usually this debate is completely destructive. After Charlottesville the whole movement shattered, and it wasnt so much the actual event, it was the infighting that followed that we never recovered from. But people are becoming less afraid to talk to us again finally, hopefully we dont fuck it all up again fighting over optics like a bunch of retards.

5
0
Love of our People
6 months ago(edited)
Germany’s loss in WWII was without question one of the most profound tragedies and disasters in human history, perhaps THE great tragedy of human history. It was certainly negative. The United States government and the Soviet Union were two of the most evil forces ever seen on the planet (in the case of the former, it remains so).
One point I’ll give Greg, using the moral argument is a tool in our tool box that we have to employ at this point. We’re not in a position to just impose our will, far from it. Even Russia and America today use the facade of moral arguments when presenting their position to the world. Even if we grant that that’s all such arguments are, they’re still useful enough that the great powers resort to them to some extent. We should make a point of arguing our case from a moral perspective, while also working to gain as much power for our people as possible. We should leave no tool unused.

5
0
Northern Blue
6 months ago
Joel butchered him here. Cc came across as a Liberal unfortunately. A little convoluted at times.

5
1
The Ravens Hall
6 months ago
All of these other racial or ethnic groups if they could dominate us or any other group that is not them they would. The truth is that these other groups are fundamentally different to us with different conceptual notions of morals.
Also people misunderstand the ‘might makes right’ phrase, it is illustrates that no laws, morals or ethics actually mean anything as it is power that actually allows you maintain, protect and enforce them.
Also focusing on our own people and having our interests put above all others groups is what all the others are doing.

5
1
ThinRedLine
6 months ago
War is a part of the human experience and there is no reasion to think that Liberalism is less violent , we had plenty of wars since WWII and the reason why we didn’t have a WWIII is because of Nuclear weapons, were it not for these weapons we would surely have had a WWIII already in the fifties or sixties

6
2
Hide replies

@W_Poe_White
6 months ago
Liberalism is the ideology of the capitalist elites, especially the financial capitalist elites. Capitalist elites don’t want a free market. They want monopolies and direct managerial control. J. P. Morgan and John D. Rockefeller made explicit statements to this effect.
Liberalism tends toward imperialism whenever this seems to be a feasible option. Capitalism is inherently expansionist since without continuous growth it ceases to function. The canonical example of a liberal polity is the British Empire. You can’t build and sustain an empire without war and repression. Yes, indeed, liberalism is violent.
One shouldn’t let oneself be deceived by the ideologies that have emerged in association with liberalism such as egalitarianism, democracy and the idea of universal individual rights. They are not what they seem. The core of liberalism is plutocracy. Any ideology which contradicts plutocracy will not get far. Though the capitalist elites make Machiavellian use of such ideologies for social control, they will never allow such ideologies to actually be realized as intended by their sincere adherents. Liberalism, i.e. plutocracy, is inherently authoritarian, elitist and anti-democratic. Even the individualist element in liberalism is deceptive. It is really just a means of atomizing people so as to render them helpless to resist elite control. It is a totalizing strategy, as Michel Foucault described clearly in his lecture/essay Omnes et Singulatum and his 1977-78 lectures at the College de France, Security, Territory, Population.
There is a vanguard element within the capitalist elite which wants to take monopoly to its ultimate logical conclusion and consolidate control over all means of production and run society as if it were a single gigantic megacorporation. This, in essence, is communism, i.e. a centrally planned and directed command economy. Which is to say: The telos of capitalism is communism. Today’s name for such a society is technocracy.
Less

2
1
ThinRedLine
6 months ago
Hail Joel

8
4
Show reply
renunciate
6 months ago
Joel is making the rounds this week, eh?

5
3

@whitemonkey
6 months ago
id just like to say. NATIONAL SOCIALISM FOR ALL NATIONS.

2
0

@chambleth5
6 months ago
I think Joel makes some fair points, but it’s important to look at what he actually does in practice. He led a neo-nazi march thru a public park with his mates dressed in matching outfits which evoked brownshirts and tactical gear. Not surprisingly they got in fights with other citizens and then the police. What did other Austrailians at the park think of this? 16 of his mates were arrested. Joel himself was arrested thereafter. Joel and other NS leaders were bumped off X, probably forever. Was this the outcome of Joel’s philosophy? Was it a positive result?
It’s also important to think about who Joel is as a person. I think he’s an extremist personality type. He really doesn’t seem to have a stable personality at all. He has bounced around from one personality to another over the last 10 years; first he was 4chan shitposter Joel, then he became polisy theorycell Joel, then came tradcath Joel, now we have neo-nazi gymbro Joel. But before any of that he was an actual antifa member. He didn’t just flirt with marxism like some young people do, he was an actual member and he really wasn’t just a member he was in a leadership position. What kind of person is this? How do normal people react to people like this?
I think while Joel’s outlook is not irrational it’s coming from a certain base of personality that isn’t good. I don’t think it’s a wise to follow someone like this or to subscribe to a philosophy like his. It’s probably going to lead you into something bad and counter-productive.

5
3
Hide replies

@filled_soda
6 months ago
I’ve heard him say that the Antifa thing was just a youthful blunder. Where can I read/watch more on this? I don’t mean that in a Leftist “Source?!” way. I’m genuinely curious.

1
0
Hide replies

@chambleth5
6 months ago
It’s hard to say it’s a youthful blunder when he was a leader of the group. As for sources; it’s just something i’ve heard multiple times from different people that’s been confirmed so i don’t have a link or anything.

Hide replies

@whitemonkey
6 months ago
who cares its just part of the journey, hitler and mussolini dabbled with communism ,so what. its all about the destination, joel found the correct place, however is just maybe a little to out there for me, still much respect to the man for sticking his neck out.

Clown World Gamer
6 months ago
If being arrested is enough to undermine legitimacy then we might as well all surrender. I don’t know what other Australians think about it, but I know you won’t be arrested because you’re not doing anything that bothers the enemy.

1
0
Hide replies

@chambleth5
6 months ago
Are those 16 young men more effective or less effective after having been arrested? Bothering the enemy is, right now, like a gnat bothering an elephant.

@whitemonkey
6 months ago
you point to brownshirt likeness, whoa, antifa get a pass?
joel is a little;e= too out there for me, however makes some fine points.
as for joels journey, doesnt matter how he got there ,he got there in the end.
its been said that hitler may have been a communist very early on as was mussolini however there joirney lead them to a real truth ,that being national socialism. which every nation should aspire to.
hitler in 6 years turned the nation around like no other never forget that.

1
0
Hide replies

@chambleth5
6 months ago
If a psychologically unsound person gets you to a certain place, maybe that place isn’t as psychologically sound as you think it is.

Hide replies

@whitemonkey
6 months ago
unsound?thats just an opinion, joel for me has evolved to a much clearer position now, many can see that,
life is a journey of experience ,we all make mistakes. am in my 60s though i make very few mistakes through a learning process there’s always another hurdle to clear in an ever evolving world.
your entitled your opinion ,i would fight for your right to express it also, however i believe you maybe wrong.
with respect.

2
0

@Scythe
5 months ago
Joel is a smart guy, but I think you’re right on what really drives him. He’s definitely an extremist personality type. Not to say he isn’t genuine, but he has a natural proclivity for this kind of thing.

@Six
6 months ago
its odd to pretend that national socialism is bad because its german centric…..during ww2 that is. its obviously not now, it just means racist. our enemies know what it means when they call us nazis

3
0
ThinRedLine
6 months ago(edited)
Third position(NS ) is not so much about the actual policies but about the end goals and the policies will be adapted to fit the end goals
it is kind of like the sophists debate with Aristoteles , for the Sophists the the form is more important than the morals and for aritoles the opposite

4
3

@Maligned
6 months ago
1:12:00
Joel just decimated Greg with his limp wristed ideology. How he cant see that his own limp wristed ideology that he is advocating for is the very reason why Whites are fucked in the first place. The only thing stopping Whites from rising is their own will to rise.

2
1
Long Knife
6 months ago
now upload your recent interview with Martinez, why not

1
2

@Willhelm
6 months ago(edited)
all this “white unity” and “no more brother wars” stuff is an american concept. communists, the democrats, russia and a lot of others are white and anti-white at the same time today. the allies pretty much were antifa back in the day.
looking at ww2 from gregs white american perspective is very shortsighted especially because the allies killed tons of “muh whites” as well. this all looks like a captain hindsight mixed with pacifism. horrible. honestly america can go to hell. i dont care for every white person around the world. thats stupid.

4
11
Hide replies
Based and Rempilled
6 months ago
The antiwhites grin at this

6
0

@hhhhwhitepill
6 months ago
“The only people who care about white collective interests are Americans. ‘No brother wars’ is a corny cliche because white men killed each other before. Also white liberals exist, therefore white collective interests are invalid. Some white people are bad- fuck those bad whites!” No offense, man…you’re really not cut out for this sort of thing.

2
3

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

See Also

top

 

 

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

Joel Davis: It is another episode of the show. It is the 13 September 2024, and there’s a lot to get into tonight. Obviously, the Australian government this week has been making a lot of moves on the censorship front. They finally put the Bill before Parliament to censor the Internet, basically against so-called “misinformation and disinformation”. They’ve also announced plans to bring in an age limit for social media. And it effectively bans people under a certain age, which they didn’t actually specify, presumably 16 or 15 or somewhere in that vein, from using social media, which a lot of people, I think correctly think is a pretext to bring in digital ID requirements, to use social media, to kind of tie everyone to their identification for what they post online.

 

And in addition to that, also, there’s been some other things on that front. So we’ll discuss all of that, as well as this crazy story out of America. Haitians eating cats, but not, are they just eating cats like the kind of the US government and certain, let’s be real, Catholic charities and other so-called refugee charities, so to speak, have conspired to dump 20,000 Haitians in this town called Springfield in Ohio, in America, which is a town that I think only had a population of like 60,000 people to begin with. It’s not a big town.

 

And so now they’ve just been inundated with Haitians and the whole town is gone to shit, basically. And that’s been a very big story over the past week.

 

So that’s a very interesting story, I think.

 

So those are probably the big stories from this week. I would say. There’s been some other things as well, but there’s a lot to chew on just there. So we’ll probably cover that and maybe some other things.

 

But, you know, as the title of the show says, usually you tune in not really for a coverage of the news, but for the tangents that we inevitably go on. And that’s probably what makes the show so good to listen to.

 

So let’s begin with a bit of a tangent. How are you guys doing?

 

Blair Cottrell: How you doing, Tom? How you feeling?

 

Joel Davis: Tom? You like muted dude!

 

Thomas Sewell: Oh, sorry. I was just replying to someone in the chat. They asked us to spurg out about the “Holocaust”. And I said:

 

“Maybe at the end we’ll do it.”

 

Yeah, I mean, he was saying something like:

 

“Can you once and for all put it to bed?”

 

Blair Cottrell: It’s too early.

 

Joel Davis: Once we put it to bed, then it’s finally done. Then the jewish, …

 

Thomas Sewell: And it’ll be finally done.

 

Blair Cottrell: Yeah, it’s too early in the evening, actually.

 

Thomas Sewell: Didn’t we, in the, …

 

Joel Davis: We didn’t really talk about the holocaust too much. We talked more about WWII. We didn’t specifically talk about the Holocaust.

 

Thomas Sewell: Yeah, that’s true. We didn’t specifically talk about the Holocaust. Maybe we forget that a lot of our audience, they’re not in real life NatSoc circles, so they’ve never actually experienced the kind of real life Holocaust Holabonga debunking. Like, we’ve all experienced it like 500 times. So we’re over it! Like, every time we’re at a party, someone brings it up and then hear it all again and everyone chimes in.

 

And it’s like if you’re around Nazis in real life, you just, you hear it like probably once a week, …

 

Blair Cottrell: You become desensitisfied.

 

Thomas Sewell: Yeah, you do. You’re kind of just over it. You’re like, it’s just a bygone thing. It’s like it’s obvious that it didn’t happen. And we could go into detail. We could do like top three favourite parts of the Holabonga.

 

Blair Cottrell: Hang on. I thought we were going to do this later. Are we doing it now or not? [chuckling]

 

Thomas Sewell: No, later. Later! We’ll do it later!

 

Joel Davis: I would rather talk about why the Holocaust is a lot of BS than the Misinformation Bill:

 

“Oh, wow! We’re talking about this on the show like a year ago. Let’s just, let’s cover this again!”

 

One thing I will say about the Misinformation Bill, actually, let’s just maybe cover some news.

 

A lot of people have been reporting it, like, as if it’s a “hate speech Bill”. It is not a hate speech bill. The Bill does not authorize the government to go after private individuals for what they post online. It authorizes a regulatory body called the ACMA [Australian Communications and Media Authority], I believe, to basically go after the social media companies and impose government standards on their regulatory practices to try and basically force sites like Twitter and maybe even Rumble to take down certain kinds of content and change their moderation policies to become more strict and in line with the kind of policies that you see on Facebook or Instagram or YouTube, which are more in line with what the government wants.

 

[* The Australian Communications and Media Authority is an Australian government statutory authority within the Communications portfolio. ACMA was formed on 1 July 2005 with the merger of the Australian Broadcasting Authority and the Australian Communications Authority. ACMA is responsible for collecting broadcasting, radiocommunication and telecommunication taxes, and regulating Australian media.]

 

So that’s actually what the Bill is about. Obviously, that’s a bad thing, but it’s not the same thing as the government’s going to come knock on your door because you made a misinformation Twitter post. Not yet, anyway. That’s not what the Bill says.

 

Blair Cottrell: So why aren’t they doing that already? Well, with racist posts, anyway. Looking here online, …

 

Joel Davis: No, I can’t think of one person in Australia that has been door knocked over a racist Twitter post. Has that ever happened that you guys know?

 

Blair Cottrell: I mean, throughout the West, like Western civilisation, I’ve heard of it happening.

 

Joel Davis: Yeah, it happens in Britain, but it doesn’t happen in Australia.

 

So I don’t think we should be fear mongering about that being that can happen, because then people will be afraid to say things on the Internet. We don’t want them to be afraid to say things. It’s not illegal. You’re not going to get door knocked over something you send. Unless you’re, like, full on FED posting and advocating for killing people or something like crazy like that, you’re not going to get door knocked.

 

[05:34]

 

Thomas Sewell: I think people should be very careful, even in Australia, especially if they own legally owned firearms, they should be very careful what they put on Facebook, because there has been people that have been door knocked for things that I wouldn’t say were explicit calls to violence. They were more just like airing frustrations, like natural airing of frustrations on social media posts. There has been some people that have been door knocked and have lost their., … And they haven’t been involved with organisations. They’re just individuals on the Internet. They’ve got legal firearms and the government has used their Facebook posts, specifically Facebook. I don’t know of any other social media, but I know specifically Facebook posts to then say that they’re no longer fit and proper, so they can no longer hold the firearms, legal firearms.

 

Blair Cottrell: Yeah. You’re not allowed to have emotions or opinions if you own guns legally.

 

Thomas Sewell: So you have to be very careful, yeah.

 

Blair Cottrell: So when you said ACMA, I thought, where have I heard that before?

 

So I looked it up and I saw, it’s the Australian Communications and Media Authority. And then I remembered the ACMA was consulted by Sky News after my appearance on Sky News, namely Adam Giles show. When was that, Tom? That was about four or four years ago now, maybe five years ago?

 

Thomas Sewell: 2018

 

Blair Cottrell: Yeah. And they ended up ruling that there was nothing wrong with my appearance on Adam Giles show. And there was no actual reason to ban me or to take any action. But their ruling took, like, six to eight months to come through, so by that time, everyone had moved on, so it didn’t really matter.

 

But interesting that that’s going to be the agency that’s going to be trusted to hold platform providers to account for what they’re allowing to be posted on those platforms. Obviously, the ACMA has maybe in recent years, been kind of populated, you might say, by the right kind of (((people))) that the government needs it to have.

 

Joel Davis: Yeah. It’s under their control too. So they could, if they’re not happy with the AMCA not sufficiently regulating so-called “disinformation”, which actually is a total misnomer because what the Bill outlines is that basically:

 

“Causing offence to any protected group is a form of disinformation.”

 

Thomas Sewell: Joel as just disconnected. He’s reconnected. Joel is back.

 

Joel Davis: Did I disconnect?

 

Blair Cottrell: Not on my end you didn’t. Yeah, you were fine on my end for some reason.

 

Thomas Sewell: Yeah, maybe I disconnected.

 

Joel Davis: Yeah, maybe you did.

 

Anyway, my, what I was saying was that you, disinformation and misinformation is something that is interpreted as literally anything that offends any kind of minority or protected group or people of a particular, even people of a particular political status, I think it said in the legislation. So you could construe almost anything as “causing harm” is actually the term that it uses. Causing harm to any of these groups. There’s a way that you can rationalise taking almost any content down on those pretexts. At least someone is going to “feel harmed” by almost any, …

 

Blair Cottrell: Joel, Joel, what about the harm that can potentially be caused, according to the contents of the bill, to bankers and, what do they call it? The economic market?

 

So you’re not allowed to undermine public confidence in banks or Australia’s economic markets! What does that mean? [chuckling] You’re not allowed to forecast a recession?

 

Joel Davis: Yeah, exactly! The Bill would basically make it possible for them to take down any kind of criticism of government health mandates, climate change, … So if you criticise vaccines or climate change or any of these things, if you go against the mainstream consensus on any of these issues, they could classify all of these things as “misinformation” or “disinformation” or whatever. The legislation is so broad, they can’t take anything down off the Internet that they want to.

 

But the thing is they can’t directly take it down. The legislation doesn’t basically give the AMCA the right to specifically say:

 

“I want this taken down. This post, this post, this post!”

 

What the legislation authorizes them to do is to basically provide guidelines to the social media companies on what they should be taking down.

 

So it’s kind of a little bit convoluted.

 

Blair Cottrell: Didn’t it say 5% of the revenue from the platform provider in question can be taken as a fine by the media association or the ACMA? Is that what the legislation said?

 

[10:07]

 

Joel Davis: So that’s basically what they’re going to do. And I would anticipate that. Elon Musk has already criticised the legislation multiple times. Unfortunately, he decided to say “fascism” as his form of criticism of this bill. I mean, how that’s “fascism”, I don’t really understand. Like the Internet, when fascist regimes existed, I don’t understand, …

 

But anyway, it’s a bommerism. But the point is that what this is actually is kind of liberalism, it’s socialism.

 

But anyway, the point is that the bill. Yeah. It ultimately is only as powerful as what the Australian government’s power is, which over a company that’s based in a foreign country, is quite limited.

 

So at the end of the day, all the servers for all these social media companies are hosted in foreign countries, and they can’t pull Elon Musk before a court and tell him what to do on his American website.

 

So all they can do is maybe mess with Australian based revenue streams into X which probably aren’t that substantial. I would imagine only a very small portion of how much revenue they raise comes from Australia. So they’re only going to take like, 5%. I could very much envisage Elon Musk basically just wearing it and telling them to get fucked, because it really would be such a minute amount of Twitter’s overall revenue.

 

So I don’t know if it’s actually that big of a deal. It could be a whole big song and dance of almost nothing, to be honest. We’ll see how it plays out.

 

Blair Cottrell: Who was that woman reading out the Bill in Parliament? What, they don’t read out the whole bill, but the preface for the bill. The preface for the bill. Who was that woman? Do we know anything about her? She had one of those toxic haircuts. Looked like the kind of woman.

 

Joel Davis: The kind of woman that would be in the government?

 

Blair Cottrell: In the government, in a high school. Yeah. Why do all women look like that? Why do all women, like government women, look like that? They all look like clones of each other, don’t they?

 

Joel Davis: Hot chicks, don’t want to go and become part of the government!

 

Blair Cottrell: No, it’s not. It’s more than that, it’s more than just not being attractive. It’s like they’re a whole different race. It’s like they’ve taken their the idea that they’re a member of this elitist superclass to the next level. And they’ve actually tried to create a physical, observable identity out of that liberal superclass. It’s like they’re a whole different race! The way they think, the way they look, the way they behave, it’s totally alien. It’s really weird!

 

Joel Davis: There’s a certain kind of allure that for a certain personality type, having an official title where you wear a pantsuit and you get to be an official title:

 

“Oh, look how successful I am! Look how prominent I am! Because I have of this position!”

 

Whether it be like a CEO of a large corporation or being in the government or being the principal of a high school or something like this. A so-called high status position within the system. Someone who’s kind of a loser that doesn’t really have any kind of normal, markable way within the culture of being kind of liked or affirmed or validated. They find a way:

 

“Well, if I just follow all these bureaucratic procedures and cross my t’s and dot my I’s, then I can get this piece of status, and then I can become important. And then all these people have to pretend. Have to kiss my arse and pretend that I matter, and I can be, oh, I’m such an inspiration for women everywhere because look at me! I’ve become the Member of Parliament, and now I’m the Minister for Education!”

 

Or some bullshit title or whatever that they get given.

 

And so it gives them this inflated sense of ego. Which indicates that something is quite wrong with them, that they can’t find meaning or validation in their life in any kind of normal, healthy channel. I think that really explains, …

 

Blair Cottrell: Maybe it’s the default reaction to not attracting a partner or not being able to attract a partner or not presenting yourself as useful to. I don’t know, but, like, I couldn’t imagine anything worse. What you said there, where you said they’re aiming for a title or position where from they can force other people to be nice to them and everyone has to pretend to like them. I would hate that! I would hate that! I want to hear what people really think. I don’t want people pretending to like me.

 

Like, I don’t know where you guys stand on that. I think you would agree that there could be nothing worse than having sycophants just blowing smoke up your ass, just talking shit! Like, you want to hear what people really think, right? You want people to be honest. But, well, that’s just me.

 

Thomas Sewell: Yeah. You see these women everywhere. They’re the stereotypical corporate, HR, or corporate governance lady. They’re in actual government. They’re in school, education, governance.

 

So I’ll give you an example recently, and I’ve seen the photo of this lady, and she looked exactly as Beck [Tom’s wife] described her. Beck obviously works part time consulting within the education system. And I’m sure the Lefties will try and dox that and stop that. I don’t give a fuck! [chuckling] Like, awesome! I hope she loses her job.

 

No, seriously. But no, she just does it not just out of the goodness of her heart. It is important to her to just stay within the industry and just keep tabs on it to see how fucking far it’s falling.

 

But she is working at a school at the moment. The principal’s a man and he’s currently, … I don’t know how much I can say legally, I guess I’m not naming names, so I can say whatever I want. But he’s currently under investigation for paedophilia. The principal.

 

And so the vice principal’s had to step up and is taking over the school. And all the staff hate the vice principal. It’s a woman. She doesn’t have children. She’s in her forties. And she has that haircut that you described, and she has that attitude that we all understand.

 

And all of her staff, mostly female. Most of the staff are female at the school. They are getting physically assaulted by students. And we’re talking, I’m pretty sure it’s a primary school. So they’re getting physically assaulted by grade twos, grade threes, grade fours, like, incessantly. And they are being told, …

 

Blair Cottrell: What do you mean? The kids are beating up the teachers?

 

[16:34]

 

Thomas Sewell: The kids are physically attacking the teachers. They’re kicking and punching the teachers. Yeah.

 

Blair Cottrell: [chuckling] Okay! [chuckling]

 

Thomas Sewell: And so the school is in such a crisis that they’ve called for an independent consultant to come in and see what’s going on:

 

“Why are the children doing this? Clearly the gentle parenting and gentle schooling approach isn’t working. How do we rework it to make it work? How do we try and reinvent a wheel that’s broken?”

 

And it’s quite interesting because all the teachers are saying that every time they try to implement any sort of consequence, because they’re not allowed to say “disciplinary action” anymore, they now say “consequence”. They’re not allowed to implement any “consequence” for any negative behaviour, any “bad behaviour”. Bad behaviour basically doesn’t exist anymore in the primary school.

 

And this is a normal state school. This is a normal state school in Victoria. There’s no discipline. There’s not allowed to be any discipline. There’s no consequence. There’s not allowed to be any consequence.

 

And when the teachers report the violence that they’re receiving from the children to the acting principal, the acting principal basically tells them:

 

“Look, this conversation is too much for me. I’m getting anxious from this conversation. I’m going to have to leave this conversation.”

 

And then the principal then [chuckling] walks off and it’s fucking hilarious! But that’s what’s going on.

 

Blair Cottrell: What you’re saying is this school, this school was more functional under the leadership of an actual possible paedophile than it is from one of these corporate women! [chuckling]

 

Thomas Sewell: Yeah. So the old principal, it’s kind of fucked up, but I’ll sidetrack that statement. But yes, but the other interesting factor with this principal is, or vice principal, acting principal is she is trying to get the principal’s job. So what she’s doing is she’s fudging the statistics. She’s pretending that there’s no incidences. She’s walking off on these conversations so that she doesn’t have to do her job, she doesn’t have to report the violence, she doesn’t have to report that the school is in chaos. The only team that’s been reported is this third party team. So obviously it’s all resting on her to write an honest report to the government to say:

 

“Hey, this is actually what’s going on at the school.”

 

So it’s interesting. [chuckling] It’s very interesting. [chuckling]

 

Also, Josh Roose*, who’s an anti-fascist researcher in the universities that regularly writes about how we’re all psychopaths and how we’re evil and the government should put us in jail. His wife is actually a principal at a school as well.

 

So that’s another interesting thing. [chuckling] It’s a small world! It’s a really small world!

 

[* Dr Josh Roose is a political sociologist and Associate Professor of Politics at the Alfred Deakin Institute for Citizenship and Globalisation at Deakin University, Melbourne. His research focuses on the intersection of politics, law, sociology, and religion with an emphasis on political and religious violent extremism and terrorism. He has also contributed expertise through interviews and background research for the full range of Australian television, print and radio outlets including ABC news programs including the 7.30 Program, The Sydney Morning Herald and The Age, 60 Minutes, The Guardian,  SBS, The Australian, and Sky News.]

 

Joel Davis: He wrote a whole article about how about me recently in the Australian. That was quite funny, …

 

Thomas Sewell: Yeah, Mr Roose.

 

Joel Davis: Because I ratioed him on Twitter. I said:

 

“Listen you should be thanking me that I’m giving you something to write about, otherwise you would be irrelevant. It wasn’t for people like us the Australian wouldn’t really be commissioning you to write any articles.”

 

And then he blocked me. So yes, he doesn’t have much of a sense of humour.

 

Thomas Sewell: Yeah, he’s a pussy!

 

Joel Davis: Yeah. It’s a picture of us cutting a Hitler cake in the like a swastika cake on Hitler’s birthday in the news.

 

So I thought that that that was pretty cool!

 

And what I didn’t like about the article, though, was he was making out like as if I’ve sprung to prominence after October 7. And my criticism of Israel, which didn’t really make any sense. Like, I barely talked about the Israel-Palestine conflict that much at all! Did a bit when it first kind of broke out. It was interesting to analyze, but it’s not really like my thing. So it was kind of bizarre! And he was trying to construe that somehow off the back of the anti-Israel movement we’re promoting neo-Nazism or something like that. If anything, it’s the other way around. We’re like:

 

“Oh, I guess we kind of hate Israel because it’s run by jews.”

 

But, you know, our focus isn’t really there. So he probably doesn’t actually watch the show as write an article that was that trash. These people get paid thousands of dollars to research us and they don’t even watch the show!

 

Meanwhile, poor old Miss Kaz Ross. She watches every single show religiously. Yeah, she’s watching right now! The media never ask her to write an article. [chuckling] She just gets upset how bad their articles are and how bad all these official researchers are.

 

[20:57]

 

Blair Cottrell: Who is Kaz Ross? Who’s that?

 

 

 

Joel Davis: She’s like the fat communist who, …

 

Thomas Sewell: Yeah, researcher.

 

Joel Davis: Yeah, she’s obsessed with us. And she’s always posting on Twitter about us.

 

Thomas Sewell: She has a tenure at the University of Tasmania, I’m pretty sure.

 

Joel Davis: She knows us quite well. Like, her posts are actually kind of interesting. I mean, she has me blocked on Twitter. But occasionally Swindon will post a screenshot because he likes antagonizing her on the timeline in the group chat.

 

And so I’ll see some of what she has to say. And recently she did acknowledge that I’m an intelligent young gentleman. Apparently I’m an evil paedophile as well. But I’m an intelligent young gentleman.

 

So thanks for the compliment, Kaz. It’s nice. You obviously watch the show.

 

Blair Cottrell: Maybe Kaz is gradually, very gradually starting to turn? How long can you actually work on people like us before we start making a bit more sense than you expected?

 

Joel Davis: Maybe if she lost like 50 kilos, she’d come around?

 

Thomas Sewell: Our worldview would make sense if she lost 50 kilos. Because her main motivation is that she has a lack of self esteem because she’s a fat bitch! So she thinks she’s not allowed in the ethno-state. And so that’s why she wants to destroy the ethno-state. And this is just basic psychology 101. If you think you can’t go to the ethno-state, then you want to destroy the ethno-state.

 

And so that’s spiritual. That’s a spiritual construct.

 

So all these Antifa, all these communists, their fundamental motivation is they have low self esteem. They’re biological traitors. And they’re just like, well, misery loves company:

 

“If I can’t have it, no one can!”

 

You know:

 

“Why do these people got, ..!”

 

Like, it’s envy. It’s very strange. It’s hard to understand if you’ve got an attitude of:

 

“Okay, if I’m inferior, I should get good. If I’m not good at life, I should get better at life!”

 

But they don’t come at it from that angle. They just want to destroy the rich, eat the rich. They don’t even hate the jews because the jews are this, like, financial parasite that’s actually destroying society. They just hate the jews because the jews are better than them, or the jews are in positions of dominance or authority. They don’t hate the jews!

 

Blair Cottrell: That’s what we get accused of too. Like, we get accused of that.

 

Thomas Sewell: Yeah, people mistake our motivations for being, like, anarchistic or communistic, but they’re not. Our motivations are we want a healthy society with a master morality. And a master morality doesn’t imply that we need to have slaves.

 

And I think that when a communist understands that, then they have a chance to sort of, maybe not empathize. That’s probably not the right word, but if they were accidently, … Not that we’re going to recruit many communists in the 21st century, obviously, Joel covered that last stream where the data shows that it’s a very different type of communist to 100 years ago.

 

But if there was some that got lost down the path, when they understand that our worldview isn’t about enslaving nons, it’s about just separating from and getting good, you know, it’ll make a bit more sense. Like, the fash doesn’t seem that bad anymore. Because that’s what they’re concerned about. They’ve got misdirected empathy.

 

Blair Cottrell: Yeah. Your modern communists, they’re less motivated by class war or even ideology than they are spurred on by dysgenics. It’s dysgenics which is at the heart of modern communism. It’s not even ideology. And in regards to the being fat, losing 50 kilos. You don’t lose 50 kilos, then adopt the National Socialist worldview. You start adopting the National Socialist worldview, then you lose the 50 kilos! That’s the process, in my opinion.

 

Thomas Sewell: Yes!

 

Joel Davis: It’s a little bit of a chicken and an egg problem, though, because that being a fat piece of shit makes it so difficult for you to accept a worldview, …

 

Blair Cottrell: You have to hate yourself first, you need to hate that version of yourself first. You hate that! You keep looking at yourself in the mirror, and you say to yourself:

 

“Wow, I’m a piece of shit! I hate the way I look! I need to do something about this!”

 

And you say that every day until you start actually doing something to change it. You need to hate and reject the existing person you are, and the ideas that have led you to become that person, and completely, you know, re-imagine yourself. Right. That’s what I think for some of these.

 

[25:14]

 

Joel Davis: I mean, that’s good advice.

 

But actually what happens is that if you’re a fat piece of shit, nine times out of 10, is that you’d rather just cope about the fact that you’re a fat piece of shit by believing in a worldview which divorces you from nature in some way and nature’s inherent valuations. Because that’s what National Socialism is. National Socialism is an ideology that respects nature. That’s why, you know, Hitler’s view, he stated very explicitly, was that:

 

“A people that will not fight for its existence, does not deserve to live in this world.”

 

You have to earn your existence from nature through strength, through struggle. Otherwise, you can have no complaints if you’re wiped out of existence.

 

And the brutality of nature, which is a necessary brutality, because it’s a brutality that basically separates the wheat from the chaff that casts off weakness, that casts off basically erroneous directions that nature go in and refines the direction of life so that only the strong and the healthy can survive. And so nature has a way of kind of cleaning itself with its own inherent brutality and purifying itself with its own inherent brutality. And I learnt to kind of love and respect that aspect of nature. And to conform oneself to it by becoming strong and by becoming healthy and becoming worthy of existence, of continued existence.

 

That worldview is very difficult to embrace if you feel weak, if you feel disgusting, if you feel unhealthy. And there’s other worldviews that can come along and say:

 

“Well, actually, that whole idea of respecting nature is actually a form of domination, is actually a form of immoral brutality. People that lack empathy, that lack concern for other human beings, that don’t understand how difficult it is to be born in a certain body and to have certain natural handicaps or whatever, but we here in team communism or team Christianity or whatever, the form of egalitarianism team that you’re adopting, we care for all people, and we see value in everyone, and we want to lift everyone up together through this kind of, Chungus universal brotherhood of man or love or whatever!”

 

But of course, ultimately, that’s a total fraud. Ultimately, that doesn’t actually exist because nature actually exists.

 

And so all that ends up happening is that you facilitating parasitism and you’re facilitating the manipulation of outsider groups who will use that morality against you. Like we’re seeing with all of these non-Whites that are taking advantage of our egalitarian moment in the Western world. They can’t believe their luck at how stupid we are that we’re just giving away! We built the greatest civilisation in world history, and we’re just giving it away to them for free, and apologizing to them while we give it to them that we’re not giving it to you know, quickly enough and rapaciously enough or something.

 

Blair Cottrell: There’s many forces that will come at you in this world with the attractive idea that you aren’t your own responsibility and things aren’t your fault and your failures aren’t a result of your own weakness or naivety. But you’ve got to be careful that you don’t be swayed so easily by these forces. As Joel just pointed out, they come packaged in many different ways, sometimes as religions, sometimes as unions, and ideological groups. And sure, there’s collective oppression that you can challenge, but you can’t really be oppressed unless you’re weak enough to be in the first place.

 

So if you get strong enough, if you get good enough, then you’ll start doing the oppressing, and you really become immune to oppression.

 

And I think the world really is sort of “oppressed or be oppressed” in a way. You need to be in a position where you can crush any and all opponent that challenges you. Even if you don’t actually need to do it, you still have to have the capability of doing it. You have to keep yourself strong to prove your right to exist in this world.

 

And this glorification of weakness really irritates me in the West. It kills all incentive to perform when we’re rewarding and prioritizing the weakest and the sickest in our society. Where’s that going long term? The only logical conclusion is everyone’s going to try to be as weak and as sick as possible in order to be paid and rewarded for it.

 

Thomas Sewell: So I think it’s really important to know what’s going on in the schools. And I appreciated David Hiscock. He just wrote an article on that Misinformation Bill, just tying a few of these subjects together that have been floating around in the ether. But David Hiscock wrote about how the, … Sorry, not the Misinformation Bill, the banning of children from social media.

 

And I think that’s quite significant, because they’re still watching TV, they’re still getting programmed. They just don’t have the sort of Pandora’s box of the Internet.

 

And again, I’m not sure the exact age that they’re trying to legislate that children can’t use the Internet, but what they’re doing to children is ultimately what they’re trying to do to adults. And that was the point he was making in the article. And I think we discussed that on the show maybe two or three weeks ago as well.

 

This idea that Hitler talks about it, Stalin talks about it, and that’s not just because they’re both dictators by definition, but it is just commonly understood that who controls the youth, controls the future. And the way the Liberal tyranny or the anarcho-tyranny is doing it is they are making these changes. Oh, that’s right. I remember it was the show we talked about. It was when we talked about how the anti-bullying safe schools programme from six years ago has changed culture so significantly that children growing up that have had that change to the education curriculum are now adults. And now the government finally got the courage, or they finally got enough time behind them to start seriously changing how society functions in the same way that bureaucrats can just change how a high school works.

 

And a bit of a tangent, but a real world example I have of this is when I was in the army. When I got to battalion, when I marched out of training, we got pulled aside into a room by the lieutenant colonel, and he said, I think it was Forbes. And he died of cancer, conveniently. But he gave us a big speech about how:

 

“All the soldiers in the unit were cancer.”

 

That’s what he said to us. And we were, like, 18 years old. We just marched out of training. And he pulled all the new guys, because it was like about three or four Platoons* worth of new guys, new recruits, rocked up a battalion all at the same time. And he pulled us all into an auditorium and he said:

 

“All the soldiers just got back from Afghanistan. Basically, they’re cancer, they’re rotten, they’re no good. And basically I’m trying to get rid of them. And you guys are the future and you guys have been trained properly. And the army is going through some changes at the moment, and these people are trying to hold on to the old army. And what we need to do is have the new army. And you guys are the new army.”

 

[* In the Australian Army, an infantry Platoon has thirty-six soldiers organised into three eight-man sections and a twelve-man manoeuvre support section, with a lieutenant as Platoon commander and a sergeant as Platoon sergeant, accompanied by a Platoon signaller and sometimes a Platoon medic (full strength of forty men). A section comprises eight soldiers led by a corporal with a lance corporal as second in command. Each section has two fireteams (sometimes three) of four men, one led by the corporal and the other by the lance corporal. Each fireteam (also called a “brick” by Australian soldiers) has one soldier with an F89 Minimi LSW and the other three armed with F88 Steyr assault rifles. One rifle per fireteam has an attached 40 mm grenade launcher; one of the grenadiers is the lance corporal. Fireteam bravo has a HK417 7.62mm for the designated marksman role. More recently, the designated marksman of each Australian fireteam has been issued the HK417 in Afghanistan and possibly afterwards. The Platoon may also have three MAG 58 general-purpose machine guns, one M2 Browning heavy machine gun, or a Mk 19 grenade launcher at its disposal. Wikipedia]

 

And we told all the senior soldiers and they were like:

 

“Yeah, yeah, yeah, that’s Forbes. He’s a piece of shit! You know, good luck with him. Basically, we’re all leaving because we don’t want this guy as our commander. We’re all discharging, we’re all getting out of the army. And yeah, we just feel sorry for you and you guys because you don’t actually know what the army is. The thing you have joined is very different to what it was five years ago. It’s drastically changed in a very short period of time.”

 

[32:58]

 

 

And the army went from this boys club where it was like party hard, work hard, serve the country, do the hard yards. And it was this macho kind of warrior cult, and it just became PC. You’re basically a security guard for the state when they decide and when they don’t decide. And we’re going to be doing lots of humanitarian work and you’re kind of a bodyguard for like the UN humanitarian aid workers. And we’re going to transition away from a lot of this combat stuff. And we were infantry soldiers.

 

And I sensed this transition actually, when I applied because of dealing with the civilian recruiting agency and the kind of questions they would ask. It made me think, like:

 

“Am I joining the army or am I joining the Peace Corps?”

 

It was very strange, the questions. I won’t go into it. But I saw that firsthand. And I saw that when you drastically change the culture of an institution, you actually have to remove basically all the non-compliant manpower from the organisation and you have to restock the organisation with the new manpower that can be loyal to the institution, because it doesn’t even know what the old institution was like because it wasn’t around. And you’ve got this fresh slate.

 

And so that’s what’s happening at a macro level and at a micro level. So at a macro level, they’re replacing us, you know, ethnically. Like, the White people are getting replaced from Australia and Britain and Canada, America, Germany, wherever. We’re getting replaced, and they’re bringing in these migrants.

 

And one of the main reasons is that the White people are just the “cancer”. This is what our bureaucrats think of us. This is what the ruling elites think of us. Because White people want things like justice and fairness and freedom and honour and respect and rights and liberties! That’s what the White people want. But the Chinese and Indian bug people they don’t know. What the fuck does fairness and righteousness and justice mean to them? This isn’t in their psyche. This isn’t in their psyche. These words are Western words. These are Western concepts. These belong to us!

 

And so to change the culture into the tyranny that they’re trying to make, they need to replace us. And they can’t replace all the Whites all at once, so they got to brainwash them in school. And so we’re seeing the anarcho-tyranny playing out where you’ve got children. They can’t be punished for basically what is proto-criminal behaviour.

 

So that’s the anarchy. But they can be punished. If you say the word “gay”, I guarantee there’s a punishment for it. I guarantee there’s consequences. If you said the word “gay” in class, you get punished! But you punch the teacher:

 

“Oh, why are you feeling this way? What’s wrong? Tell us why you’re feeling this way.”

 

Joel Davis: See if you punch the gay kids?

 

Thomas Sewell: Well, I have one anecdotal story. We have run a similar. We haven’t run the experiment. I’m aware of an anecdotal, …

 

Blair Cottrell: We [chuckling] have some experience in this! [chuckling]

 

Thomas Sewell: Ha! [chuckling] There were some gay jews that tried to run me over the car and shit happened. But that’s a different discussion.

 

We have in the school environment, one of the younger siblings of a member was made aware. I think he’s like 13 or something. He was made aware that there was going to be a tranny at school the next year.

 

So the teachers sat all the kids down, said:

 

“When Jeffrey comes back next year, he’s actually not Jeffrey. He’s like, Janice and it’s a girl now, and you have to refer to him as a girl.”

 

And although all the boys in the class apparently just had a huddle and were like:

 

“Let’s just bully the fuck out of this faggot!”

 

And then they just went, as soon as Jeffrey came back, and he was like, all the teacher and the girls were like, trying to call him Janice and all this, and all the boys were like:

 

“Shut the fuck up, Jeffrey! You faggot!”

 

And the whole class did it, and they couldn’t expel everyone. So the kid eventually just dropped out of the school. So the Zoomers are winning. Actually, I think these are, these might be Gen Alpha. These might not even be Zoomers. I think we’re seeing, …

 

Blair Cottrell: The exact same thing happened, … When you were telling that story, the same thing happened in Port Phillip Prison when I was there. And it was a little jewish woman who was part of the prison staff, who brought into our unit a young Indian kid. I think he was about 18, 19 years old, but he was doing minimum ten year sentence because he killed his White girlfriend. I don’t know what the circumstances were. But in prison, when you kill a young girl, the other prisoners don’t really appreciate that. And it tends to be the sort of crime that if you’re convicted of it, you spend your time in the “slot”, we call it, or solitary confinement. You don’t really mix with the mainstream of the prison, for your own safety.

 

But yeah, one of the little jewish woman she was called the Youth Development Officer. Uh, she was all right to me, but she came up with this idea:

 

“We’re going to integrate this person into the mainstream unit.”

 

We had a meeting headed up by this woman who said:

 

“Look, there’s a guy coming into this unit who’s you know, he’s convicted of murder, he’s made a mistake and all that, but we’re trying to integrate him into mainstream to give him a chance.”

 

And the same thing happened, like, as soon as she left the room, we all just looked at each other, because we heard the details of what he’d done, and we’re just like:

 

“Let’s just fucking get this cunt!”

 

So [chuckling] he was only in there for an hour, but before he had to be taken out. [chuckling]

 

Joel Davis: Yeah, Well, based!

 

Thomas Sewell: You cannot stop the Aryan spirit, and it lives in the youth, so good luck to them.

 

[38:51]

 

 

Joel Davis: Yeah, I mean, getting suspended from school isn’t even that bad. I mean, you just get to sit at home for three days. Yeah, it’s one of the best punishments. Well, when I got suspended, my dad would, like, pack up the Xbox and take it with him to work, so I couldn’t play it. Fucking asshole!

 

Blair Cottrell: Yeah, my dad used to hide it. But he thought I didn’t know where he hid it, but I knew. So when he wasn’t home, I’d go and get it and then put it back.

 

Joel Davis: That’s what I did first. And then he figured that out. So then he just took it to work.

 

So then I was just fucked!

 

Thomas Sewell: My dad would take the power cable and I just wouldn’t tell him that I just stole a backup one from school. It’s the same power cable. They’re universal. [chuckling] So he took the power cable to work.

 

Blair Cottrell: Yeah. The toaster cord. Yeah, yeah.

 

Joel Davis: Yeah. But I’ll talk about this story. Actually, let’s get a bit of a story going.

 

So I don’t know if you guys saw this, but it’s going around:

 

“Sweden to pay immigrants up to $34,000 US to leave. Sweden plans to boost payments up to $34,000 to immigrants who leave the nation that has been a haven for the war weary and persecuted, the Right-wing government, said on Thursday.”

 

So called “Right-wing”, I’m reading. This is from Associated Press.

 

Thomas Sewell: Can you put the article up?

 

Joel Davis: :

 

“The Scandinavian country was for decades seen as a, quote, ‘humanitarian superpower’, but over the years has struggled to integrate many of its newcomers. Immigrants who voluntarily returned to their countries of origin from 2026 would be eligible to receive up to 350,000 Swedish krona, …”

 

Which is $34,000. So what is that? Almost like 50 grand Australian?:

 

“The government, which is propped up by the anti-immigration Sweden, Democrats, told a press conference, quote, ‘We are in the midst of a paradigm shift in our migration policy’, migration minister Johann Forsal told reporters as the government presented its latest move to crack down on migration. Currently, immigrants can receive up to 10,000 krona per adult and 5,000 per child, with a cap of 40,000.”

 

So that’s a pretty massive increase.

 

Anyway. So this is making a lot of news because I think this is like the biggest payment of any European country or any Western country or I think any country in the world for people to re-migrate back to their countries of origin. And it’s obviously quite significant. There was some polling that was done that suggested that a very substantial portion of a lot of these immigrants, if they were paid enough to be able to resettle back in their homeland, would be interested in going home. So hopefully it gets rid of some of the shitskins out of Sweden.

 

But my response to this is that ultimately this isn’t the way. It’s not going to produce a very large scale of responses. Only a very small minority, I think, of these migrants will take the bait and go home. What’s stopping them coming back again later? I don’t know if there really is any mechanism to stop them coming back later, even after taking the money. Maybe their Visa gets ripped up or whatever, but they could reapply.

 

But also, moreover, it’s still playing into the idea that these immigrants are entitled to, basically the free choice of what country they want to live in and support to live a good life on the back of the Swedish taxpayer and so on. It isn’t creating disincentives or negative incentives. It isn’t saying we’re going to put a big levy or tax upon immigrants in order to basically make it difficult for them to make a substantial living in Sweden and therefore create the incentive for them to leave. It isn’t forcibly removing people.

 

And I think until you cross that boundary where you say:

 

“I’ll be willing to make the lives of immigrants substantially worse and actually ruin their choices, not expand their choices and try and give them a golden handshake, but actually make their life worse to stay.”

 

You’re not really going to get a substantial shift.

 

Additionally, that’s a lot of money. How the hell are these immigrants entitled to more from, … It’s still, I think, morally wrong almost to take even more from the Swedish people and give it to these browns.

 

But nevertheless, it probably, probably will reduce the overall numbers to a degree. So it’ll be interesting to see as an experiment how successful the programme is and keep an eye on it. It is part of like a changing attitude, I think, in European politics to the idea of the immigrants going back, which is a positive thing.

 

Blair Cottrell: Could it be a throw off just to placate the public who see what’s happening? Like:

 

“Oh, yeah, we just re-migrated a hundred people!”

 

But then another thousand came in.

 

Joel Davis: Yeah, of course. Of course!

 

Thomas Sewell: It’s a step in the right direction. And I know that sounds like a really reformist take, not a revolutionary one. But it, as you said, it’s a new dynamic. It’s a new dynamic. We haven’t really had this dynamic. This hasn’t been a conversation on the table. Now that it’s a conversation on the table, it’s a clever little ploy from the conservatives. It’s like:

 

“Well see some of them went back, see, it is possible.”

 

And then you can just keep ramping it up.

 

And I shared, when the riots were happening in London, I shared an Enoch Powell interview. It’s maybe only like five or seven minutes long. And he’s with a very hostile kind of libtard journalist. And Enoch Powell is talking about these kinds of things, that there’s different measures that the British government could take to turn Britain back to being 100% White or 99.9% White.

 

And obviously he’s talking about a very small community of non-Whites. I think he’s talking about 100,000 or 200,000 that he sees need to go back.

 

Now, obviously, it’s in the millions. Potentially it’s like 10 million. But he does mention that. He says that there’s sort of this carrot and stick dynamic.

 

And then the libtard journalist says:

 

“Well, what happens if they don’t take the carrot?”

 

Basically, what happens if they don’t take these, … The journalist refers to them as “coercive measures” and defines this as coercion because you’re saying:

 

“Here, do this is the easy way because otherwise there’ll be a hard way. It’s like it’s subtly implied that you’re going to bring harm to migrants.”

 

And Powell’s playing the game. He’s not going full Hitler mode because that’s not what he was, but he’s not cucking on the question. He’s kind of trying to hold this, …

 

[45:19]

 

Joel Davis: Like, well, I mean, Hitler did play this game. Hitler did make a deal with the Zionists to relocate the jews to Palestine in exchange for, …

 

Thomas Sewell: Yeah, yes, technically, yes.

 

Joel Davis: So Hitler invented re-migration in a certain way, you could say.

 

Blair Cottrell: You’re saying that Adolf Hitler explored peaceful solutions to avoid war?

 

Joel Davis: Yeah, of course!

 

Actually, at that time in the mid 1930s, because a lot of people say:

 

“Oh, Hitler actually supported zionism!”

 

And like this retarded mental gymnastics. At the time, in the mid 1930s, the International Jewish community was whipping up an intense amount of hatred against Germany at a time when Germany wasn’t as prepared for war as it was at the beginning of the Second World War. This is in the mid 1930s. Hitler only been in power for a couple of years. And the international clique of jews, particularly in New York, but everywhere, were whipping up a lot of anti-German sentiment. And the Poles were very emboldened by this to pursue a kind of aggressive posture against Germany, over the disputed territories and so on. You know, obviously, at the end of the First World War, a lot of former German territories were either handed over to Poland or the free city of Danzig was created as a kind of compromise as well.

 

But anyway, there’s a lot of details. I don’t even want to go down explicating them all. If you don’t know about this, read up on your history.

 

But the point is that Germans were in a relatively weak point at that point. Then the jews basically started fighting amongst themselves. All these different factions of people trying to get together and put sanctions on Germany and put pressure on Germany and make Germany a pariah state in the international community and so on. They kind of got consumed with the “two jews, three opinions”, internal warfare within themselves or internal arguments within themselves.

 

And the only faction within, the most unstable faction within that was the Zionists, who thought that they could exploit how anti-semitic the National Socialist regime was to get a big jewish population to go and participate in their settlement programme in Palestine, because obviously, this is before the state of Israel existed.

 

And at that time, zionism was just a dream of a certain subset of the jewish community in Europe. And they were trying to convince the jews to move there, most of whom had no interest, frankly, in moving to Palestine, because they were living in Europe and doing quite well in Europe and didn’t see the necessity, or didn’t really have the inclination to go and become part of a settler project, which, when you’re the first mover on those kinds of things, it isn’t always particularly in a maybe hostile place filled with Arabs, it isn’t necessarily the most alluring proposition.

 

So they saw what was happening in Germany as an opportunity, so they tried to seize it. And Hitler saw it as an opportunity to get one faction of the jews to maybe turn on the other factions, because then all the other factions would get pissed off at the Zionists for making a deal with Hitler, whilst at the same time getting rid of some jews out of Germany, which obviously was an objective.

 

So Hitler made it, you could say, a deal with the devil, which he thought was good strategy at the time. And it was actually a strategic masterstroke. Hitler was willing to, he was a strategic politician, like any good politician, looking out for the interests of their nation. I mean, he was willing to ultimately make an alliance with Stalin, not really an alliance, it was a non-Aggression pact, but he was willing to do deals ultimately in order to pursue Germany’s interests. And people say:

 

“Oh, this means that the National Socialists actually supported the Soviet Union, supported the jews!”

 

Which is the most ridiculous thing that you could possibly say! These are their mortal enemies. But it was just response to a particular strategic landscape that these things happened.

 

But getting back to re-migration. Unless you guys want to go off on that digression further, you’re welcome to interrupt and do so.

 

On the re-migration issue. I think the most beneficial thing about what the Swedish government is doing with this is that it won’t work. $34,000 US, it’s a substantial amount of money. But ultimately, going back to fucking Shitgannistan, wherever the fuck these people are from, Syria or whatever, you know, it sucks! Going back with 34 grand in your pocket. It’s still shit! And you’d much rather live in Sweden.

 

So I don’t think almost anyone is going to take this deal. And we’ll see that it won’t work. And that ultimately, if you don’t have sticks as well as carrots, you’re not getting these fucking browns out of Europe!

 

And I think we’ll learn that lesson hopefully quite quickly, as a result of the failure of this policy.

 

[50:09]

 

Blair Cottrell: You’ll get revolving door, too. What happens when they take the money, go home and run out of money? They’ll come back. And say:

 

“Oh, it didn’t work out. I’ll try again. Where’s the money?”

 

You know you can say:

 

“Oh, well, we’re going to create checks and balances so they can’t apply twice.”

 

But they’ll just come back with a different name. How are you going to tell them apart? They all look the same. [chuckling] Like it’ll be exploited. I think you’re right. It’s not going to work. There’s too many exploits.

 

Thomas Sewell: Yeah. All of this is part of the subconscious rising of racial nationalism. I mean, slightly off topic, but in line with this concept of all these subtle ways of dealing with the problem, White people are just experts of subtle ways of dealing with the problem.

 

Let’s not be overt. Let’s just be constantly subtle. And the father, that cuck in Springfield, Ohio, whose son was killed by a Haitian migrant, and then he got up and did a speech. This is like last week, Blair, or this earlier in the week. And he said that:

 

“He wished that it was a Whiteman that killed his son.”

 

Joel Davis: Want to play it?

 

Thomas Sewell: Yeah, sure.

 

Joel Davis: All right, give me, … You can keep going because it would take me about, …

 

Thomas Sewell: And then there was a community meeting where all these people got up and were complaining about these Haitian migrants.

 

And then there was like a black Governor, or a black town Mayor, and she was like:

 

“This meeting is over. It’s done!”

 

And there was people in the crowd that were like:

 

“But what are we going to do? How are we going to educate all these kids, they don’t speak English!”

 

And they were kind of shouting at the Mayor all these kind of sidetrack issues, not actually addressing the main issue. But it was, there’s like these traitors and there’s these lukewarm, and then there’s the fighters, as Hitler says. And the traitors are like:

 

“I wish a Whiteman killed my son.”

 

Because then there wouldn’t be more racism towards, you know, this enemy.

 

And then the lukewarms are like, they want what’s good. They’re neutral. I think neutral is a really good way of describing the normie, because they just want to live in a functioning society. They’re not bad people, but they want, I think, the same thing that the fighters want. We both want the same thing, but the fighters will come out and say it. The fighters will say:

 

“We’re going to get rid of these Haitians! Just get rid of them! Clear them out!”

 

But the neutrals will say:

 

“Oh, how are we going to? How is the school system going to work? We need to hire more teachers. Who’s going to pay for that? Because none of these Haitians speak English.”

 

And so they’re looking for some kind of gotcha moment. They’re always looking for a gotcha to try to get what they want. The problem is they’re dealing with an enemy. They’re dealing with a traitor. And the traitors like:

 

“Oh, we’ll work that out. We’ll figure that out.”

 

And it’s like:

 

“Damn it! Back to the drawing board. What’s the next complaint? To try to get what we want.”

 

But it’s like, you don’t get what you want by complaining and saying, how is this going to work? Or, like:

 

“How are we going to send the Syrians from Sweden back to Syria? Do we pay them 34,000? What if they come back?”

 

There’s all these kind of arse about face, roundabout ways of trying to resolve the problem.

 

But obviously, ultimately, it’s the stick. You just got to put the fighters in charge, and the fighters, like:

 

“You’re all going home! See you later. Hope you enjoyed your holiday. Bye bye!”

 

You know, no policy, …

 

Joel Davis: Idi Amin, … Sorry.

 

Thomas Sewell: No, that’s all right.

 

Joel Davis: I was just saying, when Idi Amin came to power in Uganda, he just said to the pajeets, because there was heaps of pajeets living in Uganda at the time, you know, part of the British Empire. There was a lot of pajeet migrants through the British colonies all across Africa. You know, Gandhi was actually from South Africa, for example.

 

Anyway, he came to power and he basically told the pajeets:

 

“They got 72 hours to get the fuck out or we’re going to start shooting!”

 

And the pajeets got out!

 

Thomas Sewell: Yeah.

 

Joel Davis: You know, now that’s a pretty vulgar, you know, Idi Amin is like some butcher African dictator, but that’s probably the most effective re-migration policy I’ve ever heard of anyway, here’s the video of, …

 

Blair Cottrell: What did Heinrich Himmler say about this subject? He said:

 

“Humanitarianism is the expression of cowardice and weakness.”

 

So all these humanitarian alternatives to dealing with whether it’s, you know, immigrants, re-migration. Well, you know what I’m trying to say. They don’t make you better. I think that’s a problem. A lot of these people have, government officials, people that work in the media industrial complex. What the kind of thing, like, they think that humanitarianism makes them smarter, better people. It doesn’t. It makes you an idiot! It makes you a coward and an idiot! Straight up!

 

Joel Davis: Yeah, exactly!

 

Joel Davis: I’ll play, …

 

Blair Cottrell: Like this guy right here. Like, this guy’s the perfect example of what I’m fucking talking about! Here’s some classic humanitarian cowardice and stupidity from the father of this poor kid that was. I don’t even know how the kid was killed. What’s the story behind this, Joel?

 

[54:56]

 

 

Joel Davis: By the way, talking about physiognomy like he looks like a mutt. He’s quite short. So what happened to this kid, by the way?

 

Thomas Sewell: [words unclear] Down Syndrome.

 

Joel Davis: Yeah. Yeah, he does.

 

So what happened to this kid? For context, for those who don’t know, there was a Haitian who was driving recklessly, he didn’t have a licence and basically caused a bus to swerve and crash. And an eleven year old boy on the bus that tragically died as he was basically thrown out the window of the bus as it crashed, in some way. And this is his father addressing the media.

 

Father: You know, I wish that my son, Aiden Clark, was killed by a 60 year old Whiteman. I bet you never thought anyone would ever say something so blunt. But if that guy killed my eleven year old son, the incessant group of hate spewing people would leave us alone. The last thing that we need is to have the worst day of our lives violently and constantly shoved in our faces. But even that’s not good enough for them. They take it one step further. They make it seem as though our wonderful Aiden appreciates your hate. That we should follow their hate. And look what you’ve done to us. We have to get up here and beg them to stop. Using Aiden as a political tool is, to say the least, reprehensible for any political purpose.

And speaking of morally bankrupt politicians, Bernie Moreno, Chip Roy, JD Vance, and Donald Trump, they have spoken my son’s name and used his death for political gain. This needs to stop now! They can vomit all the hate they want about illegal immigrants, the border crisis, and even untrue claims about fluffy pets being ravaged and eaten by community members.

However, they are not allowed, nor have they ever been allowed, to mention Aiden Clark from Springfield, Ohio. I will listen to them one more time to hear their apologies. To clear the air my son, Aiden Clark, was not murdered. He was accidentally killed by an immigrant from Haiti. This tragedy is felt all over this community, the state, and even the nation. But don’t spend this towards hate. In order to live Hayden, you need to accept everyone. Choose to shine, make the difference, lead the way, and be the inspiration! What many people in this community and state and nation are doing is the opposite of what you should be doing. Sure, we have our problems here in Springfield and in the US, but, …

 

Blair Cottrell: How was that guy’s, how he says:

 

“Donald Trump and other politicians have used the death of my son for politics.”

 

Really? Wow! Politicians use tragic circumstance for politics. That’s not going to stop, mate! When he says, this needs to stop that’s just been an eternal reality, core component of politics, and it always will be. That’s what politics is.

 

Joel Davis: He talked about a thing that happened.

 

Blair Cottrell: And the fact remains, like, he’s just trying to do what I think he’s Hoodwinked into believing is right. I mean, the guy wrote that, proofread it, and still thought it was a good idea to read that on camera.

 

Joel Davis: Like, just casually, …

 

Thomas Sewell: His wife proofread it. You can tell.

 

Blair Cottrell: Yeah, probably.

 

Thomas Sewell: Yeah.

 

Blair Cottrell: But the fact remains, I hope the guy hears this. I hope the guy hears this. The fact remains, mate, that if that Haitian immigrant was never in the country in the first place, your son would still be alive! It wasn’t the 60 year old Whiteman who killed your son. It was the immigrant. Your son is dead because of that immigrant! Yeah, that’s just a fact.

 

Joel Davis: I just wish that the immigrant had hit him. I wish he died. Hopefully one hits him soon. Hopefully one of these Haitian migrants eats him! I know that they prefer cats and ducks, apparently. Just I saw there’s a bit of controversy about abounding now in the American media because they’ve “fact checked”. Because in the Trump Harris debate, Trump pulled out the line of:

 

“The Haitian migrants, they’re eating the cats, they’re eating the dogs!”

 

And they were like:

 

“They fact checked it. No, technically, there’s no evidence of Haitians eating cats.”

 

But I’m seeing all these videos of Haitians, like, breaking cats necks and sucking their intestines out on my Twitter feed. So I don’t know what’s going on there exactly. But what I do know is that they put 20,000 [word unclear] down, and I saw a video of this guy saying that basically the government has come in and is paying way over the odds for the Haitian migrants to take up all the rentals in the town.

 

So everyone got kicked, all their leases got cancelled, and basically everyone were kicked out, because now every landlord can charge the state way over the odds to put a Haitian migrant in their house, and the rent is paid for by the State.

 

And so now there’s mass homelessness in this city. All these White people basically got thrown out of their homes so they could put Haitians in. These Haitians don’t have jobs, so they’re just loitering around on the street. They’ve come from a, you know, Haiti isn’t just war torn, Haiti is a totally, like, failed society where they’re eating mud! They’re eating, like, mud sandwiches, like, for breakfast in Haiti.

 

[1:01:15]

 

Blair Cottrell: And what’s native to Haiti? Are they, …

 

Joel Davis: They’re a bunch of niggas. They’re a bunch of, …

 

Blair Cottrell: Black people. Okay.

 

Joel Davis: They’re niggas. Like, they’re literal, like, slaves. So Haiti’s origin story is, …

 

Blair Cottrell: When you say black people, it’s like, there’s different thresholds of black people. What kind of black people in Haiti?

 

Joel Davis: They are the full niggas.

 

Blair Cottrell: Like, really black, midnight heart of darkness from Africa type thing? Or the ones that can actually run, …

 

Joel Davis: Like, how much milk is in the chocolate? Because they would have raped a lot of Amerindian woman. And all the local, whatever the local DNA was of the kind of Amerindians, they’re probably being kind of garbled up into, …

 

Thomas Sewell: Like, black Brazilians. You know, you see, like, a Brazilian that’s black, and they’ve kind of got a weird kind of Mexican black look to them.

 

Blair Cottrell: Yeah.

 

Thomas Sewell: That’s what the average Haitian looks like. They’re kind of Mexican black. They’re not for Hispanic, but they’re mostly black.

 

Joel Davis: Yeah, they’re pretty nigger. Like, they’re niggas.

 

Anyway, the point is, Haiti was built off the slaves revolting against the French. And to the eternal shame of the British Empire, we helped them in our animosity to the French. They overthrew and mass raped and mass murdered. And ate literally, like, consumed the flesh of all the French that could get their hands on.

 

Thomas Sewell: 1830s, was it 1840s?

 

Joel Davis: Correct.

 

And basically, Haiti has been an anarchic cesspool of totally degenerated you know, nigger-retardation ever since. It’s like there’s African countries that are totally failed states where they’ve got child soldiers and weird voodoo magic and cannibalism and so on. Haiti has basically got that going on. Like, it’s a total shitscape. So bringing Haitian in, …

 

Thomas Sewell: It’s, like, worse than India. It’s actually a country worse than India. India is disgusting! But Haiti is India on steroids. Like, the trash is piling up in the streets. No one takes the trash out. So imagine years of rubbish everywhere. They’ve chopped down every tree. It’s an open sewer. It’s an open sewer!

 

And as Joel articulated, it was built. Yeah, we’ve got a problem. Yeah, it was.

 

Blair Cottrell: Remember the children are walking barefoot and pot bellied! We got a problem! Remember that testimony?

 

Thomas Sewell: Yeah.

 

Thomas Sewell: Black people. Not one seafaring ship. Not one! [chuckling]

 

Blair Cottrell: And they never built one boat that was seaworthy. Not one! [chuckling]

 

Thomas Sewell: Yeah, Haitians are disgusting!

 

And again, they have the legacy of White genocide. Haiti as a country, I mean, it was a French colony, as Joel articulated, probably ten or 20% French. And then a whole bunch of African slaves were there picking the cotton fields, or it was probably sugarcane or fruit, something like that. And, yeah, there was a planned revolt, and they overthrew the French overlords and they killed them all. And they killed all the mulattoes that were in any sort of administrative or middle tier, middle rank, kind of like the Second Class, if the first class was the full blooded Whites, and the kind of Amerindian or African mulattoes with White blood in them were the kind of Second Class that helped, like the house niggers. And then the third class were the field niggers.

 

And basically the field niggers revolted and killed all the Whites, ate them and raped them, and then they killed all the mulattoes. Because they had too much White in them and they didn’t trust them. So they killed all the people that knew how to manage a farm, how to do anything [chuckling] other than just the most basic manual labour and be told what to do.

 

So then they all starved to death. Basically, like, 80% of the population died. And then what’s left are kind of the cannibals that managed to survive that genetic selective process. So they’re just, the worst scum, …

 

Joel Davis: That’s why foreign aid is disgusting, because they send all these UN aid packages to breed the Haitians back up to a large level.

 

Thomas Sewell: And then they dump them on America like a bio, …