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

Greg Johnson: Greg Johnson. Welcome to Counter-Currents Radio. In the first hour of today’s live stream we have a special guest, the Ayatollah. Okay. Let me just deal with my technical ineptitude here. All of this will be lost, like tears in the stream of time, once the post-production people get, … Good god! [chuckling]

 

Okay folks, I apologize for that. We’re just gonna start over again, and through the magic of post-production it will all disappear, and I will seem professional, and indeed flawless.

 

I’m Greg Johnson. Welcome to Counter-Currents Radio. I have a special guest today in the first hour. It is the Ayatollah. The Ayatollah is a commentator from the UK who was recently doxxed. And he is now defiant. And I thought that this would be a great story to tell, because whenever somebody gets doxed, I love to see them standing up for themselves.

 

So Ayatollah, welcome to the show.

 

The Ayatollah: Well, thanks very much for having me. Yeah, I was delighted to be asked on. Good to be here.

 

Greg Johnson: Well, I have shared in the Dlive comments and at Odysee your links. And they are also creeping across the bottom of the screen in a ticker tape type fashion. So folks, if you would like to follow his work, these are his various platforms. Also on the screen you’ll notice our Entropy link. Entropy stream dot live forward slash Counter-Currents.

 

If you would like to send a question, or a comment, the ones that get noticed first and are most welcome are the ones that are connected with donations. We do use this platform as a way of raising funds. We have been cut off from the global credit card processing industry for more than three years now.

 

But there is a platform called Entropy, that allows people to use credit cards to send money to Counter-Currents. And so we very much appreciate them. And it’s great if you can use their platform and help them out as well. They are staunch defenders of freedom of speech on the internet. And those are precious few.

 

Also if you’d just like to send Dlive tokens, or tips through Odysee, we welcome those as well. And in the course of today’s show. I’m going to be talking about the Ayatollah, about his recent doxing, and also his broader work. But if you have questions for him, definitely send those in. Help me out here. I really want to hear your questions, as well.

 

So Ayatollah, I guess the first question I’ve got is, can you just tell us a little bit about yourself without doxing yourself any further? And especially the kind of work you do and why you chose the name “Ayatollah”? That’s an interesting one.

 

The Ayatollah: Right. [chuckling] Well, should probably go back to the beginning. I suppose I received what I would call the final red pills in like 2016, 2017, as was the case for so many people, probably including a lot of people watching and listening.

 

It was kind of a New Year’s resolution for 2019, to kind of actually start participating offline, in the real world in the nationalist community. Which was a good year for it in this country, because like later that year Patriotic Alternative was established. Then I got on Telegram at the beginning of that year.

 

A few of the people I talked to in April of that year established a podcast, a weekly podcast, called the Absolute State of Britain podcast that actually got picked up by TRS in about I think late May, early June. However one of the original founders, there were three founders, one of them was leaving the show at the end of June. And basically I was next cab off the rank. I got asked if I would join. I decided I needed a nom de guerre, if I’m not totally butchering that borrowed term from French. I probably am, philistine that I am. But there we are, and we discussed a few things. And this was the subject of intense over-analysis in the recent Times doxxing.

 

But I settled on the Ayatollah, because just Euro, one of my former co-hosts in our sort of preliminary call before the first episode I participated in, said it. And I thought:

 

“Yeah, I like that!”

 

It’s quite an exotic sounding word. It’s got what you’d call the definite article at the start, which I like. It’s sort of funny and obviously, you know, Ayatollahs traditionally in our lifetime, they’ve not exactly been great friends of the global order! [chuckling] And you probably [word unclear] that if you wanted this podcast in Britain! And it was. I mean, more than anything it was funny! This is one of the things The Times grossly over analyzed, saying:

 

“Oh Ayatollah is quite an intimidating figure! And they’re also kind of like arbiters of divine truth. So maybe he thinks he’s that, as well?”

 

No! We’re having a bit of a laugh. And one of the reasons we’re having to laugh is you get to the dissident understanding of the world. And you understand actually there are an awful lot of unpleasant things going on. You don’t have a lot of immediate power to do anything about them. And one of your kind of coping mechanisms, to keep each of us sane, is a little bit of humor.

 

And they have an extraordinary tone deafness and inability to understand this, as well as much else. And then a lot of the things they pretend not to understand for the sake of manipulating their, … Excuse me. Their audience. Bit of a wobble. But yeah, … That was it.

 

I joined The Absolute State of Britain. Then I was on that podcast for a bit over a year. Started my own YouTube channel. We did the odd live stream and we guested on the other live stream. And I kind of got the streaming bug and decided I’d start streaming. That funnily enough coincided with me leaving TASOB, for quite controversial reasons. I ended up meeting a nationalist, a girl through the nationalist community, who was half Indian, which given that we were quite hard-line, was seen as a bit of a difficult thing to abide.

 

But I started streaming on my own and literally just over two years ago. I’ve been doing that kind of well, it was kind of once a week, generally on a Friday. And then, as of this year in April, sort of twice a week.

 

But while a lot of that was going on there was a big investigation to try and establish who I was. But I actually did this. I mean, one of the funniest things about this is, I did this from the outset with a slightly different accent which I’ve gone into now, which I’ve now abandoned, because my ruse has been exposed.

 

I sort of try to sound like I was from the southeast of England, when I’m actually from the Midlands. And I’m back into my normal accent now. They don’t actually sound that different. I listened back to a bit of my stream from last night. And there are almost no differences even to my ear. So it probably didn’t fool anybody. It was probably a waste of my time all these years. But there we are.

 

Greg Johnson: So say that last sentence in your fake accent, and then your real accent. I just want to see if I can hear the difference.

 

The Ayatollah: Right! So if I go into the accent I used to use, there are sort of southern vowel sounds. Like I could sound a bit. Like I was from the southeast of England, or something like that. And it did convince one, or two people even from that part of the world. And then like, if I go back into my own voice. Now, if I said the accent I used to use it got sort of southeastern vowel sounds. It’s probably not that different to American listeners, to be honest. Like a lot of British listeners couldn’t tell which difference last night either.

 

Greg Johnson: No, I can tell the difference. That’s very, very interesting. I am not a connoisseur of British accents, because I just haven’t spent enough time in Great Britain. I’ve always wanted to ask a Briton who’s got an ear for this. Do you ever watch Absolutely Fabulous? It was a show from the 90s.

 

The Ayatollah: I never really watched it. I do remember it. I mean, I know Joanna Lumley was in it.

 

Greg Johnson: Yeah.

 

The Ayatollah: I never watched it. No. Why? What was the, … I may have sort of fallen short on that already. What was the question?

 

Greg Johnson: There’s a character in there who goes by the name “Bubble”, played by this actress Jane Horrocks. And she has the strangest accent! And I wonder if it was just made up, or is that some sort of regional British accent that I’d never encountered anywhere?

 

The Ayatollah: Honestly. I mean, in this country anything is possible! Because even where I grew up there’s, … I grew up grew up in a bit of a no-man’s land for accents. So the accents are not massively strong where I am. But go 15 minutes one way it gets very strong. Go 15 minutes the other it gets very strong in a completely different way.

 

So, Britain’s a mad place for accents. I mean, I know the actress. I don’t know whether she was using her own accent. But she’s from a place called Rawtenstall in Lancashire. Was it a sort of accent where she would say like “Burnley”, like very pronounced “r’s” like that, by any chance?

 

Greg Johnson: I do recall her doing some sort of pronounced “r’s”, yeah. I’m trying to recall some of those, …

 

The Ayatollah: Kind of a Lancashirian accent. Yeah, she’s sort of from up near Burnley, sort of Burnley, Blackburn, Preston way. So you do get that in Lancashire. I’d have to go back and listen to the character. But there we are. So I mean, to say, all kinds of weird and wonderful, and not so wonderful things, happen with accents in this country. It’s a bit mad actually!

 

Greg Johnson: So one more thing. This is trivial, but explain your avatar please. Who is this angry guy in your avatar? People want to know.

 

The Ayatollah: And they should want to know, because it’s Derrek Day. Now Derrek Day was a organizer and security man for the National Front in the East End of London in the 1970s, and 80s. Now the avatar itself, is a screenshot like a kind of an upgraded screenshot from a video, like camera footage taken outside his flat on Hyde road in Hoxton, in 1977, in the midst of, … I think the National Front that had an event that day, that had been ambushed by communists, and whatever.

 

And there were some journalists like hovering outside Derrek Day’s flat. Derrek Day had enough of it at some point. He could handle himself. I think he boxed a bit. And then I had one anecdote of him pointing a gun at some communists once. But he jumped out of a window. He jumped out the front room window was flat on the ground floor. Basically charged at a journalist. And then asked them if they wanted something on how many people had been mugged.

 

Now obviously this guy was involved in the National Front, because there were loads of foreigners being flooded into London. And would you believe it, loads of people started getting mugged. In the video he then goes on and explains basically why he is in his own words a racist. And it’s basically, because of the powers that be, and the way they stick up for foreigners, at every level.

 

So it’s not a new problem. And, of course, as if to vindicate him, you know, Hoxton where he was from, as well, it’s actually quite a gentrified area now I think. But the area all around there is basically colonized by like Bangladeshis and people like that, and has been for a very long time. Like Brick Lane, and all of that. I mean, that even a lot of non-British listeners will probably know of Brick Lane, and how it’s associated with like Bengali street signs and everything.

 

And so that, yeah, that’s Derrick Day. Derrek actually died in October 1995, during protests against the export of live veal calves from Brightlingsea, Essex, where I think he then lived. But he was very influential in leading those protests. But he died of a heart attack. But yeah, Derrek Day definitely a character.

 

He’s in a documentary about the Clash called Rude Boy, as well. And excerpts of this feature in the intro track to my solo streams. One of which I did last night. And normally the midweek ones. He’s talking into a megaphone at some kind of National Front protest in London, again in the late 70s. And that’s featured in a documentary about the Clash called Rude Boy.

 

I just like the aggression of the man. I like the fire of him. And that’s the story basically. That’s Derrek Day.

 

Greg Johnson: That’s great! That’s great! So have you had to charge out, leap out of windows and charge at anybody recently, given the negative publicity that’s come your way?

 

The Ayatollah: I haven’t. And I’ve generally taken it as a compliment for reasons I suppose we might get into, which is the fact that I’m really a nobody. Like my live audiences were barely breaking triple figures. And I was happy with that, because we were a little community keeping each other sane.

 

But it turns out that the oldest newspaper of record of the English speaking world, deemed that worthy of a massive investigation which even involved their investigations editor listening to all of my streams, in his free time, for no pay! I mean, talk about posting your own “ells”, I think the young folks say. I mean, he turned up at the home going back, getting on just over four weeks. And so obviously I knew the doxxing was imminent.

 

But it’s sort of a compliment to us in a way. I mean, it’s certainly not a sign. Because what I will say about Dominic Kennedy, the journalist, is he’s been investigations editor with The Times for 18 years. He’s got fairly sort of well documented, alleged ties with kind of, … There’s something called the Institute for Statecraft. And they’ve got something called the Integrity Initiative. Which is basically an arm’s length thing that works hand in hand with the Foreign Office, supposedly. And he’s alleged to sort of have some ties with that.

 

So he’s fairly well credentialed in terms of operating on behalf of the powers-to-be. There’s certainly no mistake about that. He’s been investigating Patriotic Alternative, of which I’m a supporter for a long time. And that’s basically that.

 

So I think the fact that they would scrutinize somebody like me, and treat it like they found Shugar [?], or whatever. Or got into the sphinx’s left paw. But by unmasking me, it’s not a sign of a regime which is terribly confident in its own legitimacy. That’s what I would say about that. But I’ve not had to climb out of any windows yet! No.

 

Greg Johnson: Well, that is interesting let’s just talk very briefly about your work. How would you characterize your message, and your interests, and the internet community, that had grown up around your streams? Just briefly.

 

The Ayatollah: Yeah. Well, I mean, obviously I came from the Absolute State of Britain. And we, being a weekly show, we tended to discuss the news stories. But sometimes as it went on we tried not to do that. Because, I mean, what you kind of end up doing. And I imagine you probably sympathize with this a although funny enough it’s one of the things I always remember Morgoth talking about how when he discovered Counter-Currents, it’s a revelation, because:

 

“Like I wasn’t just wallowing in this misery porn anymore! I could read about the dark web [?] from a dissident Right perspective!”

 

So you had that kind of thing. But with the Absolute State of Britain people say:

 

“Oh, it’s good. But it gets a bit black pilling.”

 

And it’s like, well yeah it would, because you’re just talking about the news.

 

So one of the things I wanted to do with my streams, I would generally always do what I’m doing on Friday night and have a guest on it, first. And we would just have a chat. And a lot of it wouldn’t be political. I mean, I’ve spent hours before, like half an hour before answering a question, you know:

 

“What’s your favorite Hall and Oats song?”

 

And things like that. I’ll take almost any question. I get asked a lot for impressions. I’ve been asked to sing on streams. And yeah, it becomes, to be honest, the audience numbers steadily went down probably, because it came very sort of self-referential, and kind of insular and consumed with its own lore. Just weird little kind of quips and in jokes from viral videos and stuff. And a lot of it, in the end, I think we were all just trying to keep each other sane.

 

Like obviously I would talk to a certain degree about news and current affairs. But I tried not to do it where it was just like:

 

“Well, look at what this Afghan did in Milan! Isn’t that appalling?”

 

It’s like we know these things are happening. And we can’t actually directly do anything about it. We try to encourage people to sort of do the proactive things in the real world, like actually participate in it. You know, get involved with things like Patriotic Alternative, and that. But it was just a laid-back chat really. And this is what’s all the more remarkable about it.

 

And it’s very revealing that this wasn’t discussed in The Times expose of me, at all! Is that honestly, a lot of my streams it’s just nonsense! It’s just people having a laugh! Like me interacting with the chat. A lot of whom I know in the real world, because I see them at events and things.

 

[15:00]

 

So funnily enough, I do a stream at the end of every month with an Irish fellow goes by the moniker Bleeding Holograms, and an American who goes by the moniker, Homa Tawk. And we call it the Friend Simulator. Because It’s just like it can be four, or five hours of us just having a chat and cracking jokes, and just being lads. There’s not a lot to it.

 

I’m not a cultured person. I’m not a reader. I’m not a great sort of provider of original insight. I’ll do a psychoanalysis of the semantics of what’s in a Guardian article now and again and things like that. And I’ll do read-throughs of articles, and whatever. And say:

 

“Well, this is what they’re saying. This is what they really mean.”

 

And I enjoy that kind of thing sometimes. But honestly, it’s a bit of a laugh, it’s a bit of a laugh a it’s just kind of, I get a lot of impression requests. People have taken to asking like:

 

“Do this impression. But in such and such a person’s voice.”

 

Some of its people from the dissident Right time some of its not. And I’d be kind of dignifying it too much if I went into it any more than that really. We kind of turn up for a laugh. And, as I said, it’s just a community. Like I get told a lot:

 

“Your streams sort of keep me sane.”

 

Really. Because we live in a very hostile world. I mean, this actually got into the main Times article about me. One of the things I said, because their first question was:

 

“Why do you run a quote ‘racist’, end quote YouTube channel?”

 

Now I got asked 35 questions by the investigations editor from The Times. Certainly nine and a half thousand words. And I’m probably going to do a stream maybe this Monday going through my answers. Obviously very little of that made it into the article. But some of the most important words I gave him actually did. They did this thing they so often do, of like doing the:

 

“Oh my god! Wow! Just wow!”

 

Pointing and sputtering at that. And then putting in some of our most incited critiques. But the first thing I said in answer to that question was, not that I’m on there now. But I was.:

 

“At the time. I use YouTube to communicate and entertain, and hopefully lift the spirits of other non-compliant White people. By which, I mean, White people who reject the psychological abuse, dispossession, and humiliation of the present anti-White order. I’m trying to provide myself and the audience with a bit of relief in a very hostile alienating world.”

 

I then did a bit of a dissection of the concept of racism. But that can probably wait. But I mean, that’s what I do. I tried to get away from just rage porn, rage fuel. Because look, as I’m very fond of saying as anyone who listens to me, and is listening tonight will know, or this afternoon, if you’re in America, or whatever. I’ve often said:

 

“Look if rage was fuel, I’ve had a full tank for years! I don’t need anymore.”

 

It does you no good. After a certain point you understand what the problems are. You understand where we are. And you want to try and carve out the best life for yourself that you can, while sort of spreading the word.

 

Greg Johnson: Absolutely! I think that’s very, very constructive. I don’t like doom scrolling on social media, that kind of stuff.

 

The Ayatollah: I have to tell people off, … Yeah, I have to tell people off sometimes for sending me like just rage fuel. I’m like:

 

“Look! Do you think I don’t know this stuff’s happening? I don’t need it.”

 

Greg Johnson: Yeah I put something up on Twitter. And I also put the same thing up on Gab and Telegram about the Queen’s death. And I made a slight change in the formulation for the Twitter post. Just basically doing a little AB testing for click bait. And it reads:

 

“As long as Queen Elizabeth was alive Britain’s enjoyed a real but superficial sense of continuity, while their country was changed beyond all recognition, by hostile aliens. Now that she is gone, many will reflect on the dramatic decline of the UK and summon the will to reverse it.”

 

So I made that last sentence to be a categorical, certain statement. Whereas in the other forms I said:

 

“Some may reflect on this, the dramatic decline, and summon the will to reverse it.”

 

But by putting it in a very, very forceful way, I got a lot of reactions! It’s now got 61 comments. It’s been retweeted nearly 200 times, nearly 1500 likes. And a lot of the comments take the form of absolute, aggressive, dogmatic, black-pilling! Just:

 

“No they won’t. That’s impossible! Oh! Wishful thinking! Ha! Ha! Ha!”

 

And I put it that way, because it was indefensible. And I thought if I make something slightly indefensible, it’ll get more reactions. And it got a lot of reactions. But looking at these people with their aggressively dogmatic black-pilling, it really is just self-indulgent, the way that they engage in this. I know I was being provocative by being very cock-sure about that some people are actually gonna open their eyes, because of the Queen’s death, and the reflection it’s going to entail.

 

But they’re much more categorically dismissive of this. And it just strikes me as a kind of self-indulgence, sort of embracing the worst possible outcomes. Believing the worst, rather than fearing the worst, they’re just believing it. And I think that’s very, very unhealthy. And I wish there was some way to shake people out of that. Because it’s very, very widespread. And they really come at you with knives if you are dogmatically optimistic, in the opposite direction to them.

 

[20:23]

 

The Ayatollah: Yeah, you do see this sort of thing. I mean, I’ve had the odd run in with people on Telegram before. And I’d just like had the admin for the page have to say:

 

“Sorry, we try and humor that guy, but he’s really black-pilled.”

 

And it can lead to people being yeah quite sort of I mean, destructive is probably putting it a bit strong. But like unconstructive, certainly [chuckling]! For whatever the difference is there. Unfortunately. I think it’s something which you could get kind of tin foil, or probably not entirely tinfoil about how stuff like that can be kind of used by bad actors for demoralization purposes, you know, concern trolling, or whatever.

 

But I think also you do get people who are just sad sacks. I’ll say that you see this a great deal. There’s a cohort of people on the internet in Britain who do this with regard to Patriotic Alternative and their efforts, which have been excellent particularly of late actually. To do with stuff like Drag Queen Story Hour and the relocation of foreign men in hotels and university halls of residence over here. They’ve had some notable sort of contributions to successes on that.

 

But you just get people who a lot of the time they’re finding copes for doing nothing. They don’t want to do anything! What they’re actually doing is trying to sort of provide themselves with rationalizations for just doing nothing:

 

“Oh, they’ll get prescribed anyway! Oh. No. You can’t do this, you can’t do that!”

 

And it’s a very prevalent thing, a lot of the time people are just trying to justify their own laziness. And if they had a more constructive attitude toward it then we would be able to get more done. But by the same measure there’s one thing I’ve found I’ve learned, as I’ve got older in life, it’s just that [chuckling] there’s always going to be a certain proportion of any population where, … As I say, there’ll be a certain proportion who are just more negative than positive. And what they contribute they don’t really offer a lot. They are defective personalities in one way, or other. And you certainly get a lot of those congregating on the internet.

 

And sometimes they’re people actually they tried to participate a bit and they have fragile egos. They didn’t get the kind of recognition and status they felt they deserved. And so they developed a grudge. I mean, an individual’s ability to harbor a grudge is extraordinary. I mean, I’ve seen people that have held grudges against people involved with say PA, because they got blocked in a chat once for just being idiots.

 

And a lot of the time, yeah again, they don’t get the status they feel they deserve, because they’re just poorly adjusted. And yeah, you end up having to marshal a lot of this sort of stuff on the internet, and just learn to take it with a pinch of salt, I suppose. But yeah, you certainly see this a lot in comments.

 

Sometimes people just want an outlet, because they’ve got a real sense of anger and disarray about what’s going in their country, and it’s understandable. But it can become a bit poisonous when it’s so unproductive.

 

Greg Johnson: Yeah. A lot of people just use the internet as like primal scream therapy, or something like that.

 

The Ayatollah: Yeah.

 

Greg Johnson: They’re just venting into the void, spewing bile into the internet void. And nothing really constructive comes out of it. Maybe it feels good for them to get it out of their system. But I think that politics has to be more than just therapy! Maybe that’s the start for some people.

 

Maybe the start for political movement would be something like what you see in Fight Club, where people are going to 12-step meetings and encounter groups, and things like that. But it’s got to go beyond that I think.

 

The Ayatollah: Yeah. Another thing that occurred to me when we talk about this, is people also when they operate purely online, it’s amazing the things people will say, and the positions they will take, and the abrasiveness with which they will say it when all that they’re just, … This is funny for a bloke who just got doxxed, who’s got Derrek Days as avatar. But when they can just hide behind an avatar.

 

Like obviously in the national community in Britain, I’m part of it in the real world, when you’re just an avatar, if you’ve even got one, you can just shoot your mouth off you’re not gonna have to deal with it. You’re not gonna have to answer to anybody in real life. You’re not gonna have to form real world relationships. You’re not going to have to get things done! And that’s the biggest difference.

 

One thing that I mentioned being on the Absolute State of Britain podcast previously. And one of our antidotes to just talking about horrendous news stories, and we’d say:

 

“Well, what can you do about it?”

 

Well, you can’t immediately go out and do anything about it. What you can do is actually start participating in the nationalist community. And start contributing towards something over the long term where White people can actually advocate for their interests and stand up for themselves. And we would always advocate for that. And I mean, I always sort of evangelized on that.

 

Because I will say that, and I’ve kind of been a broken record on this for three years. Like starting to participate in the real world was a bit of a revelatory thing for me. Because it’s like you find yourself. Because I don’t sound too kind of like 1960s. But I think even as a nationalist I think until you actually engage with other nationalists in the real world you don’t realize quite how much you’re having to put on an act. Maybe in the workplace, even with your family.

 

As a White person, non-compliant White person, there are very few contexts in which you can be yourself. Even White people that comply are living the lie, to a large degree. They having to suppress their instincts and not believe their lying eyes. And, you know what happens is you can’t be yourself.

 

So you can’t be anything that’s actually worth being. To actually join the community is to actually be somebody, not in some sort of grand elaborate way, but being somebody in the way that one of your ancestors 700 years ago would have been somebody in the village. If they were the blacksmith, or if they were this, that, the other, you’re just part of an actual community. Makes all the difference in the world.

 

I think there are many reasons why there’s so much depression and alienation in the world today. One of them is the fact that people aren’t part of communities in any meaningful sense. They kind of argue with people who support the same football team as them on Twitter and things like that.

 

And a girl I know started coming to sort of little nationalist social get togethers recently, and hadn’t really done it before. And was saying:

 

“I wondered what you were all gonna be like. I wondered sort of how much you’d have to filter myself.”

 

Because you’re so used to doing it. You assume you’ll have to do it everywhere. Like are they not going to be hardcore enough for me, or whatever? And she was like:

 

“I quickly learned I could just be myself.”

 

And it’s such a relief for people to have that outlet. And that was another thing actually with doing the streams is like, okay, now that was remote, it’s virtual. But it just gives people a bit of relief listening to somebody else talk honestly. And then just everybody having a bit of engagement via the chat and everything. It just keeps people saying in a really unnatural, really hostile, world.

 

[27:03]

 

Greg Johnson: Yeah, accountability is incredibly important for psychological health. Years ago I met a psychiatrist who basically only prescribed drugs. He said talk therapy doesn’t help. If you want to talk about your problems talk to your bartender, talk to your priest. He would just prescribe medicine. However, he said that he discovered that there was another factor that you had to have for the medicine to work. And that was the people had to be accountable to other people, to keep promises to other people, as a regular feature of their lives. And therefore he did not treat people who were unemployed, retired, or independently wealthy.

 

And the reason why is that if you’re unemployed, retired, or independently wealthy, you just don’t have the context of obligations and accountability that normal people have, that is essential for mental health. And without which even the best calibrated antidepressants and anti-anxiety drugs will not restore you to a healthy state of mind. You’ve got to be accountable to other people.

 

Well, think about people who are depressive, and black-pilled, and paranoid, and alienated, and their only community is the internet, behind the avatar. That is a state of unaccountability, detachedness. They’re interacting with people. But they’re interacting in such ways that they’re not really accountable. And they’re not really real. They’re not really there as a flesh and blood person in meat space. There’s no danger of them being decked for being a total arsehole! [chuckling] And it just allows them to vent and be anti-social. And it doesn’t allow them to overcome the alienation that’s driving them in the first place.

 

The Ayatollah: Yeah. I think there’s a lot now. And we’ll probably see that, … I think as a sort of a Millennial you kind of perceive a bit of this in Zoomers actually. That people just don’t seem socialized. And again not having to face the prospect of look if I take too many liberties here, I’m just going to get my lip busted! That that counts for a lot with some people. Some people do need that it’s just the way it is.

 

But it’s funny what you were saying about like the psychotherapist you mentioned. People without obligations that are disconnected. It’s like:

 

“Well, there’s only so much I can do for you.”

 

And it made me think of something, that you kind of started to hear stories over here, going back probably in the past sort of seven, eight ten years of footballers, you know, soccer players, footballers who have retired. And these are usually lads who’ve been part of a group, they’ve been part of football squad since they were probably anywhere between about six years old, and about 12, or 13. And they’ve always been part of teams. And particularly if they’ve gone through the academy system from a young age, they’ve trained more, or less, every day. Training with a group of lads, had a laugh with them, gone out, win, drawn, and lost with them. Sweated for each other. And they’ve got a purpose. And they’ve also got adulation.

 

And then one day they wake up. They’re 34 35, 36, 37. And a lot of these are people that were quite wealthy. But they got no purpose anymore. What’d you do with yourself? And that’s a big thing that’s lacking in the world in which we live today. I mean, is Blair Cottrell on tonight? I saw Blair Cottrell in the sort of promo for this.

 

Greg Johnson: That’ll be tomorrow.

 

The Ayatollah: Tomorrow. Sorry, right. Yeah. I mean, it’s something I’d like to look into more. But I saw something Blair Cottrell posted a long time ago about life in the modern city where you’re surrounded by massive numbers of people that you don’t know. And you’ve got kind of no kind of, … I mean, this would be the case even in a racially homogeneous society.

 

But it’s obviously far worse in the kind of dystopian hellscapes that have been cultivated over recent generations. And where you’ve got all the racial diversity and incompatibilities, therein. There’s something incredibly lonely and alienating about being surrounded by such large numbers of people where you don’t know each other. You’ve kind of got nothing to do with each other. And it’s just kind of not making a point that well here.

 

But it kind of goes back again to some of the Robert Putnam stuff, where, I mean, he was enough of a naive true believer apparently to believe that his study was going to find:

 

“Yeah! Diverse communities are way better!”

 

And, of course, it didn’t. People engaged less, they stayed in more, they were less happy. Because there’s something so unnatural about it all. It’s like the Dunbar principle, I think, of like we’re sort of geared for kind of tight-knit communities of about 150 people.

 

Greg Johnson: Right.

 

[31:54]

 

The Ayatollah: And get beyond that. And it’s a bit much for us. Now, I’m not saying let’s try and reverse the industrial revolution, or whatever. But I think we could obviously make it a far better fist of where we’ve ended up, with a completely different sort of global order than the one we’ve got.

 

Because, if you were to gear it around people and the well-being of communities, rather than trying to atomize communities, so that people are very, very easily managed. And so that you can ultimately just socially engineer them and siphon them into whatever you want to them, and whatever conditions you want to create for your own convenience, then, yeah, we’d have a much better world.

 

And certainly it goes without saying that racial and ethnic diversity would not really be a part of that. There’s something that could be managed in certain cases. But managed it would have to be. I mean, both, you know, online and the way the internet works, and then also just in the real world, there’s a lot about society now which is very alienating. And people that don’t even always end up being socialized very well for it.

 

Greg Johnson: One factor that I think leads to alienation in very large scale societies that doesn’t have to do with diversity, is simply the illusion of choice. Because it’s very interesting to note. I noticed this when I lived in New York. New York, you know, city like 10 million people in New York, and millions more within a short drive. You’d think that New Yorkers would have rich circles of friends, because they have so many people to choose from to form relationships with. You’d think that they would find people who really suit them! They could find the perfect set, right. The perfect group of people.

 

But no. They tend to be among the loneliest people on the planet. And I wondered, well, maybe it’s, because they have so much choice. Because, if you have a lot of choices, you can be perfectionistic. You can think:

 

“Yeah, well, there’s another one, a better one, that’s going to come along. I just wait. I don’t have to ever see this person again.”

 

And it leads to, I think an unwillingness to just try and commit to being nice to people, and living with people. Because you don’t really have to commit to living with anybody if there’s so many choices around. This is why I think dating apps have created so much loneliness. Because there are so many choices available, nobody has a pressure to just say:

 

“I’m gonna make this one work!”

 

This is why people in small towns have better, larger, circles of friends, and better marriages and closer relationships, than people who live in large cities. Even though in the large city you can think:

 

“I can hold out and find that one perfect person.”

 

Well, chances are, no, that’s not going to happen. And chances are you don’t need to find that one perfect person, because we’re not all that different, when you get right down to it. Unless you’re a really unusual person.

 

And I do think that that is one of the things that sort of modern liberal society and modern mass society, liberalism, because it puts so much emphasis on choice, makes a fetish of choice, and being a chooser. And then mass society giving us so many apparent choices, I think it leads people to again just sort of not settle down and be fully real and fully accountable, and try and make relationships with work with the actual people around you. Even in large cities in the past there used to be very compact neighborhoods, where people knew one another.

 

[35:42]

 

The Ayatollah: And there were concerted efforts to break that up. As well.

 

Greg Johnson: Absolutely!

 

The Ayatollah: Because it was a problem for the powers that be. But I mean, I wholeheartedly agree with what you’re saying. Just to say quickly, I think you could summarize it as “ignorance is bliss”. And then also yeah, as you say, liberalism with its fetishization of choice, it leads to, everything’s commodified. And then relationships and everything else are commodified. Heaven forbid, you just make something work, you know.

 

Greg Johnson: Right.

 

The Ayatollah: And also, because people construct these identities which revolves so much not around well having a common community. Because that’s something that’s just been decimated massively, undersells it. But it’s been their identities are constructed around like their cultural choices, their consumer choices, their political views, as opposed to just being kind of thrown into the same community in a more natural way. I mean, even as you said, this was also present in cities. And there’s been great efforts to sort of break that up. But yeah.

 

Greg Johnson: So I have some questions here for you. And folks, if you want to get on the questions go to Entropy stream dot live forward slash Counter-Currents. Hit the green button. Leave your donation. Leave your question. Leave your comment. We will definitely get to those first. And then we will also deal with some in the Dlive and Odysee chat.

 

So Gaddius Maximus writes in with 10 US dollars. Thank you:

 

“Apologies if Tollah has already addressed this. But please tell us if you have an archive of all your stuff and will re-upload sometime, especially your excellent conversations like the one you had recently with a certain convenience store enthusiast?”

 

Oh, I know who you’re talking about there.

 

The Ayatollah: Yeah, I’ve got everything. It’s kind of been retired temporarily. I think I may bring some of it back. What I would say is Gaddius Maximus, yeah, you’re a gentleman. If you get in touch with me, I possibly can’t right away. But if you get in touch with me, I can give you any of the shows you want.

 

But yeah, he references Rich Hauck there. Whose excellent work on who owns the advertising industry, was actually referenced in my email response to Dominic Kennedy from The Times. I had Rich on my channel in June. And despite his excellent work, I was aware that there were going to be some members of my audience who weren’t familiar with him. So I felt like I was really doing him a turn by getting Rich on, because he’s just a lovely bloke to listen to. Really nice bloke.

 

I think there’s something quite unique about a lot of his writing. And there’s a lot of research and detail that goes into it. But it’s driven so much by kind of feeling and about the little, just the little kind of almost mundane things, that it’s very often focused on the things that are lost in the kind of process of the societies that are kind of being created. And the way that the direction in which society is being led basically from the top. He can look at the ice cream machines at fast food restaurants as an indicator of the decline of social capital, or the decor in Pizza Huts in America, and things like that. I just think there’s something wonderful about that. I can’t speak highly enough for Rich’s writing.

 

I loved having him on and again yeah if you want that one, or any other Gaddius, get in touch with me. They’re on the back burner for the time being, because I’ve had the Ayatollah [chuckling] on me! I’m generally very careful in what I say. And I’m very diplomatic.

 

But the laws in Britain are some of the worst in the world, when it comes to, if you’re a non-compliant White person! It’s just extraordinary! I’ve got friends who’ve like had their door smashed in and the house is raided, because they dared to talk back to some entitled African spewing bile against White people on the internet! It’s, we live in a real anti-White Police State here!

 

So yeah. But I mean, yeah Gaddius, thanks for generosity as well recently Gaddius. But if you get in touch with me mate, and nice to meet you in there. Yeah I can send anything over to you as when I get the opportunity. But yeah, I’ve still got everything.

 

Greg Johnson: That’s good to know. That’s great. So Lothrop Evola has written in with 60 US dollars. Thank you:

 

“I’ve always enjoyed your work Ayatollah. A lot of British nationalists have been doxed in recent years. Do you think this is slowing the growth of the movement, or do you think young people will continue to join despite the doxing risks?”

 

The Ayatollah: I don’t know. I mean, it’s hard to say. I mean, I will say that when I got doxxed. I mean, mine in terms of the scale of it, like I said this on my stream last night, I’ve already said at the outset that I get like about 100 live viewers on my streams. So really you’ve heard of the expression “trying to swat a fly with a 10-pound hammer”, this was more like trying to take out a nationalist with an intercontinental ballistic missile, really. And they still missed!

 

The scale of it was phenomenal. Two Times articles, 80 minutes worth of podcasts, a YouTube video, the Guardian picked it up, The jewish Times, whatever picked it up. The Jerusalem Post, or, no something, or some Israeli paper picked it up.

 

The way the nationalist community responded to it was incredible. I mean, Dominic Kennedy was the lead journalist. If you go and look at The Times YouTube video talking about how they:

 

“Unmasked Britain’s most racist YouTuber!”

 

Who like:

 

“Oh, he’s full of vitriol, but trust me, he’s really bad, but he speaks in euphemisms! But trust me, he’s really awful!”

 

It’s like, all right most of its not even political, but fine.

 

But if you look at the comments on that, it’s basically it’s like another Kennedy assassination! [chuckling] It’s horrendous! In terms of Dominick Kennedy, it’s pretty brutal!

 

But just in terms of all the offers of help I had, I could have gone on ten holidays by now, if I wanted to. All the support I had from the nationalist community was incredible! I think necessity is a mother of invention. And there’s a real community there now with the nationalists in Britain. And anyone who’s been through the same thing would tell you the same, by and large.

 

And once you’re in it, you kind of understand that. And I think this is a bit of a problem for the enemy, is that we’re not just people talking on the internet anymore. There’s an actual community. And they don’t think, have quite the same thing, because they don’t have the same incentive too. We understand the stakes of the situation we’re in, and have a fundamental level of opposition to the present order, that’s not really within their comprehension.

 

So a lot of these are armchair people. And yeah, probably does deter people. What I would say is like realistically if you’re not like somebody who does what I do, and have done, and goes on podcasts and streams, and you get doxxed. Like what are they going to dox you for? Like going on a walk and having the wrong views? Who gives a shit? If I can be graphic about it, you know, forgive my language.

 

But that’s one of the problems they come up against. And also the more the community grow grows the more sort of anti-fragile it is. And I think that’s a difficult thing for the enemy to contend with if I’m honest.

 

Greg Johnson: Right. One thing that I like to see when people get doxxed is for them to make the doxxers regret it! And by that I simply mean, well, you don’t have to slink around in the shadows so much anymore. You’re getting all kinds of free publicity. And it’s wonderful if people who are doxxed, instead of doing less, end up doing more. Because that means that the enemies are multiplying the forces against them by doxing! They’re not taking us out! They’re making us bigger, and stronger, and more focused.

 

They’re not rational enough to maybe be able to control themselves. In the end they probably can’t help it. They’re just going to keep doing this kind of stuff. But it’s good, if we make them regret it. And it’s bad if we let them win.

 

So you’ve gotten a whole bunch more publicity. You’re standing in the movement has grown a great deal. Do you think these people are going to regret doxing you?

 

The Ayatollah: Well, I’ve not gone anywhere! And you’re right in what you’re saying. I mean, one of the first things I got on the day I was doxxed, is you were contacting me, asking me if I wanted to come on. And here we are. And like I own the White Nationalist Manifesto. It’s one of the few sort of dissident books I actually own. And you were quite a formative influence in a lot of my thinking via like appearances on Millennial, and things like that. And writing on Counter Currents, and so on and so forth.

 

So my Telegram subscriber count has gone up about 55%. I get way more engagement now. My audience was probably, given that it was only on Odysee, my audience relative to the one Odysee exclusive I had done previously last night, was up about threefold. Some of that will drop off I suppose. Some of its just people tuning in to sort of:

 

“Oh! How’s he doing?”

 

But yeah, I’m certainly not going to be doing any less. And if I’m totally honest I’ve kind of had quite a bit of fun at the expense of the people that doxxed me. I mean, if anyone wants to go back, my last stream is on my Odysee channel now. I had a bit of fun with the intro in that.

 

And, you know, Dominic Kennedy and David Aaronovitch have got pride of place in there with some of their sound bites about my singing, and my impressions, and different things like that.

 

So again, I think a lot of it in my case as well, comes down to subversive humor. I think that’s been one of the defining traits of this iteration of the dissident Right really, has just been, we can’t take this regime on head-on. But one respect in which it’s incredibly vulnerable is its sensitivity to mockery.

 

[45:03]

 

Greg Johnson: Absolutely!

 

The Ayatollah: Oh, it’s a massive thing. Because again, it’s kind of The Power of the Powerlessness. But it is also real power. It’s got extraordinary sensitivity to mockery. And the reason for that is because the agenda they’re pursuing, and the things they have to enforce as part of that, becomes increasingly ridiculous! I’ve made the point so many times before.

 

Do, you know what? If you find yourself in sort of an exchange with some of the human astroturf on social media that cheer this stuff on, don’t waste your time on them. Literally go and get a photograph of Ellen Paige, now Elliott Paige, dressed like he’s, she’s going to holy communion, and say:

 

“Yeah, but your ideology is that this is a man!”

 

Like you haven’t got to do anything else. And the sensitivity to mockery is extraordinary. And it’s a massive weak point. And I mean, that’s one of the things that I do. And again, in the way they sort of questioned me, The Times, they still don’t seem to sort of understand this. How much of what we do is just like, it’s nudge, nudge, wink, wink! It’s transgressive humor.

 

My intro, Derrek Day, is about to say a word that ends with a hard R, and he gets cut off by a sort of a cliched comedy needle scratch. It’s all just a bit like all implied transgression, and typical British humor actually, a lot of it. But I mean, as to sort of yeah doing more, and kind of making them regret it, I’ll say this. I saw a lot of, again armchair types on Twitter, when I sort of browse Twitter a little bit after the doxxing. And a lot of people like:

 

“Oh yeah! He’s really in for it now! His life’s gonna be ruined!”

 

All of that sort of thing is kind of quieting down, because like again I’ve not gone anywhere. What are you gonna do at this stage? Like stick your tail between your legs and go:

 

“Oh yeah! I’m sorry! I’m sorry! I’m sorry! I was transgressive! I’m sorry I was non-compliant while being White! Yeah, I’m sorry!”

 

It’s a church of no salvation, isn’t it? So no. You just crack on and you say:

 

“Yeah, like I have heretical views in the eyes of the present order!”

 

Well, this is the present order that’s created the most atomized, alienated, debt-ridden, depressed, overweight, unhealthy, degenerate, societies in history! So I think if I’m getting the wrong side of them I’m doing something right. So I’ll take that as the endorsement. And I ain’t taking any backward steps. That’s all you’ve got to do. It’s as simple as that.

 

Greg Johnson: Absolutely! That’s wonderful news. I’m really glad to hear that! I’m very impressed. You’ve got a huge personality! And these people are going to regret bringing the spotlight to bear upon you. One of the weaknesses of the Left is they’re so incredibly smug! That they think they can just repeat our ideas. And by repeating our ideas, it refutes them.

 

And so they’re constantly quoting things from us that are actually very based, and very well stated, and very, very seductive. And they think that this is obviously wrong and that no sane person can take it seriously. And they’re constantly undermining themselves! Because rational people who don’t live in their little feverish bubble, when they read this they think:

 

“Yes! This sounds good to me. It doesn’t seem unreasonable at all.”

 

And they start tuning in. So it’s free publicity. Just the other day we got a phone call at the Counter-Currents office phone. It was somebody saying that they had read about us on this Southern Poverty Law Center website. And it said that we were a hate group. And they wondered if we had a youth wing that they could get involved with! [chuckling] And I just thought:

 

“This is hilarious! This is free advertising from the SPLC!”

 

The SPLC is like Yelp for haters, or dissidents. And people [chuckling] are calling our number wanting to join the youth movement, if we’ve got one. So this is how we grow. This is how we grow. They throw stuff at us and we turn it into an opportunity. And I think that ability is akin to the ability to laugh.

 

The Ayatollah: Yeah.

 

Greg Johnson: Ludovici has this little book The Secret of Laughter, which is an attempt to explain what laughter is. And I think it’s the most convincing theory about laughter that’s been put forward. Basically he says that laughter is an exhibition of one’s feeling of superiority, of fitness. It’s glorying in one’s fitness. In one’s mastery of a situation, and one’s superiority to the situation that one’s in.

 

And for years, and years – and I’ve been involved in the right for more than 20 years. And when I first got involved, it was full of grim, sneering, po-faced, angry, people who were psychologically in the equivalent posture of protesters who were crouched down as the police rain blows on them with their Billy clubs! They were certainly not masters of the situation by any means! They felt totally besieged! And they couldn’t laugh! Psychologically was just impossible.

 

And I think a huge sea change took place when – and this sort of dates from the rise of the Alt-Right as an internet movement – a huge sea change took place. I think starting in I don’t know, maybe 2011, 2012. I started seeing the two-paneled meme start circulating on social media. And some of these things are brilliant propaganda! Brilliantly humorous! There was a spirit of mockery that was coming in. And you can’t mock your enemies without feeling psychologically superior to them.

 

And so it was a sign that there was an underlying strength that was gathering behind dissident ideas, that we could look down on these people. They have all the power. And all the money in the world. But they’re disgusting people! They’re ridiculous people! And we could laugh at them, because they richly deserve it. They were so entitled! They didn’t take well to this at all.

 

It was a beautiful thing in 2015 watching libs on Twitter finally getting some talkback and some pretty brutal mockery from Unwashed, unwashed Right-wingers with strange names, and avatars. And they’ve never forgiven that, and they’ve never gotten over it. And they’re on the back foot now, psychologically. And that’s a beautiful thing.

 

The Ayatollah: I still don’t think, … Again look in this kind of iteration of the dissident Right, they still don’t know how to deal with other than censorship and deplatform. And we know how that can work. But it’s also bred a lot of anti-fragility. Because for all that we laugh and joke we kind of have an understanding of the stakes that the average person doesn’t.

 

Because again, one thing that this past sort of nine, ten, days has taught me again is the difference between actual like community participants, and activists, and just like idiot cheerleaders. Like human astro surfers I have referenced already.

 

But like it’s a point you’ve made often. And I just wanted to pick up on the point you made about the enemy, the regime media will publish our most incisive critiques of the present order which will resonate with normal people, or they’ll resonate with the right normal people. And they’ll just do that wholesale, because they’re tone deaf and insulated enough to think that that, on its face, is condemnation enough.

 

And when I was kind of drafting my responses to – he asked me about 35 questions, this bloke from The Times – I was fairly confident they would end up doing that with me.

 

So like obviously – the way journalism works – what you’ve got to do is try and make sure that whichever bits you read through of what you’ve read when you’re drafting it which appear like they could be the most easily kind of seized upon and used to subject you to damnation, you’ve got to bolster them as much as possible. Because they’ll try and use whichever he thinks is weakest.

 

On the other hand I also expected them, I did kind of expect them to use some of the most incisive critique, because of the:

 

“Oh my god! Wow! Just wow!”

 

Sort of fact. And that’s exactly what they did. I mean, this even featured in the podcast. They went to the trouble in the podcast of having the journalist read it out, put some ominous music underneath it and apply a bit of reverb to his voice. And I wonder if I could just actually read some of that out. Yeah, what they read out was, and a variation of this featured twice in my answers. And then I also provided a similar quote to the Guardian, when the Guardian picked up on it. And they said, well rather what I said. And this got read out on the podcast is:

 

“I reject the concept of, quote ‘racism’, end quote, outright. And I view it with nothing but contempt. The concept of, quote ‘racism’ end quote, is simply an anti-White libel and a weapon of mass psychological abuse devised and wielded to keep White people from thinking and acting in our own interests while our sovereignty, and our homelands are taken from us. I refuse to be gaslit and victimized in this way, as all people should.”

 

There are other things I said, I won’t get into those. But that they went with and they put similar things in their article, as well. And I mean, look I think that speaks for itself. But it’s also just the fact that like I talked about this at length on my stream last night responding to some of this. The way the present order works in terms of kind of maintaining it’s stranglehold and minimizing dissent is, I think, there three measures.

 

One of its first measures is, if you look at the kind of interest groups that sort of are dominant in it. One of the first things they do is try, to as great extent as possible, to make people at large oblivious to the fact that it’s them calling the shots. And it’s their agenda which is being pursued and which is implemented. That’s the first thing is to have that invisibility.

 

The second thing is obviously in order to mitigate the backlash against the effects of their agendas. If you look at like immigration and demographic atrocities and all the consequences of the immigration agenda. They have to induce a kind of demoralization, and guilt, and kind of like a state of paralysis among White people. And obviously central to that is the whole canard of racism. It’s the pathologization of just normal behavior among White people where race is concerned, in group preference, pattern recognition, bias toward one’s own people. And so on and so forth. And the desire for homogeneous communities and all the rest of it.

 

[55:15]

 

However, as successful as those two measures are with the vast majority of people, they’re never gonna work entirely. And if they’re never gonna work entirely, you’ve got a problem. Because what comes from the people on whom they aren’t effective is very contagious! Because that ultimately is basically, what you’re dealing with there is people that have returned to their instincts. It’s people that have deprogrammed themselves, or just never particularly kind of compliant in the first place.

 

And what they then have to do there is to manipulate the population at large into perceiving a threat to the present order, as a threat to them. So they’ll present, … I mean, Jonathan Greenblatt was on something recently over there where he was sort of saying like:

 

“White supremacist hate is the tornado that’s going to tear through your house, tear through your community, …!”

 

And whatever you think, no! It’s not! It’s going to be a problem for people like the ADL, that’s what it is. Of course, what they’re going to do is then sort of imbue that, … You’ve got a maniacal contingent who are small in number. What they then have to do is that the population under their yoke have to be imbued with the threat recognition triggers. And so on. And the threat perception of the people ruling over them. So that they will kind of police themselves.

 

So that you get a White person stick their head above the parapet and say heretical things about race as far as the present order is concerned, then it’s like:

 

“Oh! All hands on deck to deal with this person!”

 

And the Agent Smith effect kicks in. That’s what they have to do. And when you look at The Times, for example, they’re obviously quite confident that reading out my words with a bit of ominous music over them is gonna have the desired effect with most of their readers. I’m all right with that, because there’ll be a cohort of them you think:

 

“This is ridiculous! Because everything he’s saying is absolutely right!”

 

And the ones that don’t, they’re like:

 

“Oh yeah! Scary! We’ve got to stamp these people out! They need to go to jail!”

 

Those people, look they’ve not got a lot of agency anyway. So they can stay on the sidelines. And they can cheer, and whoop, and boo. There’s going to be another cohort of people who are increasingly fed up with the conditions they’re forced to live in. And they will look at that kind of thing and think:

 

“That’s exactly right. That’s exactly what they’re doing to us. And I’m sick of this! And I’m not putting up with it anymore!”

 

So, I’m fine with them doing what they do. There you are! And, as you say, they will do that time and again.:

 

“Oh my god! Wow! Just wow! Isn’t this outrageous!”

 

No. It’s exactly how White people would feel, if they’d not been psychologically abused for generations! That’s all it is! That’s what we are.

 

[57:36]

 

Greg Johnson: That particular quote was something that I encountered in the discussion of your dox. And I said:

 

“This is great! This is excellent!”

 

So yeah, they definitely work like plague rats sometimes to spread our viruses around, our virulent ideas! And they don’t realize what they’re doing. They can’t help themselves. And I think that’s one of the things that is going to help us win. Ultimately rational self-interest is not something you can really count on.

 

It was counting on rational self-interest that led the frog to let the scorpion crawl on his back. There’s a more powerful force than that, rational self-interest, and that’s identity. And ultimately these people can’t help being who they are. And being who they are, I’m afraid entails, self-destructive behavior. They’ll harm many other people before they’re destroyed themselves. But they are behaving self-destructively, at this point. And that plays into our hands.

 

I have another question here. It is from Phil. Phil sends 10 US dollars. Thank you:

 

“The response to the Queen’s death seems to have exposed persistent class divisions within England. How does Tollah think Derrek Day would respond to the Queen’s death?”

 

There’s also a lot of interesting responses to the Queen’s death from communities of color. And I think that’s an enormously teachable moment for our movement. But what are your thoughts on the Queen’s death? Condolences, by the way, for the loss of your Queen.

 

The Ayatollah: Yeah. I mean, as to what Derrek Day would think of the Queen’s death, it’s a hard question to answer. I mean, I’ve got to be honest. I don’t know enough about Derrek Day. I would imagine he was probably quite sort of traditional in that regard. But that’s entirely speculative on my part. I mean, the National Front were obviously they kind of had some sort of more Left positions on economics. But that again that wouldn’t have precluded them from kind of being traditionalists, or from any kind of like just innate Right leaning tendency towards tradition. And so on, and so forth.

 

I mean, I as to what I’ve kind of made of it. I mean, certainly what you say about basically privileged foreigners shooting their mouths off, and kind of basically airing what is really racial grievance, that can only be a good thing for us.

 

Look, honestly as British nationalists, we’ve got our own reasons. And this has been expressed, you know, by various people. I mean, there’s been some criticism of it being done with a lack of tact given the circumstances. But we’ve got our own reasons to, how do I put it? I have certain resentments towards the inaction and the complicity of the Monarchy as an institution.

 

Because ultimately, have they spoken up while these kind of atrocities have been inflicted upon us? No. They’ve generally towed the line. Like, did I expect Queen Elizabeth II to kind of lead [chuckling] the military against the government? Like possibly not. But I mean, by the same measure, the military swear allegiance to the monarch. They do swear allegiance to the monarch.

 

But it’s far beyond that. I mean if you look at monarchy as an institution. I mean, what we’ve got now, you’re kind of going back to what we had with the Glorious Revolution, which was bankrolled from Amsterdam, pretty much. By people who weren’t actually Dutch. I’ll leave that there. You can probably figure out the rest yourself. If you don’t already know it. But with William and Mary, and whatever.

 

But I talked about this on my stream last night. And I have to be honest, and this may disappoint some people. But I suppose I’m a bit of a philistine. But I didn’t feel a lot in the wake of the passing of Queen Elizabeth the II. Just on the basis that like in all of my life, and I’m 37. But in all of my life I’ve never felt much sort of in affinity with monarchy, and with sort of traditional institutions in that way.

 

Like my sort of, I’ve never been an innately kind of wildly patriotic person. I’ve just been increasingly angered by the encroachments and attacks against us as White people, in our own countries I wasn’t like massively traditionalist, or patriotic, if I’m totally honest about it.

 

However, to the extent that I was, the things that took greatest pride in as a Briton, was kind of like our humor, and things like the SAS, [chuckling] or whatever! Being autistic literally, that sort of stuff fascinated me.

 

But when it comes to the Monarchy. I mean, my overwhelming thoughts on it are, … Just there’s something quite dystopian about seeing all of this kind of protocol and ceremony now for the passing of Queen Elizabeth II, and the crowning of Charles III, as he’s gonna be known. I mean, I remember reading something years ago where Charles was possibly gonna take a different title as king in the way that Joseph Ratzinger was Benedict the 16th when he was Pope, and whatever. But like not so he’s Charles III.

 

But I felt a certain emptiness and kind of like there’s something, yeah kind of anachronistic, which is no reflection on the ceremony. And all that the old, centuries-old kind of protocols and traditions. It’s just that this society around it has changed so much! There’s something quite jarring about it.

 

You’ve got all this ceremony and protocol and everything else that we’re seeing now. The BBC web page has changed it’s color scheme and everything. And look at how much has changed since. I mean, the last time, it’s not in live in memory for very many people at all. The last time we went through all of this was 1952. But and it’s been an era of such change.

 

Tucker Carlson had it right in his segment of the night. It ended up being a bit of a eulogy for the British Empire. But he kind of said, it’s such an obvious thing to say. But she was born into one world and she died in another world. She was coronated in one world, and died in another.

 

It’s also that kind of indifference I have. It’s also a natural consequence of the dissident world view. Because we can’t really look at it and say that the Monarchy have kind of been there, and kept our end up, and spoke up for us, I’m sorry to say it.

 

And I suppose they’re a neutered institution in that regard in our system. But they’ve made a lot of the wrong noises. And Queen Elizabeth II wasn’t an exception in that regard. And, as I said. I think it’s a natural consequence of when you live under the [word unclear] of what is fundamentally a hostile regime, which denigrates everything that matters, and inflicts humiliation on your society, everything gets spoiled!

 

I mean, I’m a bit of a prole! I think an example of it for me was I used to support the England football team, even as recently as 2018, when a lot of the players, like half the players in the team were like black, or half black. But they most of them seem like all right enough lads, so I could still support them.

 

That just was ruined forever for me when after all the George Floyd stuff in the European championships that took place last summer, they became weaponized for very aggressive anti-White, propaganda and taking the knee, and regurgitating loads of anti-White platitudes, and making all the right noises! And I just turned completely against it!

 

The Times wrote about that extensively in my case actually. The second article they did focused in no small part upon how like:

 

“Oh! Look at this! Look at how he rejoiced when the diverse England team were beaten!”

 

When they lost the European championship final, when the three black players missed penalties in the penalty shootout against Italy.

 

But it’s that there’s something really jarring, and kind of anachronistic about the whole thing when the society around us, like the way people present themselves. I mean, the demographics being the main thing. The fact that we’re a minority in most of the major cities, the way people present themselves, the way people live, is just so odds with the kind of tradition that we’re seeing enacted.

 

Sorry, a bit of a meandering answer.

 

[65:06]

 

Greg Johnson: No. I think it’s a good answer. And I do think that things are really jarring.

 

The Ayatollah: Yeah.

 

Greg Johnson: And in that tweet I said it is an occasion I think for people to reflect on what’s happened during the course of her life. And if you think about it for five minutes, it’s an astonishing decline of the British Empire, and the homeland itself. And you have to think what’s happened here? Why did this happen? How did this happen? Maybe this can be changed? I do hope it’s an occasion for that kind of reflection.

 

Because one of the things that monarchy does is it creates a sense of continuity. A sort of superficial but quite apparent continuity. The Queen has literally been the Queen my entire life. And I’ve always been sort of an Anglophile American, sort of culturally half Canadian. So I remember being a lot of time in Canada and seeing her on the currency, [chuckling] and she being the head of state, and things like that.

 

And so she’s literally been the Queen my entire life. And the entire lifetimes of many, many people who are alive today. And it is a kind of extraordinary thing when somebody who’s been around that long dies, and you take stock of the changes that have happened.

 

The Ayatollah: Another thing that occurs to me in that. I mean, as you say, first of all, that’s one of these things which can only be a net win, is the fact that people have that kind of almost, it’s not an opportunity that there’s an inclination perhaps to actually reflect on:

 

“Look at how different the world was 70 years ago, when she sort of acceded to the throne.”

 

But it’s also the fact that you’ve got to understand the base psychology of average people. Elizabeth II like kowtowed to the anti-White agenda, which she did in certain instances, saying how wonderful diversity was, and condemning that the BNP for being divisive, or whatever – the British National Party for any non-domestic listeners. People kind of would overlook it, because, well, that’s just the way it is.

 

The same way that they kind of do with the Conservative Party, the nominally Right-wing party, they kind of get away with a lot. Because well, that’s what Right-wing politics is. It’s like:

 

“Oh, wasn’t it wonderful we’ve got no White men in the cabinet now!”

 

But with it being Charles coming in now, who divides opinion a little bit. It’s like there will actually be more scrutiny among people at large, if, as he has extensively, if he’s kowtowing to, some people would call it the woke agenda, or just anti-Whiteness, or whatever. That will get more scrutiny, because there’s not that just normality bias and the continuity. He’s a new monarch, isn’t he? So yeah. We’ll see on that, I suppose.

 

Greg Johnson: We have a question here from Pure Nomad in the chat. He’s got the Oswald Mosley lightning bolt [chuckling] in his avatar:

 

“Greg, I’d be curious what Tollah thinks about being under a king now. And should we try to keep the old school BUF [British Union of Fascists] mantra for ‘King and Country’?”

 

So what do you think it’s going to be like? Do you think there’s going to be a slight psychological change having a King, rather than a Queen?

 

The Ayatollah: Not nearly as much as there would be in a healthier age, because just the way that masculinity’s been denigrated. I mean, I did comment upon this briefly on my stream last night, saying that:

 

“Like it is nice now that it will be ‘God Save the King’.”

 

I mean, I’ve never been a fan of our national anthem. I’ve never been that much of a monarchist, if I’m totally honest. I’ve not re-examined that in any great detail, because it’s like, well, in the world in which we live, again, it’s another institution which ultimately at best does nothing for us, to be totally honest about it.

 

In that regard, I mean, like for King and Country, no. I don’t think we could do that with any sincerity, because I can’t imagine Charles III is gonna kind of speak up for us. He’s unlikely to be working on our behalf.

 

So ultimately really the greater thing we actually need to do in terms of how we sort of outreach, is make it clear to people that like, yeah all of your institutions. I mean, assuming this continues to be the case with monarchy, it’s much more aggressively the case with the government, of course. And our actual kind of institutions of governance and all the rest of it, and media and that. Make it clear just how hostile all this is to the interests of people at large. Making that clear to them.

 

So I actually, I take the view of well, we don’t own monarchy, or anything else, anything! Ultimately we’re a group of people with interest. And a lot of the processes which have put us in the plight we’re in that’s come from fecklessness at the top.

 

Go back far enough and a lot of it comes from, obviously it’s subversion from outside. But it’s a weak attitude toward that, and it’s fecklessness from the top. And it’s a willingness to sort of throw people, to throw the actual backbone of the country under the bus! It’s a tale as old as time unfortunately.

 

You could go and listen to like Dr Andrew Joyce, or whoever, talking about the history of well a certain foreign group in Europe. And it’s not a new thing to sort of have people with a certain obligation to those with less power, ultimately betray them. So I don’t know about bringing back “For King and Country”, not any time soon really.

 

We’ve got to make it about our interests as a people. And have a certain healthy level of selfishness I would say. But I mean, psychologically the thing of having a King, I prefer it in that regard. But I would prefer it a lot more if we had somebody who was kind of actually masculine and would speak up for our interest. I think we’re a long way off that. I think other things have got to happen before we get to that. And I think a lot of that is beyond our control!

 

Greg Johnson: I think monarchies are at best sort of simulacra of something that’s a healthy social order. That they do cultivate this idea of noblesse oblige. And the British aristocracy, for a very long time, really was a warrior aristocracy. They really did believe in public service, and risking their lives for the commonweal, and things like. That it was astonishing how these people rushed off in the First World War too defend the nation, and died in huge numbers.

 

There are certain things that are caught up with monarchy and aristocracy that are of objective value. But for the most part, they’re just sort of an empty symbol of that, those values, and that social hierarchy. And I think that, I guess I would rather have the substance with the symbols. But I certainly don’t want to do away with the symbolism altogether.

 

Sam Dixon is a friend of mine. And he was talking about how his father said that:

 

“One of the best arguments for monarchy is that you have the same person who is born, born for the job, as the head of state, and they’re on the currency, and their pictures are in their post office, and they’re receiving ambassadors, and receiving their credentials, and all this other stuff, instead of some greasy, slimy, politician, doing the same thing!”

 

And the monarchs keep out the politicians from the very top offices in society, the head of state. And it’s actually good, I think it’s actually good to keep those bastards down at least in one position in a society, which is head of state. Which is hereditary.

 

Which is not elected, and which, at least potentially, can have a person who, you know, inherit the office who does not go along with the whole establishment. Or is not spending their time pressing the flesh and glad handling, and making dirty back room deals, and stuff like that, like politicians definitely do. But I do like the idea. But at least it keeps the politicians off the currency! And from the most important ceremonial roles in a society.

 

We’re over our time. But I’m enjoying this. I want to see if there are any more questions from Entropy also folks, if you want to throw your Dlive tokens our way, I would very much appreciate that you can send diamonds, lemons, ninja genies, etc.

 

Serena JB is just donated three ice creams. Thank you very much. Some people would like to hear you do some impressions. I asked what sort of impressions they would like. I’m gonna begin with my own preferred impression. Can you do a Millennial Woes for us?

 

The Ayatollah: Yes.

 

“I think the thing I have to integrate is just a drag on a cigarette. So I believe he’s actually given up. I think he vapes now.”

 

Greg Johnson: He vapes, yeah.

 

The Ayatollah:

 

“I mean, it’s amazing. It’s been a wee while since I’ve seen Woes, but you go back to about 2015 and there’d be a lot of videos on the channel beginning with thunder and lightning.” And then:

 

“Hello! I wanted to follow up for a wee while on the Rotherham scandal.”

 

55 minutes later. And then it’s like:

 

“And where does that leave us, the White British? Atomized, fucking individuals! I’ll leave it at that.”

 

Greg Johnson: Yeah, that’s good, very good.

 

The Ayatollah: Yeah, it’s a difficult one, because he’s Scottish. But yeah.

 

Greg Johnson: I know but you got the cadence right, and the vocabulary, and everything. That’s great.

 

N-word Snowden writes in with three US dollars. And just the comment:

 

“The dreaded n-word!”

 

Well, welcome N-word. Thank you very much.

 

JR has written in with 15 Great Britain pounds, which is still significant:

 

“What does Greg think of me getting a month’s detention for lip noticing when I was eight? And can we hear Kermit do body form please?”

 

Okay. Well, this is inside stuff. But maybe you can help me out on this. What is “Kermit do body form”?

 

The Ayatollah: These people really, they never fail to let me down. Kermit doing body form is basically, … And again this exposes how ridiculous The Times unmasking of me was.

 

There became a phenomenon of asking me to sing advert jingles in the style of Kermit, in the voice of Kermit the Frog, which it doesn’t even do particularly well. And one of them was there was a very famous, I think in the late 80s, early 90s, at Body Form, who make sanitary products for women, of all things, in this country. They had like a real kind of 80s rock advert jingle. It was almost like, imagine rock set, but way more aggressive, that kind of thing. So like:

 

“Whoa Body Form for you!”

 

And then the lip noticing thing, basically, yeah JR is somebody I do talk to quite a bit. I think he’s autistic like me. And I think basically was a little bit too fascinated by the lips of a melanated classmate as a young man, and got detention for it.

 

Greg Johnson: Ahhh, okay. Now, I understand.

 

The Ayatollah: You get an idea of the sort of rabble that turn up for my streams now, don’t you? But there we are.

 

Greg Johnson: Well, we have a very good audience tonight and I very much appreciate it. I like bringing you to my audience. And I know that your audience is coming over here. Maybe for the first time. And so I feel like this is the rising tide is floating both of our boats here. And I think that’s the way that we win. That’s a good model.

 

So Gaddius writes in again with 10 US dollars. Thank you. AMA, oh this is for the later part of the show, on the Great Replacement. So let’s do a couple more impressions if you don’t mind! Somebody wants you to do Mark Collett. And another person wants to hear your Nigel Farage.

 

The Ayatollah: I’m gonna have to decline on Farage. I can’t do Farage, I’m afraid I just can’t. If I can’t do an impression, I will tell you. I mean. So I’m very sorry about that.

 

Regarding regarding Collett:

 

“You see, I get asked for this one a lot. And the thing with doing an impression of Mark Collett, is that essentially what you’ve got to understand, is that there are certain vowel sounds that he really emphasizes! Let me give you an example. If Mark Collett talks about these people, these people are really in for it! Because I will tell you something now! Believe me! These people, if they think they’re going to scare us away by doxing us, … Let me tell you something my friend, they’ve got another thing coming?”

 

Something like that. It wasn’t one of the better ones,

 

Greg Johnson: No, the Collett one is good!

 

The Ayatollah: The Collett impression’s not as good as people think it is, if I’m honest. But that’s my view of it anyway.

 

Greg Johnson: No, no. I think that’s very, very good. I very much appreciate that.

 

So folks, we’re gonna wrap up here. But if there are any more last-minute questions, comments. And, of course, impressions, that you would like to do, that would be great. I’m just going to hit refresh at Entropy, and see if anybody else has chimed in.

 

The Ayatollah: Top tip, by the way, the best impressions of that I do are generally Tyson Fury, the heavyweight champion, and Big John Fury, his dad. Those are my best two, in my opinion, anyway. But there we go.

 

Greg Johnson: Well, let’s end with those, then. I would very much enjoy those. I wish Jim Goad were in the chat. Because I think he would very much appreciate these.

 

The Ayatollah: Is he a Fury fan, is he?

 

Greg Johnson: I think he’s a Fury fan. Yeah.

 

The Ayatollah: :

 

“Well, the funny thing with Tyson Fury is he actually sounded quite different when he was younger. And I think eventually he got hit in the throat in sparing, so goes the story, or more likely he abused his body for that long quuqu eventually when he made his comeback he basically sounded like this. But, because he’s a traveler, the accent’s quite niche. And there’s not that many people that can do it very well. But there’s a very amusing video online of Tyson, well there’s one where he said some things that he got in a lot of trouble for. But there’s another, where he’s obviously on a strict training diet and he’s talking about all his favorite chocolate bars. It was before he fought Deontay Wilder the second time, the big tosser. And he’s just sat there saying, ‘who remembers the Cadbury’s Fuse? You don’t remember that? Purple wrapper with yellow writing. Tell you what I like, I like chicken Kiev sandwich, with mayonnaise, and what’s its [word unclear] in it. What would you rather have two Chumps, or a Fredo?’.”

 

And it’s just two minutes of Tyson Fury, just with like food tourettes! He’s a hell of a character. I mean, for basically for a fat bald bloke to be heavyweight champion of the world. A guy who’s been in trouble for kind of like naming certain interest groups. He features in one of my intros as well. Yeah he’s incredible! He’s incredible!

 

Greg Johnson: Well, I’ve really enjoyed this. And I know why people enjoy your streams. And I know why people come to you for, a I don’t know, just a good feeling, and enhanced mental health in a crazed society. And I really would love to have you come back. So thank you so much for coming on. And thank you so much for doing what you’re doing and continuing to do what you’re doing. And making these bastards regret what they’ve done to you, or they’ve tried to you!

 

The more people who bounce back from this and become bigger, stronger, forces, the sooner we’re going to win. And I’m certain that we’re going to win!

 

The Ayatollah: Well, thank you very much. It’s very kind of you to say all that. I mean, I was honored to be asked on. As I say you were quite a formative influence on me, sort of 2017, 2018. So when I got the invitation I was delighted. So yeah, thanks for that doxxing, because I wouldn’t have had it otherwise. So yeah, that’s the first win.

 

But I mean, ultimately look, I’ve got a community behind me. These people I think by and large, they kind of haven’t. And they define themselves in a very negative way. So they don’t have the same impetus that we have. And that honestly makes all the difference. I owe a great deal to the British nationalist community really. Because when you’re in the eye the storm and the subject of massive scrutiny, when you’ve got literally hundreds of people offering you their support, it makes all the difference.

 

And also, you know, internationally. People like yourself, like Frodi, people all over. Like Rich, like Gladius makes all the difference in the world. And particularly again, when you get invited onto the big shows like this. So yeah, I’d love to come on again, certainly. Thank you.

 

Greg Johnson: Oh yeah. Well, we will definitely have you back. You have a much bigger audience than we do, honestly. We’re kind of niche. We more have an audience of readers, than live streamers, and podcast listeners. Although some thousands of people do listen to a podcast during it’s lifetime.

 

Because this will come up on Counter-Currents as a podcast next week. And I think we have a older school group of people who download and listen to things, and don’t do the live streaming as much. So anyway. It’s been a real pleasure. We’ll definitely have you back. Thank you for everything that you’re doing. And I want to switch now to doing a AMA..

 

But is there anything you’d like just to say at the very end, to wrap up? How do people follow your work? How do people support your work?

 

The Ayatollah: Well, thank you once again for having me on. Thank you to the audience, for your hospitality, and for your kind words. I’ve been trying to keep an eye on the chat. I’ve not got the ideal set up at the moment. So it’s been difficult for me to switch between the chats and everything. But I mean.

 

Yeah, obviously my links, … Greg’s very generously put my links across the sort of bar at the bottom. So I mean, I can still put him in the chat on Odysee. But definitely follow me on Odysee. That’s the place for it. And otherwise Telegram. Those are my main two platforms. I have got Gab. I don’t use a great deal. I’ve got Dlive, as well. I’ve never actually used Dlive.

 

And I’ve got BitChute but sadly BitChute was a great idea in the wrong country. And was ultimately neutered by pressure from a certain group of people, via Ofcom. Great idea in the worst possible country! Which just happens to be the one that I live in!

 

But necessity is the mother invention. So we crack on. But yeah. Thank you very much for having me. My links have gone in the chat on YouTube. I’ll put them on Dlive as well.

 

Greg Johnson: Good. Right now I’m looking at the Ayatollah’s Telegram. And there are 2,042 subscribers. Let’s get that number up people! Let’s boost that number considerably! He’s producing great commentary. And everybody should be making making a space in their Telegram feed for the Ayatollah. So thank you so much. And we will definitely have you back in the future.

 

The Ayatollah: Thank you. Good night. Well, good afternoon in your case, cheers.

 

Greg Johnson: Okay bye-bye.

 

[84:18]

 

 

[END]

 

 

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

 

Counter Current Comments

 

5 Comments

(As of Sep 16, 2022)

 

James KirkpatrickSeptember 12, 2022 at 8:47 am
This was a highly enjoyable episode, and The Ayatolla’s impressions of Morgoth, Woes, and Collett were uncanny!
Reply

Dr ExCathedraSeptember 12, 2022 at 11:21 am
Impressive and articulate guy.
Reply

BernieSeptember 12, 2022 at 6:07 pm
Seems like a solid guy. We should all give him a follow at least.
Reply

PapinianSeptember 12, 2022 at 11:24 pm
I listened to this on the podcast yesterday. As others have said, he’s very impressive.
Despite being British and living in the UK, I wasn’t aware of him and I had missed the doxxing because I gave up reading the mainstream media years ago. I will definitely make the effort to check out his material.
Reply

Spam HoustonSeptember 14, 2022 at 10:05 pm
Is he still dating the Indian girl?

 

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

 

See Also

 

The Times Podcast – Britain’s New Far-Right (Pt 2) – The Nazi YouTuber – Sep 1, 2022 – Transcript

Mark Collett – Interview with a Times Journalist – Oct 15, 2021 — Transcript

 

 

 

Laura Towler – We Were Never Asked – Oct 24, 2019 — Transcript

Simon Harris – My Speech to the Patriotic Alternative Conference – Mar 16, 2020 — Transcript

Laura Towler – My Patriotic Alternative Spring 2020 Conference Speech – Mar 22, 2020 — Transcript

Mark Collett – My Speech at the Patriotic Alternative Conference – Mar 18, 2020 — Transcript

 

 

Laura Towler – We Were Never Asked – Oct 24, 2019 — Transcript

Laura Towler – The Fate of English Schools – Jul 26, 2020 — Transcript

Rikki Doolan vs Laura Towler – British Lives Matter Live Debate – Aug 6, 2020 — Transcript

Laura Towler – Pathological Altruism and the Invasion of Britain – Aug 16, 2020 — Transcript

Laura Towler – Are We The Bad Guys? Featuring Mark Collett, The Ayatollah and Horus – Aug 24, 2020 — Transcript

Laura Towler – Khan’s Plans to Diversify London – Sep 20, 2020 — Transcript

Laura Towler – A Personal Update – Sep 27, 2020 — Transcript

Mark Collett – Patriotic Alternative Autumn Update with Laura – Oct 2, 2020 — Transcript

Laura Towler – When the Mask Slips – Feb 17, 2021 — Transcript

 

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

 

Woes: Hello. And welcome back to Millenniyule 2021. I’m now here with Mark Gullick, who is, … Well actually, he’s a writer on Counter-Currents. But there is more to him than that.

 

So Mark would you like to introduce yourself, and just describe yourself for the audience?

 

Mark Gullick: Certainly! My name’s Mark Gullick. As you can see. I’m 60. Originally from London in England. I say London, England, because apparently there are about seven London’s in the USA. So and there are a lot of Americans down here where I am, which is Costa Rica, when I relocated almost six years ago.

 

I really came over here for a break, and just kept staying, and kept staying. Was intending to go back at some stage. And then the whole Covid thing sprang up almost two years ago, I guess, now.

 

And having watched the appalling things that are happening in, well across Europe, and the Commonwealth, and England, now it seems. As well, what Britain, I suppose the UK, I should say. I’ve just decided to stay put here, because as I speak there are, …

 

The only thing I have to do here in terms of Covid, is wear a mask when I go to a store, or get on a bus. That’s it. There’s no vaccine mandates. There’s nothing. There’s been no lockdown. It’s comparatively free and easy. And yet has the lowest infection rate in the Americas. So they’re doing it right, whatever they’re doing.

 

Personally, I’ve got a Phd, well three degrees. And all in philosophy. All from the University of Sussex. And yeah that’s me, essentially.

 

Woes: Hold on a sec. And could you tell us about the different, the three degrees that you have. Describe them for me.

 

Mark Gullick: Yeah. The the MA and the Phd were in were in straight philosophy. The BA was in philosophy with literature. And obviously a degree was a mixed bag. The Master’s degree, rather foolishly, I did on Heidegger’s, “Being in Time”. Which I don’t think was a terrific idea. Now I look back on it. Because I don’t speak German, either read German.

 

But nevertheless, it got me it got me conversant with “Being in Time”, which is just a towering book! Sorry, [noise of a motor scooter] motorcycles here don’t tend to have mufflers, or baffles on.

 

And my doctorate was, my supervisor was a man called Jeff Bennington, who was a friend and translator of Jack Derrida.

 

Woes: Right.

 

Mark Gullick: He suggested to me that, … We were talking, I think we’d had a couple of seminars about the body, about the role of the body in philosophy, and I showed an interest in that. And he said:

 

“Well, …”

 

Woes: What do you mean “the role of the body”?

 

Mark Gullick: Well philosophy is generally about, traditionally has been about, the soul, or the mind, or the psyche, or “noose” [sp] in ancient Greek, or it’s something non-corporeal. It’s whatever about us is, not the body. And the body has a kind of, it gets a bit of a bad rap in philosophy! Plato calls it this [word unclear] company. And obviously Christianity, well not obviously, but Christianity is rather harsh on the body. A sort of potted history of, … [was cut off]

 

Woes: Mark you’ve just disappeared! Are you still there? Oh dear, I think we might have lost Mark.

 

Mark Gullick: , … I was very under the spell of Derrida at the time. So it was a little bit, …

 

Woes: Mark, are you using the Wi-Fi from the bar, where you are?

 

Mark Gullick: I’m sorry?

 

Woes: Are you on Wi-Fi?

 

Mark Gullick: Yeah.

 

Woes: Could you get closer to the router, the modem. Because you just disappeared for about 20 seconds there. [laughing]

 

Mark Gullick: Oh okay.

 

Woes: Yeah, thank you. Get as close to the router as possible, that would be very good.

 

Mark Gullick: Okay. That’s about as close as I can get, I think.

 

[05:00]

 

Woes: Okay. Thank you.

 

Mark Gullick: Okay?

 

Woes: Yeah, so you were saying about the body gets [sound of roaring motorcycle] Oh my god!

 

Mark Gullick: Yeah.

 

Woes: Could you go indoors maybe? I don’t know. I mean, I don’t know about, that’s going to be really distracting! [laughing]

 

Mark Gullick: Okay. Yeah, listen, there is just no way around this. It’s just the setup here. This is the Third World. And I just can’t do anything about this.

 

Woes: Ah that’s unfortunate.

 

Mark Gullick: All I can do.

 

Woes: Okay, we will persevere. So you were saying about the role of the body. It has got a bad rap in philosophy. And it’s a, …

 

Mark Gullick: It has got a bad rap. And then it has got a bad rap in classical philosophy, and Christianity. When you start to get onto people like Nietzsche, like Merleau-Ponty, it begins to sort of make it’s presence felt a little bit more. Than it did. I don’t know if you’ve got that, but Plato calls the body:

 

“The shadow that keeps us company.”

 

Woes: Right.

 

Mark Gullick: And there’s a fascinating. I’ll just stop when something goes by. There’s a fascinating, … There’s probably a whole thesis to be written on Freud and the body. Freud started off, … I don’t know if you’re aware that Freud started as a neurobiologist. And I think his doctoral thesis was on the neural system of the catfish, or something similar.

 

So really it was about, and I don’t know if you’ve got this. But I was very under the spell of Derrida at the time, and deconstruction. And the difference between writing and speech. Which Derrida says sort of allies writing with the body, the dead letter. And so on, and speech with the soul, with fully present communication, signification.

 

So yeah, that’s my doctorate thumbnail sketch of.

 

Woes: Right. And we were going to speak about the role of the university. Because you recently wrote an essay that was published on Counter-Currents. I’ve actually forgotten what it was titled. But it was about the “Glass Beads Game” *.

 

[*Higher Education: Hermann Hesse’s The Glass Bead Game]

 

Mark Gullick: Yep.

 

Woes: We can go into that. But first how would you define, … Because I think in our age, in the present age, we don’t really know what the university is for, other than training people for a career. Giving them the knowledge that they need. Very sort of very black and White really.

 

But I think historically, and up until about 100 years ago, the university was conceived as something more vague than that, more nebulous. There’s more to do with forming a young man’s character. Would you like to go into that?

 

Mark Gullick: Yes! Yes it was! Well given that the oldest best known universities, are Oxford and Cambridge, which I think really started off around the 13th centuries. I think in those days it was becoming apparent that a locus was needed for knowledge. It wasn’t good enough just for people to pick, …

 

Because, of course, well when was Gutenberg’s printing press? Fourteen something? 1450, or something like that? And I guess after that with more of a proliferation of printed material, apart from anything else, the university became a place of libraries. You know, became a place where you would have a locus, or a collection of knowledge and information, which really didn’t exist before, I suppose. I mean, after the famous Alexandrian library.

 

I don’t know if, … Well, what disturbs me is that the university is being seen now, again, as the formation of a young person’s character. Unfortunately that character has been predetermined by some fairly fierce, and sort of neo-Marxist ideology. The classic phrase being that:

 

“Young people at university are now not taught how to think, but taught what to think!”

 

Woes: Yes. Yes.

 

Mark Gullick: Which does completely obviate the whole point of it. But then, of course, that split into two, because there’s the art side, the humanities side. And also the STEM side of things. Which the current sort of wokism, or whatever shorthand we want to use for it, hasn’t affected STEM, because it can’t really. Although they’ve made a good effort to try and say that:

 

“Engineering is sexist! Mathematics is racist!”

 

And so on, and so forth. That the hard sciences still manage to resist that.

 

But the humanities now are pretty much, you know, ideological training courses. You are not going to university now to learn how to think, to get the apparatus of rational thought, post Enlightenment stuff, the use of reason. You’re really going now to be told what you can and can’t say once you leave!

 

[11:03]

 

Woes: Well also there’s the conception of education itself. I believe that the roots of the word mean:

 

“To bring out of a person what is already within them.”

 

Mark Gullick: Epicavey [sp] in Latin. I’m not sure of the Greek is. But yes you’re absolutely right! To bring forth!

 

Woes: Yeah, to bring forth! Whereas we now think of education as just basically, indoctrination. Forcing stuff into a person and changing what is there already.

 

Mark Gullick: Yeah! Yes it is. And absolutely ruinous! Because, as I say, STEM is a different thing, and not something I know a great deal about in terms of the disciplines. On the humanities side. And I’ve been trying to get something into the mainstream media. Although, I don’t think they’ll touch me with a long pole, now. I think they check who you write for, [chuckling] before they even consider you.

 

But I think probably most of the humanities degrees in most of the British universities, certainly, are near useless now! Except for racking up a vast debt!

 

Woes: But [chuckling] there’s an interesting contradiction that this Leftist notion of education involves indoctrinating, and forcing stuff into the person. Whereas at the same time they have this notion that man is inherently good. So they’re all about like the sexuality, gender identity. They pretend to be dead against social constructs, and things that are artificial. And yet they have so little interest in what is already there in a person’s mind. The person that they inherently are. And want to indoctrinate. This is a strange contradiction.

 

Mark Gullick: It is. And it’s a fault line within the whole idea of wokism, or CRT, [Critical Race Theory] or any of the different sort of arms of the huge squid that’s covering education at the moment.

 

There’s an argument, for example, that race is a “social construct”. Which is not even an argument. I mean, it’s an absurd thing to say. And it negates biology. And so on and so forth.

 

Except when it comes to White people! When it’s not a social construct! It’s a very definite thing that exists in the world. It’s this clash of intersectionalities, that the Left haven’t quite mastered.

 

Partly, because they don’t have the post enlightenment apparatus that allows you to parse, P-A-R-S-E, parse different ideas and different concepts.

 

But the whole idea that, … I don’t know if you read a piece of mine on Professor Kathleen Stock, who became quite famous written. She was at my university at Sussex. And she was hounded out of her job for being what I suppose we call a “gender realist”! That boring old stuff about there being two sexes.

 

And although you can change if you do have body dysmorphia, or whatever it is, you can’t actually change your sex, your biological sex! Not simply, because people are defined by what they have between their legs, or whether they have hairy chests, or not.

 

But I mean, men are men, and women are women down to the cellular level! You know, it’s not just a quick, … Your whole DNA is shot through with being male, or female!

 

And yes, I do appreciate that, well hermaphrodite aside, that’s a separate thing. I don’t really understand much about it. But there are there is biological hermaphroditism, that’s the word.

 

But Kathleen Stock, Professor Stock simply said in, I think a book others called Material Girls. And in some of her lectures as well that silly men, are men, and women are women! And she wasn’t just debated, or questioned.

 

This is the thing now, it just becomes a witch trial! Straight away! There’s no room for:

 

“Well. Let’s talk about this.”

 

The Left will not debate!

 

[15:36]

 

Woes: Well yeah, at this point, they have arrived at an ideology and a doctrine, that they have absolutely no interest in augmenting, except to make it more pure! A more doctrinaire version of itself.

 

Mark Gullick: Yes! Yes! Yes! And it’s in the end, of course, it becomes the doctrine and the adherence to the doctrine that becomes the important thing, rather than the any intellectual fibre that might be contained within the ideas under question.

 

So, it’s just happened to another. I was at Sussex. And so was Kathleen Stock. And that Essex, obviously, you know, where Essex is. I assume you do. Although you’re Scottish, I gather by your accent.

 

Woes: Yes, yes, I’m from Edinburgh.

 

Mark Gullick: Okay. That’s where you have the brogue, not the rougher, you get more Glaswegian accent.

 

Woes: Yes indeed.

 

Mark Gullick: Anyway, there’s another lady called Joe Phoenix. She’s a professor, as well, I think. And the same thing has just happened to her. And funnily enough. This is what I meant by the intersectionalities. Both those ladies, both these professors, both these ladies, are women for a start, which should get you some points, on the intersectionality table. And they’re also lesbians.

 

Woes: Oh! Even better! [laughing]

 

Mark Gullick: Yeah! So you’d think that they scored pretty highly. But there’s a pecking order, is starting to emerge now. In the whole, you know:

 

“Yes, you’re gay. But, …”

 

And let’s say perhaps that, well I don’t know, Islam has a problem with homosexuality, which in part, it’s quite clear that it does.:

 

“Okay, well I’m afraid Islam trump’s, …”

 

It’s like those trump cards that people, the kids play with, in the playground. This is going to trump that!

 

Woes: Yeah.

 

Mark Gullick: So intersectionality will eat itself! Or it will certainly it will clash with itself in an irreconcilable way.

 

There was quite an interesting thing happened in England, oh probably going back a year now, or so.

 

They decided that it, well they didn’t decide. But they started to teach, to quite small children, I think quite worryingly small children, about transgenderism and LGBTQ. And so on and so forth.

 

And parents began to gather at the school gates on a daily basis to protest, to demonstrate, about this. But it was Muslim parents. And that was very interesting to me. Two of the great identity groups LGBTQ and Islam. Suddenly, White liberals had to choose between them.

 

Woes: Indeed!

 

Mark Gullick: Who to throw under the bus! So it was an uneasy standoff. But because, of course, a lot of people forget that that Muslims, well, sorry that I can’t say a blanket thing like that, but Islamic political tendencies, is not just conservative. It’s hyper conservative!

 

So somebody coming along and saying:

 

“Right! We’re going to give your children, Mohammed, and Sunisha, lessons read by a Drag Queen.”

 

That’s not going to go down well with Muslim families!

 

Woes: Where do you envisage this going? I mean, is this something, how is the Left genuinely not foreseen this? Or do they have a plan?

 

Mark Gullick: I don’t think they do have a plan. I think they’re high on the moment. They’re riding the wave of their success. Because the Left pretty much runs Britain now!

 

It’s very strange. If you look at any certainly on the public sector side, and the private sector are having to fall into step with this now. Any area of British life, academia, the media, the public sector, social services, etc., etc., you’d have a very, very tough time getting a job there if you felt to have any conservative leanings.

 

So you said something just then which made me think. Yes, do the Left have a plan for this? No. I don’t think they do. But what I do think is, and I use this too much, and I think a lot of people are starting to use it. But Horus, the Roman writer in the Epistles, writes:

 

“You can throw nature out with a pitchfork, but she will always come back!”

 

[20:30]

 

Woes: Right. Yeah. I mean, obviously this is relevant, communism, …

 

Mark Gullick: Sorry, carry on.

 

Woes: Well, obviously this is relevant with communism in the 20th century. But there’s also like, now we’ve got the trans-humanist stuff coming in.

 

And I wonder if this is another example, where nature will just hit back in some way that the genetic engineering that they do will turn out to be fatal lolg. I don’t know! And nature will triumph again. And it’s not that I even want that necessarily. I’m just saying how it plays out.

 

Mark Gullick: Well that is to venerate nature, of course. But then, on the other hand, I can’t think of anything else to venerate [laughing]! You know, it’s again it was the science fiction writer, Philip K Dick, I think it was. He said:

 

“Reality is the thing, that when you ignore it, it doesn’t go away.”

 

Woes: I love this quote! This is a really useful quote. I think it’s:

 

“Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, it doesn’t go away.”

 

[Laughing]

 

Mark Gullick: Yes! Yes, that’s it. And it doesn’t, and it won’t!

 

And the trouble is, if you’re going to inculcate a whole generation of students into this strange twisted, non-logic, and anti-rational, type of thought, who are you unleashing on the world?

 

Woes: Well, exactly! Because they are going to be the managers and leaders of, …

 

Mark Gullick: Exactly! These students will these students will come out of the university and they won’t be going backpacking in Guatemala. They’ll be the head of your local council, or they’ll be a professor at your university. And eventually, of course, some of them would be politicians. And once that gets into the political stream, wow! That’s going to really pollute!

 

Woes: I think we’re already there, though. I mean, the generation of managers that we now have, and producers on TV, commissioning editors in the media.

 

Mark Gullick: Oh that’s true! Yeah!

 

Woes: They’re already of the mind that there’s no such thing as male and female. There’s no such thing as race, etc., etc., I don’t really know how much worse it could be, 20 years from now. But I dare say that they will find a way to surprise me!

 

Mark Gullick: Funnily enough, I think the saving grace might be the private sector. I remember reading an interview, … Oh that must have been a dozen, or 15 years ago with one of the heads of, … Now what are they called? CBI, Confederation of British Industries.

 

And even then, and this is going back to the start of this century, start of this millennium. He was asked about the university students he was having coming, or he and his colleagues were having coming for jobs. And he said:

 

“To be absolutely honest with you, they are utterly useless!”

 

Not just because they’ve never been given any behavioural parameters, they’ve never been given any idea that you’re supposed to work hard, and you’re supposed to have some discipline, and you’re supposed to be on time and all that kind of stuff. But also, because they can’t think straight!

 

You give them a propositional problem, or they don’t have, … Well, I mean, he didn’t say this, but I’ve sort of drawn on that whole idea, that eventually employers will just say:

 

“Look we’re not going to take people on like this! You can’t think straight! You haven’t got the apparatus of post-Enlightenment reason. They don’t know about the law of excluded middle. They don’t know, cause and effect.”

 

Funnily enough, I was reading something, or listening to something today, about, … Now I can’t remember where this was, but it has something to do with American academia. And it was a lobby group, a kind of black caucus, I suppose, or something like that in the academic world. They’ll just publish this short piece about:

 

“Look, the problem with education is its essentially White. And so everything that goes with it is White. And therefore it’s racist!”

 

Because as, you know, everything that’s now in any way connected with Whiteness, or it’s history is just daubed with a big cross on the door, you know:

 

“Racism lives here!”

 

And they were things like, time keeping is a White thing! Turning up on time.

 

Woes: [laughing] well, yeah.

 

Mark Gullick: How are you going to do in the workforce? You must have seen this whole thing about mathematics being racist? So instead of trying to up the standard, they drag the standard of the, … They’ve just stopped Advanced Mathematics courses in some universities, because, ….

 

[25:50]

 

Woes: Yes. And there’s also the, …

 

[Audio broke up]

 

Mark Gullick: Way out performing blacks, and, …

 

Woes: And similarly there’s the axing of Gifted Schools Programs in America. I don’t know if that’s happened elsewhere yet.

 

Mark Gullick: Yeah. Yep!

 

Woes: But they’re getting there. Because that’s like massively White, East Asian, and I guess, Ashkenazi jewish. So that destroys that whole avenue.

 

I mean, it’s like the destruction of the Grammar Schools, merging them into Comprehensives, or merging them into Secondary Modern [sp] to form Comprehensivenes. Clearly that destroys an Avenue by which the higher could be nurtured. And, …

 

Mark Gullick: Yes! Yes!

 

Woes: , … And helped. I mean, it’s really evil.

 

Mark Gullick: And there’s been a there’s been a key little event in the description of this type of activity, quite recently. Only in the last couple of years, I’ve noticed this. Which is the changing of the word “equality”, which essentially means equality of opportunity. And they’ve changed it into something called “equity”. Which really, when you read it, unpacks as “equality of outcome”. So, in other words, you’ve got to have equality of outcome. Which is absurd!

 

Woes: Yeah.

 

Mark Gullick: If you say you’ve got to have a quality of outcome, you’re denying every idea of hierarchy, natural hierarchies, hierarchies of intelligence, the whole IQ argument. Which is a very knotty one anyway, because IQ as good a performance indicator as it is, it’s not across the board for a personality. Somebody with a high IQ can be hopeless at, well, …

 

Woes: Yes.

 

Mark Gullick: I know I’m an excellent case in point.

 

Woes: [laughing] Well! We’re all absent-minded in different ways. But yeah, I know what you mean. But still, it is clearly a useful metric. And it’s interesting how much it is denied. But yeah, of course, the big lie here is that the very people who deny it will themselves be proud that they have a high IQ! I mean, it’s such a, …

 

Mark Gullick: Oh yeah!

 

Woes: Such delusion!

 

Mark Gullick: I know that a lot of the little catch phrases, and buzzwords, and penny phrases, that we’ve come over in the last five, ten, years. But the best one I think the most descriptive one is “virtue signaling”. I think that says exactly what it means! There is nothing better for a certain type of person than to be able to stand there and say:

 

“I’ve got my medals! I believe in the right things!”

 

Woes: Of course. But do you not think that such people must always have existed in great numbers? You see, this is an interesting thing for me, because it’s an example of a modern phenomenon that must just be an iteration of something perennial! Surely, people have always cared. I mean, we’ve always had the do-gooders, the moralists, the preachy types.

 

Mark Gullick: Yeah!

 

Woes: School moms, the Church ladies and that kind of thing. So I wonder if you, …

 

Mark Gullick: Yeah, just I was just gonna say that if you look back over sort of 18th, 19th, century novels across Europe, you know, Zola, or Dickens, or Thomas Hardy, or just basically throw a dart blindfolded into a dart board of novelists, and you’ll find it. You will find exactly that social striation. Including people who are not particularly as worthy as they think they are. That they have either the social standing. It’s probably more social standing with what I’m talking about.

 

In something like Zola’s novels, or flow bear [?], or something like that, then what it’s become now. Because, of course, the mass media allows you to virtue signal to millions of people, not just people in your local church. And the more people can applaud, you the more you’re going to want to parade your inherent goodness.

 

[30:13]

 

Woes: Yes. And if with social media an ordinary person could garner, you know, hundreds, thousands, tens of thousands, even hundreds of thousands of people who can then give them adulation. And it’s a human thing to enjoy adulation. But it does divorce you from the everyday. And, of course, for some people it’s just dopamine. It’s a massive, …

 

Mark Gullick: Yes. That’s right! Yeah.

 

Woes: And then they’ll say anything in order to get the adulation in order to continue it coming. And, of course, in our age there is a programme of opinions, like a menu to choose from of things that you can say every day on social media that will get you that adulation! It’s not even a, there’s no mystery to it! I mean, there’s no struggle! There’s no:

 

“I’ll have to work this out myself, and then bravely say it which will go against the social paradigm. And I’ll be taking a risk!”

 

It’s completely open. Everyone knows what you’re allowed to say. And what you should applaud, and what you can expect to be applauded for. But then, on top of that there’s then the pretension that it’s not like that at all! And when somebody says, like that they’re pro-gay, or something, then they’re being “brave”, by saying that.

 

Mark Gullick: That’s right. The people who think they are the resistance, who are, in fact, the establishment, now. And a lot of the, what I heard described as the, “be nice”, no, “be kind” social media brigade, that just say:

 

“That’s all we need to do! Just be kind to each other!”

 

They are the most rabid pack of snarling, snapping, wolves, if anybody steps outside of the, …

 

Woes: Absolutely! Yeah. I mean, this is something I’ve noted for several years now that there is far more hate on the Left. And I don’t really, …

 

Mark Gullick: Oh, yes! Yeah.

 

Woes: I’m not sure if these terms are applicable really anymore, but we’ll use them for convenience.

 

Mark Gullick: They work as a shorthand, until we have something better to come along, yeah.

 

Woes: Yeah. And there is far more hate among like the champagne socialist, the antifa, they are riddled with hatred! Whereas I think on the far-Right, or in the national sphere, there really isn’t that much hate. I mean, there are people who are indelicate, there are people who are angry. There are people like that, but most of us aren’t like that. I think most of us just want a sane world.

 

Mark Gullick: Yes! I’m just going to say, the whole idea of “hate speech” as well, it’s so, I don’t know, if you’ve ever known anyone who you say something to them, or voice an opinion. And they don’t just say:

 

“Well, I’m not sure if I agree with you.”

 

They just go from naught to 60 in three seconds! It happened to an English journalist called Rod Liddle recently. Do you know, Liddle? Rod Liddle? He writes for The Spectator.

 

Woes: Yeah.

 

Mark Gullick: He’s an okay guy. He’s affable. And he’s Right-ish. Although he’s a social, he’s in the SNP, I think. But he was cancelled, or whatever they call it. Deplatformed from a local university, or from a British university. And he was saying the same type of thing as Professor Stock and Phoenix were. Which is:

 

“Men are men, and women are women.”

 

What we are! Grow up. And then they immediately said:

 

“This is hate speech!”

 

Woes: That’s just remarkable! If you went back to the 90s and said that to affirm the gender binary will be regarded as hate speech, no one would believe you! [chuckling] I don’t think.

 

Mark Gullick: Not just contentious, or worthy of debate, or even, you know, slightly to be sniffed at. But actual “hate speech”! It means you hate transgender people, or whatever. It’s just an extraordinary idea! But it is, of course, the way that these movements gain traction.

 

I remember 20 odd years ago, when I last worked in an office, you know, some of my views on things got me some odd looks in the office. And maybe the occasional cold shoulder at after-work drinks, or something. And that’s when I first remember noticing the phrase:

 

“For fear of being branded racist!”

 

Which became a very, almost a banner under which a lot of public sector bodies sailed for a long time, and still do. But now it’s far more serious than that! Now I probably would have lost my job for saying that some of the things I said about Islam, or whatever it might be.

 

It’s changed. The power has become frightening, really! Even for the uncancellable! I’m sure you’re aware of the whole furore around, who’s the Harry Potter woman? J Rowling.

 

Mark Gullick: Yeah, it’s the same as Germaine Greer, even. [laughing].

 

[35:30]

 

Mark Gullick: Yeah, but not only, … Yes! Yes! Yes! Of all people! She would never have predicted that happening, I don’t think. Poor old Germaine Greer!

 

But not only did JK Rowling sort of get socially. I mean, you can’t cancel her, she’s the third richest woman in the world, or something ridiculous. Some of these people are uncancelled in terms of you can’t cost them their career. You can just shun them!

 

But they didn’t stop at that. They had photographs of protesters outside her house, with the address clearly visible. The veiled implication being:

 

“Come and smash some windows, everybody!”

 

Woes: Yeah. I mean, in her case she can easily afford the necessary security. I’m sure she can afford multiple teams of security squad, security guys, to keep her safe.

 

Mark Gullick: But who wants to have to live like that?

 

Woes: Well, exactly! And for other people such luxuries are completely impossible.

 

Mark Gullick: Yes. Yes.

 

Woes: And this is the threat of the mob in this day and age. I had a similar thing where antifa came to my house. It was a long time ago. It was nearly five years ago. And they didn’t do a protest, or anything. They just came to the house. And if that’s frightening enough. If that’s never happened to you, it’s a scary, very unsettling thing!

 

Mark Gullick: Yeah. I’m sure it is.

 

Woes: And that is something that it amazes me that antifa never, … I don’t know, it shouldn’t, it doesn’t really amaze me. Because I know I understand why they get away with it. But still! It’s galling! And it also amazes me is that they don’t realize themselves. That they don’t think:

 

“Hold on! I’m doing a really shitty thing here!”

 

But this is the luxury of being on the winning side. You don’t have to question yourself.

 

Mark Gullick: Yeah, that’s the luxury being on the winning side. And it’s also the fabulous feeling that you get of being in lockstep! You know:

 

“I think the right things, those people think the wrong things. Therefore it’s their house we’re gonna turn up and give a hard time to!”

 

And not only that, it’s not even. You don’t have to stand up and say:

 

“Okay I’ve got a problem with transgenderism, or I’ve got a problem with this, or I’ve got a problem with that.”

 

I’m sure you’ve heard about this as well. I’ve never heard of this band “Mumford and Sons”. I’ve heard of them, but I’ve never heard them. No idea what they’re like. But they’re banjo player, I think they’re sort of folky band. Their banjo player, or something like that, tweeted, or put on Facebook, that he was reading a book by Andy Go, or Ngo, however you pronounce it.

 

Woes: Oh yes! Yes.

 

Mark Gullick:The very brave American journalists who got hospitalized with brain bleeding by antifa, in Portland, I think.

 

But this guy just said:

 

“Oh, I’ve just been reading this great book about antifa.”

 

And wow! That was it! Out the band! Off social media! It just immediately pounced! Like guard dogs.

 

Woes: It’s remarkable! I mean, it’s like the kind of thing you hear about, that you would associate that, with Soviet level control of public opinion.

 

Mark Gullick: Well yeah. And that’s a real worry if it goes down that road then. Yeah.

 

Woes: Well. I mean, it almost doesn’t need to, because we’ve already got that level. I mean, that level of control is pretty damn high! You can see what’s going on there.

 

And actually something that I wanted to put to you specifically was that in Britain and the West in general, we used to have the expression, “it’s a free country”, whereas no one says that anymore. It used to be a sort of casual thing that people would say jokingly, but everyone knew that it was true. And it was a banality. Yeah, it was funny to say it, because it was so obvious and just:

 

“Yeah, of course, yeah. And we live in a free country. Yes.”

 

Mark Gullick:I remember in the 1970s. Yeah, I remember my parents, friends, in the 1970s saying it. You heard it on situation comedies all the time. And it was a rhetorical question, the answer being yes, of course, it’s a free country! The answer now is:

 

“No. It absolutely isn’t!”

 

[40:09]

 

Woes: Yeah. And I think that people have entitled which, …

 

Mark Gullick: I’m just going to say, and that leads on to one more thing. Which once you look [cutting out] sees. You look to politicians in the media to, … Oh sorry! Yes, I was just going to say that once you feel free speech is under threat [cutting out]

 

Woes: Oh dear! Let’s see what happens. I’m sure he will be back. I know that he’s outdoors just now, so that’s probably the cause of all this. But oh come on let’s see.

 

Oh dear. Mark can you hear me? He’s disappeared okay. Oh no that’s a shame there are what I’ll probably do is keep this one fairly short once it comes back so that we’ll just get it wrapped up.

 

I’ll ask the questions that have been posted on Entropy and there are two of those. And I don’t think now there aren’t any on Odysee. It’s a shame, because he’s such an interesting guy, and clearly has a lot to say. But I’ll try to persuade him to get a better setup together for these kinds of things. Because I think he should be doing more of this. I think he’s a really worthwhile speaker. But I don’t think he realizes that! [chuckling] Some people are like that they don’t realize that they’d be good at this stuff until they do it.

 

Let’s see what’s happening. See if he sent me an email. Ah no. He’s not showing up. That’s a real shame. Oh someone says, thank you Galileo’s Tongue. He says:

 

“He seems like a nice bloke. Where can I hear more from him? How did you find him Woes?”

 

Well, he writes for Counter-Currents. And Greg did a stream earlier this year I think it was the 10th anniversary of Counter-Currents and he did a celebratory stream. And he had a lot of his writers appeared on that. Just voice only. And for most of them I think it was the first time they’d ever done anything like that. And so and one of them was Mark Gullick. And that was how I first heard of him.

 

Now I think I might have read some of his essays before then. But thereafter I was aware of him as a person there was a sort of voice to go with the name. And so I made a point of, because I liked what he was saying on that stream.

 

I find him quite a likable guy, affable and interesting. So I looked out for his essays thereafter. And I think I’ve read about five of his essays since then. And he really is a bloody good writer. He did one about 1984. He did one about the university. He’s done several recently that I’ve read.

 

Ah, here he is.

 

Mark Gullick: I’m back.

 

Woes: Hello? Hello? Hello?

 

Mark Gullick: Hi, sorry about that. I think that’s this end. This again. It’s Third World internet and it does just drop in and out.

 

Woes: Okay. Well, let’s we’ve been going for 45 minutes, which is just usually about the average for the Millennial streams. So I’ll ask you a few questions that have been posted.

 

[45:00]

 

Mark Gullick: Tell me.

 

Woes: Okay. These are quite different from what we were talking about earlier:

 

“Mark where are you educated in the analytic tradition that began with G E Muer [sp]?”

 

Mark Gullick: The only thing I know about Muer, … Well, no is the answer. No absolutely not! I steered very clear of logic and anything along those lines. Anything mathematical.

 

The only thing I know not Muer, … I’m not thinking of Bradley who was the one that was the influence on TS Eliot. One of those two I probably put my foot in it. That might have been Bradley not Muer. No. I wasn’t basically. I really came up through the classics. And then did a fast forward to Existentialism, when I was doing my first degree. And that sort of set the mould for the rest of my studies.

 

Woes: Right okay. So the rest of it was:

 

“Who are some of your favourite analytic philosophers?”

 

But I’m guessing you don’t have many [chuckling]!

 

Mark Gullick: Not really, no. No. Not my area of expertise, if anything is. I mean, I don’t know. Analytically? It depends if that’s a specific school then I’d probably put my foot in it, if I said that I was very interested in Wittgenstein, who I find analytical. But I don’t know if that’s what the questioner means by an analytical school.

 

Woes: He said analytic, which I’m suggesting, it’s a specific field.

 

Mark Gullick: I think you might be right, yes. Yes.

 

Woes: And then the other question was:

 

“Mark. You said that you knew a member of Killing Joke, back when you worked as a bartender. Who was he? And did you ever see Killing Jokes live gigs?”

 

Mark Gullick: Not quite true that I knew him. I did live with a member of the Clash for a while. But I didn’t know a member of the Killing Joke.

 

But the chap I was referring to was Geordie Walker, tremendous guitarist. And I walked into a bar in Brighton one night where I was at university. That’s where Sussex is. And there was Geordie Walker. He’s six foot three. And he’s very, very, very stand out. And he just got me completely drunk all night! Wouldn’t let me pay for a drink. And he told me that we would, … I said:

 

“Look you’ve got to let me buy you a drink.”

 

He said:

 

“No. We’re drinking the royalties for Love Like Blood.”

 

Which is probably their most famous single.

 

Woes: Ah I see.

 

Mark Gullick: That’s my Geordie Walker story.

 

Woes: Okay. And you also met Ian Curtis, of course, because, …

 

Mark Gullick: I did meet Ian Curtis. Yes. Yes.

 

Woes: Yeah you did a wonderful essay about Joy Division.

 

Mark Gullick: Well that was, and I think the story is included in that. I just had a half an hour, 45 minute, chat with him. And the nicest thing about that, well bittersweet really, because, of course, it has such a tragic end. The nicest thing about that was I went to see them again in London a couple of weeks later. And he recognized me and called out to me and said:

 

“Hey! Hey Mark! How you doing?”

 

Which now I look back on it some people think:

 

“My god! That’s legendary! You met Ian Curtis!”

 

But a charming man. And very tragic. But yes, I did write a piece about that. Which would have been in May, I suppose, because that was the anniversary of his death.

 

Woes: Yeah, it’s a shame. I do wonder what they would have gone on to do.

 

Mark Gullick: I absolutely, I really do. I wonder whether the band would have gone down the New Order route into electronica. And so on. I wonder whether, because when you listen to Blue Monday, it’s his vocal style. It’s just not over bass guitar and drums. It’s over kind of pulsing, electronic, upbeat. So I mean, I wonder.

 

Woes: Yeah I remember hearing an interview with I think it was Bernard Sumner who said that after his suicide they made a decision to go upbeat. In which case, had he lived, then they probably wouldn’t have gone upbeat in more New Order territory.

 

Mark Gullick: Yeah.

 

Woes: And I do think that Closer is just a fantastic album.

 

Mark Gullick: Oh it’s brilliant. And you can tell from the I think the first New Order album was called Movement. And you can tell that those songs were, in fact, I’ve recognized some other songs from, … I saw them live about six times.

 

Oh! I forgot to tell your questioner. I saw Killing Joke three times, was the answer to that question. And they were a staggering band to see live. And the first time I saw them was at my university. And they came through the audience with these the flaming torches. It was London, kind of primitive dancers, bouncing around and stuff. They were they were quite something else!

 

But no, the first New Order album Movement was obviously Joy Division work in progress, which Sumner took over.

 

[50:12]

 

Woes: Yeah. And I have listened to it. But I haven’t studied it. But I’ve heard people say it. It does feel quite like a Joy Division album. Or at least a midway point between the two. Okay there’s a question for you that’s just come in:

 

“Have you ever come across J M E McTaggart, The Unreality of Time?”

 

Mark Gullick: No. Not at all! Don’t recognize the name, nor do I recognize the book.

 

Woes: Okay. And there’s another one:

 

“Or Timothy Spriggs, The Vindication of Absolute Idealism?”

 

Mark Gullick: No I haven’t! I would love it if the questioner could email those to you. And you could bounce them on to me though, because I’ll always take a recommendation.

 

Woes: Okay. I’ll send those on to you. All right then. Well, let’s wrap it up there.

 

Mark Gullick: Sure. Listen Colin, my apologies for the standard of the broadcast. I hope it hasn’t been too wrong.

 

Woes: No.

 

Mark Gullick: If we do this again, … I mean, I’m in the process of, it is very, very difficult here! I live in a place where there’s about five apartments. But I’m the only one living here. So I can’t, … To get the internet set up just for my apartment is impossible, because I’m not a resident. You have to be a resident. And my landlady doesn’t do it. So I kind of piggyback on them on the cafe next door [wispering], … In case they’re in. [Woes laughing] But yeah, which is something okay.

 

So I hope it wasn’t too rough for you. And thanks ever so much for talking me through all this stuff. I wouldn’t be able to do it otherwise.

 

Woes: That’s fine and thank you for taking the effort. I do appreciate it. And this has been, …

 

Mark Gullick: You are more than welcome. I’m a great admirer of yours as well. I’ve watched a few of your debates, and speeches, and lectures. And so on. And you have a very measured approach to the way that you take on ideas. What’s your academic background, by the way?

 

Woes: Oh, I don’t have one really! [chuckling] I went to Art College!

 

Mark Gullick: Aha! Aha! But you did form a band.

 

Woes: Well, yeah. But it just wasn’t really academic, you know, I don’t, I can’t really tell you anything that I learnt there. So yeah. It’s kind of like three wasted, well four wasted years. [Mark laughs] But that’s also in London.

 

Mark Gullick: Right. Just one point I wanted to finish with, because it’s such an important point., you know, Jonathan Bowden, or Boowden, I’m never quite sure how you pronounce it. He said that he thought Counter-Currents was an online university.

 

Woes: Yes.

 

Mark Gullick: And I’ve said to a few people recently. If you are, … Well not that I know any 18 year olds. If, you know any 18 year olds, or if you’ve got a kid who’s 18. And they want to go to university to do a Humanities degree, try everything you can, short of physically locking them up, to stop them doing that!

 

If they just took 100 pounds and went to half a dozen charity shops, picked books at random which interested them. In three years time, they’ll probably be much, much more employable than somebody who’s done Gender studies, or Whiteness studies, or whatever the faddish thing is there. [Woes laughs] You’re just better off!

 

Woes: And then in the meantime they should read Counter-Currents. Yeah, I agree.

 

Mark Gullick: Absolutely! Yeah! Counter-Currents put me onto a load of stuff I had never heard of, another rank. And then, as I say I’ve just heard of the titles of two books and authors that I’ve never heard of before. So that’s worked for me.

 

Woes: All right well I’ll send those on to you okay. Well, we’ll end this one here. So thank you Mark Gullick for appearing on Millennials 2021.

 

Mark Gullick: Thank you very much. Have a lovely Christmas. Thank you for inviting me. All right.

 

Woes: Thank you very much.

 

Mark Gullick: Goodbye!

 

Woes: Bye-bye.

 

[54:14]

 

————

Millennial Woes has created many things. And this is your chance to own one of them! A unique piece of work hand crafted by the vile vlogger, to commemorate Millennial 2021.

 

Millenniyule 2021 commemoration

 

A hundred hours of highly skilled labour went into producing this animated vector graphic, which can be magnified to any size.

In the iconic Millennial Woes font, it glistens and responds to your touch. And at the centre of it all, a figure representative of 2021, the White Stag!

Symbolizing endurance, discovery, and rejuvenation!

This one-of-a-kind creation is up for sale as an NFT. Follow the link below. And it can be yours forever! This is your only chance!

 

[55:10]