Mark Collett: And welcome to Patriotic Weekly Review. It’s that time of the week again and we’re here for episode number 370! Can you believe we’re closing in on 400 episodes? I can’t! Time flies when you’re having fun and we’ve certainly had some fun over the years, but it’s been a long road. And we’ve still got a lot more distance to cover. And we’ve got some big things to discuss tonight. I’ve got an amazing guest here tonight and we’re gonna basically set the world to rights and discuss what the changing political dynamic in Britain is going to yield for the nationalist cause.

 

But before we do that, please do like and share the stream. We’re live on Rumble. We’re live on Odysee. Get the word out there because I’m the truth teller that’s banned on X. Elon Musk, he likes to tell people he’s all about truth and fairness. Not when it comes to the hard truth that I’m talking about. Please help me share the stream. Get the word out. Let’s get these viewing figures up and like the stream because this is going to be worth watching.

 

Secondly, I’ve got a lot of things coming up this week.

 

Firstly, I published a very long article, the longest I’ve written to date, six and a half thousand words called Why the Conservatives are Worse than Labour and Why They Must be Destroyed. This article is now up on my Substack. It’s free for everyone to read and it’s a historical piece that works up to the modern day here and now. And it discusses how it’s not the far-Left, it’s not the Labour Party, it’s not the Left at all that’s destroyed every single nationalist or anti-immigration movement this country’s had to offer. It’s actually the Conservative Party. They did it in 79, they did it in 2010, they did it in 2017, they did in 2019. It’s always the Conservative party!

 

David Clews: Can I just jump in there very quickly? Do you know what makes me think about. Tony Blair was basically a conservative as well in 97. In many ways that was what his famous thing was. So as you say, it’s all been conservative or conservative like policies that’s led to this. A hardcore Left-winger wouldn’t have opened the borders the way Blair did. So no, you’re 100% right.

 

Mark Collett: Well, this article is very important. It’s free for you to read on my Substack. It’s six and a half thousand words long, too long for many, I’m told! If you are one of those people who likes the deep dive, please, please go and give it a read. The links are for my Substack, are in the description. They’re also the pinned comment in the chat. And you can support me on Substack financially.

 

Secondly, I did a show with Patrick Slattery on Monday. I’m gonna do a show with David Duke tomorrow. I’ll be live on Friday, and on Sunday the Film Club returns. It was meant to be on Sunday but it was Father’s Day. But it returns for the review of the new Uwe Boll film which deals with the issue of a Right-wing vigilante dealing rather decisively with migrant rape gangs.

 

So you’re going to want to watch that. And we’ve got a very special guest. I’m not going to tell you who it is, but when you see, you will be shocked!

 

Anyway, that’s something for Sunday. So I’ve got loads of things coming up this week and I’ll also have another Substack out on Friday. At the moment I am writing up the harrowing case of the murder and sexual abuse of Preston Davy and how it was essentially given the green light by the system because Preston’s adopted parents were obviously a homosexual couple.

 

Lots to come. I’m working very hard. Please support me if you can financially, send Superchats, you can Superchat live via Rumble. All Superchats are gratefully received. Please consider giving something. Nothing I do goes behind the paywall. $3, $5, $10, whatever you can afford. If you can be more generous, please do remember it goes to a good cause. No one in Britain is pumping out the amount of material I am. I’ve got a very active Substack. If you can’t subscribe over here on Rumble, go over to Substack. Make a monthly contribution there. It really does help! I’m producing two long form articles a week. No one is producing that much content over on Substack. Go and subscribe. It’s free, anyone can read it, but help me there if you can. Also donate to me via Crypto. All the crypto links are in the description below.

 

And finally you can write to me at mark@thefallofwesternman.com. Please support me, please. Superchat. Please help us financially. We are the only ethno-nationalist group in Britain openly fighting for White rights. Help us. Support us. Show that you care.

 

Anyway, let’s get into the show. We’ve got David Clews with me tonight. And we’ve got David Clews with me for a reason. Not only is he a good friend of mine, not only does he have really good takes but he’s a guy who’s called things right. He’s one of the few people who stuck his neck out on the line and said the unpopular thing, made the unpopular takes and stuck with that and recently he’s been proved correct. He’s got an excellent channel and news network called the Unity News Network. They are now on Rumble as well. Please support him there. Please follow him. Please sub him. He deserves it. I was lucky enough to be on his show. Was it last night?

 

David Clews: Monday.

 

Mark Collett: Monday night and we had an excellent show. It’s very good. Very very hard hitting about the situation in Makerfield.

 

But David, how have you been my friend? Are you surviving this heat wave? My shirt is already stuck to me. I actually do feel relatively uncomfortable and people are lucky that they’ve got the camera feed tonight because I was thinking about basically doing this in my underwear with the camera off. It is oppressively hot! Are you surviving where you are?

 

[05:51]

 

David Clews: Yes. No. Absolutely fine! It’s not too terrible. So I had the milk in the freezer and the glass in the freezer, as. Well, that’s one thing always say about Spain is they really know how, … I’m not in Spain of course, but they know how to chill a drink. And if there’s one thing I don’t like it’s an unchilled drink. So I had my glass was being in the freezer. I had my milk in the freezer as well. So it’s cold and it is hitting well.

 

So yeah, all good, all good. And it was interesting you said this is show number 370. And I always liked a wee bit of gematria and I looked up and a famous 370. The number 370 is most famously associated with the Malaysian Airlines flight MH370 that went missing. And there is still no proper explanation of where it went. So there’s number 370. I hope Patriotic Weekly Review doesn’t go the way of that flight! [chuckling] But it’s an interesting one. You know I haven’t actually done a deep dive on. I’m sure many of my conspiratorial friends will have some theories on that but I mean it’s just incredible to think that an airline all those years ago just went missing and still nobody knows what happened.

 

Mark Collett: No, no. Do you know what? I was very interested in the case at the time. Did they ever find the aeroplane?

 

David Clews: Never! They’ve never found it and they’ve never given a proper explanation of what happened. 12 years.

 

Mark Collett: The problem is, and I am conspiratorially minded, but I’m also aware of how vast the Pacific Ocean [Indian Ocean] is. And I think where it crashed, wasn’t it in that sort of dead zone where effectively almost as far from land as you can be.

 

So there’s a apparently there’s a buoy in the Pacific Ocean. And if you end up coming, so if you’re in a plane and you crash and you’re like:

 

“Thank goodness there’s a buoy in the ocean. I’m going to hold on to it!”

 

That would actually be the worst thing ever because you would have crashed at the point where you are geographically further from any land as you would be anywhere else, you know, within the ocean.

 

You know, I think at that point you’re basically screwed!

 

But, yeah, when you’re over those kind of depths of ocean and that kind of sort of its almost like an oceanic wilderness, isn’t it? I wonder how it went down.

 

David Clews: As I said, there is literally no conclusive theory. It’s funny, a few people in the chat are saying it was full of highly skilled semiconductors scientists who were Chinese.

 

I mean, when you hear stuff like that, I mean, again, they could have just been there purely by accident and they were going to go work somewhere. But to lose an airline is really incredible! And as I said, there’s still no answer or anything definitive as to where it went. I remember watching a programme about it and it was like they said:

 

“Maybe the pilot. It was an elaborate suicide attempt.”

 

That was the kind of one they were going with, but just absolutely crazy! And one of these unexplained mysteries that I’m sure there’s a lot more to it than meets the eye.

 

Mark Collett: I do find these things really interesting. Somebody saying it’s wasn’t actually in the Pacific, apparently it was in the Indian Ocean.

 

So I don’t know. I thought it was over the Pacific. But very interesting what happened there. And it’s something that it captivated me at the time. I find things like this phenomenally interesting. But I also find it really odd that planes like that don’t have some kind of transponder.

 

[10:03]

 

David Clews: They do. It went missing or something turned off. I don’t know. I think that’s the whole point. It was, you shouldn’t be able to turn that off. It emanates like a signal that should be on at all times. A really odd one.

 

Mark Collett: Do you think they’ll ever find it? Because sometimes these things happen and there are sort of obviously conspiracy theories etc, but then years later somebody just stumbles upon something or comes up with a theory and checks something and it all sort of works out.

 

David Clews: There was, there was another one. I don’t know if you want. I do like my slop. See, because we watch, we deal with such high value things. There was one called the Disappearance of Amy Bradley. Have you seen that one at all or heard about that?

 

So this was this girl who was on a cruise ship with her family. It just disappeared, just disappeared off the face of the earth. Initially they thought that she’d fallen off the side, but then there was all these sightings of her. People say they saw her, that she was sold into sex slavery.

 

And again, just same as the McCanns, same as Madeleine McCann!

 

I mean, look, clearly there’s a lot of theories on Madeleine McCann, but there is still no like even official response to what happened. Just another mystery. The Amy Bradley one’s very good. It’s very good if you can watch that.

 

Mark Collett: I’ll look into that. I mean, one thing that gets me though, with some of these sightings, you wonder how mentally ill some people are today because there was a girl who claimed that she was Madeline McCann. And it turned out she was just a pure fantasist who had made it all up, very interesting.

 

But look, let’s get on to the issue of the day. I can tell that people will get, people will, chat annoyed that we’re not immediately talking about Andy Burnham. That’s the issue!

 

David Clews: It always reminds me, that situation of in the film the Wolf of Wall Street, when he goes to meet with the Swiss banker.

 

Mark Collett: I’ve not seen it.

 

David Clews: It’s quite a good film, very jewish. But he goes to meet the Swiss banker and the Swiss banker’s doing the chit chat and he’s like:

 

“Look, I don’t really want to do this, I just want to cut to the chase.”

 

And he’s like:

 

“Excuse me, you’re in Switzerland, you’re in Europe. We do chit chat for a minimum of 30 minutes before we get down to business.”

 

It is a very British thing as well, isn’t it? The obligatory chit chat.

 

Mark Collett: I’ve always thought about doing shows with certain guests. It wouldn’t work with all guests, but with certain guests where you just said:

 

“Right. Two hours of easy chat, Superchats when they’re relevant.”

 

So if somebody gives a relevant Superchat we interject with it. But some guests would be really good at that. You’re good at that. Devon Stack is very good at that. He’s very good at chatting. Very entertaining. And it is interesting when things, …

 

And I’m somebody who does like sort of murder mysteries. I do like real life crimes. So flight, you know, MH370 was something that did at the time really capture my imagination. But I suppose we may never know or the scary thing is somebody does know because it was planned and we’ll never know. But that’s another thing.

 

The one thing that, the one thing that is interesting do you know another thing that’s interesting, right? One thing that I find really incredible is the amount of dead people on Mount Everest. So all these people who aren’t really qualified to climb Mount Everest go up there, they die, their bodies freeze, never decompose.

 

And apparently the amount of people that now climb Mount Everest is sort of a recreational thing to say they’ve done it. Basically what you end up with is people walking up the mountain and some of the more famous dead bodies are now landmarks.

 

So they’re like what you turn specifically one called Green Boots, who’s a guy that died in these bright, luminous green boots. And people are:

 

“You turn right by Green Boots!”

 

So that’s how people know when they’re almost you almost at the Summit, turn right by Green Boots and it’s like:

 

“Wow!”

 

And apparently it’s also a place where people dump all their rubbish on the way up and on the way down to lighten their load. And it’s one of the most polluted places on the planet because obviously it never degrades, it never breaks down, the bodies never break down. And it’s covered in dead bodies and garbage! Which I find is pretty depressing actually, that this sort of amazing landmark, highest place on the planet and you go up there and it’s just covered in litter and corpses!

 

David Clews: Sounds a bit like [chuckling] sort of India and the subcontinent, doesn’t it! It’s kind of everywhere!

 

Mark Collett: In Glasgow. It’s just rubbish!

 

[14:51]

 

David Clews: That’s what it’s like. It’s funny. Today I watched a video of like India.

 

So for the next two hours my feed is just all videos of how awful India is. And you know when you see that and you see these countries, it’s just so horrific beyond words. I think people, they don’t understand what these countries are like. I’ve never been, but clearly it’s not like these are isolated videos. It shows you India, how dirty it is, the oppressed conditions, people that live in. It’s utterly awful!

 

I mean, I’ve been to Cairo and that’s the most awful place I’ve ever seen in my life! The poverty, the grindingness of it, the dirt on the roads! You know, I did a bit of traveling as well in Bulgaria. And for a European country, it’s dirt poor.

 

And it’s funny the gypsies who are Indians, it looks like India as well. And it’s just awful! And when you say that about Everest, which is the world’s highest mountain, which is, it’s so amazing and it’s just covered in filth!

 

Rockwell. I’ll do that just now. Actually, I’ve forgotten to do that. I’ll do that just now. Post it on X.

 

Mark Collett: You’ve not posted it on, ..! David!

 

David Clews: I’ve not. I know. I’ve been busy. I’ll do it right now!

 

Mark Collett: Now I’m sweating twice as much. I’ve got the general heat of the day. That’s the first thing I want to say though. David.

 

So everyone says, like, global warming isn’t a thing, but we are all melting. And I do wonder. I don’t think man made global warming is a thing, but I do think things are generally getting warmer. I remember when I was a kid, come Christmas, there would always be snow. I remember being snowed in and having days off from school. And it does seem to be getting more intolerable! Now, I don’t think this is down to man made global warming or any such crap! But I do think it is intolerable!

 

And as a White man, I wasn’t made for this! This isn’t northern European weather. Why do I have to put up with this? You know, I mean, and I can’t even open my window while I’m doing the show because I don’t want everyone in the street hearing me bellowing about these issues, trapped in this box of heat.

 

David Clews: I think the weather does change naturally. Like the Romans used to grow great vineyards in North Africa when they were there. North Africa was as fertile as the rest of the Mediterranean. So clearly the climate does shift and change. And I mean, in the 60s and 70s, the big theory was that we were about to enter a new Ice Age.

 

You know, I remember watching the video of like Leonard Nimoys talking about how we’re going to be freezing. But then they’ve moved to the global warming. I think temperatures probably are rising. Someone will know more than me about why. But the whole man made climate change is a scam! Because what it deliberately says is the more CO2 you’ve released as a nation, the more you’ve contributed to this greenhouse effect. And miraculously it manages to blame Britain and the rest of Europe for that and say:

 

“Well, your historical long term CO2 emissions are much higher than India and China.”

 

And the other thing it doesn’t actually take into account is just the pollution from all these countries. I think it is important for people like us to care for the environment and to look for green solutions. But I think man made climate change is a hoax! And I’m sure most would agree with that.

 

Mark Collett: No, I agree with that. I mean I also, the reason why I agree with it is because I know, I always notice the selective application.

 

So you go to places like China, India, Bangladesh that they’re polluting the world to an incredible degree. Their emissions are off the scale, but they’re never hit with the kind of restrictions that Western European countries are hit with.

 

And I’ve got to say, if there’s one thing that makes me proud of being a Western European is that we generally are very sort of, how can I say, environmentally minded. We do like animals, we do like nature, we do try to look after the world we live in. Whereas I think other races are far more:

 

“Well, if it moves, eat it. If it becomes extinct, so be it. Do what we have to do to survive, advance, take over, grow!”

 

Whereas I think we are more empathetic. And that often comes out in a bad way, but sometimes it comes out in a good way. You know, the amount of people I know that sort of save little animals. I mean I once stood on a snail and cracked its shell and I actually bought a special tank and nursed it back to health! Its shell was completely healed and put it back in the garden! You know, that’s the kind of people we are. But sometimes obviously that backfires, which is obviously one of the things we talk about.

 

But David, onto the issue of the day. Starmer’s gone! Burnham’s in!

 

Now, we both said this will have an incredibly positive effect on the Labour Party. And I think that’s true. I think that’s true, Labour are now bouncing. They’re a united party again. There isn’t the infighting.

 

But one thing that shocked me is not just how it’s reunited Labour, but how it’s also painted them in a better light. And even the Tory press seemed to be giving them a little bit, not total, but a little bit of a pat on the back.

 

[20:41]

 

This does seem to have rejuvenated them. I’m pretty good with my predictions, but I was actually shocked that Burnham took 55% of the vote. And it almost feels, … Sorry for the horrible turn of phrase, but I can’t think of any better way to say this, but as if there’s been a Great Reset, as if there’s been a situation where, because when you have a Prime minister come in with a giant majority like Starmer did, you tend to have a honeymoon period. Thatcher, Blair, both of them had long reigns with sizable honeymoons. For Starmer to come in as a new party taking power from a deeply unpopular party and to have completely fluffed it in just over 18 months is unprecedented! And I kind of feel like this has pushed the reset button and Burnham’s almost being Heralded as the guy that Starmer should have been back in July of 2024. It feels like Labour have effectively had a do over here.

 

David Clews: I think, as we’ve pointed out, and I’ve certainly been saying, it is amazing the way the wider British security state works. I mean, sometimes you just have to look at it, as Agent Smith says, have you ever looked at it and just marveled at it? And what they’ve done with Burnham is incredible! They’ve given him this Coronation, the train coming from Manchester, the crowds cheering him, [chuckling] and he’s now there and then all the MPs are there. And as you say, it’s just given this an entire new lease of life.

 

And the problem that you actually have is that with Burnham, and I’ve been thinking about this today, what’s our angle of attack going to be against them? You know, because he’s not Keir Starmer. He’s not like a robot, he’s not a system pig. He can actually sit and speak to people.

 

And again, people are going to cope about it. He’s very relatable. I’ve watched his stuff. I remember his Hillsborough speech and he came across well. Now he’s a career politician. He’s ZOGged up to his eyeballs. I get all these things, but from a normie’s perspective, he is like A-list material, Andy Burnham. And he doesn’t wear the suit either, he wears the T-shirt. And actually people are going to say:

 

“You two are loving him!”

 

And he actually looks really good for 56. He actually keeps himself in pretty good shape for someone who’s 56. And I mean, that is true. Politics is all about PR and image. And Burnham really has it. And listen what they’ve done, the media, they are roasting Farage.

 

I mean, I’ve been talking about this, I’ve seen that they all have decided they’re going to destroy Farage. And the Right-wing press built him up. The Telegraph, the Daily Mail, the Sun. And now they’re spitting them back out!:

 

“You took five million quid, you said you were a man of the people!”

 

And now all the Right-wing press, they’re basically Burnham is going to be like a Tony Blair figure that is going to unite all the factions in the regime behind them. And it’s ominous!

 

[24:25]

 

Mark Collett: I think it’s ominous. I can see us, … In my article and I’m pushing my Substack heavily, but I’ll tell you why.

 

Firstly, I like writing these long articles and I feel like I’m not bad at it either. I didn’t think I’d enjoy writing them as much as I do. But I like laying everything out in article format because I feel it’s in many ways easier to digest for people and to add notations, etc.

 

But also it’s good because you can go back and alter the article and I’m actually thinking of revising my recent one on demographics because more information has come to light of the last two weeks that actually says that what everything I was saying was correct, basically. And I’m going to add to it with notation saying this is new information. But it furthers my point.

 

But in my long article I published yesterday, I did say that there is a level of what you could call institutional Deep State power that both the Conservatives and Labour have, which is basically, it’s like, and I describe them as an iceberg. What you see above the waterline, the politicians, obscures this massive institutional power network beneath the waterline. And this was the exact analogy that I chose to make during that article. And because they have that vast network beneath the waterline, unless you completely destroy them as a Parliamentary presence, which would then cause the whole thing to crumble, they will always, as long as they maintain at the very least the position of being the opposition, they will always re-form.

 

And that’s what I said in my article. And essentially we’re in a situation here where for a very brief period it looked as if Reform were going to break both sides of that illusory political divide. They were going to completely crush the Tories, they were going to take almost every marginal seat. But on top of that, the White Red Wall, former sort of working class, sort of mining town seats were all, or secondary industry like your manufacturing seats. So Newcastle, Sunderland, Makerfield, these areas were all going to fall to Reform as well. And you’re going to finally see the two party system completely collapse in on itself.

 

But all of a sudden it seems to have resuscitated itself!

 

And one thing that really does amaze me and I’ve got to say this, and it is very critical of White people. But how much can we take? How much can we take? And that’s a genuine question because what have we seen? Unprecedented grooming, two tiered justice, the jailing of Right-wing anti-immigration political dissidents. We’ve seen mass murders on the streets, terrorist atrocities. You know, we’ve had the Manchester bombing, we’ve had Southport, we’ve had the Belfast beheading, we’ve had Valdo Calocane in Nottingham the Nottingham spree killer.

 

It happens again and again and again! And the more people speak out about it, the more we see the state clamp down on us, the more we see this rise of two tier justice. We’ve had fathers arrested for trying to free their daughters from the grooming gangs, and immigration has just carried on unabated to different levels. The demographic shift has always continued, maybe at slightly differing rates. We now around 70% of the population, but by the next general election we will be under 70% for sure. But people are still voting Labour! 55% of their people in Makerfield still voted for Andy Burnham and he’s just received the kind of Coronation that you would expect of an almost like Napoleonic character!

 

Like when Napoleon marched on Paris and every roadblock that was meant to prevent him from getting there sort of not only didn’t stop him, but the people at that roadblock fell at his feet, you know, declared him the Emperor and joined his march on Paris. That’s kind of what you’re seeing with Burnham. They’ve almost played him as a folk hero. You know, this trip down to Manchester, you said it so well on your show with me. The night they actually had helicopter footage of him arriving in Nottingham:

 

“The northern hero arrived to put the shit out of touch Starmer creature to death! And when he’s done this we will be free!”

 

But this was Sky News, this was BBC, this was ITV, this Daily Mail! They all did it!

 

[29:14]

 

David Clews: Here’s the thing that’s really crystallised for me over the last few months. And this is one of the reasons why I’ve been so aggressive against people like pushing Restore, saying that it’s going to solve all our problems or re-migration is going to solve all the problems. I’m not doing it because I’m being nasty. I’m just doing it because I’m being honest with people about the situation. And this was the real statistic that hit home for me. Well, there was actually two recently. The budget every year for the security services in this country, GCHQ, MI5, MI6 is £5 billion per annum. Five billion quid they spend on the security services! Just an incredible sum of money!

 

So that’s what they do. The City of London every single day turns over in currency trading alone, $5 trillion per day! 5 trillion, right! How many people in Britain have a house in the Cotswolds, a flat in London? How many people have a lifestyle where they’re jetting around the world, they’re going to conferences, they’re going to football matches, they’re going to Wimbledon. You just, and I don’t mean this to be nasty to you, but you don’t really have any comprehension of the life these people live. They will spend in a day and not even notice it what you will likely earn in a year. What I will likely earn in a year.

 

Okay, so if you take the Mafia, the people that say they run the coke trade in Britain, the Albanians, they’re prepared to kill and be ruthless in order to maintain their lifestyle. What do you think the people way above them that runs this country are going to do? They’re going to kill! They’re going to jail you and they’re going to use every single trick in the book to keep themselves in that lifestyle! And they’re just not giving up, they’re not going to give up the house in the Cotswolds. Because you know why it’s even more important for them now? Because the country is full of immigrants. [chuckling] They need to live in their White areas. They need to fly first class, they need like HS2 to get them quickly to their country retreats.

 

So you have an elite that is embedded into power and will use every single trick in the book that it has, and none more so than the mainstream media and the power and the might of the mainstream media. Like people always say:

 

“Oh, nobody listens to the news anymore!”

 

Nonsense! Millions and millions and millions of people still listen to the BBC and trust the BBC and Sky News and the Daily Mail and the Guardian and the Telegraph and LBC and talk TV, you know, need to go on?

 

Mark Collett: No, mate, I agree. I think one of the problems is. And bear with me here, guys, because I don’t want to seem like, I don’t want to annoy people. Look, when I say these things and I’m right. I don’t want to annoy people by being right. I’m not doing this to sort of be smug and pour like cold water on everyone’s fire. I’m doing it because I can see what’s going wrong because I’ve been involved in this bloody thing for 26 years! And I can see these things now.

 

Look, when I was initially involved in the BNP, back in the day, when I first got involved in politics, the bubble was what I called the “pub bubble”.

 

And I remember when I was first standing in elections, I would go into pubs and people would be like:

 

“Mark, surely. Oh, mate, I saw you on TV! I’m voting for you. We’re all voting for him, aren’t we, lads? Yeah, everyone down the pubs, right? Oh, we’re all voting for you, mate!”

 

And it was brilliant! You’d walk out of there feeling like:

 

“Yeah, we’re doing this!”

 

Because everyone in the pub was voting for you. Come election day you’d get 20%, you come second, but you weren’t winning. Now the issue is that pub nonsense, that was 20, 30 lads in the pub saying:

 

“We all vote for you!”

 

David Clews: On X now.

 

Mark Collett: No, it was a bubble. But now it’s on X. And it’s not 20, 30, lads. It’s 300, 400, maybe a thousand people building this national bubble that people think is like the real deal:

 

“Look, look, he’s just got 3,000 likes on his X post! Oh, my God, we’re gonna do it! Have you seen 300 retweets? Oh, my God! Look, we’ve ratioed him!”

 

And unfortunately, it’s just a national or even international sort of recreation of the:

 

“All me mates down the pub are voting for you.”

 

You’re winning, and they’re not. Or maybe they are, but maybe that tap room in that smoky pub isn’t representative of everyone in the council ward where you’re standing.

 

And what I’m saying is, fundamentally we’re in a situation, a weird one, where people surround themselves now with people who are like them, have the same feelings, the same opinions, the same desires. And it forms this feedback loop where they absolutely believe that they’re going to win because they’re not exposing themselves to the real world. And X isn’t the real world.

 

Okay, somebody in the chat just put that. Somebody’s put, X is not real life. That’s one of the things with the Restore. They thought it was. And look, David, you said something to me and I didn’t know how big it was. I did a stream the other night and I said:

 

“Look, Restore had a thousand people out in Makerfield, but they mismanaged it.”

 

And David actually got me the figures. Labour had 3,000 out in Makerfield. But the thing is, Labour didn’t arrange them in a park, take pictures, get a load of spergy influencers and auditors to film it all. Have them all wearing gaudy Union Jack outfits and turn it into a circus. They had 3,000 people who were highly trained people, …

 

David Clews: Every day! Every day!

 

[35:29]

 

Mark Collett: And flew it under the radar so the other parties didn’t know what they were up against. And the issue is this. When you see all of this on X and you convince yourself that Restore are gonna have to win because of the thousand people and they can’t lose and you know, all the influencers out there and the auditors are streaming it, you’re meant to think that so that on election day, when you get a poultry 6.8% and less than the BNP did in 2010, you’re heartbroken and demoralised. That’s the point of it! It was all mismanaged.

 

And what you’re seeing here is the reality of a highly powerful system that by design can, … Unless it is run out of those top two positions in Parliament, it will always re-form. And that’s what you’re seeing with Burnham. But worse still, and not many people are covering this:

 

“The Tories are dead, mate! They’re never coming back!”

 

David Clews: No one’s voting for an African. No one’s voting for an African.

 

Mark Collett: They won the Aberdeen South by-election on the same day as Makerfield. And all of a sudden you’re now seeing two by-elections on the same day and two winners. Who are the two winners, David? Labour and the Tories. Not Reform, not Restore, not the Greens! Boom!

 

David Clews: 26.1% swing in Aberdeen South for the Tories. 26.1%

 

Now, clearly there was local issues because Labour and the SNP have decimated the oil and gas industry. But again, who did the public turn to? Who did the public say:

 

“Well, I’m sick of the SNP and Labour. Who am I going to turn to?”

 

Well, funnily enough, there wasn’t a Restore candidate because Restore didn’t stand in Aberdeen South. Therefore, that meant the only option was Reform or the Tories. And what did people in that area say? They’re going to vote Tory! That party led by an African anchor baby!

 

Because here’s the thing, and I keep pointing this out to people, if you’re fucked and you’re out of a job and you’ve got a huge mortgage, you know, house price. Aberdeen’s a really good example. I remember going to Aberdeen, like 2010. There was Ferraris and Porsches everywhere. House prices are down 20 to 30% from the peak. People are really struggling. There was really well paid oil and gas jobs.

 

So these are people who maybe have a wife, kids. Do you think they really give a shit if the woman’s African or not? Is she going to get me back to work in the North Sea? Is she going to get me back so I can feed my kids? And whether people like it or not, they see the Tories, it doesn’t even matter about her. They just know that the Tories are against Net Zero and they want to open it up again. So they’re going to vote Tory. There is not a huge amount of thought going into it!

 

And this again is, we are spergs. We, I sperg, go over everything, but I’m not spergy enough. Let me be clear. I am spergy enough to know that not everybody thinks like that. Most people vote on a reasonably shallow basis as well, and simplify it.

 

And as I say, the number one issue out there right now is the economy is the cost of living! It doesn’t affect over 60s. Primarily people who own their own homes or people who are okay. Anyone under 60, you know this, Mark, you’re a father of two, I’m a father of two. Everyone sees it, like, even people who have money say:

 

“I just went out to the cinema and had a meal and it was 300 quid!”

 

And they’re like:

 

“Anybody affording anything now?”

 

It’s hitting home. And that’s what it’s the economy, stupid! It’s not that Charlie Downs was on the other day and he said:

 

“The number one issue that British people have is demographics!”

 

No, it isn’t that! That is just a straight up lie! The number one problem facing Britain is demographics, but that’s not what voters think. And you know what? The customer is always right! It’s like, hi, the customer comes into Charlie Downs, I’d like to order a margherita pizza. No, I don’t think you should have that. I think you should have a steak and I think you should have this. It’s much better for you. What’s he gonna do? The customer’s gonna get up, he’s gonna walk out and say:

 

“I’m not going to be patronised by you, I’m gonna go somewhere else and they’ll give me what I want!”

 

[39:59]

 

Mark Collett: Look, I agree fundamentally and worse still, and I’ve got to say this, I can hear people saying this. So this is going to be one of my little skits about the way the British people think. It’s not what I think, but I can hear people saying this:

 

“Look, I quite like what Nigel Farage has to say, but I’m a bit scared that my black friend will think I’m a racist if I vote for him. But that Kemi Badenoch, she’s saying the same thing. And if I vote for her, I can tell all my mates down the pub, Big John the black bouncer, what can he say? Cuz she’s black as well! I’m not a racist. And this proves it!”

 

You can hear people rationalizing it in this way. People in the Conservative Party voted her as their leader because they thought it would finally put to bed Left-wing accusations of racism. Because fundamentally people are far more concerned with the feelings of their non-White friend than they are about any notion of saving their own race! And this is the problem that we have.

 

And I’ve got to say this, I’m as sickened by this as I could be! I’m sat here, beads of sweat dripping down my brow. And I can tell you it annoys me more than anything to think that my fellow White Britons are more likely to vote for a black woman who describes herself as a first generation migrant than they are a White man who openly talks about demographics, because they’re so scared of the accusation of racism. It annoys me, it riles me, it sickens me, makes me want to puke my guts up! But the fact is its true! And that’s the sad thing.

 

I mean, you know this as well as I do, David, the Left know that because of the demographic shifts it’s very unlikely that a single anti-immigration party would now be able to get over 50% of the popular vote.

 

David Clews: Yeah.

 

Mark Collett: And in fact no party post Second World War has ever got over 50% of the popular vote.

 

So if you know, one party was to take now 50% of the White British vote, that would firstly be unprecedented, it would be an all time high.

 

But secondly it would only result in 35% of the vote share because what we’ve been reduced to, we’re in a bad place now! And part of it is this suicidal empathy, this cycle of self hate and shame that Whites are caught up in!

 

David Clews: But there are positives from it. And I know this is going to be a bitter pill to swallow. This is the other thing and I’ve really come to this. We can’t hitch our bandwagon to talk TV, GB News, the Sun, etc. Because they are taking us up a dead end.

 

The reality is, with the growth of like extreme Leftism, there actually comes opportunities for us. And the one I’m going to give you is Mamdani in New York. Now clearly I don’t like Zoran Mamdani, I don’t like his politics.

 

However, he is anti-zionist! He’s not anti-jewish, but he’s anti-zionist. He calls out big business and wealth inequality. And you know what? He got all his three candidates in the elections to be the candidates through. And that is a huge winning formula. And [Nick] Fuentes, I listen to Fuente’s speech and again I know there’s a lot of problems with Fuentes, but he made a brilliant point. He sees a Left-wing populist coalition emerging in America because people just want to stick it to the man, they’re sick of it! They’re sick of seeing these billionaires, they’re sick of seeing the fact that they’re struggling.

 

I mean I read a thing Warren Balogh posted that millions and millions of Americans have now lost their SNAP payments. SNAP is a system that gives you money towards food vouchers. And it’s particularly White Americans that have lost their SNAP programs. So there’s millions of Americans out there who are White have lost their programme that helped them pay towards their bills while they’re struggling. And that’s gone. And this is where there really is this cataclysm coming because from a demographic and an open borders thing, the worst thing that could happen is these people come in.

 

But on the other hand it’s a good thing because they’re challenging international capital, international finance. Because the fundamental is, if you look at our perhaps politics as a mixture of elements of nationalism, elements of socialism. Did I say it? It is a Third Position. And you recognise that without a system that cares for its people and looks after its people, they’re going to be led like lambs to the slaughter.

 

And I just wonder with a lot of people when it comes to voting, they’ll be like:

 

“Look, I know the country’s fucked! I know there’s darkies everywhere, but you know what? See if I can have a few Bob in my pocket, at least I can jump on that plane. I can get on the cheap, I can get to Luton and get over to Benidorm, or I can go and I can still live my life.”

 

And I think that is the other problem is, especially with re-migration and putting the country first. People are selfish and narcissistic. As you pointed out. It’s horrible, but it isn’t really their fault. That’s the system. They’ve been told to be selfish, narcissistic, to look after themselves first! That’s a tough sell to them, that they’re going to get poorer, but the country’s going to be better,

 

[46:08]

 

Mark Collett: I think as well. Like you just said, there is this issue, isn’t there, that fundamentally people are also selfish. They’re cowardly, they’re selfish and when it comes down to it, they gravitate back to what they know. They want stability, they don’t want to rock the boat. Fundamentally, British people don’t like rocking the boat!

 

David Clews: They’re very conservative! That’s the thing. See, this is the thing people don’t realise. They go on about how women, White liberal women, they’re just voting to maintain the system. They’re showing the true innate conservatism. The system is open borders, love of foreigners. Women are just doing what the system tells them to do!

 

And that’s the thing, it does show an innate conservativeness that exists in Britain. It’s like people get annoyed when they say:

 

“Yeah, my granddad voted Labour, my dad voted Labour and I voted Labour!”

 

That’s actually quite, in some ways it’s so annoying, but it’s also like there is also something wholesome about that they’re carrying on that family tradition. Mark, just to say one thing, I’ve got a clip there that you might want to play. It’s with Rupert Lowe.

 

Mark Collett: It doesn’t have any [word unclear] or swearing?

 

David Clews: No. Do you want to put it on and I’ll play it so this is Rupert Lowe and his latest podcast, Patrick Bet-David.

 

Now, again, let me just clarify a few things about Lowe. Lowe went on a podcast with Eric Weinstein, whose brother is Bret Weinstein, the guy who gave the middle finger to the Arch of Titus, because he’s jewish and they hated what [chuckling] was done 2,000 years ago! Rupert Lowe’s now on with Patrick Bet-David. Patrick Bet-David is an Iranian exilist. Massive ZOG shill! Pushes, crypto scams.

 

Anyway, this is a statement Rupert Lowe’s made. He said in the previous podcast with Bret Weinstein that he detested ethno-nationalism. This is his latest:

 

“Lowe: Has Muslim worship at Windsor and things. I mean, he’s certainly very keen to propagate a multicultural society, which again, I have no problem with if people integrate. And they accept the prevailing laws and culture of the people they come and live amongst.”

 

David Clews: ‘I have no problem with a multicultural society as long as they integrate’.

 

Mark Collett: Do you know what, David, I gotta say this. I’m starting to feel that there’s two different Rupert Lowes. There’s Rupert Lowe, who is the real Rupert Lowe, and then there is somebody operating Rupert Lowe’s Twitter pretending to be Rupert Lowe.

 

And I think we’ve got somebody operating that Twitter who puts together snappily written, almost ethno-nationalist tweets as kind of rage bait, you know, Right-wing air punching slop. And then effectively Rupert doesn’t actually know what’s going up there. Because everything that Rupert says when he’s in an interview, whether it’s with Eric Weinstein, whether it’s with Michael Gove, it doesn’t matter. He says something which is very different to what his Twitter account would have you believe, he thinks.

 

So on one hand you have him saying:

 

“There’s far more to being British than just a passport!”

 

And everyone goes berserk.

 

But then he’ll start talking about the need for a meritocracy, the need for colour-blind immigration, the need for skilled migrants abroad, or he’ll start talking about his pride in the fact that his son has married a North African Muslim. And it’s kind of strange because you see these ethno-nationalists on Twitter sort of cheering him on. But they’re the same people that would be saying that his son’s spouse should be deported!

 

[50:20]

 

David Clews: Well, [chuckling] they were very quiet. Well, I can actually tell you who runs his Twitter account. It’s a guy actually called Alistair Harrison. And I need to do a bit more digging into him, but he runs, it’s called a communication company called Alistair Harrison Communications.

 

So there’s been a few people that have talked about him. Apparently he’s been involved in business with Rupert Lowe for quite some time. He’s helped him with PR. Obviously, this guy has a very, … He was the guy., … I don’t know if you saw the clip where the Restore candidate, the Telegraph, asked if they could have an interview with him. And he said no. He’s basically Rupert Lowe’s handler. And this guy clearly is a very effective communicator. He has certainly done it.

 

But more and more people are actually, … And this was always my point. Rupert Lowe is a neo-liberal, Thatcherite, Tory! I mean, his age will make him like that, his background will make him like that’s just who he is.

 

And I think that the thing that bugged me the most about it was if people had just said:

 

“Look, clearly we’re not going to do anything with Reform. Let’s just see what we can do with Restore. Let’s get our people in. Let’s see what we can do.”

 

I would have been all right with that. The thing that got my back up was people saying that:

 

“Rupert is our leader. Don’t you dare counter signal them. This is it. This is our last chance!”

 

And that’s why I think I’ve been so aggressive over the last few weeks and months against people, is the way in which it was artificially implanted into people’s minds about Restore.

 

And again, I use the relationship analogy. If you meet a girl on a night out and you go back home with her and you have amazing, like, you know what happens and it’s all great. But then a few weeks later, you’ll be like:

 

“She does that [chuckling] on the first date? She does that?”

 

You know what I mean? And then:

 

“All right, okay, she’s want to go out with her friends!”

 

It’s the same scenario. Good relationships, like our relationship, you know, at the start, we were actually quite prickly with each other and were quite combative. But then a friendship developed, and that is a much more strong grounding for something, rather than just immediately going all in. Because I use the analogy with Restore. It’s like a crypto pump and dump! It went straight up, it boomed! And the problem is, see, when you go vertical like that, what goes up must come down.

 

Mark Collett: Yeah. I mean, at this point, I think people need to really assess what’s going on here. And I think people really need to look at this and ask, honestly, if any other politician was saying these two different things. If their Twitter was saying one thing, but every interview they said another, would they be trusting them?

 

David Clews: No!

 

Mark Collett: Look, I want to move on to something slightly different now and I’ve had numerous takes on this and I want to play this. I’m going to play a little video file here. And I want to see what people think, because a lot of people agreed with me on this, but some people didn’t. And it’s a group of girls, I believe, in Rotherham, of all places, being attacked by the police. So I’m going to play this.

 

[Start of clip]

Yo, yo, yo! What’s he doing? Yo, was he mad? Why is she squaring up to him? Yo, he’s got the baton!

 

Yo! What they doing?

 

[End of clip]

 

[54:27]

 

So this was during the rounds of the day and I’ve posted this. Now, I want to give my initial impression on this. So it’s clear there that these girls were getting mouthy and the girls are about 14 or 15. They look maybe a bit older. I think actually there might be around 16. And I say that because I’ve been told it’s a school leavers event, that they’ve done the GCSEs or they’ve got to the end of the year and it was a school prom or leavers event.

 

Now, I watched that twice. And I noticed two things. First was the girls may have been mouthy, but the police officer, the primary officer there, was the first person to make physical contact. He started pushing the girls. He then drew his baton and struck at least one girl with the baton. Several of the girls were bundled onto the floor and the officer that backed him up then drew a Taser and started pointing it at people.

 

Now, the first thing I’ve got to ask, or state, and this disgusted me because there was a number of people in my chat saying:

 

“The girls somehow deserved it because they weren’t dressed traditionally and they were being too mouthy to men in authority.”

 

And to people who think like that, if I met you in real life, I’d be a lot ruder to you than I would be on this stream, because I keep the stream pretty PG. But what I saw there was the police treating White girls in a way that they wouldn’t treat any other ethnic group.

 

Now, if they were black girls doing that, firstly, do you think the police would have started by throwing the first punch?

 

Secondly, do you think the police would have got the batons out?

 

Thirdly, do you think the girls would have been [word unclear] and would have been bundled over on the floor?

 

And finally, do you think a police officer would have dared to draw a Taser and threaten them? The answers are no, no, no, and no!

 

And finally, do you think the mainstream media would have ignored this case? If this had been black girls, this would have been the front page of every paper. It would have been on every news channel. Starmer’s final act as Prime Minister would have been to take the knee. And the country wouldn’t just be hot because it was unseasonally warm. Britain would be on fire right now if White police officers had done that to black girls. And I can’t understand why anybody who calls themselves a nationalist would turn around and say:

 

“Well, the police did the right thing, mate. They gave those rowdy girls a slap!”

 

If you think that basically F off! Simply, I don’t really want, … I don’t understand how we can be a hundred thousand girls deep into a Pakistani Muslim grooming scandal that the police covered up, and now we’re shilling for the police beating White girls!

 

David Clews: I agree, I agree, I agree!

 

I mean, look, the first thing I looked at is, you see these young girls, they’re young, should they be dressed like that? No, but they are. You know, that’s just at the end of the day we don’t have a morality police, yet. So it is what it is.

 

But again, when I see young girls dress like that or being like that and they’re drunk, they can get away with that in a homogenous society. Not now. And fathers, uncles, grandparents have a duty to speak to young girls and say:

 

“Look, girls, it’s not safe for you out there. There’s a lot of horrible, nasty people!”

 

But I agree entirely. The police were disgusting in that instance! They had no right to attack those girls the way they did. And it’s just utterly, utterly filthy!

 

But that is the police now, and that’s the way they are with Whites. And they behave like that and they’re disgusting! And it could have been de-escalated. But the cops never want to de-escalate that. I mean, they’re just thugs a lot of the time.

 

Mark Collett: And it’s not just that, David. Like, so, right, You’re a big guy. You’re a lot taller than me, aren’t you?

 

David Clews: Reasonably. I don’t know. What height are you?

 

Mark Collett: I’m 5’ 10. What are you?

 

David Clews: 6’ 1.

 

Mark Collett: So like if you squared up to me and you’d had a few beers and you started shouting in my face and I held both my palms out and pushed you back to create distance. I don’t think that would be an unfair response if somebody of your size was acting in a threatening way to somebody of my size after having a few beers. Now, if I saw a 15 or 16 year old girl in a mini dress out for a school leavers prom and she shouted something at me like:

 

“Oh! Aren’t you that old racist guy that used to be in the BNP?”

 

And I ran across the street and palmed her in the chest and knocked her flying, that’d be a ridiculous response because they’re girls. And I kind of, I’m not this sort of like White knight guy that thinks that women should never get their comeuppance if they’re acting horrendously.

 

But I don’t think I could go up to a girl like that and floor her for just being a little bit mouthy. I’d be like:

 

“Come on girls, calm it down a little bit. I know it’s a big night for you but you know there are sort of ways you’ve got to behave.”

 

But there was no de-escalation, was there? The police were so happy to beat White girls!

 

And I always remember the sight of those disgusting pigs down Westminster taking the knee for Black Lives Matter after George Fentanyl Floyd died.

 

And I think to myself:

 

“They’d take the knee for the blacks. But if it’s White girls enjoying a leavers prom, …”

 

I don’t care what the girls are wearing. Look, the problem is if these were outliers, if 90% of White girls were wearing your trad dresses and these were the outliers and they were behaving in a particularly awful way. I could maybe say:

 

“Well, maybe they did deserve being treated a little bit harsher.”

 

But this is, unfortunately it’s the norm now. Now those kind of dresses, those kind of things for working class British girls are the norm.

 

[1:01:08]

 

But again they’re dressing what they see on the television. I mean again they watch Love Island, they watch TikTok, that’s all. I mean again we could have them in nice long dresses and a nice crisp white shirt with an armband on within a few weeks if you control the mainstream media, if you control the methods of communication. [chuckling] But and a lot of the time it is just quite harmless. I understand where people are coming from, but I don’t think when they get dressed like that as well:

 

“I’m going to push back against the Patriarchy!”

 

What’s her name? Who’s that? Tommy Fury married to the girl. I can’t even remember her name. Annie May or whatever she is, she wears that.

 

Mark Collett: Molly-Mae Hague.

 

David Clews: Molly-Mae Hague wears that outfit. So I’m going like Molly-Mae Hague. That’s it! Just there’s a lot of shallowness out there.

 

And again though, it is still this one though, like this isn’t a famous thing. You know my critique of girls when they go out is getting excessively drunk and going to places where there is ethnic minorities and letting your guard down. That’s my critique. And men, and also fathers and families allowing that. Because again, let me give you an example. Or you know, in like Europe you have like nude spas and stuff like that. Are men out raping the girls there? No, of course not. Because it’s a high trust White society. What you wear and what you have on, … You imagine like naked girls around Africans, what they would be doing.

 

There was a video earlier like an African wanking himself off on the beach. These people have IQs of like 60 or 70! They’re like a dog on heat. And that’s what I think you need to get across to people is:

 

“Look, girls, you can’t be like that in this society with these animals. And you need to not let your guard down with them because they’re scum and they’ll take advantage of you!”

 

And that’s the only thing I think we should really be pushing at this time.

 

Mark Collett: Well, the other thing is I’ve got to say this as well. Those girls, I understand the:

 

“Oh, they’re wearing these dresses, it’s scandalous!”

 

But I’ll tell you something, they’re the kind of working class girls who will all have three kids by the age of 24!

 

David Clews: Yeah, true.

 

Mark Collett: I can tell you this now. I’ve seen a number of these kind of like more middle class, more traditional looking women and they’re the ones, one kid at most! Don’t knock those girls don’t knock White working class girls. I live in a very working class former mining area and there are working class women in my area that have got over 10 White children! Now they might not be able to articulate themselves as well as the middle class girls, but their genetics will carry on. [chuckling] That’s something that we need to talk about.

 

David Clews: Yeah, I mean one of the things as well, like I think, and it isn’t a conversation for today, but in the long term, I think the way in which men and women have been, … I mean I don’t actually think in general, I think men and women should be educated separately. I do believe that, …

 

Mark Collett: I was! I went to an all boys school.

 

[1:04:50]

 

David Clews: So did I think the sexes should be separated from a young age.

 

And I also do believe that boys should do boy things and ghetto should do ghetto things because they actually rub off badly on each other. Men become more feminised and women become more sexualised and masculinised when they’re around men. And that was the thing as well, even in the workplace as well. Just a culture of it. Feminism is clearly a policy that has been pushed. And the society in its true essence of itself is Patriarchal. And you do need to get back to that.

 

And again, you look at an incident like that, the police are scum, but these are wider symptoms of societal breakdown. And it was the same with the rape gangs as well, is that you have to talk about the way in which families broke down. The way in which again, if this would happen. Well, it did start happening. But if you think about 100 years ago, a foreigner came into an area and started bribing young girls. A group of lads, a group of men would have got together and they would have gone and they would have got them and they would have dealt with them. It just wouldn’t have happened! They wouldn’t have got away with it.

 

And the rape gangs have happened in that absence of masculinity that you don’t have men and you don’t have organised men in areas that are able to come together and fight. That’s the biggest problem we have is we are so atomized in our existences. There just, there isn’t that togetherness that we once had in areas.

 

Mark Collett: I completely agree! I completely agree! Now we are in the second half of the show now and we’re going to do the Superchats in a minute.

 

So if you want a Superchat, please do help me as much as you can. Please do consider making some kind of contribution to the show. It’d be very much appreciated. I would very much appreciate it. So if you can, please do help.

 

Now, there is one brief thing I wanted to talk about because people have been mentioning it in the chat and I was gonna schedule this. If the Starmer-Burnham thing hadn’t happened, I was gonna put a big picture of a crocodile on the thumbnail because there’s been a lot of people talking about the fact that a young boy was thrown in a crocodile pit at a zoo. And people in the chat are saying:

 

“Have we seen the perpetrator yet? Who was the perpetrator?”

 

Well, the BBC have revealed that he was White. Now, what the BBC have also revealed is that he’s heavily disabled, extremely strong, and was able to break away from his two carers, physically overpower people in the zoo, pick up a child and hurl this child into the crocodile pit. And you’ve also got to ask. I mean, I know this isn’t really somewhere where we go, but what a horrific thing to happen!

 

And this is all, again, down to liberalisation. Care in the community. Every single institution that existed to corral and institutionalise these dangerous, for want of a better word, retards has now been closed down. These people now live among us. There is this thing called “care in the community”. They go to the same schools as our children. And this isn’t an isolated thing. It wasn’t long ago. I can’t remember which particular art gallery it was.

 

David Clews: The Tate Modern, down in London. Another, he threw the kid off the, …

 

Mark Collett: Another retard picked up a kid and hurled him off the roof!

 

David Clews: It was a French kid.

 

Mark Collett: You’ve got these fully grown men that seem to have this unnatural strength, but they’ve got the brain, …

 

David Clews: Yeah.

 

Mark Collett: They’ve got the brain of a child and the impulse control of I don’t know, a drunken animal. And basically, this is incredibly dangerous! ! And I don’t know, I was talking to a few people about this and I was saying, it just seems like everything is sort of coming to a head from every level. And if you’ve got kids, it’s not just the Pakistani rape gangs, it’s not just your low IQ, African migrants who can’t control their urges. It’s also the fact that. [chuckling] Sorry, somebody in the chat has just said something so funny. Sorry, I couldn’t, … I’m usually gonna put in the chat. “Mongo strength”. That’s what they’ve said.

 

David Clews: But again, though, these people do have extraordinary, … The guy, see, if you actually look at the guy that did it. It was a guy called John Bravery was his name. And the guy has got a neck like a fucking wrestler! Like in the Mongol neck and he’s like, …

 

Mark Collett: He’s like Brock Lesnar, but with a tenth of the IQ and you’re in real trouble!

 

David Clews: But the thing is, as well, like, again, though, here is the thing now, if you saw a child like that and screaming there or anything, and he had a history of violent behaviour, this guy. He had a history of doing these things before, John Bravery. And it didn’t actually come as a shock, and he deliberately targeted that child. But, this is the thing. You’re constantly told that everyone is good at heart. That’s just not true! You should be racially profiling. You should be [chuckling] profiling everyone and trying to understand that. Someone makes a good point as well. Who were the carers?

 

So that’s the other thing is, as well. How many Africans do you see as the carer? And it’s some big fat African woman, and she’s on her fucking phone or she’s got a melon on her head. You know, that’s what all these carers are like now. There he is.

 

 

Mark Collett: I mean, his neck is as wide as his head! [chuckling] I mean, that’s not from training or steroids!

 

[1:11:06]

 

David Clews: He would kick the shit out of you and me with one hand at the same time!

 

Mark Collett: Yeah, he’d be eating his goyslop, one hand full of goyslop, gobbling away as he literally beat both of us down into the curb!

 

David Clews: But that’s the other thing is, as well. Like, you see with a lot of kids who have mental health problems, they give them so many sugary drinks. They give them utterly shite food! They have them on, like, iPads all the time. Honestly, it’s absolutely horrific! It is just a horrific culture. And again, it’s Africans!

 

I mean, that’s the thing. I hate seeing, like, these Africans out. And that’s such an awful thing! Mark, I’m just gonna go top up my milk, if that’s all right?

 

Mark Collett: You can do that. I mean, really, from my point of view as a dad, hearing about these things actually does scare me! And I’ve got to say somebody of that physical strength and development, you know, allowed to walk amongst children, allowed off the leash by his carers. I mean, it is terrifying!

 

And I just think if that was my son that had been yoinked up and hurled into the crocodile enclosure as some low IQ, one of a better word, retard, was howling and making guttural noises, thinking it was all a game, you know, who could you blame but you? You know what’s going to happen. You know what’s going to happen, don’t you?

 

The response to this won’t be that these people need to be sectioned or they need to be kept away from children. The response will be:

 

“Why weren’t the crocodiles in a glass enclosure? Why wasn’t the wall too high for the mong to hurl the child over? Why wasn’t there more adequate barricades?”

 

There’s not going to be a change, a positive change. Somehow safeguarding and the height of the walls at the zoo will be to blame.

 

And I’ve got to say I think there’s going to be more of this. I think this is a frightening development. This is a genuine political point. I think there’s going to be more of this as well. I think this is going to be another problem that’s going to get worse as this country slides into this dysgenic whirlpool of slop nonsense and ill breeding!

 

David Clews: Backs to the wall in the underground. See if I’m ever anywhere with my kids and it’s like the train or anything like that, stand next to the wall and keep them away. I’ve seen loads of videos, especially foreigners that just, … See the thing is its like we all have crazy thoughts. You know, I’m sure everyone listening to this, you have these daft thoughts about doing daft things. But they actually say that it comes from when we were hunter gatherers, you had these crazy thoughts so that you were always on alert in case like a bear ran out and tore you apart. So sometimes you have these crazy thoughts.

 

Low IQ people especially like low IQ Africans are Indians. They will act on that thought that comes into their head! And there’s been numerous instances of them pushing people onto train tracks, pushing them! This like never relax, never ever relax around blacks! You know, the phrase exists for a reason.

 

 

[1:14:47]

 

Mark Collett: Look, when I’m out with the kids and we’re out in a park, or a play place, or a soft play or something like that, and you see one of those big sort of like 14, 15 years old and he’s wearing a nappy and he’s wheeled in there by his two carers and he’s going wild on the soft play equipment near your sort of 15 month old and 6 year old! I’m the dad that’s like:

 

“We’re gonna have our snacks now or we’re going to the slide at the very other end of the play place because it is a worry.”

 

And the worst thing is when they come and start petting other children or touching other children. The social pressure now is to interact and let it go on and not say anything because if you say:

 

“I don’t want this strange, weird looking, you know much bigger and stronger kid touching my kid!”

 

You’re the bad guy because you’re not understanding it. It’s awful!

 

David Clews: Remember Emily Jones? Remember the wee girl, seven years old and she was out and she was on her scooter, some absolute lunatic. Let me try and remember her name. It was Albanian [word unclear] She was just a nut job. She was a psychopath. She nearly took the head off that wee girl. She’s scootering. She got a wee bit further away. This lunatic just appears and slits her throat and nearly takes her head off.

 

I mean, again, statistically, the chances of that happening, but you know, it’s just awful! Awful because there are a lot of nut jobs out there.

 

Mark Collett: There are. And I think it’s only going to get worse. I think that again, the societal pressure is clear. If you sidestep the migrant gang, if you sidestep the mad black guy shouting wildly in the street, if you tell your kids, don’t go near that big guy who’s making those really guttural weird roars as he punches the soft play equipment.

 

There is this pressure from these horrible liberal Whites:

 

“What are you doing? Why wouldn’t you let your kid go near John? What’s wrong with you? This is the rainbow play!”

 

And you’re like:

 

“What? No, no!”

 

You know, it’s like with these two horrible homosexuals. Jamie Varley and McGowan Zachary who murdered that wonderful baby, Preston Davy. And you’ve got people all over. I’m not on social media, but the wife told me, she said:

 

“That case is all over Instagram and all these influencers are saying, ‘Why are you saying that gays shouldn’t look after children?’”

 

Well, the first gay couple, the first, literally the very first as well, that were allowed to adopt in Britain, sexually abused their child! The first, not the second! Not one couple within the top 10, not a couple within the first hundred. Literally the first couple! The first couple that were hand picked to be the poster couple for adopting babies as a homosexual partnership chose a child so they could specifically abuse it. The first!

 

Anyway, let’s do the Superchats.

 

David Clews: Just a quick one on that. And it is so important everyone listening to this show. Look, we can’t provide you with a solution to these problems, okay? Because we’re not able to do that right now! But you are in control of yourself and you are in control of your families. And, just maybe thinking the worst is sometimes the best thing to do in these situations. Maybe just, you know what, cross to the other side of the fucking street! Like Irina Zatuska sitting on the train. And the next minute the animal, the Carmelo Anthony as well, the animal comes up and stabs! Just do what you need to do and think how you need to think. Just don’t put yourself in that situation and don’t be, please, naive.

 

And it’s the same with, if you’re dealing with the state or you’re dealing with the police, don’t think for a second, … Just always think the worst! And then if good things come out of it, then it’s a good place to be.

 

Mark Collett: And look, think of it like this. Imagine gambling your precious child’s life in order to make a liberal statement to others around you. Because that’s what it is! You are gambling the life of one of the most precious people to you in the world. The most precious if it’s an only child! And you’re gambling that to virtue signal to people around you that you will never see again. And that don’t mean anything to you know, imagine saying:

 

“Well, I didn’t pull my daughter back from the screaming black man on the train platform because I didn’t want the White London commuters to think I was racist. Now my daughter’s dead.”

 

And again, this goes back to the Burnham Badenoch, why Reform and Restore won’t win. It’s because Whites are this way programmed. White mothers would now rather virtue signal than priorit. Not all, but around 50% of White mums would rather virtue signal to people they don’t know, than they would ensure and prioritize the safety of their children. They would leave their children with a homosexual, with predatory homosexuals to prove to people on social media that they’re progressive and open minded! That’s how people are. Remember this, guys! And it’s people saying it’s women. It’s not just women. It’s men as well!

 

[1:21:01]

 

David Clews: Centrist dad. Centrist dads. There’s loads of centrist dads out there.

 

Mark Collett: You know, men are afflicted with this as much as women. I’ve made comments before and I’ve had men turn around and you’re like:

 

“You agree, right, mate? You can’t say that. What gives you the right to say that in a public place?”

 

David Clews: What?

 

Mark Collett: What are you talking to? But they will, they’ll. Men will square up to you over this in public.

 

David Clews: They will, they will. So just keep this, …

 

Mark Collett: There is a solution, David, and there’s only one solution. And it is that we get on the lifeboats and we separate ourselves from the toxic sludge that many Whites have become!

 

But look, we’ve got to do the Superchats because we’re running 20 minutes late. And look, I love running late on this show. It looks like I’m fully buttoned up, but I think there’s only about two buttons maintaining my modesty because I am sitting in a pool of, … I’ve got one of those cool pads. The wife bought me a cool pad and the cool pad is now about 32 degrees. It’s covered in sweat!

 

I mean, I would take T-shirt off, but it would be indecent.

 

And I’m not stripping for money. So there you go, guys.

 

Well, then again, maybe I would. Maybe for the right Superchat. If the Superchats total over a thousand dollars, I’ll take that. I’m only joking. I’m only joking.

 

Right, here are the Superchats and we’ve got an extreme, extremely generous Superchat to kick off with. It’s a guy called Nocasa Worries and he gave $300! Thank you so much for such a generous Superchat. He said:

 

“I always enjoy the “Mark was right” dance. Election analysis is our underrated stream. It takes guts to make big predictions publicly.”

 

Well, look, thank you so much for such a generous Superchat. That’s incredibly generous and thank you.

 

And also I want to say that I haven’t done the “I was right dance”. So I didn’t go too far. I wasn’t sort of I told you so too much. But thank you for pointing out it does take a lot. Look, I could have made very recently, I could have made a lot more money and a lot more social capital going to make a field, blogging it, shaking hands with everyone, having a picture with Rupert Lowe and riding the train. There was a lot of money to be made.

 

You know, the young Bobs of this world were out with their camera on a gimbal, monetizing every second of it. Every selfie that was there to be taken, every stunt to be partaken in, they were on board. I’m not that guy. If I think that something’s going to go wrong, I will say that and I’ll nail my colours to the mast! So thank you for such a generous, generous, Superchat.

 

But I’ve got to say this as well. Look, David’s the same. Me and David have both been hung out to dry over this. People were saying that we were clowns, we were talking rubbish! I had a guy and look, he’s a good guy. This guy’s a good guy. He’s in my chat, he supported me in the past and he was saying:

 

“What are you gonna say to me when Restore winning Makerfield?”

 

And it wasn’t. But we’re laughing. It wasn’t his fault.

 

David Clews: No!

 

Mark Collett: And I’ll tell you why it’s not his fault. Rupert was saying on the Saturday before:

 

“I honestly believe we’re gonna win this. People were built up to be knocked down.”

 

And I’ll tell you this, one of the most dangerous things you can do is predict victory on the eve of defeat. Because not only do you suffer the loss, but you suffer something far worse than a loss. Because a loss isn’t the end of the world.

 

[1:24:42]

 

David Clews: This is the point I tried to make. All these people who just went all in, I mean, they went all in. They basically, like think of it as a game of poker. They went all in on Restore. They’ve basically fucked themselves over! Because, see, when it all implodes, which it is going, … I mean, it’s even happening quicker than we, many of us thought.

 

And I don’t know if you saw yesterday, like Lotus Eaters did this Makerfield review and it was Benjamin sitting in a chair, it was a big leather thing and it was Charlie Downs and Connor Tomlinson. And I tweeted out about. I went pretty hard on it and then.

 

But the thing is, see, the comments, people were like genuinely, excuse my language, like:

 

“You fucking cunts! You were telling us they’re going to win that election and get 20% of the vote and they’re nowhere near it. And you’re sitting there and you’re just moaning!”

 

And this is what I actually said to people is:

 

“Look, see, if you go all in on this, you’re out there in the middle of the ocean on a life raft and there’s no one coming to rescue you. So just hedge your bet!”

 

Like that’s the sensible thing to do. Hedge your bet. Don’t get too taken in. And honestly, see the viciousness that Benjamin and these other people were getting. It was really ruthless because as I said, nobody likes to feel they’ve been conned. It’s that sinking feeling that you got.

 

And this is the other thing about emotions, the pendulum of an emotion. If you have a really intense emotion one way, which is joy and happiness, that emotion can then go the very far way. And it’s anger and rage! There’s no middle ground. And that’s what people are going to have towards all the influencers and everyone else who have, … I’ve really called this disgracefully wrong and used as an opportunity. That’s the thing as well. I see people now that the abuse that they’re getting and some of its pretty harsh, but they’re saying:

 

“You’re just up there and you’re getting your fucking photo taken and you’ve got your ‘buy me a coffee’ and everything.”

 

And again, I’m not against people. We ask for money on the Internet, but we do it from a position of reasonable honesty and principle. Like we’re not selling a turd wrapped in gold paper! Which is what these people are doing. If they’d have just played a bit more cool. And again I love my analogies. It’s like the ugly guy getting the stunner. It is! And you know what? We’re the ugly guys! The stunner, I mean, this is, in a political sense, the stunner shouldn’t be wanting anything to do with us. The only reason the stunner wants him to do with us is she wants something off of us. She wants her clout or she wants our money!

 

That’s what people need to realise that we are [chuckling] the scum of the Internet! You know, we are the dreaded far-Right! The dissidents! And frankly, we need to stay that way and remain pure from these people.

 

Mark Collett: Look, I want to say this as well. So Sagon, Carl Benjamin. I’m not saying. Well, I am. He’s thick! And the problem is he’s an idiot! 20% in a Parliamentary by-election would be huge for any party.

 

David Clews: Yep.

 

Mark Collett: But to predict that, when you’re up against Reform and you’re going in at what was looking like it was going to be a 45-45 split initially between Reform and Labour before Restore on the ballot paper is an idiotic thing! But this is because he’s never been in politics. The problem is, okay, and everyone says I’m a know it all, and I am.

 

But do you know the trick to being a know it all, David?

 

David Clews: Experience?

 

[1:29:00]

 

Mark Collett: No, you only ever! Yeah, you only ever talk about the things you know about!

 

So if you get me on a show and you ask me about nationalist politics, electoral strategy, Nintendo, how good giant cans of energy drink taste, maybe real life crime or American serial killers or things that I’ve taken an interest in, I will talk about them because I know about it, because it’s something I’m interested in. Or maybe if somebody invites me on a show and I’ve just watched a weird documentary on WWF Wrestling in the 90s or how Transformers dominated the toy market in the late 1980s, I’m like:

 

“Oh, that looks interesting. I’ll watch that.”

 

I might drop something in about something I’ve just watched. It’s because I know about it. But if you invited me on and started to talk to me about the economics of ballet during the 1800s, I wouldn’t say a word, because I don’t know anything about it.

 

And the problem with Carl is he talks about a lot of things that he knows nothing about, but he talks about it with an authoritative tone, as if these are like the big brain takes!

 

And I think the problem that he’s got is him and his gang of Lotus Eaters*. I didn’t even know what a lotus eater is, by the way! It’s the stupidest name for a podcast ever! You do better off calling yourself, you know, “four tits on a couch”. You know, it means nothing. It means nothing!

 

[* Lotus-Eater, in Greek mythology, one of a tribe encountered by the Greek hero Odysseus during his return to Ithaca from Troy, where the Greeks had been victorious in the Trojan War. Odysseus arrived in an unfamiliar land after a north wind had driven him and his men from Cape Malea (Homer, Odysee; Book IX). The local inhabitants, whose distinctive practice is indicated by their name, invited Odysseus’ scouts to eat of the mysterious plant. Those who did so were overcome by a blissful forgetfulness; they had to be dragged back to their ships and chained to the rowing-benches, or they would never have returned to their duties. Odysseus and his crew then sailed on to their next stop: The land of the Cyclopes, where they encountered Polyphemus. The 5th-century-BC historian Herodotus located the Lotus-Eaters on the Libyan coast. The ancient Greeks applied the name “Libya” generally to North Africa and the Tunisian island of Djerba is commonly identified as the land of the Lotus-Eaters. Alfred, Lord Tennyson brought the story to the modern world in his poem “The Lotos-Eaters” (1832). Source: https:// www.britannica.com/topic/Lotus-Eater]

 

But the fact is he doesn’t know what he’s talking about.

 

David Clews: No!

 

Mark Collett: That doesn’t mean he doesn’t know what he’s talking about at anything. But if you’re going in to talk about a small specialist topic, whether that be as I said:

 

“How transformers took over the toy market in the 1980s.”

 

And people make documentaries on these things, or whether you’re talking about the rise of nationalism in the late 1970s, you’ve got to be an expert. You can’t just fire from the hip. And Sargon’s just like:

 

“This is our time. Rupert Lowe is the first politician to engage with me since I killed, …”

 

David Clews: Gerard Batton’s career.

 

Mark Collett: Gerard Batton’s career!:

 

“So I better double down and tell everyone he’s gonna win! And look I was at UTK and I’m on X and everyone retweets me!”

 

But he’s just realised that that’s not actually what makes you a winner.

 

Now, unfortunately for Sargon and for a lot of people, I am the only person in Britain that was heavily involved in the three biggest power winning nationalist campaigns in history, Barking and Dagenham. 2006, I did the leaflets, I did the reminders, I worked on the campaign, GLA 2008, I did the booklet insert, I did the additional leaflets, I handed the leaflets out. And European Parliament 2008, I did every bit of publicity for that campaign. No one else can say that!

 

So that’s like my thing! But no one will talk to me because I’m the bad guy. But because it’s my thing, I predicted it. Carl’s never done it. Carl’s never done it. And that’s why he’s come unstuck.

 

David Clews: No, no. And again, when they were doing their canvassing, they said they primarily knocked on doors that had a Reform poster on them. And see, because people went there and they travelled from all around the UK, they weren’t actually canvassing properly. They were engaging in, … That’s what Hopium does. Hopium says that, …

 

Mark Collett: Engaging in a big circle jerk of confirmation bias!

 

David Clews: Correct, Correct! And they got it completely wrong.

 

And what’s going to happen to them in this Manchester election? They’re going to get absolutely slaughtered! And if they get less than 5% in that, which is a distinct possibility, or they get maybe between 5 and 10%, a lot of people are just going to turn around and say:

 

“What is happening here? What have you sold us?”

 

Mark Collett: If Restore were to get under 5%, it would be seen as catastrophically bad, for two reasons.

 

Firstly, they have a sitting MP. And secondly, they have a million pound war chest.

 

David Clews: More than that they have four or five million quid! So they raised about four or five, plus, you don’t know how much Musk might have given them.

 

Mark Collett: No, exactly!

 

Well, look, we’ll move on from this. Point gave $25 and said:

 

“Donation.”

 

Thank you so much! Gassings Never Happened, gave $14. Thank you so much! And said:

 

“Please, could David Showcase his talents and perform his lucky Larry Silverstein impression?”

 

David Clews: Well, [chuckling] yeah, you have to watch UNN for a Larry Silverstein impression, I’m afraid. That’s something that’s paywalled. I’m afraid on UNN to get a Lucky Larry. So it’s funny, I was thinking about Lucky Larry today. It just popped into my head. There’s an individual like that in the world. Just always makes me laugh, now cry as well.

 

But, yeah, he got very lucky, let’s just put it that way. [chuckling]

 

[Enter an IMAGE here]

 

[1:34:25]

 

Mark Collett: It Was Made Up gave $10. Thank you so much, and said:

 

“So how long do you give Burnham if he becomes PM? Can the country even be governed at this point? Seven leaders in a, seven prime ministers in a decade.”

 

Now you say, can it be governed? Of course it can. Labour have got a massive majority. They’ve got a larger mandate for ruling than the Conservatives ever did over their 14 year tenure. You have to remember that.

 

So it can absolutely be governed. And this slop that the Daily Mail pumps out that if you change leader, you have to call a general election. Well, the Tories didn’t call a general election every time they changed leader. You know, they had Cameron, May, Johnson, Truss and Sunak. It was a disaster!

 

Now, I’ll say this. Fundamentally, we are in a situation now where things are looking pretty grim from our point of view. But from a Parliamentary point of view, Labour have this unbelievable majority and that gives them a mandate.

 

And what’s more, they have a mandate because the press have given them a mandate. The media have talked up Burnham as the liberator, the King, the man of the north, coming down to free the people. They can’t do that and then say:

 

“Oh, but you have to hold a general election, mate!”

 

And people saying:

 

“We need a general election!”

 

You might be sorry about that! Because with the momentum Labour has at the moment, with Burnham coming back, if there was a general election tomorrow, let me tell you how it would work out. Labour would win, possibly a similar majority, the Tories would see a slight comeback and Restore and Reform would cancel each other out. And the First Past the Post system would effectively ensure that Restore and Reform probably wouldn’t win more than 10 seats in total together. The SNP would easily win in Scotland, Plaid would win in Wales and the Greens would probably gain a few extra seats. And you’d actually see a situation that could be worse than what we’ve got now.

 

Because if Labour did slide, it wouldn’t slide to the point where it didn’t hold power. It would slide to the point where it was the dominant force in a far-Left coalition where the concessions wouldn’t be made to a Restore or Reform. The concessions would be made to Zach Polanski or Jeremy Corbyn and Zara Sultana.

 

David Clews: Yeah, I think it will depend on what happens once Burnham takes over. I think if they see a bit of a boost in the polls, I wouldn’t be surprised if he did call a general election. He might not. He can wait.

 

I mean, that’s the thing. There is no constitutional requirement of a general election till 2029. None at all! He can come in, he can do the three years, years. But I think if they get a sniff that the polls have reversed, … Because this is the other thing that people have to realise, a poll is meaningless!

 

The only thing that matters is how you vote on the day. And the problem is that is Reform have lost two by-elections that they had to win if they were going to be able to form a government in the next general election. They got routed in Gorton and Denton and routed in Makerfield as well. And like the swingometer required for Reform to take all these seats off Labour, it’s incredible what would need to happen in order to do that.

 

And the other thing that people underestimate again is you have a huge payroll vote in Britain that relies on the NHS, the public sector, the trade union movement. You also you’ve got loads of liberals, you’ve got a lot of very liberal areas. These people will come together to destroy Nigel Farage. I mean, they think Nigel Farage is a Nazi! They think Nigel Farages is far-Right.

 

So this is the other problem for us. We all know Farage isn’t. They think he’s the nemesis. And you might, you find that in civic society, … The other bellwether I use is, I use like the John Sopel, Emily Maitland test. Now they’re like North London jews, they hate Nigel Farage! They can’t stand anything Nigel Farage represents because they understand that that Farage could be a stepping stone to something more dangerous. He could end up being like a Hindenburg figure. So they and the media will go out of their way to destroy Farage. And you got a taste of that over the 5 million donation. They will pump that into all the TV screens if there is a general election.

 

Mark Collett: And look, I’ve got a slight disagreement with you on this, mate, only minor. I don’t think Gorton and Denton was too bad for Reform and I’ll tell you why. The king makers there were the Pakistani Muslims. And we know that when they come out and vote, I think that they were about 22% of the constituency. So we know they were gonna basically at a 50% turnout. If all of them turned out, they get 44% off the bat and you know how much that changes things.

 

But I think the Makerfield one was the breaking point and I’ll tell you why. They’d won every seat in Makerfield.

 

David Clews: That’s true, that’s true.

 

[1:40:24]

 

Mark Collett: And that was failing to win! Failing to win a place with a sizable motivated ethnic minority, you know, sectarian voting group is not the worst thing ever! Failing to win that is not the worst thing ever! Failing to win possibly the most ethnically homogeneous seat in the working class part of the northwest, that’s pretty grim!

 

But anyway, look, we’ve got to move on because we want to get these done before we all melt. Snazzy candidate gave $8. Thank you so much! Said:

 

“Hi, David and Mark. We must remember invisibility of goodness. People always work hard to fight against a big evil. In this case, Keir Starmer, the public sighed relief. But ubiquity of the corrupt media disorganises them again.”

 

Well, thank you so much! The Resident Baker gave $5. Thank you so much! And said:

 

“Evening, Mark and David. A Collett and Clews double header is always great. Very salient point about the current environment for our daughters. We shouldn’t have to live this.”

 

Well, we both echo that. Autism is Unstoppable gave $10. Thank you so much! Said:

 

“Evening, Mark and David. I think one of the reasons relations between men and women have broken down in the last, 200 years is due to the lack of community preventing men and women from meeting naturally.”

 

David Clews: Yes, yes, yes!

 

Mark Collett: Well, I think there’s a lot of things. I think that’s true.

 

But I also think there’s feminism, there’s the divorce court and I think there’s a social pressure. At one point, like back in my parents day, having a divorce was so stigmatized it was unthinkable. Now having a divorce is what all the girls do when they want to reboot their lives because they think it’s trendy. You know, you have these people who’ve got three, four kids and they have a minor fallout over something and it’s “irreconcilable differences”. I think there’s a lot of reasons. But I do agree the normal natural community of going to the working men’s club on a Friday night for a dance and meeting somebody that going, has definitely hurt people.

 

David Clews: Yeah, it is. Internet dating, Tinder bars, all absolutely horrific! I always had really good relationships with ghettos I met at the gym. I always think the gym is the best place to meet women and I’ll tell you why. Because chances are they live geographically near you. Like long distance relationships really don’t work. I mean they sometimes do, but by and large you want to be seeing them.

 

Go to a gym and look, here’s a wee life hack. Go to yoga classes or go to things that are actually predominantly. There’s lots of women, you know, do your numbers. If you go to a class where there’s like 20 women and there’s only two guys and one of them is like a fag, you’ve got a much better chance, [chuckling] you know, than everyone else. And you know there are still good women out there. I mean, don’t be unsure about that there are still a lot of normal women out there and looking for nice guys. I always think go to the gym and meet them face to face. Online dating is just, it’s horrific because the problem is if she’s messaging you, there’s another hundred guys fucking liking her profile and ready to take you out.

 

Mark Collett: Yeah, agreed mate, agreed. Greeny from Oz97 gave two. Thanks so much, and he said:

 

“A lot of my dad’s Boomer friends have been getting behind Tommy recently and after listening to yourself I know he’s not genuine. What’s the best straightforward way to explain his cuckery?”

 

Well, simply explain to them that he is behind multiculturalism, just not Islam. And fundamentally he was supporting the very Sikh community that have supported Henry Novak’s killer! You know, the people up on stage, the Sikhs up on stage at Unite the Kingdom that Tommy endorsed went on stream and said that:

 

“They would defecate on Henry Novak’s grave.”

 

That tells you that Tommy is pushing the wrong people. He’s not pro-White, he’s just anti-Islam. He’s totally up for multiculturalism as long as it doesn’t include Islam. I don’t know what you’ve got to add to that, mate, but I think supporting the people who supported Henry Novak’s killer is just, …

 

David Clews: The thing is with Tommy Robinson is pure slop. Like, why do people go and eat food at McDonald’s? They know it’s shite for them, but they still do it. Why do people order a Deliveroo? They know it’s shite, but they still do it. I think in these situations you can’t waterboard them like as much as you want to! [chuckling] So you want to give them a slap. You just need to probably sow a few seeds of doubt. I mean, one of the ones would be as well, I mean, Tommy Robinson’s been doing this for 15 years. Has he ever achieved anything? He’s always going on about Israel and did you see what they did?

 

My advice in these situations is just plant seeds. And then, because usually when you argue with someone, if you tell them they’re a sicko and it gets their backup. Like say to them:

 

“Yeah, well, it’s good, they’re actually waking up to what’s going wrong.”

 

[1:45:48]

 

But I’ve got my concerns about Tommy. Just plant a few seeds.

 

Mark Collett: And do it in a pleasant way. Don’t belittle them too much. Say:

 

“Oh, but have you heard this?”

 

Anyway. Hazelnut 3000, gave $10. Thank you so much! Said:

 

“Thank you, Mark and David.”

 

Well, thank you to you. Baba2 gave $50. Thank you so much! Said:

 

“Intentionally White communities, that’s our future. Thank you for not stripping. My community is very White, higher income and safe. No apologies. Thank you so much!”

 

Dodzy04 gave $5. Thank you very much and said:

 

“Top lads. Mark, could you sell joining PA from the Steel City mate? I’m on the fence.”

 

Look, join PA if you want. If you want to be part of a pro-White community that is a community, advocates for our rights and takes part in activism, join PA! If that’s not your bag, don’t join PA.

 

But look, there’s only one group in Britain that has consistently raised money, openly and transparently, then given away 100% of the money after payment processing fees to the families of political prisoners. That’s PA!

 

Now, the thing is that annoys me and this does annoy me. I’m not saying it annoys me with you specifically, but it does annoy me that people say:

 

“Why isn’t anyone backing the political prisoners?”

 

Well, we are and we’re giving their families money.

 

But when we do that, people then still don’t join. You know, if you want an advocacy group, join us. If you want a political party, go elsewhere. You know, there are lots of groups out there. But if advocacy and community building is your thing and specifically if helping the families of anti-White two tier justice is high on your agenda, there’s only PA that does that.

 

David Clews: I think if you’re a young White man, you do have to hang about with other White men. I’ve managed to get to a PA conference and it was good people. And if you’re meeting up locally, you want to be involved with people who you think like. Just don’t be ashamed of it. You are who you are. You have the worldview that you have. Just be with people that you can get on with and you’ll feel better for it. It’s a bit like hanging around with White people or people that are like you. It just natural. Just do what is natural.

 

Mark Collett: Agreed. Jez9999 gave a dollar. Thank you so much, and said:

 

“Sorry if this seems like a basic question but if Lowe hates ethno-nationalism, what’s the point of him? He wants people to integrate but so do Reform. Should we just vote Reform or ignore British politics altogether?”

 

Look, if you read my article, and it’s free on Substack, I’ve got a massive Substack now please go and read my latest article on why the Conservatives are worse than Labour and why they must be destroyed. It’s up there, it’s free, it’s linked in the chat. Please go and support my Substack. You don’t have to give me a financial contribution like many people ask for. It’s all free. But if you want to, that does help.

 

But my latest article it’s explains the only organisation to have ever defeated anti-immigration parties in the UK is the Conservatives. It’s never been the far-Left, it’s never been Hope Not Hate, it’s never been Labour, it’s always been Thatcher, Cameron, Johnson. The Conservative Party is the one that we have to destroy! And I’ll always say this, if there is a better way to beat the Conservatives, tell me. But at the moment the only party that has managed to effectively beat them is Reform. And nowRestore are causing a split that makes that less likely. I’m not endorsing Reform as an end, but I’m endorsing them as a wrecking ball that could be a means to an end. I’ve explained this to you personally, my friend, because I know who you are and we spend time together in the real world. But that’s the only way for forward.

 

[1:49:56]

 

David Clews: I keep saying that people say to me that I shill for Reform. There’s actually been, I was calling out Reform years ago, talking about their funding, talking about like Nick Candy and all these people, Zia Yosuf. But look, you have to be realistic if you believe in a political solution.

 

I mean, I don’t believe in a political solution, but if you do believe in your vote and you want to vote, they are the only show in town. The problem, what was happened now with Restore, they’ve poisoned the well. The well is poisoned! And with Burnham coming back and the full force of the media behind them like it’s bleak now! There is not really a vehicle now for us to attack either Labour or the Tories. And in some ways it will be good because there will be a purge and we will go back to our natural state of being dissidents against the system in its entirety.

 

So there are positives potentially here.

 

Mark Collett: Agreed. Greenie from Oz97 gave another five. Thank you so much! Said:

 

“Would love to see you guys review Bridge on the River Kwai, Lawrence of Arabia as a movie review? Some awesome British Empire history as an Aussie, it’s cool to see the motherland when it was at the peak of its might.”

 

Look, we’ve done a few of these. We’ve done Zulu and Zulu Dawn. I’d be happy to review these for you. No problem. We’re reviewing Citizen Vigilante on Sunday. Iggs 22 gave $5. Thank you so much! Said:

 

“Mark and David. Prisoners cost around 800 pounds per week. Now thoughts on bringing back hard labour, certain agricultural jobs and digging trenches for power lines or whatever.”

 

Look, when it comes down to it, I was watching something the other day about a convicted child killer in Wakefield Prison and three people walked into his cell and stabbed him to death. And at first I was like:

 

“Well, why are people celebrating this?”

 

Surely, yeah, a child killer has been killed. But one of the guys that killed the child killer killed a 24 year old woman and he’s hidden her body and he’s refusing to tell her parents where the body’s hidden.

 

Yet people are now praising him online. Like, okay, the child killer might be marginally worse in the prison hierarchy, but killing a 24 old woman and not giving her parents the closure of being able to bury her remains is not far off. And I was thinking about this and thinking, well they’ve all got these full life tariffs. On one hand I do think it’s probably more of a punishment to keep them in jail for the rest of their lives.

 

But on the other hand some of them clearly enjoy being in jail! Form a community and you know, roll with it as if they’re heroes in there because they’re notorious. They’re stabbing people they don’t like. They going to the gym, they’re still out exercising, they don’t have to worry about paying the bills and keeping the heating on. I did think to myself, with all these people on full life tariffs, why not just take them out? Bit of scrub land, firing squad, it’s over and done with. It would save us an awful lot of money, hassle. And let’s face it, if you have murdered children, if you have abused babies, if you have murdered young women and hidden their bodies and refused to tell the parents, what real service do you give to society?

 

David Clews: I was just doing a wee look there about the what the number of prisoners are. They’re currently 86,000 people in prison in England and Wales.

 

Mark Collett: That’s bigger than the army!

 

David Clews: Yeah.

 

Mark Collett: Yeah. That’s bigger.

 

David Clews: 34% are because of violence against someone. Sexual offence is 23%, drug offence is 13% theft 10 to 12% robbery 7% possession of weapons 7%, criminal damage, public order.

 

So it’s like on a statistical basis the amount of people in prison for murder is probably tiny, maybe like a few hundred people Max over it. Well it’ll be thousands over the years.

 

So the thing is as well there is a problem with habitual drug offenders and then see all the people that are in for violence, it’ll all be drinking, drug related violence as well. So these people, a lot of them, they are just a product of the culture of the system, which is goyslop! And [chuckling] which is liberalism.

 

And this is where I’m actually a wee bit different. Like I don’t go for the whole hang them and flog them. These are people who are probably victims of the system. Who if the system was better and say you had traditional industry like steel works or manufacturing, they probably wouldn’t have turned to life a crime and drugs. That’s where if we could get things together. But again if you kill a child, rape a child, rape someone, like those gays, they should just be taken into the public square and be burned to death. There is no rehabilitation for people that have done that.

 

But I do think there is a wider argument to be had about why men are doing that and if there is something that could be done to rehabilitate them and get them back on, rather than just shoving them in prison because then they meet fellow criminals. How many men have gone to prison and then their girlfriends left them or their wife’s left them and their life’s ruined after that and then they turn to more crime. There needs to be, I think there needs to be a fundamental analysis of how we can get people back living full, healthy, happy lives and not just the whole “they’re scum!” They’re just people that have gone the wrong way in life.

 

[1:55:57]

 

Mark Collett: Interesting perspective. I look, I think some people can be helped but I think your full life tariff people might as well just be, …

 

David Clews: Yeah they should. You just need to deal with them. A firing squad would be sufficient.

 

Mark Collett: DodZ04 gave $5. Thank you so much! Said:

 

“Another five for the solid answer about joining PA mate. Will join over the weekend.”

 

Well thank you so much! Would be good to see you at events. And Hedgehogs 82 gave $5. Thank you so much! Said:

 

“Mark, why did you fall out with Alec Yerbury?”

 

We’re not getting back into Alec Yerbury! [David laughing] If it’s anyone’s fault, it’s David’s because David arranged a debate and the debate was more than humiliating for Alec, and ever since then he has probably rightfully so hated me with all his might, with all his little might.

 

But it’s basically I don’t hate the guy, I just think he’s a clown because he’s wasting his own time and everyone else’s.

 

David Clews: You know I think deep down Alex still really likes you and has a lot of respect for you deep down, and he won’t admit that but I think he still does. I like Alec. And I mean I know a lot of people don’t. But his analysis of the problems are correct but his solution is wrong as well. And clearly the NRP are providing a genuine third party and there’s good people involved in it but you know, will it go? I mean Alec thinks it’s going to take power. I disagree with that, I disagree with Alex analysis. But I think again he is a character. But I think he likes you deep down, Mark! And I think he probably feels bad about falling out with you.

 

Mark Collett: Maybe. Maybe. Look, like one thing about Alec that I’ve got to say, that really kind of disappoints me.

 

But it’s a disappointment with the movement. It’s a disappointment with the movement. And it’s that fundamentally we have a situation where people want to reinvent the wheel.

 

And I think one of Alex’s biggest problem problems is he thinks that if he comes into nationalism and tries to work it out all for himself and provide the answers, ultimately he’s going to do that, which he isn’t. And that’s not to be nasty. No one is. Nationalism has a long and complicated history.

 

And if you decide that you’re going to try and redo it all yourself and learn it all yourself and reinterpret it all yourself, you’re probably gonna come unstuck, which he has. I remember sitting at a meeting with him once, all around the big table, and he gave a very impassioned speech. And I’m gonna give him that. It was a very impassioned speech. He said:

 

“Look, we’re gonna do something no one’s ever done before. We’re gonna go to town after town, city after city. We’re gonna take a hundred men the first week, and a month down the line, it’ll be 300 men, and the public will see us. We will march through these places and our name will spread and we will grow. And we will build a large, dynamic political movement! And no one’s ever done this before. We are going to march and grow, he said, and I’m not going to have anything to do with any of you. I’m going to prove you’re wrong!”

 

And he collected his things and he stormed out of that meeting. And everyone looked at each other very uncomfortably. And a guy who was sat there, who was older than me and has been involved in this longer than me, turned to everyone and broke the silence by saying:

 

“Did he just describe the 1970s National Front March and Grow strategy?”

 

And everyone burst into laughter! Because his grand scheme had been tried and failed. And this is where if you’re gonna do something, do something new!

 

Now, no one has done what PA did, which is to be a community advocacy group.

 

Now, the Left have always had them, but the Right haven’t. Everyone’s tried March and Grow. Everyone’s tried another political party, and it’s why we do things differently.

 

But he didn’t want to accept that. And I think he’s gonna have to go through every phase of nationalism before he comes to the conclusion that they all were tried and failed for different reasons. And it’s sad.

 

[2:00:33]

 

David Clews: I would have had more respect for him if it was a Godfather 3 style situation. Remember when Joey Zaza, remember they have a meeting of all the, …

 

Mark Collett: I’ve never seen it. I’ve not seen number three.

 

David Clews: So that Joey Zaza comes in and he falls out with Michael and he leaves. The next thing, a helicopter appears with a machine gun and everybody gets shot.

 

I mean, if Yerbury was really serious, that’s what would have happened. All the nationalists would have been taken out at that point. He would have reigned supreme! [chuckling]

 

Mark Collett: Gosh, that’s a grim thought, isn’t it, that he could have taken care of business. Green from Oz97 gave another $2. Thank you so much! And said:

 

“I felt embarrassed seeing Keir’s resignation speech. Seeing a leader of a Western nation crying publicly on TV’s weak, gay and retarded!”

 

And there is something to be said for Western stoicism. Control your emotions, channel them and use them as a power source. Never let your emotions become your master! There’s a good bit of advice from Marky C.

 

And finally, Baba2 gave a $20 donation. Very generous tonight. Thank you so much! And said:

 

“That’s for you to buy some raw milk to keep up with David. Really, I just love supporting you and your work.”

 

Thank you so much! I’m on the Jersey Gold Top. I love that plug of cream that you get when you pop it open. Can’t get enough of it and I’m forcing it among the kids every morning at breakfast time. Here’s to a stronger next generation.

 

But that brings us to the end of the show. It’s been sticky, it’s been hot, but it’s been very good. We are in the very top tier of streams on Rumble tonight. David, I’ve been watching it as we’ve gone on and where it shows Rumble live. I don’t know if you’ve seen, but we’ve been beating out some much bigger names and it’s largely thanks to you.

 

So thank you so much for that. I’ve got to say, you brought the fire tonight. And yeah, we’re in the, if you look at it, I think we’re 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17. We’re in the top 20 streams on the whole of Rumble! We easily beat out George Galloway tonight, almost doubling his numbers. Beat Tim Pool. Beats plenty of big names, in fact. And we’re even closing in on Dr. Disrespect. So a good night all in.

 

So thank you for being here, David. Thank you for making such a good stream. Have the last word before we go and jump in the shower. Individually, not together. We’re not getting into the shower together!

 

David Clews: Vibes. [chuckling] Yeah, well, it’s just nice to see a lot of UNNers there in the chat as well. And Joey’s up. Joey always does this. Joey seems to know when the show is coming to an end, don’t you, Joey? I don’t know. Why is that switched to my background there? Did I just do that?

 

Mark Collett: We’ve not showering together, are we, David?

 

David Clews: No, we’re in the UNN. We’re actually together in the UNN studios.

 

Mark Collett: So I just did that as a joke. Because I made it as a joke.

 

David Clews: We’re together. Sorry, Wait, Joey, come here. Look, come here. Let everyone see you. Look. [his dog] So this is Joey. Joey, come on, show everyone. There he is. Don’t even see his wee head popping and you won’t be able to see it. There he’s at the bottom. He always seems to know when the show is coming to an end and he wants us out to the bathroom.

 

Brilliant numbers. Great to see the UNNers over and thanks to everyone that donated to Mark as well and keep us going because it all adds up. We’ve not got snake oil to sell you and we just want to keep doing what we’re doing because I think there is a gap. Again, there is actually a gap in the market for a wee bit of honesty. And I said after the Covid scam to people:

 

“Look, I’m not going to bullshit you. I’m going to be as honest as I can.”

 

And I think we’ve done that and people want to hear that. And I think the clear thing is look out for yourself like people.

 

That’s not to say you go and become a selfish narcissist, but look out for yourself and look out for your families. And be with people of a like mind and take positive steps, you know, do self improvement and do these things and we’ll all get better. Won’t we, Joey? We’re gonna go a walk. People call him “Jewy” because he tries to get me to stop my shows. [chuckling] Right, cheers, everyone.

 

Mark Collett: It has been a great show tonight and great numbers. I just want to thank Dave for being here. I want to thank everybody who donated so generously. I want to thank everyone who’s live in the chat. Amazing numbers across all platforms. Across all platforms. Over 700 people! So thank you so much!

 

And I want to say go and check out my Substack. It’s all free. Go and have a look over there. It’s really good!

 

I’ll be back on Friday for a stream. I’ll be back on Sunday for a review of Citizen Vigilante.

 

And again, just a huge thank you to David. Thank you to everyone who donated so generously. Thank you to everyone who tuned in. You know, I love you all. Thank you. I’m pleased you survived this show and I’m pleased we didn’t melt.

 

And I’ll be back next week for another episode of Patriotic Weekly Review. Thank you. I love you all. Stay strong. Keep fighting. Good night.

 

[2:05:46]

 

 

END

top

 

 

 

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

 

Odysee Comments

top

(Comments as of 6/28/2026 = 198)

Mark Collett
3 days ago
Pinned by @MarkCollett
You can now subscribe to me and support my work on SubStack:
https://markacollett.substack.com/

3
0
Green
3 days ago
David is always such a great guest. Cheers, and a big thank-you to both of you gents.

8
1
0KT0BER
3 days ago
“I have no problem with multi-culturalism as long as they integrate.” Tommy Robinson. oh no sorry I meant Rupert lowest

4
1
Luther Sloan
3 days ago
Later good people o/ 14

3
1
Luther Sloan
3 days ago
Sargon smugly chuckling as he grifts you with talking points from a decade ago.

3
0
makersnameplate
1 day ago
Lotus eater =
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lotus-eaters

1
0
Hide replies
Mark Collett
9 hours ago
Figuratively, ‘lotus-eaters’ denotes “people who spend their time indulging in pleasure and luxury rather than dealing with practical concerns”.

1
1
Mr
2 days ago
Only Nationalists care about their countries. The rest of the globalist anywhere types treat our countries like they are “the commons” and will strip it bare.

1
0
Mr
2 days ago
Multicultural is not the same as multiracial. Multicultural is by definition NOT integrated. Someone please tell Rupert.

1
0
Cone of Silence
2 days ago
Freinds indeed

1
0
Luther Sloan
3 days ago
Thanks for the show, David is always a great guest.

1
0
MilosM.
3 days ago
But Mark, he will become the Britain’s first unelected PM.

0
1
Hide replies
makersnameplate
1 day ago
Who will? I can offer you John Major, Gordon Brown, Theresa May, Boris Johnson, Liz Truss and Rishi Sunak, and that’s off the top of my head.

MilosM.
3 days ago
Death penalty for the worst crimes.

1
0
Luther Sloan
3 days ago
I don’t think we should imprison people at all. Either fines, flogging, forced labor or execution.

1
0
Hide replies
Green
3 days ago
Here, here.

1
0
MilosM.
3 days ago
Public hanging for the creeps.

1
0
MilosM.
3 days ago
No fault divorce should be banned

1
0

@SvenLongshanks
3 days ago
the bible says the devil sowed tares in among the wheat

1
0
Secure the future of our people
3 days ago
Mongo

1
0
Secure the future of our people
3 days ago
o/ Christ refused to sit and eat with tax collectors and Toll’s men

1
0
Prison Ships
3 days ago

@ CriticalThinker2026 Anti•Satanism is unstoppable.

1
0
pa
2 days ago
this will have to be my last watch of PWR im afraid as i think those lasses deserved what they got from the police , and of course any donations go with me

0
2
Hide replies
Achille Fontanelli
1 day ago
Don’t let the door hit you on the way out.

makersnameplate
1 day ago
Sure, they were misbehaving, but it’s all about proportionality.
If you think the police acted proportionately and reasonably, then there’s no then I can’t help you.
They were being a bit mouthy, not violent, and they are young girls , not beefed up blokes.

Kevin
5 hours ago
It is discrediting to yourself to have this complete moron and conspiracy theorist on. He is dumber than Patriart who thought to moon landings didn’t happen

makersnameplate
1 day ago
Candygram for Mungo. Mungo like candy.

Just stuff
1 day ago
Some manner of a far left-right alliance indeed appears as the only way forward at this point. I fact, almost anything which brings about the collapse of the system works and then we attempt to fish in the muddy waters when it does. Like them commies in Russia and China and elsewhere did. Sure, I know that this is not what Uncle taught us, but he effectively lived in a post-collapse environment. Much like that of Russia post the spring 1917 Revolution – not even the 1905 one.

Just stuff
1 day ago
The pigs – there is something really systemically wrong with them. They have too much of an engrained feeling of invincibility/impunity over their actions. I think it is a more general thing… not like these pigs wake up in the morning thinking “oh, what a fine day it is today to kick and oppress some whitey!”.

Just stuff
1 day ago
Why not push for total Abolition and the review of old property structures and laws that entrench the elites. I mean, e.g. so many live (and work) in leasehold properties. Why not check out who is the freeholder there owning it all and how that came to be?

@filled_soda
2 days ago
David is unfathomably based.

@popovacianen
2 days ago
ffs mark buy an ac im from croatia we all have those there aint no way english cant have one

Hide replies

@UKrobm
1 day ago
we can have AC in the UK but we also have what is possibly, probably, the most expensive electricity in the world, so AC is very expensive for us.

Secure the future of our people
3 days ago
crap catbox doesnt work

Secure the future of our people
3 days ago

Secure the future of our people
3 days ago

@MilosM.
ooh. Only Alek I do know

MilosM.
3 days ago

@utopia148800:6 Yerbury.

Secure the future of our people
3 days ago

@MilosM.:9 who is Alek?

MilosM.
3 days ago
David should arrange another debate between Mark and Alek.

Secure the future of our people
3 days ago

@MilosM.:9 He will. Or worse people realize how much he stole and hollowed out the country when he is out of power and moved to another country.

@SvenLongshanks
3 days ago
its probably about 50% crime related to drugs and 50% genetically predisposed to crime

@Philip.Kollberg
3 days ago
Amen

Kultur_Rebell
3 days ago
Some people should be tortured every day

@theicebergmelts
3 days ago
Scotland’s just spent one billion pounds building a new prison

MilosM.
3 days ago

@utopia148800:6 Eh yeah but you never where his prime minister tenure would be after 4 years. If he sells Hungary and makes it even in worse state than under Orban, then that’s very bad indeed.

MilosM.
3 days ago
Bridge on River Kwai is pretty great

MilosM.
3 days ago
But Restore’s results are not actively undermining the Conservative demise. The best and most likely outcome is Labour and Conservatives eventually eating each other out.

Hide replies

@Germanicus
2 days ago
While it’d be hilarious to see the century-old political duopoly collapse in countries like the UK and US, people should realise, it doesn’t actually mean the elites have neen replaced or realigned (which is the only real mechanism of political change)

@theicebergmelts
3 days ago
One of them was missing an eye

Luther Sloan
3 days ago
Lawrence of Arabia is pretty good.

@theicebergmelts
3 days ago
Both made by the great David Lean

MilosM.
3 days ago
So far, the best option is to support the best one atm

Secure the future of our people
3 days ago

@MilosM.:9 No I can judge him already. He is a traitor. If he wasn’t he wouldn’t be in power. Jews would kill anyone taking power that would endanger jewish power and influence.

Luther Sloan
3 days ago
Shills can’t alienate their audience completely, which is why they will do those things, especially if it is just signaling that can be disavowed.

MilosM.
3 days ago
Unfortunately, there won’t ever be a viable political leader or a leader of a nationalist group who would be given some massive, mainstream platform to say all the right things. Some compromises will have to be made.

MilosM.
3 days ago
And once Tommy stood behind Sam Melia when the latter got arrested. But he wasn’t that of a shill then much.

MilosM.
3 days ago

@utopia148800:6 Yes sadly though the new is still pretty early to be judged. And Orban indeed did some based things.

Secure the future of our people
3 days ago

@MilosM.:9 things like removing lgb flags are a brave thing because of the gov and it shows defiance but in the end the gov is the one that needs to be removed not just the flags. And Orban is the same as the new shabbos goy.

Secure the future of our people
3 days ago

@MilosM.:9 I rarely use telegram Lord Bebo has a large twitter account. So I mostly see it on twitter.

MilosM.
3 days ago

@utopia148800:6 idk but if you have Telegram, I saw it on Lord Bebo channel

Secure the future of our people
3 days ago
Lánchíd

Secure the future of our people
3 days ago

@MilosM.:9 Nop I did see that they put the Lgb flags up on the Lanchid.

MilosM.
3 days ago
Carl is classical liberal who is pretty shy of questioning mainstream politics.

MilosM.
3 days ago

@utopia148800:6 Ah cool. Hey have you seen that some folks in Budapest hung Hungarian flags in place where lgbt flags, I believe on a bridge?

Secure the future of our people
3 days ago
https://i.postimg.cc/kgmndh25/Uluru-Astro-Tour.jpg

EmptyLife
3 days ago
It’s an even stupider name when you do know what it means.

Secure the future of our people
3 days ago

@MilosM.:9 no In real life it is even more beautiful. I have seen it myself. It’s very different in real life. You have to do it at least once in your life. I have been camping in the bushland near Alice springs.

Secure the future of our people
3 days ago

@MilosM.:9 It’s the most beautiful country in the world. Wit real wild life. I had wild Cassowarys come up to me. Had dove with fish bigger than me and had seen sea snakes with the rings in real life.

MilosM.
3 days ago

@utopia148800:6 Very nice but is the photo legit?

MilosM.
3 days ago

@0KT0BER:9 More like embarrassing himself.

@theicebergmelts
3 days ago
The Merchant of Swindon will get his pound of flesh regardless

Secure the future of our people
3 days ago

@MilosM.
This image does no justice to how beautiful is this in real life.
https://i.postimg.cc/GmhkzzbT/468419420-10160535857772671-4749960011641070774-n.jpg

@SvenLongshanks
3 days ago
hes a lot more switched on than i was at 16

@SvenLongshanks
3 days ago
hes only 16 and he got quite badly beaten up the other day for doing public debates

MilosM.
3 days ago

@utopia148800:6 Have you traveled there? idk, desert sounds as pretty messed up place to me. Especially after watching some Ozzie mad pig killer film

@SvenLongshanks
3 days ago
i think people are being a bit harsh on young bob

0KT0BER
3 days ago
David’s been great holding out on X on the restore ziobots.

Kultur_Rebell
3 days ago
black shirt

Secure the future of our people
3 days ago

@MilosM.:9 Dudee!You have to go to Australia at least once. The desert sky is the most beautiful thing you will ever see. You can see galaxies.

MilosM.
3 days ago
Sick scumbags.

@Philip.Kollberg
3 days ago
why does Mark always wear black?

Hide replies
makersnameplate
1 day ago
Have a guess.

@theicebergmelts
3 days ago
A lot of parents have transsed their kids

New124
3 days ago
BTw it isnt even safe just out on the streets of britain nowadays. Be careful out there people. its now Riot Season, previously known as Summer.

MilosM.
3 days ago

@utopia148800:6 This one guy won some boxing event. I would rather not travel to Australia. Expensive trip that goes for too long.

Secure the future of our people
3 days ago

Repost and like the Twitter if you can please!
https://x.com/UnityNewsNet/status/2069847230928785432

Secure the future of our people
3 days ago
or they used to they are not allowed to associate.

ChuckGerety
3 days ago
They are risking lives just so they get their feel good giddies

Secure the future of our people
3 days ago

@MilosM.:9 They should invite you to one of the punchups. They do MMA matches constantly. maybe kickboxing as well.

New124
3 days ago
Jonty

MilosM.
3 days ago
Bears are less dangerous than some people.

MilosM.
3 days ago

@utopia148800:6 Hahahaha, I already did to one of them.But we are friendly to one another so harsh feelings.

Obscure Truth
3 days ago
Unbelievable!

Kultur_Rebell
3 days ago
I was watching a documentary from the 70s inside strangeways. It is safer in there in the 70s than out here in 2026

New124
3 days ago
this is your brain on Leftism. they think everyoens the same. different races, even disableds.

ChuckGerety
3 days ago
Society must accept that there’s some who are unfit for civilized society

Luther Sloan
3 days ago
Even in a proper humongous society you would still have anti-socials, but they would either be put into a work camp or an institution if they are too far gone.

ChuckGerety
3 days ago
A guy like that needs to have a shock collar

@WASP_Supremacist
3 days ago
Police are coming to kill Mark because he said “retard” and his gues keeps saying “low IQ Africans.” RIP

Secure the future of our people
3 days ago

@MilosM.
hahaha. Better not the NSN guys hear that! :joy:

New124
3 days ago

@MarkCollett:6 Mark, they also have a policy of rehousing these mental cases in rural areas. The Scottish islands are now honestly like ¼ loony bin. they think itd better for them etc and it actually just drags these sm all communities down. the carers are all grifter losers too

ChuckGerety
3 days ago
He looks dangerously unevolved

MilosM.
3 days ago

@utopia148800:6 I thought that’s insult for Australians lol

Secure the future of our people
3 days ago

Repost and like the Twitter if you can please!
https://x.com/UnityNewsNet/status/2069847230928785432

@SvenLongshanks
3 days ago
there are a lot of devils at heart

Secure the future of our people
3 days ago
crap

MilosM.
3 days ago

@Kultur_Rebell
You’d be in more luck to try kebab instead.

MilosM.
3 days ago
Girls and women, but especially girls, are wired to buy into feminist bs and that’s not only okay but as something to act and dress like men. I never understood the appeal of tomboys.

@SvenLongshanks
3 days ago
autist threw a kid off

@SvenLongshanks
3 days ago
tate gallery

@SvenLongshanks
3 days ago
they closed the mental institutions in the eighties and said wed have to live with them instead

Kultur_Rebell
3 days ago
I don’t I just want you to shut up

@theicebergmelts
3 days ago
It was a 20 foot drop too apparently

MilosM.
3 days ago

@Kultur_Rebell
Why do you want kebab?

MilosM.
3 days ago

@0KT0BER:9 I don’t think so. it would make plenty of white nattionalists zog influenced
also Rupert says nothing malicious in that clip.

New124
3 days ago
gotta say tho i feel sorry for parents of daughters. esp the fathers. No thanks.

@theicebergmelts
3 days ago
It would have been called a pogrom back then

Luther Sloan
3 days ago

@New124:3 Exactly.

Kultur_Rebell
3 days ago
I’m English. Onion and garlic sauce please.

New124
3 days ago
it was in ROTHERHAM too! the cops have let down the poor girls of rotherham before!

0KT0BER
3 days ago

@MilosM.:9 Flat Earth originates with the judaic view of the world, the Talmud specifically

Kultur_Rebell
3 days ago
Are you a Tommy tard?

Secure the future of our people
3 days ago

@Kultur_Rebell
they make kebab from horrible offal in the UK

MilosM.
3 days ago

@Kultur_Rebell
you a muslim?

New124
3 days ago
Lets not get hung up on the dress choise. it is the height of summer as well btw. f
the police are evil.

Secure the future of our people
3 days ago

Repost and like the Twitter if you can please!
https://x.com/UnityNewsNet/status/2069847230928785432

MilosM.
3 days ago

@0KT0BER:9 And you would believe in that Earth is flat if someone shows you the picture that Earth is flat.

Kultur_Rebell
3 days ago
Shut it and make me a kebab

0KT0BER
3 days ago

@MilosM.:9 you’re as thick as pigshit

MilosM.
3 days ago

@Kultur_Rebell
Rupert and Nigel? definitely not. Though Nigel is in his own category of politician.

MilosM.
3 days ago

@0KT0BER:9 No I won’t because I saw enough of his bs to call it a bs in advance.

0KT0BER
3 days ago

@MilosM.
heres another
https://xcancel.com/SB_B99/status/2069778242790162667

Kultur_Rebell
3 days ago
So? Both ZOG cretins

MilosM.
3 days ago

@0KT0BER:9 David talks a lot on Rupert and Nigel without some empirical evidence to back up his criticisms if them.

0KT0BER
3 days ago

@MilosM.:9 watch the clip shitstain

Kultur_Rebell
3 days ago
So?

Luther Sloan
3 days ago
Indeed

@SvenLongshanks
3 days ago
it was the police that escalated it

Kultur_Rebell
3 days ago
Pathetic coward pigs. Little men.

0KT0BER
3 days ago

@MilosM.
David (UNN) has just posted another clip, but this one says it all
https://xcancel.com/FSnype_gore/status/2069128179046842534

MilosM.
3 days ago
Girls were tw*ts here. But political consequences of this is something else.

@SvenLongshanks
3 days ago
the police treated it like it was a violent confrontation when it was just school girls

MilosM.
3 days ago

@0KT0BER:9 How? They are doing quite well. For a minor political party.

Luther Sloan
3 days ago
It is a handful of unruly girls, the police should be able to control the situation just by being there, but that is not how those officers see themselves or the girls for that matter.

MilosM.
3 days ago
Wait, girls didn’t mess up? I thought this is on them.

@theicebergmelts
3 days ago
There was a recent video in Scotland of the police arresting a black guy who was resisting arrest by kicking and spitting on them and the police were dealing with the thing in the most gentle way

0KT0BER
3 days ago
Milos rupert and restore are a complete bust

Secure the future of our people
3 days ago

@MilosM.:9 Zdravo gospodine!

MilosM.
3 days ago
I heard that Rupert’s views
on X are not his own actually

Secure the future of our people
3 days ago

Repost and like the Twitter if you can please!
https://x.com/UnityNewsNet/status/2069847230928785432

MilosM.
3 days ago
Rupert did indeed espouse some white supremacist views

0KT0BER
3 days ago
brave thin blue line

Karvakake
3 days ago
holy f

Luther Sloan
3 days ago
It is basically the Trump playbook, using the online radicals who are eager to embrace anyone who signals a little bit like them.

@SvenLongshanks
3 days ago
he might have a lot of positions that coincide with ours, but he doesnt see those as ethnat positions, just common sense positions

MilosM.
3 days ago
Multicultural society btw can be a totally European.

@theicebergmelts
3 days ago
Rupert Lowe thinks Javier Milei has been terrific for Argentina…

MilosM.
3 days ago

@SvenLongshanks:9 He definitely has to. He doesn’t want to rock too many boats.

@SvenLongshanks
3 days ago
i havent seen him contradict himself, hes just diplomatic with his wording on big interviews

@SvenLongshanks
3 days ago
he says people who dont speak english will be deported and if you dont work, you will be removed from council housing and that is the same as saying if people dont integrate, they shouldnt be here

Luther Sloan
3 days ago
And the important thing is, those who like this online personality will keep supporting him even as he disavows them.

@SvenLongshanks
3 days ago
i think rupert has to be careful with his wording

@Bobbie
3 days ago
Restore is done.

Karvakake
3 days ago
Does UNN stream anywhere else than Rumble? I used to watch them on dlive

Luther Sloan
3 days ago
The “left” isn’t getting what it wants either, they marry unpopular stances with the good things.

MilosM.
3 days ago

@LutherSloan:2 Socialism is for fools

0KT0BER
3 days ago
up a khyber

@Theos19
3 days ago
most people are simple and easy to control by propaganda and narrative. We do not have control of the narrative, we will never rule until we do.

MilosM.
3 days ago

@utopia148800:6 Szia bro

Karvakake
3 days ago
hello o/

Luther Sloan
3 days ago
Nationalism goes hand in hand with Socialism.

New124
3 days ago
hope that UNN studio is air conditioned David

Luther Sloan
3 days ago
What does Restore and Reform offer people other than their mealy mouth stance on mass-migration?

Eldergoduk
3 days ago

@utopia148800
Only my basic tax :smile_1:

Secure the future of our people
3 days ago

@Eldergoduk:6 Hello taxpayer!

Eldergoduk
3 days ago
Evening citizens

Luther Sloan
3 days ago
It is why they would much prefer to keep up the charade and just use soft power, but that is no longer possible.

@theicebergmelts
3 days ago
It’s like that socialite who said if you’re not named in the Epstein Files then you’re a loser

Luther Sloan
3 days ago
Look at Egypt and other zogged up ME countries, they control their populations through hard power. It works, but it is a whole lot more unstable on a long enough timeline.

Criticalthinker2026
3 days ago

@VesselofGrace:b cheers mate

@noreplacement
3 days ago
Like Uncle strolling into Austria

Criticalthinker2026
3 days ago

@VesselofGrace:b I’ve had that for decades…i got a 666 tattooed on me chest

Prison Ships
3 days ago
Digital id is the brand of TheBeastSystem.

Luther Sloan
3 days ago
The reality of the worsening conditions hasn’t changed, so it will be hard to keep this going.

Kultur_Rebell
3 days ago
It is 100% a hoax based on an inversion of basic reality. Like everything else they do.

Secure the future of our people
3 days ago

Repost and like the Twitter if you can please!
https://x.com/UnityNewsNet/status/2069847230928785432

0KT0BER
3 days ago
roman vineyards at York too

@theicebergmelts
3 days ago
Rivers full of plastic bottles

Kultur_Rebell
3 days ago
Clewsy I wish you would use this platform and not crappy Rumble

MilosM.
3 days ago
Greetings all

@theicebergmelts
3 days ago
A few months later a Malaysian Airlines was shot down flying over Ukraine

Obscure Truth
3 days ago
I think they found the tail of the plane if I’m not mistaken.

Luther Sloan
3 days ago
I remember that one, quite odd, but the ocean is a big place.

0KT0BER
3 days ago
they’re adding a good 4-5 degrees to the temp on the most trusted news

Illustr8r
3 days ago
Also on Odysee

Luther Sloan
3 days ago
o/

@SvenLongshanks
3 days ago
hello everyone

Luther Sloan
3 days ago
‘ello

0
0

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

See Also

top

 

 

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

Anne Twomey: Welcome back to the Constitutional Clarion!

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

For example, by:

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

So it’s actually a self fulfilling condition!

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Articles 20 and, 26 require:

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

[19:30]

 

 

END

top

 

 

 

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

 

Youtube Comments

top

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hide replies

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

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

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

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

Hide replies

@Lucid-AUS
9 hours ago
Very informative thank you

@constitutionalclarion1901
2 hours ago
You’re welcome.

Hide replies

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hide replies

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

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

Hide replies

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

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

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

Hide replies

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

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

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

@constitutionalclarion1901
2 hours ago

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

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

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

Hide replies

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

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

@constitutionalclarion1901
12 hours ago
Thanks.
8

Hide replies

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

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

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

Hide replies

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hide replies

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

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

Hide replies

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

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

Hide replies

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

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

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

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

Hide replies

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

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

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

@constitutionalclarion1901
12 hours ago
Much appreciated.
2

Hide replies

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

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

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

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

Hide replies

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

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

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

Hide replies

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hide replies

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

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

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

@MrTiddalik
13 hours ago
Never a dull moment
1

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hide replies

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

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

Hide replies

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

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

Hide replies

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

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

Hide replies

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

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

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

Hide replies

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

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

Hide replies

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hide replies

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

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

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

Hide replies

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hide replies

@nicholassteel5529
14 hours ago

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

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

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

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

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

Hide replies

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

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

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

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

Hide replies

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hide replies

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

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

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

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

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

Hide replies

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

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

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

Hide replies

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

@constitutionalclarion1901
15 hours ago
You are most welcome.
2

Hide replies

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hide replies

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

@justheretowatchatrashfire
14 hours ago
Yep
1

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

Hide replies

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

@lylegc01
15 hours ago
Thanks again for your vids
1

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

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

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

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

@worker-wf2em
10 hours ago

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

Hide replies

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

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

Hide replies

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

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

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

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

Hide replies

@michellefranklin3182
15 hours ago
Thanks for this.
4

@constitutionalclarion1901
15 hours ago
Much appreciated.
2

Hide replies

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

@Know_It_All
16 hours ago
Thanks
3

@constitutionalclarion1901
15 hours ago
You’re welcome.

Hide replies

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

See Also

top

 

 

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

Jacob Hersant: There needs to be no compromise on the Hate Crime Bill the Labor Party is trying to pass! Right now they’re trying to get support from the Liberals so that they can pass it. And there are people that are already celebrating as if somehow we have won. We have not won! The Labor Party has only made a small concession. Getting rid of one aspect of the Bill while keeping the vast majority of it. And that vast majority is some of the most damaging stuff there is. It’s going to completely destroy the way that policing and the justice system works in this country.

 

They’ve gotten rid of one little aspect to try and coax the Liberal Party into passing the vast majority of the hate crime stuff. Everybody hates these laws and yet they’re trying to do this little trick where the vast majority of it will pass anyway! The Labor Party are splitting the Bill so that the Greens will pass the gun aspects of it and they’re taking away just a little bit of it, of the hate crimes aspect of it so that the Liberal Party will pass it.

 

Now Advance have brought out a post saying:

 

“Breaking: Albanese has dropped his hate crime censorship laws. Massive win for Aussies. PM dumps Hate Speech laws.”

 

And as you can see there, it has 192,000 views. And Advance made another post here:

 

“Thanks to the thousands of Advance supporters who contacted their local MPs over Labor’s hate crime censorship laws. This win is yours! A Labor member of the committee said many of the last minute submissions appeared to be the result of lobbying by One Nation and conservative group Advance.”

 

So this is not true. The Hate Crime Bill has not been destroyed! It is still, 90% of it is still there. And the Labor Party is making a gambit so to try and coax the Liberal Party into supporting it and passing the vast majority of it. If we allow them to do this, we deserve to have our freedoms taken away! If we are going to be fooled like this, we deserve to live as slaves in this country.

 

And here you have idiots like Monica Smit:

 

“We won again. The government showed its hand and we learn that we are ready for whatever they throw at us.”

 

We have not won! That is what needs to get through people’s heads. We have not won! The Bill is going to be voted on Tuesday, and the Liberal Party hasn’t made it clear whether or not they’re going to vote for it or they’re going to vote against it.

 

So the Liberal Party needs to be pressured into not supporting these laws because they are draconian. And as unfortunate that the Greens and the Labor Party are going to pass through the gun laws. I get that people are upset about that, but we need to lament the guns later and focus on what is actually in the air. The Right-wing aren’t gonna have any influence over the Greens voting through these gun things, so it’s over.

 

But we do have influence over the Liberal Party and we need to pressure them to not pass the hate crimes aspect of this. The Hate Crime Bills is the most dangerous because it’s going to hold 15 year jail sentences over the heads of radical political activists that did nothing more than engage in political communication.

 

So it’s going to ban organisations and it’s going to expand. It’s not going to only be the National Socialist Network. Give it time and they’ll start banning other organisations that are inconvenient to the government’s agenda. This Bill alone is going to take away all of our political freedoms!

 

And not only that, these laws are bad enough, but they’re only going to expand as you see them constantly expand over the decades. They get one thing through and then give it five years, they’ll expand it, they’ll amend it. It’s going to make politics impossible for anyone on the outside of mainstream politics, whether that be on the Left or on the Right. It’s going to make politics impossible! Because the chilling effect this is going to have is going to make everyone so scared to do anything in this country. And then you’re going to be stuck with idiots. And like the people who run Advance who celebrate too early and may end up being the key people that make this Bill get passed because they celebrated too early! The Liberal Party backflipped on its decision and passed these hate crime laws. If that happens, it’s gonna be people like Monica Smit and Advance and all of these idiots that are to blame!

 

The main message we have to get out there is there is to be no compromise on these hate crime laws! The whole Bill needs to be shredded! We’re not going to be placated by them getting rid of one little aspect.
The whole thing needs to be gotten rid of and the people who thought that they could get away with these laws need to be humiliated!

 

Do not celebrate as if we’ve already won and don’t get distracted with all of these side issues. I see people posting about who the US Ambassador is going to be and other things. The whole future of politics, Right-wing politics, is at stake right now! And people are talking about the US ambassador. They’re talking about things that can be talked about any other day. We have two days to oppose this. The vote is going to be on Tuesday. You need to be spending all of your free time influencing these people.

 

So you need to be influencing, going and telling everybody that they should not be fooled by the fact that they’ve gotten rid of only one aspect of the hate crimes bill. You need to tell them that the vast majority of it is still going through and the Liberals might vote for it. And that the Liberal Party is going to be severely punished in the next election if they go through and destroy our criminal justice system and destroy policing in this country.

 

Because policing is going to go away from policing actual criminals. It already is like this where you have political policing, which is out of control, but that is going to expand beyond anything that we have previously seen. We’re going to have two tier justice in this country like we have never seen. We have to get across the message that the whole thing needs to be opposed! We cannot just be fighting it piecemeal, one little aspect or another aspect.

 

We need to take this seriously. We have two days. You need to be spending all of your free time trying to influence the Liberal Party, particularly because it’s the Liberal Party that will work with the Labor Party to bring forth these hate crime laws that are going to destroy any freedom we had left in this country. Any politics outside of the mainstream is going to be destroyed by this bill! You know, so lock in and make sure that everyone knows that our position as the Australian people is no compromise! Shred the entire bill!

 

[6:46]

 

 

END

top

 

 

 

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

 

Rumble Comments

top

(Comments as of 1/19/2026 = 3)

leibekohne
1 hour ago
“Every Jew, who spills the blood of the godless (non-Jews), is doing the same as making a sacrifice to God.” ~ Talmud: Bammidber raba c 21 & Jalkut 772 Treason to whiteness is loyalty to humanity. The goal of abolishing the white race is on its face so desirable that some may find it hard to believe that it could incur any opposition other than from committed white supremacists. Noel Ignatiev, Harvard Magazine, Sep-Oct 2002 We intend to keep bashing the dead white males, and the live ones, and the females too, until the social construct known as ‘the white race’ is destroyed, not ‘deconstructed’ but destroyed. https://birthofanewearthblog.com/the-jewish-agenda-to-destroy-the-white-race/
2
0

charliebrownau
3 hours ago
Gday We wont have Free Speech till the people have removed state mandated – Hate Speech 3 bills 2026 – Criminal Code Amendment (Hate Crimes) Bill 2024 – Surveillance Legislation Amendment Bill 2001 – 18c of Racial Discrimination Act 1995 – Racial Discrimination Act 1975 – Sex Discrimination act – State Mandated Equality of Opportunity – Remove State Mandated Affirm Action – Remove State Mandated Duluth Model (Men automatically guilty) – Remove State Mandated Multiculturalism – Remove State Mandated Diversity – Remove State Mandated Feminism No Fault Divorce Alimony Child Support Divorce Separation I would advocate to remove GST/VAT Welfare Income Tax I would advocate to remove funding/support for G20, Nato, UN, WEF, IMF Central Banks Overseas nations ‘aid’ funding PNG, NZ, China, Middle east funding Lower min wage back to $10 per hour Remove mandated paid ‘leave’ for holiday/sick days/pregnant Since at least 1936 the current ‘Government’ is actually a legal fiction which is registered with the American system The “Australian Government” is a registered corporation as is the ‘parties’ We need to go back to sourvien governance system in Australia They ALL need to be DISQUALIFIED under Section 44 of our Commonwealth of Australia Constitution 1900 UK. They are ALL sitting in treason as political parties and preferential voting is in direct contravention of our Constitution. Our Constitution came with a letters patent, meaning our constitution is indissoluble, it can’t be changed, altered or backdated unless the people are consulted via a referendum but it has been intentionally usurped since Federation that ALL past and present politician have/are sitting in treason. _________ Regards Charliebrownau * Email – charliebrownau@protonmail.com * Videos – https://www.matildatv.com/@charliebrownau * Videos – https://poast.tv/c/charliebrownau/videos * Telegram – https://t.me/s/Charliebrownau
1
0

fastnail
6 minutes ago
Remove all jews from Australia.
0
0

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

See Also

top

 

 

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

Joel Davis: Welcome to the show. Apologies, we’re slightly late, there was technical difficulties, but we’re here. It is the 4th of November 2025.

 

Another show for you guys this evening and a lot to discuss, a lot to break down, before we get into the agenda. How are you doing? I actually haven’t spoken to you properly since we last did the show because I live in Sydney now, we don’t get to hang out so much, which is sad.

 

So how have you been?

 

Blair Cottrell: Good. Busy, working hard, trying to put together content for my business in my spare time. And I don’t mind the streams because now I get to play hardcore World of Warcraft every night we stream. It’s kind of the perfect slow paced background game. And my hardcore paladin is currently level 36. This is the first time I’ve played this character since we last trained. I’m pretty happy with it too. I’m pretty proud of myself. I got to level 36 without dying once, which is I think that’s a milestone. I don’t think I’ve done that before and I’ve been playing this game since I was like 14 or something, on and off. I haven’t been playing actually since I was 14.

 

But what’s been happening, …

 

Joel Davis: Level 36 without dying. Isn’t your birthday soon?

 

Blair Cottrell: Yeah, it’s on Remembrance Day. November 11th.

 

Joel Davis: That’s right, yeah. Remembrance Day, that’s like a week away. Everyone who went out of their way today to like put a bet on the Melbourne Cup or something, go out of your way on Remembrance Day to remember the fallen. More Australians gave their life in the First World War than basically every other war we’ve ever fought combined. So it needs to be reflected upon. We talk about it on Anzac Day often and so on, but it needs to be reflected upon.

 

The Anzacs were fighting for a White Australia. That’s what they thought they were fighting for, at the very least, they were fighting for the British Empire. And in the First World War, whatever you think of it, which I think there’s criticisms to be levied that the First World War was you know, Judeo-Masonic attack on the old monarchies of Europe and so on, from the Australian perspective, they were fighting for the British Empire in order to try and protect a land for the White man. For us here, that’s what they were fighting for. That’s why so many of them gave their lives.

 

Blair Cottrell: So I think too, if you were alive in those times and of fighting age, you were conscripted, was there conscription? Did Australians have to fight or was it all voluntary?

 

Joel Davis: No, it was voluntary.

 

Blair Cottrell: But if you were volunteering, you wouldn’t have been privy to all the information about criticisms of the mechanics behind the war. All you would have seen was war, like military recruitment propaganda about fighting for your country.

 

And that’s why you would have gone to war. If you put yourself back in those times, it’s very naive to believe that you would have behaved differently to how your great grandfathers behaved. You would have gone to war for the same purpose, to defend your country.

 

So I think it’s a mistake to denigrate soldiers of the past, because:

 

“Oh, it was just some contrived, you know, rich person business. It was some war put together by capitalists and they’re idiots for fighting!”

 

They still believed in what they were fighting for. Even if we have information now to prove those beliefs may have been misplaced, we still have to show respect for our ancestors. Right?

 

Joel Davis: Exactly! They were. And I mean, at the end of the day, we were a part of the British Empire and they were fighting to maintain British Imperial dominance, which is if the British Empire wasn’t brought down from within through traitors, jewish subversion and so on, then that would have been a completely valid thing. But by the same token, fighting the Japanese in World War II mean, obviously we don’t agree with fighting the Germans in World War II, but fighting the Japanese in World War II was obviously necessary to defend Australia from a hostile Asian empire with designs on our territories.

 

Blair Cottrell: Were the Japanese actually planning to invade Australian territory?

 

Joel Davis: They didn’t have really well developed plans to directly invade Australia. They did bomb Australia, though, and they did invade territories we controlled, such as Papua New Guinea. You know, New Guinea we actually got after World War I because New Guinea was actually under the control of the Germans up until World War I. And at the Treaty of Versailles, we basically walked away with control of New Guinea.

 

So when the Japanese got to New Guinea, they were effectively invading one of our territories. And we fought them there and resisted them there.

 

Also, we were part of the British Empire. The Japanese took Singapore off us. They invaded other kind of British Imperial holdings around Asia. So, yeah, it was a direct battle between our empire and theirs.

 

And ultimately, if we lost the Second World War to the Japanese, maybe they wouldn’t have invaded in the Second World War, but then they would have been this massive empire that we would have been at the mercy of and who knows what would have happened in the ensuing decades as a result.

 

[05:26]

 

Blair Cottrell: If the Germans and by extension the Japanese won the Second World War, what would that have meant for Australia, where would we be?

 

Joel Davis: I think we would have been forced to make an alliance with the Germans. The thing is, if they won the Second World War, that would mean some kind of victory over Britain for the Germans. If there was a victory over Britain for the Germans, then it would be like a Nazi Australia, I guess. It probably would have been pretty good. So that would have been pretty cool! But, you know, it went the way that it did.

 

Anyway. Rather than talking about World War II again, let’s talk about more current matters, more contemporaneous matters. I want to play this clip. It was publicized by The Noticer* in recent days, but I think it needs to be analyzed and discussed over and over again! And it got attention, but I thought it should have got more attention.

 

 

[* See: Police admit targeting nationalists and say it’s ‘concerning’ they’re forming political party-https:// www.noticer.news/police-target-nsn-white-Australia-political-party /]

 

A lot of cowards in Australian politics refusing to weigh in on this because they’re afraid of being seen to be sympathizing with Nazis, which is really pathetic! And it says a lot about the state of play and the rest of the Right-wing in this country. But I’ll play this clip. The person speaking is the acting Deputy Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police and it’s some Parliamentary committee [Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters] of some description. Here we go.

 

 

Female: And AFP [Australian Federal Police] can perhaps speak to this a little as well, Senator.

Nigel Ryan: (acting Deputy Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police) Yeah, thanks, Senator. I’m not aware of any specifics, but I think I can talk to some of the issues that we’re seeing and the things that we’re focusing on now, I don’t know whether you had the opportunity to hear our new commissioner, Chrissy Barrett, speak about the focus of the AFP at the moment and what we’re pivoting towards, particularly around issues affecting social cohesion and some of the groups that we’re seeing in society now that are affecting that social cohesion. Sovereign citizens are not necessarily a group, they’re usually individuals, but obviously of particular concern when you have a look at some of the instances of isolated violence more recently, particularly against police, that sovereign citizens have been partaking in.

I guess of more of a concern are some of those groups like the National Socialist Network, who we’re seeing trying to get into more of a political space. Our understanding is that the NSN is looking at whether they can form themselves as a political party, but we do see their activity more broadly. That doesn’t actually hit a threshold in terms of criminal offending, but the behaviour is concerning in terms of them pushing towards the line and a threshold that would be considered not violent behaviour, but disturbing behaviour in terms of what it means about how people feel about their safety and how they feel about the social cohesion aspect.

So to that extent, the AFP has formed new teams, the National Security Investigations teams, which are looking more towards those fringe elements that are working within society that are causing concern, but not actually meeting the threshold to have a look at where we can actively work in the preventative and disruptive space to dissuade some of those groups from some of their public behaviours.

Joel Davis: So, yeah, I mean, there’s a lot to break down there. Obviously you’ve seen the clip already, Blair.

 

I’ll say a few things. One, at the beginning he mentioned sovereign citizens. Obviously there was that recent occurrence in Victoria where Desi Freeman, the so-called sovereign citizen, I know they don’t like going by that term – that’s what the media and the police call them – where he killed two cops. Apparently the AFP is less concerned with people killing police officers than they are with us forming a political party because we might hurt people’s “feelings”. That’s quite incredible! He literally says in that spiel, that:

 

“He’s concerned about our behaviours which don’t meet the so-called criminal or violent threshold, but that we would disrupt so-called social cohesion.”

 

You know what disrupts social cohesion? Importing a bunch of niggers into my country! That’s what disrupts social cohesion! Deporting a bunch of sorry, importing a bunch of non-Whites of every different description into our country. That disrupts social cohesion. Because it means we don’t have a cohesive society because everyone is a different race. It’s pretty basic. They’re blaming us for pointing that out. It’s a total inversion of reality!

 

But yeah, now apparently it is now the police’s job to not worry about what crimes are. Not worry about people committing acts of violence, they’re less concerned about that. What they’re really concerned about is people trying to participate in liberal democracy who have opinions that differ from the status quo.

 

Blair Cottrell: Opinions that are “disturbing”. Not criminal, but disturbing. And they’re classified as such because they affect how people “feel” about social cohesion.

 

Joel Davis: Yeah, exactly! So it’s just ridiculous! Obviously we have a constitution in this country that says we should have a representative democracy. Apparently the Australian people are sovereign. They get to elect their own leaders. Well, there’s an open admission there from the Australian Federal Police. They don’t actually believe in liberal democracy. They believe in this thing called “social cohesion”, which appears to be “White people being replaced and not getting upset about it”. That’s what they mean by social cohesion. Is that why people need to basically:

 

“Shut up and not complain about the fact that they are being genocided! The fact that we are being ethnocided!”

 

And if you complain about it, if you stand up against, if you try to form a political party and be political and follow the laws and don’t meet the threshold of criminality or violence, then the police are going to take it upon themselves, the Federal Police are going to take our tax dollars and then form special units that are going to disrupt that political party.

 

[12:25]

 

I mean, this is clearly unconstitutional, illegal. This is like a communist country. It’s like they’re basically admitting that they’re like the Stasi*, they’re like the NKVD*. They are political police, whose primary responsibility is to uphold the political establishment, not prosecute crimes.

 

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

 

[* The People’s Commissariat for Internal Affairs, abbreviated as NKVD, was the interior ministry and secret police of the Soviet Union from 1934 to 1946. The agency was formed to succeed the Joint State Political Directorate secret police organisation, and thus had a monopoly on intelligence and state security functions. The NKVD is known for carrying out political repression and the Great Purge under Joseph Stalin, as well as counterintelligence and other operations on the Eastern Front of World War II. Prior organisation was the dreaded CHEKA.]

 

It’s quite an incredible admission. And what cowardice from the Australian Right-wing where basically none of them said anything about this. The only person who did that I saw were the New South Wales libertarians, like John Ruddick’s people in New South Wales as ideologically consistent libertarians. Ralph Babet said something and then deleted it, five to ten minutes later. He pussied out!

 

And no one else said anything. Probably because they’re partially happy that the Federal Police are going to fuck with us because they’re afraid that we’re going to take their voters away or something, that we’re going to come in and steal their spot! But it just kind of exposes the whole system for what it is! That these people who claim to be upholding democracy and all of this garbage, they don’t actually believe any of that it’s a total lie! It’s a total farce! And why are the Nazis at the forefront of free speech, democracy? Why are we the ones trying to uphold it? I mean, it’s a total inversion of the roles [chuckling] that are supposed to be denominated. But I think it’s an incredible story!

 

What’s your analysis, Blair? Like, what kind of tactics do you expect them to use because they said “disrupt”, they didn’t say they’re going to put it, … Obviously we don’t meet your threshold of criminality. They can’t stop us from forming a political party. They’ve got no legal recourse to do.

 

So I think some of the things that they’re doing probably is creating social media accounts and using them to spread misinformation about us, turn people against us, imitate us. We’ve seen a rise in fake NSN accounts online, causing dramas, a rise in accounts that seem like that all they do all day is just make posts about the NSN and how offended they are by us. And that’s the only thing that they post about. Who has time for that? You know, people usually have jobs and families and this kind of thing. So maybe it’s feds? Maybe it’s just all feds? A lot of these accounts.

 

What also they’re going to do probably frivolous lawsuits. We’ve had plenty of those. But yeah, other than making, basically doing psyops online and engaging with frivolous lawsuits, these are kind of the more obvious things. What else do you think they’re going to do, or are doing already?

 

Blair Cottrell: I suppose this explains why specialised teams of Federal Police officers have been raiding people across the country who are in any way, shape or form supportive of National Socialist Network or White Australia, raiding them on no evidence and trying to find some reason to set them up on charges. So this has probably been happening for a few months already. At least a few months.

 

And it’s really concerning because the term “disrupt”, when people in official politics use terms like “disrupt” and “dissuade”, that basically means anything. That means anything beneath the ostensible. And the ostensible must appear as legit. They have to act like they’re working within certain frameworks on the surface, but underneath the surface, that’s the realm of “disrupt and dissuade”. That’s like the tier of counterinsurgency. That’s literally anything, man! That’s anything they can get away with!

 

So that’s like a secret political police developing strategies to fuck with a specific group because they don’t want them forming a political party, and because they’re not actually doing anything criminal. I don’t think there’s any precedent for a Federal Police officer making that statement in Australian history. I can’t actually stress the significance of this is really fucked up! This basically means what I think this means, what it exposes to me is the Australian political system, the Liberal versus Labor voting system is extremely fragile. No one likes the Liberal Party and no one likes the Labor Party. They just kind of vote one way or the other based on traditional. And there’s no effective Third Position for people to vote their way out of that sequence, that never ending sequence of Liberal-Labour. There’s One Nation but they’re in bed with Israel. There’s the Greens, but they’re just communists.

 

So I think what they do, and I’ve said this before on previous streams, I think there’s like analysts within the government that run various scenarios through AI programs in order to estimate the effectiveness of a White Australia party. Meaning they run it through like a scenario system, a computerized AI system that’s going to give them answers based on the current political climate situation, based on the current environment:

 

“How many votes would a White Australia Party get if it was formed right now?”

 

And I think the answer is staggering! I think it’s really frightening them! I think they know that a White Australia Party could be like the next One Nation but bigger and cooler, younger, more exciting, more interesting. And because there is such a large silent White Australian voter base who can vote basically anonymously, I think it’s obvious that a lot of people would vote for White Australia Party right now! Not only is it new, fresh and exciting, it has its roots in tradition. And tradition is one of the pillars of power. You’ve got force, popularity and tradition.

 

And you’ve got to ask yourself what does the government have on its side right now in regards to those three pillars? Does the government have popularity? No! Does the government have tradition? It sort of pretends to observe tradition because it knows it has to in order to maintain power structure, but it’s actually trying to destroy Australian tradition and replace it with its own version of ceremonies and rituals, largely surrounding Aboriginal culture. Right?

 

[18:55]

 

The only thing the government has on its side is force. It’s operating on a single pillar. Whereas a White Australia party would have popularity and tradition on its side. So already the government is at a disadvantage. Even though it has all the resources, the only real resource it can call upon to defend its current position is force, is violence! And BC beneath the tier of violence, such as disruption and dissuasion, right? Which is all manner of cloak and dagger activities.

 

So I think they’re really worried! And I think they know they have to nip the White Australia Party in the bud! And I think there’s nothing they won’t fucking do to achieve that.

 

So it’s very concerning. It’s really concerning that the Australian Federal Police are now being used as a bulwark, as attack dogs against a specific group of young people coming together to try to form their own political party legally. As you said, how is that democracy? That’s not fucking democracy! And it just exposes yet again that we don’t live in a fucking democracy! So I don’t really know what to expect.

 

Basically, it’s:

 

“Brace yourself, lads!”

 

That’s my feeling. And my analysis, my intuition’s been telling me for the last six months that things are going to get really ugly. Because I could see the potential for a White Australia party. I could see it a year ago and the potential is growing! It’s especially going to grow in, how should I put it? In reference to what’s going to happen in England. Things are starting to heat up in England and around the West, the rest of the world. In Europe you’re going to see similar situation and people in Australia are going to look for a way to vote themselves out of a similar fate. And if White Australia is all there is, they will vote for it! It’ll get millions of votes! It’ll explode out of the blocks, I think.

 

And I think that’s what this is all about. Yeah. So very concerning times ahead, is where I’ll wrap up my analysis.

 

Joel Davis: Concerning, but it’s also exciting! It’s very exciting because I think, as you said, if they thought that it was going to be a dud, if they thought that we weren’t capable of achieving anything, then they just let us do it. They’d be like:

 

“Let them go down this path.”

 

This is going to be a more neutral path and a safer path from their point of view. You would think, they would almost, like if they didn’t think anyone would vote for us why not let us go up there and embarrass ourselves?

 

Blair Cottrell: Well, that’s the thing, Joel. You don’t really need to be very intelligent to succeed in politics. You just need to be consistent and simplistic. I don’t mean like intellectually simplistic necessarily. I mean you just need that one simple, easy to understand message. You need to ground yourself in some manner of tradition relative to the culture that you’re trying to persuade, you’re trying to represent, and you just need to be consistent. You just need to keep pushing, keep fighting and protect your reputation as much as possible.

 

It’s not really rocket science, politics you’re basically trying to persuade simpletons to tick a box that says your name next to it. [chuckling] It’s not really a difficult process. And because the circumstances, the environment right now in Australia is perfect for a new, young, exciting party to basically steal the show, the current power structure is developing political police tactics in response to that.

 

And I think it’s going to be so something that we’ve never seen before. I think it’s going to be something that Australia, there’s no precedent for in Australia. So as I said, it’s like a brace yourself situation and prepare to support each other.

 

Joel Davis: Yeah, but what I’ve also noticed is that Australian police are very incompetent, …

 

Blair Cottrell: What makes you say that specifically? Give me an example of Australian policing incompetence.

 

Joel Davis: Well, I would say the way that they handled, for example, Australia Day last year we were in Adelaide. I think all they did was create a sympathetic scenario for us that gained a lot of positive attention and they tried to engage in a legal strategy that has been ridiculously unsuccessful, and just basically de-legitimize themselves and make themselves look stupid and mishandle the whole process. They have not been effective in stopping us. The only move they were able to make against us was more recently against Sewell, putting him in jail. But you know, that was an unforced error by Sewell. Like running up the police didn’t make him do that, run up a hill in 4K and beat someone up.

 

So in terms of like their strategic designs, the sum total of the efforts over the last two years are basically added up to fuck all, in terms of actually, …

 

Blair Cottrell: That’s what it’s worth. It’s worse than fuck all! If you are in the position where you consider NSN an enemy or even a nuisance for yourself as a police officer or something. If you’re in a government position where you command police officers, you’ve made the situation worse for yourself! It would have been better for the police to do nothing than to publicly and aggressively arrest people for trying to host an Australia Day march. Like obviously that’s going to win sympathy from the public. For the public who loves an underdog, Australians love to see someone struggling against authority. They love an underdog!

 

[24:39]

 

So you’re kind of creating this hero class of people by policing in a manner as aggressive as that. So for them the situation is worse than zero. They’ve actually contributed to elevating you guys in. I think what’s really worried them is when you guys arrived at August 31, March for Australia rally, it was clear that you had support from the majority of the people there. Very clear! And people were doing interviews saying:

 

“They don’t even care if there’s Nazis here, as long as everyone’s united against immigration.”

 

And that means people won’t even care about voting for a Nazi party so long as it’s against immigration. You see, that’s what that translates into for any government analyst.

 

So I think that’s what’s triggered, … It’s one of the things that’s triggered this effort to create a new tier of political policing, which was already in the works before that anyway. But that really pushed it over the line because it would have proven their analysts correct if they had already ran the White Australia scenario through their AI sequencing. Then when they saw in real time people shaking hands with you guys, cheering you guys on, and just admitting in interviews that they’re willing to support you, like regular people, that kind of proved all the data they already would have been collecting. It proved it correct.

 

So that’s what’s motivating them, I think.

 

Joel Davis: Yeah. Well, the reason why people are supporting us is because they’re genociding the White race and people are waking up to it. I mean, it’s that simple. We’re actually behind the curve in this country from where it is in other Western countries.

 

I mean, I saw Lindsay Graham from the Republican Party giving an interview the other day, and he said:

 

“Oh, I’m from the ‘Hitler sucks’ faction of the Republican Party!”

 

He’s like:

 

“What how crazy is this thinking Hitler is awesome thing now?”

 

What is he implying? That there’s a Hitler is “awesome faction” of the Republican Party now? That’s crazy! Yeah, but there kind of is. And like the Overton Window has shifted so far the Zeitgeist, like the attitude of the people. And that’s largely down to social media, because what has happened with social media is the traditional media has lost its influence over the collective consciousness. There’s been a decentralisation of political media in particular.

 

And that means that jews don’t control political discourse anymore. And so jews and academics and all of these different, like, committed political groups that have advanced this agenda against our people. Now a more grassroots, a more independent form of political discourse exists. And so it will tend towards the authentic politics that we represent.

 

So what is coming? Like, where people are at now is already a lot better than where they were before. But what’s coming is way more than this! The next five to 10 years, there’s going to be an explosion in our worldview, particularly with young White people. An explosion! It’s inevitable and it can’t be stopped! Doesn’t matter how many laws they try to pass on censoring the Internet, how many divisions they create within the AFP to arrest anti-semites. It doesn’t matter, because they did all this stuff in Britain and it’s still happening in Britain!

 

I saw a opinion poll in Britain. If an election was held today in Britain, the conservatives and Labor between them would have like 29 seats out of a possible 650. That would be like if we were going to hold an election in Australia tomorrow and only three people were going to get elected from like Liberal and Labor. That’s literally where it’s at in Britain. The political centre has been eviscerated. And obviously the parties on the outside of that are still, they’re not perfect. They’re not what the kind of party we want to build.

 

But the point is that the old political formula has been smashed! It’s been fucking smashed in Britain! And it’s been smashed all over Europe and a new paradigm is rising and it will rise here, inevitably. Zoomers in America are more Right-wing than Boomers now. That’s insane! Like, no one was predicting this. Nick Fuentes and Tucker Carlson talking about the jews is like mainstream political discourse.

 

And then you’ve got like Ben Shapiro complaining about it on the corner of the Internet and no one’s watching anymore. That’s how it is now. No one’s watching the old jew media anymore. Everything’s different. Everyone’s Instagram algorithm is pumping out Hitler speeches at them. It’s become normal to talk about the jews now? It’s become normal to talk about these kinds of issues. And that’s just the start.

 

So when we come along and we bring a political party with the kind of policies that we’re going to put forward and the approach we’re going to be put forward, fuck yes, there’s a constituency for it! And they can throw the kitchen sink at us because we’ve already proven we will go to jail for this! If, I mean, we don’t want to go to jail, but if we have to, we have determination. We will sacrifice. We will continue pushing forward.

 

The Liberal Party isn’t going to go to jail to stay in the Liberal Party. The only people in the Liberal Party going to jail are the paedophiles that get caught. Like what happened to that guy the other day. Imagine if we had someone in our organisation, by the way, who got caught literally touching up a kid. They would call us paedophiles, right? Liberal Party literally just had that happen. Crickets! No one blames the Liberal Party.

 

But anyway, my point is this. The political establishment in this country is flimsy. It is weak. I’m not saying that we’re going to win an election anytime soon, but we are going to be a really disruptive force on this. And they can try and fuck with us, and they can try and put some of our guys in jail and they can make a nuisance of themselves. And I’m sure it will suck. I’m sure it will suck for me personally. It might suck for you personally, Blair, and a bunch of us, but we ain’t gonna fucking stop! And they’re not gonna kill us. I said this I think last. Do you agree with this take? They’re not like the communists of old. The communists of old would fucking shoot us. They’d just fucking kill us! These are fucking soft, they’re not gonna do that.

 

[31:13]

 

 

Blair Cottrell: Yeah, but there’s different standards now. It’s that there’s modern ways of being burned at the stake where it’s not really effective to kill. When you kill your enemies, especially in politics, you actually embolden your enemy further and you win more sympathizers for your enemy by how cruel your conduct is. And sort of factions within politics have worked that out these days. And plus, we live in this post violence era. Violence will always be a thing. It’s an eternal aspect of the world, our reality. But the era that we’re in right now is a post violence era, where everything except violence is basically permissible. Like, even down to the dirtiest, darkest tactics, so long as you’re not being outrightly violent, it’s all well and good!

 

And so, yeah, even though they won’t kill you, as I said, there’s modern ways for them to publicly burn you alive and sort of torture you, humiliate you in a political way. And that’s what you’ve got to be worried about, basically.

 

Joel Davis: Yeah, but it’s not as bad. They’re not going to kill us. So it’s like we grit and bear it. You know what I mean? It’s not the like, it’s bearable. Like this is not an enemy that you should be that afraid of:

 

“Oh, maybe if you work in one field where you will lose your job or something.”

 

Blair Cottrell: You say they won’t kill you too. How can you be so sure? I saw some information that Charlie Kirk may have been killed by some sort of mechanism that shot up out of the microphone he was wearing. That might sound a bit conspiratorial, but when I saw the footage, even I had to admit, sounds pretty weird! Do you think it’s possible that Charlie Kirk was assassinated by like an organised political effort by an overseas country?

 

Joel Davis: It’s not that it’s impossible! Like it’s possible, but I don’t think any of these theories about it was a mechanism on his body, blah, blah, blah.

 

Blair Cottrell: Have you seen the footage?

 

Joel Davis: If someone else was involved, they would have just like groomed a tranny to do it.

 

And then you’ve got the, like, they would like the way that it was described. Like it’s within the power of the intelligence agencies in America or in Israel or whatever to groom trannies into committing political assassinations or tranny fuckers nto political assassinations.

 

So I don’t think you need to have this elaborate:

 

“Oh, there was a device!”

 

You know, know all this kind of stuff. I don’t know why. We’ve talked about this before on the show. I don’t know what we’re going back to this.

 

Blair Cottrell: But I was just thinking about, because you said that’s the thing, …

 

Joel Davis: If they’re going around killing everyone who disagrees, why are they’re killing Charlie Kirk? Charlie Kirk was a fucking moderate! They’re not killing Nick Fuentes! They’re not killing like more radical voices. They’re killing the more moderate ones. That doesn’t even make any sense. Since Charlie Kirk has died, things have only become more anti-Israel, more racist, more radical! So you know, what the whole like, theory around it, …

 

Blair Cottrell: For the record, I don’t actually believe anything I’m putting forward here. I’m just saying that I saw that stuff on the Internet and a lot of people seem to believe it, but I was only throwing you something contrarian because you were suggesting they won’t kill you. Like these people won’t kill you.

 

But I think there’s some evidence they, …

 

Joel Davis: If they kill me one day, they’re going to turn me into a martyr and make me more popular!

 

Blair Cottrell: Israeli intelligence, yeah, definitely would kill you! But I think you have to be a pretty significant threat or you have to be projected to become a pretty significant threat for them to start considering that. Because, as I said, they run the risk of making you into a martyr and actually just building their opponent up even more.

 

But now we’re going full circle back to what I was talking about before.

 

Joel Davis: You’re doing like little haphazard killings is always counterproductive. You have to kill everyone. You just knock off a few people all you do is turn them into heroes and embolden the rest of them to get revenge and to kind of move forward. So, they’re not gonna kill every nationalist in Australia. There’s no one is shaping up seriously to do that it’s not going to happen. And they are creating obstacles.

 

Like, for example, there’s a lot of people that have not signed up on our website to be a political supporter. A lot of them is sheer laziness. And I know there’s a lot of the you lazy fucks that are listening to this right now, …

 

Blair Cottrell: When you say, …

 

Joel Davis: Wait a second, I want to say something. If you’re one of these lazy fucks that hasn’t signed up to our political party out of laziness, do it tonight! Do it now! Literally do it right now! You can do it while you’re listening to this or watching this, go to White Australia.org, sign up as a political supporter! If it’s just laziness holding you back, particularly if you live in New South Wales, because, that’s actually the key state where we need quick signups at the moment because, …

 

[36:11]

 

Blair Cottrell: What are you asking people to do? Because I don’t understand. What are you asking people to do when you say sign up as a political supporter, what does that mean? What are you asking?

 

Joel Davis: It means basically you, … We have an encrypted database, right, that you basically import your details into on our website. It is highly encrypted. We do not want anyone getting doxed and they won’t! It’s a highly encrypted database that you know is not going to be breached.

 

Blair Cottrell: But what information do you need? What information?

 

Joel Davis: Your basic details. Your name, address. But it has to be what your electoral role address where you’re enrolled to vote. And we can send that off to the Australian Electoral Commission to then say, we’ve got enough members of our party to register the party.

 

Blair Cottrell: I don’t mean to be, … Maybe it’s not the right question, but I’ll ask it anyway. Do you trust the Australian Electoral Commission?

 

Joel Davis: Yeah. I mean, yeah, they’ve never leaked anything like this before. So there’s privacy laws. It’s like the cops know, like ASIO know who all of you are! They can figure out every single person who watches one of these streams on their phone or something. They can figure out who you are. Right.

 

So you’re already on a list that the government can access, but they don’t just publish it. That’s not how it works. And it’s not going to be how it works. So people need to fucking chill. It’s never been like that and never will be like that.

 

Secondly, how the fuck are we going to do anything unless we build a political vehicle in order to advance our ideology, our worldview, our position with the Australian public? So if that means you have to take a little bit of risk, obviously it’s not really much of a risk. We are protecting your ass! We’re not asking you to put on the black block and go march in the street, yell “hail victory”. Just asking you to sign up to a political party. And there’s legal protections. You’ll be fine. And we’ve encrypted our databases.

 

But yes, that’s the small sacrifice you have to make of spending two minutes inputting your correct details into our website so that we can go and register a political party and perhaps get thrown in jail! We’ll deal with all the difficult shit for you! All you have to do is just sign the paper, put the fries in the bag. That’s all you got to do. So just do it! Particularly if you’re in New South Wales.

 

And then also don’t just do it yourself. Go to your friends, go to your family and get them to do it. Get them to do it as well. Get as many people as you possibly can to do it! We need as many members as possible. The more members we have, the more momentum. Like even once we reach the minimum thresholds, the more members, the better. And they’re going to audit the members. Some people are going to move house or have put in the wrong details or whatever.

 

And so we’re going to need to have a glut of members, like I’ve explained before. It’s such a minimal thing. That’s such a minimal ask. It’s a really minimal ask!

 

Blair Cottrell: I noticed someone in your organisation, one of the leaders I saw through Noticer News tried to register “White Australia” as a business entity through like some sort of government business or like regulatory board.

 

And the response from this board was that the term “White Australia” because it meant White ethnically, the registration request was rejected on that basis because it was like offensive or something.

 

Joel Davis: Yeah, that was to register a corporation. That wasn’t to register a party.

 

Blair Cottrell: I know that. My question is, has there been any progress with that? Because I know that that same board accepted a registration request from Black Lives Matter and registered them as a corporation, but they said no to White Australia because of the term White. But they didn’t have a problem with the term “black”. I wonder if there’s been any update with any response.

 

Joel Davis: We just registered under a different name. We couldn’t be, there’s an appeals process, but we just couldn’t be fucked with it because it doesn’t really matter that much.

 

Blair Cottrell: It would have been a good test because you’re probably gonna get the same response from the AEC.

 

Joel Davis: Yeah, you know what would be an even better test? Building the fucking party!

 

So that’s why we’re focusing on that rather than dicking around, on arguing over registering corporations and stuff, because it’s a side issue, you know what I mean? But because a lot of people said:

 

“Oh, you can’t have your party because of that!”

 

It was like, it was almost like we shouldn’t have like put that out there because people don’t read past the headline and it confuses people. But they won’t be able to block the political party on those grounds because the Electoral Act doesn’t give them the same kind of leeway and the Constitution doesn’t give them the same kind of leeway on political parties, that they have with corporations.

 

And I think we would have won the appeal on the corporation, but it would have cost thousands of bucks and it would have taken a while and, …

 

Blair Cottrell: It would have said a precedent though too. So then you could have used the same argument with the aec. That’s what I was thinking.

 

[41:04]

 

 

Joel Davis: Yeah, we can look into, we can look into still doing it down the track, but it becomes a bit of a drawn out process anyway.

 

But when it comes to the party, like people just need to sign up! In New South Wales election is in March 2027. There’s a Victorian state election I think next November and then the following March in 2027 is the new South Wales election. So it’s some time away. It’s like a year until the Victorian election and then a year and four months till the New South Wales election and then the following year we’ll have the next federal election. Those are the three elections we’ve got our eye on. WA doesn’t have an election for years. Queensland doesn’t have an Upper House and so it’s less worth focusing on.

 

And the other states are kind of irrelevant, to be honest, not fully irrelevant, but they’re kind of irrelevant in terms of the national conversation. So Victoria, New South Wales are the two main, two biggest states, the two states where we have the most members and the two that we wanted to target first as a political party.

 

But in Victoria you only need 500 Victorian members in order to contest their state elections. And so that’s going to be a lot easier for us in Victoria. In New South Wales it’s 750. And in New South Wales, if you’re not, if you’re not registered a year prior to the election, you can’t get listed on the ballot paper.

 

Additionally, New South Wales, we probably have a better chance at actually getting someone elected than in Victoria, not because we’d get a higher percentage of the vote necessarily in one state or the other, but because of the system. So in New South Wales, like John Ruddick got elected off like 3% of the vote because New South Wales, they don’t have group voting. It’s more like kind of the Senate election in the federal election is kind of the same in the New South Wales state election.

 

Whereas in the Victorian state election they break the Upper House down into eight zones, three regional zones and five metro zones. And the top five from each of those zones get elected.

 

But the thing is that in Victoria, in the state election when you., … That seems like a good system, you just have to come fifth in your zone and you can get in. That doesn’t sound so hard. But and we probably could still do this. But the more difficult aspect of it is that in Victoria people usually don’t vote below the line and preference all of the different parties, they just put a vote above the line and then they get automatic preferencing. So we would have to do preference deals with all these other parties and get them to preference us high in order to get all their preferences. And it’d be really difficult because we’re Nazis and they’re probably not going to work with us. Who knows? We can cut some deals but it might be hard.

 

In New South Wales cutting the deals isn’t the same level of difficulty because there is an automatic preferencing in how people vote. So in New South Wales in theory we will get more preferences, you would think. So that’s why we really want to be registered to contest this election in New South Wales.

 

So if you live in New South Wales, sign the fuck up! ! We are desperate, and do it immediately because I would really much like it if we can get above the line that election, it would be great! But I’m going to stop talking about that. I know people are probably annoyed at me yammering on about that.

 

Blair Cottrell: No, we’re never annoyed about your yammering, Joel! Yammer away!

 

Joel Davis: I guess that’s what the show is. That’s literally why we’re here.

 

Blair Cottrell: But well you mentioned Remembrance Day, …

 

Joel Davis: Because people, Australians, one thing about us, and I’m like this too, we’re fucking lazy! We can’t be fucked as a people.

 

Blair Cottrell: I don’t know if, would you say we’re lazy?

 

Joel Davis: We work hard, but when it comes to like, …

 

Blair Cottrell: I think we’re more, we’re a bit black pilled on politics. I think that’s what it is. I just don’t think we like politics. Australians have a general disinterest. They don’t think there’s any hope. They think it’s all bullshit!

 

Joel Davis: That’s true. But also people are fucking lazy. People are fucking lazy in terms of doing it.

 

Blair Cottrell: Mental laziness that leads people to think this stuff too. Because politics is made to seem a lot more complicated than it really is. At the end of the day it’s just when you’ve got a homogenous society it’s different ideas competing, usually economic ideas and then there’s a few subversives in there trying to fuck your country up. If you have a good intelligence system it prevents that from happening.

 

We don’t have a homogenous society anymore. We have a multi-ethnic society. And so all politics is now is different ethnic groups trying to get an advantage over each other. It’s just different ethnic groups and some ethnic groups, namely the White ethnic group that’s currently in Parliament is working against its own ethnic interests. Generally speaking. And it’s happening in England, it’s happening in Europe. As soon as society becomes multi-ethnic political politics becomes racial. It’s just different racial groups battling each other to try to get an advantage or to try to put the other group at a disadvantage. And it’s really that simple. There’s Nothing else to consider in politics right now!

 

So you mentioned Remembrance Day, though, and I was curious, what would I call them? People from Sydney, New South Walers. What do people in New South Wales do for Remembrance Day? What do you do? Is there somewhere in the city that everyone goes?

 

[46:31]

 

Joel Davis: Yeah, we don’t really have, like a massive shrine, like in Melbourne, which I mean, I was in Melbourne for the last two Remembrance Days and so I was able to go to the Shrine of Remembrance, which is better.

 

Blair Cottrell: But what about Hyde Park, there’ a big stone structure?

 

Joel Davis: Yeah. In Hyde Park, there is a big War Memorial.

 

So there’s something, but it’s just not as impressive as the temple, basically, that exists in Melbourne to the Anzacs, which is probably the most magnificent building in Australia. But we can talk about Remembrance Day next week because that’ll be the week of the show. I really want to talk about.

 

Blair Cottrell: I just want to say something about it.

 

Joel Davis: Oh, okay. Okay, go ahead.

 

Blair Cottrell: The date November 11th is significant for a couple of reasons. Ned Kelly was hanged on November 11th. And I’m pretty sure the Berlin Wall came down on November 11th as well, I mean, that’s not necessarily pivotal for Australia, but it’s definitely a pivotal moment in European history. I’ll just say a lot of significant stuff happens in November, and November 11th, like there’s this whole list of weird shit that happens on November 11th. I don’t know if anyone knows any more about that than I do, but if you’re into that kind of stuff, hit me up because I’m interested to learn more about the strange occurrences that always seem to take place throughout November.

 

Joel Davis: Yeah. I don’t know what are you alleging, what’s going to happen?

 

Blair Cottrell: I don’t know, it’s something to do with the stars, man! I’m telling you. Usually radical change, violent change, or just something really significant tends to be happening throughout November, historically speaking. And I don’t know why that is. Someone might have a better idea as to why that is. I’m not really talking from a numerological perspective. I’m not into numerology at all! But, yeah, I’m just throwing it out there. It’s always made me feel a bit weird about my birthday, too. It’s just like:

 

“Oh, God, what’s going to happen to me?”

 

Cukg Time will tell!

 

Joel Davis: But, yeah, on the party, I’ve been working a bit on the policies that we’re going to have and we haven’t put them out yet because it’s one thing that Tom can actually have some input in from jail. So send him some a draught and we’ll see what he thinks. He might have a few different ideas so we can at least work together on something even though he’s in prison.

 

But a few of the ideas that I’ve had, I mean, we’ve spoken about some of them on the show. Some of the policies that we agreed upon, like debt forgiveness and mother’s allowance and executing paedophiles and things like that. But a few others.

 

I was going to get your takes on some of my ideas Blair, of policies here or some of our ideas.

 

Blair Cottrell: You care what I think?

 

Joel Davis: Yeah, of course.

 

Blair Cottrell: Let’s do it!

 

Joel Davis: Of course. So one idea for a policy that is oh so necessary is pretty basic, but just got to have restoring free speech in the platform. Now some people will call me a cuck. They’ll say:

 

“Why are you trying to restore free speech? Why are we trying to give free speech to communists and brown people?”

 

Now, yes, from an ideological standpoint, I don’t agree with giving free speech to everyone because I don’t believe in giving free speech to my political enemies. But considering the fact that it’s our speech that is being rejected, not theirs, I think tactically it makes sense to advocate for restoring free speech because it’s really only our speech that’s under threat.

 

So there’s that. Another policy area that we think is very important because we don’t have too many. We have like 10 policies and just call it there and keep it simple. Because as you said, Australians aren’t going to bother to read 50 policies and have opinions on them. But another policy is, …

 

Blair Cottrell: Well, I do think free speech is dangerous because that makes you receptive to enemy ideology.

 

Joel Davis: Yeah, but the enemy ideology already has freedom. Our ideology is the one that’s restricted.

 

Blair Cottrell: So basically you want to reverse the current circumstances.

 

Joel Davis: At least level the playing field. I think that’s the right tactical decision. But yeah, well, maybe you don’t. Should we run on taking away communist speech or something? I don’t know.

 

Blair Cottrell: Oh, no, I just think just certain there just should be agencies dedicated to counter subversion.

 

So like if you’re identified as a subversive unit group ideology, then you don’t have many rights basically. And that can be abused, that kind of policy. So there would need to be some sort of oversight in place to prevent it from being misused. That’s the thing that we had ASIO, which is Australia’s version of like a security agency. Would it be the Australian version of FBI Joel? Is that accurate to say?

 

Joel Davis: It’s like NSA, FBI? Yeah, it’s like a few agencies in America mixed together.

 

[52:08]

 

Blair Cottrell: Well, subversion or working against subversive tactics was part of ASIO’s definition of state security before the Hawk Labor government, I think up until around 1989, around the year of my birth, somewhere around there perhaps. But the Hawk Labor government actually put ASIO to the test because they accused them of using the term “subversion” to intrude upon the freedoms of certain groups and personalities.

 

And so the Hawk Labor government removed “subversion” from ASIO’s definition of state security and replaced it with “politically motivated violence”. So I’ve spoken about that a few times because I think that was a real pivotal moment in Australia’s history because we had a state that was making some effort to prevent hostile ideology from taking root in institutions like schools, police departments, government agencies.

 

But that was all just removed by the Hawk Labor government. And instead our national security or intelligence agencies were refocused on just violence. As though pushing people around in the street because of ideology is more of a threat to the nation than teaching kids transgenderism and communism. You know, obviously subversive ideology is more of a threat than direct violence a lot of the time.

 

So I think that was one of the greatest mistakes any government has made in Australian history.

 

Joel Davis: Yeah, but that leads to the next policy which is like restoring patriotic education. Like getting rid of all anti-White garbage out of every level of education, including the universities, and restoring pro-Australian, pro-White version of how history is taught and also compulsory martial arts for all boys. Because I think we need to become a nation of fighters. That’s our education policy. I think if you fix it, the level of education, just regulate education correctly.

 

Blair Cottrell: You can’t run a nation on love. You can only run nations on hate. Like the current civilisation is run on hatred of White people.

 

So if you reverse that situation where suddenly White people are no longer the hated enemy which unifies all of multicultural society, who’s the new enemy? Who are we united against?

 

Joel Davis: Yeah, we’re not going to like create an education policy of like, we’re going to build an education policy of fuck jews, and make like anti-semitism, [chuckling] like official government like that, I mean, it’s probably not a smart angle. Like the Left didn’t do that. The Left appealed first to free speech and to equality and so on, first.

 

Blair Cottrell: Yeah, but that’s boring now. The reason conservative elements of society are failing right now is because appealing to all of this moral goodness is fucking boring! ! And we’ve got a desensitized youth who are looking for more edgy messaging. And Hitler sold anti-semitism to people openly and they took it.

 

Joel Davis: You can sell it to people openly like a political strategy.

 

But in terms of like, I mean, the point is that like the education system is basically penetrated or just like overwhelmed with anti-White ideology, like a genocidal ideology against our people. Basically. It just needs to be like reversed.

 

Blair Cottrell: Yeah, but the point still stands like within that edgy. You’re saying the Leftists are being crafty. They’re not really like, you go into a university and they’re like:

 

“White people are responsible for all the fucked up stuff in the world.”

 

Joel Davis: Yeah, of course.

 

Blair Cottrell: You know what I mean? Like you want to change it to:

 

“Jewish people are responsible for all the suffering of the nations.”

 

Like you want to flip that.

 

So the whole mantra of the education department would replace the enemy of society. It’s currently White people. It would need to be someone else, is the point that I’m making, …

 

Joel Davis: Yeah, well, I mean patriots have many enemies. So like the historical enemies of patriots have been jewish subversion.

 

I mean, you talk about ASIO, the reason why ASIO [Australian Security Intelligence Organisation] came into existence in the first place was because jews immigrated here from Eastern Europe after World War II and they were communists, because all jews in Eastern Europe were communists at that time, basically.

 

That’s why they all had to be put in camps during the Second World War, which was against communists, by the Germans.

 

But anyway, they started stealing. They started infiltrating our government and stealing state secrets and giving them to the Soviet Union. That’s why they had to create ASIO to create a barrier. They never even needed to have something like ASIO before World War II because our country was so homogenous that there just weren’t any traitors. So there was no traitors to deal with. [chuckling] That’s the power of a homogeneous society, what it can achieve.

 

But yeah. What do you think about compulsory martial arts for all boys? I think that’s a good policy. I think we need it.

 

Blair Cottrell: It’s okay. I always said that you should give people a choice because forcing all people through the same pipeline doesn’t always produce, …

 

Joel Davis: Children don’t get choices. Children get forced into all kinds of shit! Children don’t get a choice:

 

“Hey, would you like to learn how to read? Would you like, . ?”

 

Blair Cottrell: Oh, no, no, the choice is pretty, like it’s not that much different. I always thought, and I’ve had you disagree with me on this before. I thought you should be able to choose between two years military service or an apprenticeship in a specific trade such as carpentry, bricklaying, plumbing, something like that.

 

So you’re either demonstrating yourself as useful to defend the country as part of a huge reserve army, you know how to use weapons, et cetera, and you’ve also had your mind and body hardened by the military training. Or if you don’t want to do it’s not your thing, you can learn a valuable skill and become useful to the nation in that way. You don’t have to do it. You can do your apprenticeship and then choose to go into university or do something else. But I’ve always thought or said you shouldn’t be able to become a citizen until you complete two years military service or complete a trade. That’s what I think.

 

[58:10]

 

 

Joel Davis: I agree with compulsory military training. I don’t agree with people being forced to do a trade.

 

Blair Cottrell: That’s because you’ve never done an apprenticeship. You don’t know how tough it can be. It’s tough on your mind and stuff on your body.

 

Joel Davis: I did, I was a locksmith apprentice, once upon a time.

 

Blair Cottrell: A locksmith? Did you? Yeah, but you need to do some time on the shovel, Joel! You need to dig some trenches!

 

Joel Davis: I’ve worked in construction, I’ve done my time on the shovel. I’ve worked in landscaping.

 

Blair Cottrell: Okay. When did you do that?

 

Joel Davis: In Sydney, when I was younger.

 

Blair Cottrell: But like, then you got to understand the value, right? Like, it’s great to have soldiers, but you’ve got to have people who can actually produce something, who can build, who can plumb, who can wire a house.

 

Joel Davis: Yeah, everyone’s going to do that anyway. Everyone’s going to get a job anyway. The, …

 

Blair Cottrell: That’s not true, though. No. People don’t get a job unless they have to.

 

Joel Davis: Yeah, well, you do have to. How are you going to get money?

 

Blair Cottrell: Well, right now the government will give you money for being a retard!

 

Joel Davis: Yeah, well, I mean, obviously we’re going to do something about that. We can’t have 18% of the country on NDIS or whatever it is. Like, it’s ridiculous!

 

Blair Cottrell: Look, all I say, I’m a big advocate of learning a trade. Even if you don’t stick with it. To me is of equal value to learning how to defend the country with like real military.

 

Joel Davis: Objectively, not of equal value if you’re at war. Obviously nothing is more valuable.

 

Blair Cottrell: Yeah, obviously. Well, not necessarily because you still need amenities, you still need transport.

 

Joel Davis: Yeah, of course, I’m not saying that being a tradie is bad or something, but what I’m saying is if you got a kid who’s going to become a lawyer or something, we don’t need to be a tradie first.

 

Blair Cottrell: No, no. I think it’s about character building in that case. So even if he never becomes a bricklayer, if he does three years bricklaying before he goes to university to learn to become a lawyer, he’s learnt about the grit, the reality, the harshness of reality through three years of bricklaying, which is hard labour, right? Not just the labour itself, but the way you’re treated by the guys who you’re going to be working under. It builds character.

 

Joel Davis: Everyone be a bricklayer?

 

Blair Cottrell: But look, think. Have you ever played a strategy game like Warcraft 3, for example, back when it first came out? You can’t do anything without the worker unit. You can’t build soldiers without the worker unit. You can’t mine minerals without the worker unit. The worker unit is the beginning of everything. Building strong workers with good spirit, good character is, I think, it’s possibly even more valuable than having soldiers.

 

Joel Davis: Well, what I think is that when it comes to compulsory military service, I don’t think that people should be forced to serve in foreign wars. We should only ever, and that’s actually in the Constitution. You can’t conscript people to fight foreign wars under the current Australian constitution. The only pretext for conscription would be if Australia was like, invaded and we were like fighting a war of national survival.

 

Blair Cottrell: And that’s the benefit of having like mandatory military.

 

Joel Davis: But you could still force everyone to train for a year. They wouldn’t have to get deployed, but you could at least make everyone train so everyone knows how to use a gun. Everyone knows how to, …

 

Blair Cottrell: But that’s the point. But then if Australia does get invaded, if everyone’s done, two years military service in order to achieve citizenship.

 

Joel Davis: Yeah.

 

Blair Cottrell: They’ve at least trained a huge reserve army of like everyone who knows how to use a gun.

 

Joel Davis: If every boy in Australia grows up doing martial arts, grows up doing combat sports, then they go and do their military service, then you’ve just got an entire nation of fucking beasts! You know what I mean? Everyone can fight. And then your baseline is so much higher than any other country at that point. That, to me, that’s going to be our policies.

 

Blair Cottrell: But did you do martial arts?

 

Joel Davis: Being bricklayers, that’s a bit extremist for me. I’m too moderate.

 

Blair Cottrell: Hang on! I think I explained my case pretty well. I’m surprised that you don’t agree!

 

Joel Davis: Yeah. I just don’t think you need to force people into particular fields in the economy. I think people can pursue their own career path, obviously if they’re doing nothing. But everyone doesn’t have to do a trade.

 

Blair Cottrell: My perspective is one of the reasons we have a lot of the problems we have is because we have weak people in positions of leadership and they wouldn’t be weak if they did a trade when they were young.

 

[1:02:41]

 

Joel Davis: Well, I know plenty of tradies who are soft cunts! So I don’t know.

 

Blair Cottrell: Like these days they work differently, I suppose. Maybe it’s just the way I was worked.

 

Joel Davis: But like, also, there’s different trades too. Like I said, if you’re a Sparky [electrician], like, you just walk around just plugging things in. It’s not really that hard.

 

Blair Cottrell: You still crawl around inside ceilings, underneath houses, occasionally have to dig around in, …

 

Joel Davis: In like in awkward spaces. Like, how’s that special? Like, I don’t know.

 

Blair Cottrell: You’re providing electricity to the community. It’s very special.

 

Joel Davis: Yeah, well, they get paid well. Sparkies get paid well. But we don’t need to make everyone be a Sparky to like have a society or something like that.

 

Blair Cottrell: I don’t know. I think we have a very spoiled generation who just think that things just happen! They think that guns just get made and buildings just. Lights just turn on and shit just works because that’s how things have always been for them. But when the shit hits the fan, man, you’re gonna need to have a lot of maintenance men. You’re gonna need some men who know how to build shit and maintain shit! Otherwise no one’s gonna know even where to start.

 

Joel Davis: You know, Australia has one of the highest, I think we have like the second highest builders per capita of like any country in the world.

 

Blair Cottrell: Yeah, they’re all going broke right now too, like it’s hard, hard times out there because we’re bringing in a lot of foreign people who are undercutting local builders but then producing really shit houses!

 

Joel Davis: Garbage! Yeah.

 

Blair Cottrell: And yeah, people just getting ripped off and going broke left, right and centre. You have to be a pretty reputable builder with a good reputation to survive out there. I heard that Matt Trihey, who’s still a builder and runs a protest group called National Workers Alliance in Melbourne, he was on with Graham on Offaly Offensive podcast, I heard. And hopefully they discuss a little about what it’s like to be a builder currently out there. Because I haven’t been in construction for a few years now and I’m not sure how the building situation actually looks with boots on the ground from that perspective. Hopefully they talk about it.

 

Joel Davis: So speaking of Matt, because obviously Matt took over the Melbourne wing of the March for Australia, and the next March for Australia he’s going to be heading up Melbourne again, I believe. There’s been some interesting developments in March for Australia world that I’m privy to.

 

What I’ve heard is that, and what I’ve seen, is that the Brisbane March for Australia people have now broken away. They’ve created their own website which is actually a couple months old, which indicates that this is premeditated, called Australiamarches.com or some shit like that! And they’re stealing the branding of March for Australia but at the same time separating themselves and saying:

 

“Oh, we’re not racist, and we’re not Nazis!”

 

And so on. And they’re trying to cuck everything out and they’re separated themselves from the rest of the March for Australia around the country. Because people who were paying attention would have noticed that in Brisbane, March for Australia turned into a bit of a cuck fest. Like in the first one, they had like some Indian guy give a song speech at a mass immigration rally. And then basically it just seems like the last one was just like all these politicians back to back to back giving speeches as like campaign pitches. And like the idea of March for Australia was supposed to be this like grassroots nationalist uprising against mass immigration. And in Brisbane they’ve kind of moderated the message:

 

“Oh, patriotism has nothing to do with racism!”

 

And here’s 3 [6] million speeches from politicians. And there was disputes. The national March for Australia team wanted to ban Gerard Rennick from giving a speech at the last one because he came out the week before the rally kind of with all these pro-immigration comments. We discussed it on the last stream, but he was allowed to speak anyway. He didn’t even mention immigration. There’s an anti-immigration rally. He didn’t even mention immigration because these organisers up in Brisbane have gone their own way.

 

And so that’s interesting because now that I guess there’s going to be a bit of a dispute between two different factions. The people in Sydney, the people in Melbourne, in other cities, are a lot more radical than the people up in Brisbane. It feels like in Brisbane there’s like this big conservative scene. Brisbane has become kind of the capital of conservatism in Australia. You know, like all the Right, the kind of smaller Right-wing parties are kind of based there, it seems, and they have CPAC there and it’s like the heartland of the Liberal Party and all of that. And there’s a lot of all White Boomers who moved up to Queensland and it’s a Whiter state, it’s an older state, it’s got a lot of conservative voters.

 

Whereas like in Sydney and Melbourne it’s gone Left-wing, there’s a lot of immigrants, there’s a lot of Lefties. But then the Right-wing is a lot more nationalist and a lot more radical. It’s kind of polarised. Whereas like in Brisbane it’s just like a conservative, you know, hug box.

 

[1:07:54]

 

Blair Cottrell: It’s funny, is that things need to be worse, things need to be pretty bad before people stop trying to be the nice conservative guy and just accept the fight for what it is like I heard Elon Musk on Joe Rogan Show recently. There was a clip of him and he was saying that:

 

“There is no perfect way to do deportations. That if you’re seeking perfection, it won’t happen.”

 

What he means by that is if you’re trying to be nice about deportations because they were talking about how there’s a conspiracy within the Democrat Party in Australia [America] to bring in as many illegals as possible because then they then count those votes through some voter fraud system. And that’s how they’re trying to keep themselves in power or regain power in that country’s system. And Musk was saying that deporting illegals is basically the main priority of the Trump administration because that’s one of the ways they can prevent the Democrats from leveraging that whole corrupt system to gain power, the illegal immigration system.

 

But anyway, he was saying that if you’re going to try to be like morally good, to be the nice guy and perfect how deportations happen, it just won’t happen! You’ve just got to like literally grab people and remove them. You’ve got to be mean, you’ve got to be nasty. You’ve got to understand that this is like an attack on your country.

 

And there’s a similar situation with conservatives in Australia where no one’s willing to just “be mean”. No one’s willing to understand that this is a fight for our survival. Right. It’s like everyone’s still trying to be the nice guy:

 

“I don’t want to say anything mean. I don’t upset those people over there.”

 

And I suppose things are still that way in Brisbane because things just aren’t bad enough in Brisbane yet? Come down and stay in Melbourne for a couple of months and you’ll realise how concern like bullshit trying to be the nice guy is. You realise how much of a waste of time it is trying to not be racist and not upset those people over there. It’s just that time is done down here in Melbourne! It’s done in Sydney as well! But I suppose Brisbane still needs to arrive at that realisation.

 

Joel Davis: Yeah, that’s part of it. I think that’s part of it. But also what’s part of it, I think, is that the institutional strength of the Right-wing there is such that they’ve kind of hijacked things. Before the first March for Australia, there were people that were behind the scenes trying to get involved and they wanted to bring in people from the One Nation Party and bring in people from this Right-wing minor party and that Right-wing minor party. And that’s one of the reasons why the NSN stuck our nose in it because we were like:

 

“No, fuck off!”

 

Because we had to secure it from being kind of watered down and turned into, just like a campaign opportunity for all these politicians. It’s not about the politicians, it’s about the rest of us! It’s about the fact that the politicians have failed us. It’s about the fact that there are no good politicians. We’re trying to create a new generation that could provide an alternative.

 

But the establishment is complicit. Even the Right-wingers that are somewhat better are still complicit because they haven’t offered anywhere near enough of a resistance, a meaningful enough of a resistance. That’s why March for Australia came into existence because no one was, I guess other than us, was doing it! Was saying what needed to be said anyway.

 

Of course they saw the numbers swell and the opportunity to gain legitimacy and whatever. And so then they started jumping on it late. But then they said:

 

“Oh but if you want, we’ll bring in money so you can have security and big stages and good speakers and like a speaker system and everything. But in order to get our A list speakers to give speeches, we can’t have the Nazis there and we can we can’t say things this way and we can’t say things that way and everything has to be toned down.”

 

And they were all told:

 

“To get fucked!”

 

But the people who kind of played ball were the guys in Brisbane. The guys in Brisbane were the ones that played ball with those types. And now it’s basically been a conspiracy to usurp not just the March for Australia Brisbane, but I think they want to try and take the whole thing. They’re not going to be able to.

 

Blair Cottrell: Unfortunately for them it’s not speakers and better electrical equipment that’s spark political upheaval and even revolutionary politics. It’s personalities.

 

So I don’t think the Liberal Party can produce the personalities to actually keep the March for Australia going. But is it the Liberal Party that’s actually doing this? Are they behind that?

 

Joel Davis: I don’t think it’s a Liberal Party. I think it’s the conservative establishment, let’s say.

 

Blair Cottrell: Who is that? And is that like all the T-shirt salesmen?

 

Joel Davis: Yeah, there’s a series of influencers. People that are associated, on the fringes of Sky News, people that are associated with all these different One Nation, these other political parties, the Andrew Hastie wing of the Liberal Party, that whole spectrum. The professional protesters who are always doing protests all the time, the well oiled machine protesters that every time there’s an issue they pop up and try and do, … The people that were doing the September 13, a lot of the people involved in that this is what I’m talking about. There’s a whole kind of like industry. It’s nowhere near as big as it is in America, thank God, but there’s an industry of like professional conservatism, let’s say, that’s not in the Liberal Party. It’s like outside it. And sometimes there’s a cross pollination with it. And it’s those people and, …

 

[1:13:29]

 

Blair Cottrell: They’ll kill it, won’t they? If they do get control of it.

 

Joel Davis: We’re not going to be able to win this by being nice. That’s what they wanted. They want to nice guy our way to it.

 

Blair Cottrell: They don’t want to win it, though. They probably don’t want to win it. They probably just want to get control of it, leverage it, milk it for all it’s worth, or whatever they can get from it until it dies. That’s it!

 

And it will die in their hands. Because they just don’t know how to handle that kind of like, they see it as a marketing opportunity. They see it as a way to make some money. They see it as a way to divert some votes here and there, and that’s it. And that’s what they’ll do. They’ll just milk it for that purpose. They won’t see the energy, they won’t see the potential. They won’t use that energy for anything truly revolutionary, truly meaningful, to create an upheaval, to create a counterculture, to build momentum for a great change, like for a great purpose, which is going to change politics somehow. It’s just like:

 

“All right, how can we make some money out of these people? How can we sort of divert their votes in a direction which is favourable to our sponsors? And then how can we just move on after that and wipe our hands clean of it?”

 

That will be the conservative approach, the merchant approach to the March for Australia.

 

Joel Davis: Yeah, the “Merch for Australia”. So Brisbane is going to turn into grifter slop garbage, unfortunately. But Sydney and Melbourne, I think Perth and the other cities should stay solid. So for this is for Australia Day, of course, the next one is on Australia Day [Jan 26, 2026]. And that I remember when the idea of doing the August 31st March came up. Part of what made me excited to do it was thinking two steps ahead. Not just that it in of itself would be a great day and that it would be a powerful expression of national sentiment and so on. But I was thinking if that is a success, then you can then leverage that to then call the patriots back out on Australia Day. Because of course, everyone remembers what happened last Australia Day. Last Australia Day, we did our march in Adelaide. We had our national conference in Adelaide, you know, at the beginning of the year. And we were mass arrested for trying to celebrate our national holiday.

 

Meanwhile, you know, every city in Australia has these huge Invasion Day communist-Aboriginal fuck Australia, fuck White people protests! And it’s just outrageous! It’s outrageous that our cities get overrun by that every year on our national holiday. And there’s no proper celebration of our national holiday that Australia is under attack.

 

Blair Cottrell: How is that not disfavorable to social cohesion? It’s like you guys are the only thing affecting or having any sort of negative effect on how people feel about the state of social cohesion in Australia. But having like, what are they, what are they? These rallies against like Australia Day Invasion Day protests with people holding signs saying Burn Australia Down:

 

“Oh, that’s all fine. No threat to social cohesion there. No need for special AFP task forces! No need to disrupt and dissuade those people from their activities. No need to talk about that at all!”

 

It’s only nationalism that’s a threat to Australia, apparently.

 

Joel Davis: Yeah. Like, so being anti-Australia is sweet, but being pro-Australia is the worst possible thing. That’s literally like we live in the inverted, … Obviously everyone watching this gets it. We live in the total inversion.

 

Blair Cottrell: Wish we could be a fly on the wall. Like watching certain task forces and police officers get briefed on like Right-wing groups, the sort of shit that they would get fed about Right-wing groups.

 

Joel Davis: I know what they get fed! Because I’ve been pulled over with Jack Eltis. I remember we got pulled over by the Raptor Squad. This was last year. And the Raptor Squad are like an anti-bikie task force, which is for the benefit of the audience. And they were just like, Jack was driving and they were giving Jack like tickets for not indicating left when exiting roundabouts and just trying to fuck with him, you know, stuff that like police never care about, that no one, like stupid laws on the books, technically that no one obeys. And I said:

 

“Qu do you feel good about yourself? I mean, this is fucking pathetic! You guys are fucking pathetic!”

 

And they said:

 

“Well, you guys are terrorists!”

 

Blair Cottrell: Is that what they said?

 

Joel Davis:

 

“What!”

 

Blair Cottrell: That’s because before they go out to disrupt and engage with you guys and whatever you’re doing, someone from the government or someone from police command briefs them and says:

 

“These guys are terrorists. They will stab you, they will kill you! So go hard on them!”

 

That’s what they will get told. And these rank, these cops, you know what do you call it? Rank and file cops, they would just gobble that up because they’re paid to gobble it up, right?

 

Joel Davis: Yeah.

 

Blair Cottrell: So who is it, who is it that’s lying to police and calling a group of people engaging in political protest “terrorists”? Who’s doing that? Wouldn’t that be illegal? Oh, I forgot. We don’t have any actual standards or rules. We’re not a real democracy. So nothing’s really illegal, is it?

 

[1:18:37]

 

Joel Davis: Yeah, if myself, I know this is true. Also, I remember I’ve been in the car driving home from night out with Jacob Hersant and they got his licence and put it into the system and they’re like:

 

“Oh!”

 

And one cop pointed to the other and said:

 

“Oh, Counter Terrorism watch!”

 

Like he’s on a counter terrorism watch list. What act of terrorism has Jacob Hersant committed? None! He just conveys his political views in public that offend people’s feelings and that’s “terrorism”.

 

But yeah, they brief the police that we, they literally have political police in this country as we have been discussing. We have political police in this country that are basically briefed on so-called Right-wing extremism, nationalism, as the greatest threat to our country. And that people like us say that it’s the immigrants that are a threat to the country and so on, when it actually is! Like people like us say the truth and then. But apparently we’re the threats for saying the truth!

 

But anyway, my point is that the Australian people know, the average Aussie knows that Australia Day is under attack and that it’s under attack because they’re under attack, because we’re under attack as a people. And they attack our day because they’re attacking the legitimacy of our whole country because they’re attacking us and our claim to this country.

 

And so if you look at the opinion polls, Australia Day has become more popular in recent years because people are feeling defiant. That’s what happens when you attack people existentially.

 

And so what I think is necessary spiritually for this country is for the cities to be just covered in Australian flags and patriots on Australia Day because then the media will say that it’s racist and that we’re all Nazis, … Some of us are Nazis. They’re going to put us all over the television. We’re going to be ready for it, but they’re going to make it all about that.

 

And then the average Australian is going to be sitting at home and says:

 

“Isn’t that what’s supposed to happen on Australia Day? Aren’t we supposed to celebrate Australia Day? Aren’t we Australia?”

 

Blair Cottrell: You know what’s funny is a lot of recently arrived immigrants are confused about that too. Like, when people who have just arrived in Australia, they hear about Australia Days happening soon, they sometimes, like, show up in a public place with Australian flags and stuff because they’re like:

 

“Wow, we’re citizens. I can’t believe we’re in Australia. We’re so happy to be here!”

 

And then there’s like White Leftists, like blonde people with Aboriginal T-shirts on, just throwing bricks at them and screaming:

 

“You fucking racist!”

 

Like, [chuckling] could you imagine how confused you would be?

 

Joel Davis: Yeah, but that’s the thing. Like, last year, they were able to make it look like we’re this fringe crazy group. And people got very emotional. They were like:

 

“Well they shouldn’t be getting arrested for celebrating Australia Day, singing Waltzing Matilda. That’s fucked up!”

 

And we knew they were going to arrest us and that we’d create that optics trap. But how edifying would it be to then fast forward one year and it’s just tens of thousands and it’s all over the country and it’s like:

 

“Arrest this! What are you going to do this time?”

 

Then Australians need to remind one another that we’re still here and that we haven’t given up yet and that has an intangible quality. Some people say:

 

“What’s the point of marching in the street?”

 

And so on. But it has an intangible quality. And this wouldn’t be a protest. This would be a celebration. And the Lefties, they’re already protesting us regardless of whether we show up or not. They do it every year. They’re the protesters. Let them be the protests. We can be the ones celebrating who we are on our national holiday.

 

And I think this Australia Day will be incredible! I think if you’re not marching for Australia Day this year, you’re a fake patriot. I mean, you just have to get out there because, … Yeah, you just have to! We have to take our cities back. It’s like a matter of honour. Do you agree? I presume you must agree.

 

Blair Cottrell: Well, what am I agreeing with exactly? That people should fly the flag of their country proudly on Australia Day and celebrate Australia Day.

 

Joel Davis: But then we should march, like in the cities, like with March for Australia.

 

Blair Cottrell: Well, the local governments used to facilitate those marches. I think it was cancelled during the pandemic. The Australia Day parades, the traditional ones, were cancelled during the Covid pandemic for health reasons, for your “safety”. Because it’s not like any evil is ever done in the name of your safety.

 

And then they were just never reinstated. So after like Covid just vanished overnight after everyone got vaccinated because that’s all they cared about was injecting everybody with the shit that ended up causing heart attacks that they never talked about. Once they got what they wanted in that regard, well, everything just went back to normal. And the marches, the Australia Day parades were never reinstated.

 

So we should just have our own parades. I guess, like everyone should just get out on the streets and march through the city organically. You don’t need the government to tell you it’s okay to do it. Just go and do it for your country.

 

[1:23:45]

 

 

Joel Davis: Yeah, it’d be a fun day out. So I’m really looking forward to it. That was like, I’ve had this vision in my mind for some time,. So and I think it’d be powerful. And then we’re going to be doing our conference, our national conference that weekend and be launching, we’ll probably be launching the political party around then. I don’t know exactly when we’re going to do that, if we’re going to try and bundle it together or do it separately. We haven’t exactly decided on that timing. But you know, next year is going to be a big one for us and for nationalism and what a way to kick it off.

 

So anyway, because of all of that, and that’s a beautiful vision, great things to think about. Is really disappointing what’s happened in Brisbane. And I think it’s going to turn into a big drama and this is going to be like the animating kind of battle lines, I guess, of the next phase of where it’s going to be the containment Right, the remnants of the conservative establishment trying to rebrand themselves as anti-immigration populists, even though they’re not really that sincere about it and are just kind of grifting off it or trying to angle it for their narrow political purposes.

 

But it’s basically just maintaining “conservatism incorporated”, you know, maintaining the inertia of that whole structure of compromise and cowardice versus the re-emergence of real grassroots nationalism, trying to use that intergenerational energy, the energy of the White youth fueling the rise of a real nationalist movement. And the battle between these two forces and picking a side between these two forces is going to be the animating battle of the next few years. And like you can see that’s also kind of true, I think in not just in this situation but in America as well.

 

Like recent developments over there where I’m just seeing the old guard, … The difference I think between the Americans and us is that there’s more of a conservative establishment. So it’s like in America they’re fighting over control of the conservative establishment. Like nationalists are trying to like claim the conservative establishment and redirect it towards their ends.

 

Whereas in Australia the conservative establishment isn’t worth trying to like take over. Like it’s a joke! You should just push it over, just blow it up, get rid of it, replace it, beat it!

 

Blair Cottrell: By blow it up you don’t mean like actually blow it up, right?

 

Joel Davis: No, not literally planting bombs or something of that nature, but like, it’s a metaphor. But ASIO don’t care at this point that we’re not violent, that we’re not terrorists.

 

Blair Cottrell: Yeah apparently. You’re being treated as though you are anyway.

 

Joel Davis: So ASIO, stop with fucking us! Feds, stop fucking with us! We’re gonna try and take this in a political direction. We’re going to go away from the kind of more terroristic angle that you guys don’t like and we’re going to move into a peaceful political solution orientation. Allow us to do it! Because if you actually care about terrorism in the sense of you want to stop it, the only way that you’re going to stop it is by giving people with our views an outlet to express them within the system.

 

If you lock us out so that we can’t participate in the system, that’s how you’re going to create, … And ASIO said this themselves, like Mike Burgess* has said this himself, that he doesn’t expect us to commit terrorism. He expects some random guy who’s a nationalist, who gets black pilled, who thinks the movement has got no hope, goes off as a lone wolf and does some crazy shit! But they don’t even care about that. They’re not talking about terrorism anymore because they know they can’t make that stick on us. So now they’re just talking about what, …

 

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

 

Blair Cottrell: What happens when like literally everyone who ever supported NSN or White Australia ends up feeling that way. Because as soon as they tried to form a political party, the police just went even harder to disrupt them from doing that. And there was no chance of them actually having a voice or any representation. [chuckling] It’s like you guys when you were just hosting protests, making social media posts. Like two years ago, things weren’t that bad. I mean, you had some minor problems with police, but mostly it was just journalists giving you shit in the media.

 

But now you want to form a political party, you’re almost on the way to doing it, you’re making real progress. And now all of a sudden the whole Federal Police service is forming task forces and openly admitting that they’re going to do everything possible to “disrupt you from forming a political party”. It’s like they go even harder when you actually try to establish yourself or establish some sort of legitimate political representation.

 

So if I were an intelligence agent, I’d be sitting there scratching my head thinking:

 

“What’s the real problem here? Is it these guys trying to form a political party and obey the law? Or is it whoever’s in government mobilising the police into special task forces to harass, disrupt and set those guys up on bullshit charges for trying to form a political party? Maybe we need to look a little deeper into the actual system. Maybe the system’s the problem!”

 

Joel Davis: This is an interesting, … So meanwhile, while they’re treating us as the problem, is this:

 

“ASIO boss Mike Burgess warns of realistic possibility foreign government could attempt to kill a dissident in Australia.”

 

This article came out today.

 

Blair Cottrell: What’s that in relation to? What foreign government?

 

Joel Davis: I’ll read it out:

 

“Delivering the 2025 Lowy Lecture on Tuesday, he said, ‘this threat is real. We believe there are at least three nations willing and capable of conducting lethal targeting. It is entirely possible the regimes would try to hide their involvement by hiring criminal cutouts, as Iran did when directing its arson attack’.”

 

So he’s still pushing this nonsense that Iran was behind the synagogue arson attacks when obviously it was the fucking jews!

 

[1:30:09]

 

Blair Cottrell: It’s weird! It’s like, why would Iran do that? What benefit is there for Iran?

 

Joel Davis: There is no benefit.

 

Blair Cottrell: It could very possibly be someone acting through Iran to make it look like it’s Iran.

 

Joel Davis: Yeah, the jews! We know that Israel have penetrated Iran because when they had their war earlier this year, Mossad were conducting targeted assassinations inside Tehran of their top political and military officials. So it shows that Mossad have guys on the inside, that they’ve fully penetrated the Iranian system and establishment and so on.

 

So they could easily make, they could easily pay, you know, gangs here to do fire-bombings of synagogues and then make it look like they were Iranian or something. What a load of garbage!

 

But yeah, paying organised crime. So it came out, Mark Latham brought this up as well recently that he asked the, I think the police commissioner in New South Wales about, because they have something called Strike Force Pearl, which is their anti-semitism special task force or something. And he said:

 

“Of all the arrests they made in response to anti-semitic, you know, arson attacks and graffiti incidents and whatever, how many were organised crime?”

 

And they said:

 

“All of them!”

 

All of them were organised crime.

 

So it’s not anti-semites doing it. Someone’s paying, you know, biker gangs and shit to do it. Why? Why would they be doing that? Well, what was the net result? The net result? Did any jews get hurt? No.

 

So it wasn’t to get the jews. The net result was to basically provide a context, a pretext for the jewish lobby and its satellites in the media and Sky News. What does Mark Latham call it? “Sky jews”. And instead of the Daily Telegraph, he says the “Daily Tel Aviv”. For the jewish media and the jewish lobby to pressure successfully the government into passing Hate Speech laws.

 

So obviously it was the fucking jews that paid the gangsters. I mean, one plus one equals two.

 

Blair Cottrell: Maybe they know that, maybe ASIO knows that. But they’re publicly running with the “oh, Iran did it”, to make Israel think they’re not on to them. I mean, that’s a long shot.

 

But what they say publicly doesn’t always need to line up with what they actually know. They’re an intelligence agency, so they could be playing a long game.

 

Joel Davis: This is interesting. In this article, it’s supposed to be about foreign governments attempting to kill dissidents. And you were just talking about how you think they could try to kill me potentially, if I get too successful. Or you, or our friends. What he says here:

 

“Angry, alienated individuals are embracing anti-authority ideologies and conspiracy theories, engaging in uncivil debate and unpeaceful protest.”

 

Blair Cottrell: Where’s that happen?

 

Joel Davis:

 

“The aggrieved, not necessarily espouse violent views. It may see violence as a legitimate way to affect political societal change. The way nationalist and racist violent extremists attempted to leverage the so-called March for Australia rallies is a case in point. The biggest neo-Nazi group, the National Socialist Network, or White Australia as it is rebranding itself, identified the demonstrations as a vehicle to raise its profile. It strategically and opportunistically exploited the organisers complaints about immigration and the cost of living. Even if the organisation does not engage in terrorism, I remain deeply concerned by its hateful, divisive rhetoric and increasingly violent propaganda?”

 

What do you mean violent propaganda?

 

Blair Cottrell: Hang on, did Burgess say that specifically?

 

Joel Davis: Yeah!:

 

“And the growing likelihood these things will prompt spontaneous violence, particularly in response to perceived provocation.”

 

So what this is saying:

 

“We might upset people who will then attack us, and that this is therefore irresponsible.”

 

What a joke!

 

Blair Cottrell: So he’s actually referencing members of Australian nationalism or specifically White Australia as potential targets for assassination. Is that what he’s saying?

 

Joel Davis: I haven’t seen those explicit comments here, but I’m still reading:

 

“While nationalist and racist violent extremists make up the significant majority of our investigations into ideologically motivated extremism.”

 

So still the majority of ASIO’s work is on us. I mean, it’s crazy to think about how many people working in these federal agencies are just focused on the boys, like literally us!

 

Blair Cottrell: Fucking crazy! Especially when you see the boys and like you know them. They’re literally just normal guys.

 

Joel Davis: Like they’re watching right now! There’s like feds watch, like they watch every episode of this shit!

 

Blair Cottrell: Yeah, they have to.

 

Joel Davis: Like you’re fucking pathetic! Hi feds! Fuck you! Ike, what a joke.

 

Blair Cottrell: When he said, when Burgess said that White Australia or you guys utilise concerns about immigration to exploit or gain your profile or whatever as a political force. Doesn’t literally every fucking political group or party that ever existed do the same thing?

 

Joel Davis: Yeah, One Nation is trying to exploit it for themselves. The Liberal Party tries to exploit it.

 

Blair Cottrell: Massive realisation, bro! Like literally that’s what politics is. You leverage an environment and situation to your advantage. Like as long as it’s not violent, it’s legal. But that’s changing right now, isn’t it?

 

Joel Davis: If people attack us and we fight back. And he says:

 

“Oh, they’re provoking violence.”

 

Blair Cottrell: Yeah, it’s very concerning.

 

Anyway, continue.

 

Joel Davis: Since, oh, he’s just going on about fucking October [7th] 2023, anti-Israel, blah, blah, blah. All he cares about is people doing nationalism or being anti-Israel. It’s just like political policing. Like the positions of the state is that:

 

“White people bad, jews good! And we want to enforce that.”

 

That’s all he’s saying, basically.

 

[1:36:26]

 

 

Blair Cottrell: I think the days are almost gone, where you can sit on streams like this and talk like we’re talking now, I don’t think this will be possible in another year or two. Maybe even sooner than that. I think the world we grew up in where you can just observe how ridiculous the government is or how unjustly you’re being treated by government agencies, by police, and you can just openly discuss that or draw attention to it. I almost think those days are gone. We’re almost done with that.

 

Like, you’ll be streaming like this and they’ll just come into your house and smash your camera and arrest you over some like. [chuckling] I actually believe that we’re going to go through a time like that pretty soon. I feel it in my gut. Yeah, we’re almost done with this. This will be a thing of the past pretty soon.

 

Joel Davis: I don’t know. I think it’s a bit much. I don’t think.

 

Blair Cottrell: I think you’ll be surprised. Australia is very corrupt.

 

Joel Davis: Yeah, it is corrupt. It is corrupt, but I don’t think they have the ability to do that.

 

But anyway, …

 

Blair Cottrell: Well, they’re already raiding people on no evidence. Like they’re just coming into your house and saying:

 

“Oh, you did this!”

 

They don’t have any fucking proof. And they’re just using that as an excuse to take all your shit! So they’re doing it already.

 

Joel Davis: Yeah. Well, it’s not really the same thing though, is it? Because you don’t, …

 

Blair Cottrell: Well, it’s only one step away. Like, it’s basically within the same tier.

 

Joel Davis: That’s like, they use the, “the process is the punishment” type thing, but they are not actually succeeding in getting the punishment in those scenarios. I mean, Tom just represented himself from a jail cell over zoom in court and won the other day.

 

Blair Cottrell: Yeah, but he’s still in jail.

 

Joel Davis: Well, he’s in jail for running up a hill and hitting people. Like, it’s, …

 

Blair Cottrell: Partly. It’s like 25 other charges as well.

 

Joel Davis: Yeah. I mean, obviously what’s happening to him is unfair, but it’s like I push back against this, like catastrophizing:

 

“Oh, they’re just gonna round us all up and put us in jail anytime now.”

 

Blair Cottrell: Well, if you look at what’s happening, like if you just observe the pattern of their activity, what they do is when they don’t get a result by going or by increasing their activity in regards to like taking a more aggressive approach. When they don’t get the result they want by taking a more aggressive approach, they just become more aggressive again to try to get a result. And if that doesn’t work, then they just get more aggressive again. That’s the pattern of behaviour I’m seeing from the current political policing government system. So based on that pattern, it’s just mathematical certainty that they’re just going to become more aggressive.

 

Joel Davis: Yeah, but at the end of the day, like they don’t have the ability to just arrest, …

 

Blair Cottrell: They do have that.

 

Joel Davis: They still have to win in court. You’ll win in court and then you make them look stupid. Like there’s a limit., …

 

Blair Cottrell: Yeah, I agree. That can take years. But then it depends on how compromised the judges are as well. So there’s still variables there to consider.

 

And like they really do have the ability, they have the ability to do whatever they want. There’s just words on paper that they need to manipulate to make it seem legit.

 

Joel Davis: Yeah, there’s legitimacy though. Like if they push too hard, particularly as we’re building this political party, if they push too hard against us, you know, it will be too delegitimizing. So they have, …

 

Blair Cottrell: There is that. But then you can argue that they’ll just make it exclusively about you and your ideology, and they’ll get everyone to agree on those terms. So it can’t happen to anyone else, but it can happen to these Nazis because of “how abhorrent they are”. And everyone will be like, “yes”! In Parliament. I think they made a law. Do you know who Julian Knight is? He was that guy who shot a bunch of police officers. Maybe Huddle Street Massacre, Was it Huddle Street?

 

Anyway, he’s in jail and he was eligible for parole a while ago. Did he get parole recently? I can’t remember. Maybe he did, maybe he didn’t. But Parliament made a law specifically to keep him in jail because he was considered such a villain of society, specifically to keep him in jail. So reason I’m telling you that is because though they can just try to make laws specifically to stop you guys registering exclusively, and they’ll claim that that’s, …

 

Joel Davis: Like, if they want to try and do that. And then I’m happy to go to the High Court. We’ll win. I’m pretty confident, like, it’s unconstitutional.

 

Blair Cottrell: I hope. So yeah.

 

Joel Davis: And then it will just be like, good publicity.

 

Blair Cottrell: And I’m not being. I’m not taking a black pill here. Like, if you just look at the pattern of behaviour, like I said, of the Australian government and policing system, this is what they’re gonna do, I reckon. Because they just get more and more aggressive, more and more.

 

Joel Davis: Yeah, they’re playing games.

 

But the problem that they have is the police try to go further than what the laws actually allow them to. They’re getting ahead of themselves. They’re not going about it with the Right progression. It’s not the policy, …

 

[1:41:29]

 

Blair Cottrell: Where’s the incentive for them not to do that, though? Because they do that and then there’s no punishment. There’s no drawback for them. The charges against you that didn’t hold up in court and that took a year for you to sort of clear your name of two years. Well, you still have to go through all of that process and then the charges just get dropped or you get found not guilty or whatever. And then there’s no actual consequence for the police for taking two years of your life.

 

Joel Davis: There aren’t any consequence for me either. I got a bunch of court dates I have to call into, and I got held in a jail cell for a few hours. Like, I don’t give a fuck! Like, it doesn’t really change anything for me.

 

Blair Cottrell: So I just think there should be an immediate and pretty severe consequence for police, for the prosecution department, if they lay charges on you that end up just getting dropped or you found not guilty. You shouldn’t have to go through like a second lawsuit process that takes another two fucking years and costs another $40,000 to try to get like some sort of justice against malicious prosecution. It should just be like some sort of immediate consequence. Like the prosecutor who signed off on the bullshit charge should just get sacked straight away! Maybe his whole team, something like that.

 

Joel Davis: Well, I agree with that, but that’s not gonna, …

 

Blair Cottrell: Especially when we have a system where there’s no real punishment for just being malicious as a prosecutor or as a police officer. You can just do it and then later, oh the judge finds that this isn’t legit, so throws it out and then the cops just goes home laughing anyway. Because he’s still robbed you of all that time and energy and money!

 

Joel Davis: Yeah, but that’s what happens. It’s just like this circle jerk where we just get jerked around. Obviously there’s an exception when it comes to. When they allege, like, an assault or something that’s separate. But when it comes to these speech crimes and political machinations, it’s just this. It’s just this big, like, jerk around that then ultimately doesn’t actually result in very serious punishments, or if there’s even a conviction.

 

So it’s like, I just don’t really care that much. And you kind of let it. That’s the thing. That’s why I do find it annoying the catastrophizing, because that’s like, part of what it is. It’s like to create fear so that people think:

 

“Oh, well, like, we can’t do anything because the police stop us.”

 

And it’s like:

 

“Okay, but they haven’t stopped us yet. They haven’t actually stopped us.”

 

And so it shows that if they could just stop us so easily, they would have by now. But they can’t. Like, there’s limitations on what they can do, and we’re skirting on the edge. But they don’t have the ability to just like an easy, like, snap us in half option because they would have taken it by now.

 

Blair Cottrell: They’re trying to create one. The limitations are changing fast.

 

Joel Davis: They’re trying to.

 

Blair Cottrell: That’s what we’re observing right now!

 

Joel Davis: They haven’t actually come up with a formula on how to do it yet. They haven’t figured out how to do it. They’ve got all these think tanks and lobby groups and they’ve passed all these different laws and they do all these meetings and have all the, … And they still haven’t fucking done it yet.

 

So to me, that demonstrates something. You know, you got to take stock of that you have been around for a while. Tom’s been around for a while. Like this isn’t like something that just popped up in the last year that they’re dealing with. They haven’t figured out how to deal with it. All they’ve done is kind of amplify us and make us more famous. They haven’t figured out the method. And using like policing tactics to deal with something like this is the wrong way. If they wanted to beat us, the way you beat us is by creating a fake opposition movement that basically is kind of nationalist, but it’s still controlled by them. And you bring all the people that would otherwise support us into that alternative. But they can’t do that they don’t have the skills to do that and they don’t have the personnel to do that. And they don’t have the ability to concede that because they’re so ideologically fixated that even like the ZOG version of us, they would be still too offended by it, to allow it to exist.

 

So yeah, I think we should do some Superchats. Unless you can respond to that, but we could do some Superchats.

 

Blair Cottrell: No, it sounds like a good idea. It’s been a good discussion. Pretty intense talking points and topics. But it’s an intense environment down here in Australia right now, isn’t it?

 

Joel Davis: Yeah it is.

 

But yeah, Sign up to the party! Sign up to the fucking party! Like seriously. Mr. Marshwood said:

 

“What’s your take on the mischling* question?”

 

Well, I don’t even know what you mean by the mischling question. Like, yeah, do I agree with the Nuremberg Laws? Maybe they’re a little bit too lenient I would say.

 

[* Mischling was a pejorative legal term which was used in NS Germany to denote persons of mixed “Aryan” and “non-Aryan”, such as Jewish, ancestry as they were classified by the Nuremberg racial laws of 1935. In German, the word has the general denotation of ‘hybrid’, ‘mongrel’, or ‘half-breed’. Outside its use in official Nazi terminology, the term Mischlingskinder was later used to refer to war babies born to non-White soldiers and German mothers in the aftermath of World War II. Wikipedia]

 

But you know, from what I’ve seen like an Ashkenazi jew is like 70% White, 30% Levantine.

 

So if someone is like, so the Germans, if you’re between 1/2 and 1/8 jewish, you’d be classified as a Mischling, which meant that you weren’t classified as a full jew. Or you could stay in Germany but you couldn’t like work in like government or the media or any like sensitive position.

 

But if you were like 1/8 jewish or less, then you could be considered like a full German and you could do most things other than join the SS which had like 100% blood purity requirements. So like, is that what you’re asking? Like, I mean, I’m not going to criticise it. At the time it was probably a reasonable law. I would probably go about things a little bit differently today. And because the primary issue isn’t really like jewish mixing, it’s like other non-Whites who are, if jews are like mostly White with some admixture when they mix in, it’s a bit different than if someone’s like Asian or black or something because it’s more of a genetic divergence. So you have to be way more strict. Hazel Mango said:

 

“Why did you move to Sydney, Joel?”

 

I don’t really want to get into all the details of my personal life, but I’m from Sydney, so I kind of just like moved back. Oz88 said:

 

“Are there niggers in heaven?”

 

No! What do you think, Blair? Are there niggers in heaven?

 

[1:48:05]

 

Blair Cottrell: Are there black people in heaven? I’m sure there’s been some noble black people who have done some noble stuff. I think it’s pretty dismissive to say, …

 

Joel Davis: I’d say they’re not going to the same place we’re going.

 

Blair Cottrell: Like, I don’t know, man! I don’t know. Do you believe in heaven, Joel?

 

Joel Davis: Not really, no. But like let’s say you did. Like let’s just say like for argument’s sake, like we’re on board with that. Do you think? Are we going to be, …

 

Blair Cottrell: Well, considering that, …

 

Joel Davis: Like what’s up my nigger?

 

Blair Cottrell: Like considering that like having that racial admixture creates an earthly hell, I can’t imagine the most ideal, it’s not really living conditions, like an afterlife, the most pristine existence would be multi-ethnic. It’s probably going to be very orderly and homogeneous, you would think.

 

But some people believe that heaven is like your own version of perfect. It’s like a perfect time in your past that you envision. You just kind of keep living in that.

 

What would your version of heaven be? What would you like, do you want? Are you like one of those 72 virgins kind of guys? Or do you have like, …

 

Joel Davis: No, I’m not a fucking Muslim. No, I think that’s a meme idea. I mean I like the notion of Valhalla where it’s just like basically you just fight all day and then pretty much until everyone dies. And then you like respawn, have a big piss up, party all night and then wake up the next morning and fight the death again.

 

And then you like respawn, have a party and it just goes like that forever. That sounds pretty cool to me. It’s like playing video games. I was thinking you can just play like GTA like IRL every day with your mates. Like imagine if we could kill each other. But you don’t have to feel bad because like you’ll see me tomorrow. Like just respawn, like be funny as fuck! I’ll kill you all the time.

 

Blair Cottrell: You’re like laughing about it. You’re like, bro, your skull exploded yesterday! [chuckling]

 

Joel Davis: Yeah. [chuckling] But yeah. Do you have a dream of niggers? Because personally, in my dreams, everyone’s always White. I’m not just saying that to be edgy.

 

Blair Cottrell: That’s a good point, actually. Well, I’ve never really had a close relationship with anyone who’s black. And so there’s not really effective, like memory data of interacting with someone who’s black.

 

So I suppose I don’t dream about it because there’s nothing for my brain to draw upon. Because I tend to dream about scenarios that I have experienced. But then there’s all this extra stuff like expansion content bolted on and it turns into something different. I’m sure if I knew a black guy that I probably would dream on occasion about a black guy, but I just, …

 

Joel Davis: You don’t dream about niggers! That’s!

 

Blair Cottrell: Well, do you?

 

Joel Davis: No!

 

Blair Cottrell: Why are we being asked these questions? What are these questions? Is this Superchats?

 

Joel Davis: Yeah. Tollah the Gotcha Joel bro:

 

“When’s your next debate? Get it done. That wog faggot on TikTok who dodged you is a coward! Who else is on the horizon apart from Avi and others?”

 

I don’t know. I don’t really have. I mean, everyone. I don’t know. I got to change my approach because it seems like when I try to debate people, I must be intimidating them. I must be coming on too strong. And they keep running away. In the debate world. I’m like the, desperate incel, who the girl replies to my text and then I spam her with like 45 texts about how she’s the one.

 

Blair Cottrell: Yeah, [chuckling] you got to control that man!

 

Joel Davis: Yeah, I gotta play hard to get.

 

Blair Cottrell: Too keen. This young axe is too keen. That’s his problem.

 

Joel Davis: Treat ‘em mean, keep ‘em keen. Or something. But it’s like the opposite. I’m like, too mean!

 

[1:52:24]

 

 

[Remainder of Transcript in Progress]

 

 

[2:45:15]

 

 

END

top

 

 

 

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

 

Rumble Comments

top

(Comments as of 11/9/2025 = 43, latest comments at top)

PongTheBoy
9 hours ago
you fuckinf idiots are single handedly destroying the end immigration movement your gay little marches don’t do anything but scare normies and empower the left and j’s.. fuck both of you retards hopefully you get locked up so us with a brain are able to take over the movement
0 likes

AndrewGalvin
1 day ago
What’s been up with Blair recently, it’s like he has no vril and spirit anymore. He started playing video games on stream and doesn’t seem to care as much.
3 likes

AndrewGalvin
1 day ago
Can we get Jacob on
1 like

CH484D_60Y1M
1 day ago
PATRIOTS organize – DIGITAL ID! TEXAS! Show of force as a protest is a must, Urgent Constitutionally legal show of force, armed assembly ! https://rumble.com/v71d4ei-patriots-organize-digital-id-texas-show-of-force-is-a-must.html
1 like

AussiePermaculture
1 day ago
My intuition is telling me things are going to get really good unexpectedly.
1 like

TheShowgun
VerifiedSupporter+
2 days ago
Literally laughed very loudly at Blair’s complete ignorance of JD Vance
0 likes

okkkkkk4
2 days ago
Best podcast in the world. Free tom. Blair says things that may happen and Joel says why they won’t lol
0 likes

ProvingNihil
2 days ago
Nice Joy Division shirt Joel!
1 like

jonottawa
2 days ago
It’s time to cut Blair loose. Every answer, every take, sets off alarm bells. Watch through the show again and tell me I’m wrong. He’s either a fed or his heart is no longer in it.
-1 like

‹ Hide 1 reply
HeronNow
Supporter+
13 hours ago
YOU’RE WRONG
0 likes

Girnigoe
2 days ago
I don’t think Blair is ever being negative. Someone must play ‘devil’s advocate. As to what ZOG will do to you, look what they’ve done to everyone else who has opposed them. Get a Ouija Board and ask Julius Stretcher or Alfred Rosenberg.
2 likes

Restlessdreams88
3 days ago
Basic joy division shirt
1 like

imSofaKingRayZest
3 days ago
just a few important points for the white australia parties policies off the top of my head, ending australias un treaties is a must at the start as it legally underpins most of the un-australian laws in place, lima declaration, who health policies, climate change mandates, etc. free speech is also a must, as a org commented to truth, lies can always be defeated by truth, the holocost could never be pushed if truth was honored. a comprehensive policy on technology and its use is also essential with the neural/social distortion capacity, coming dominance of ai and agi and the robotic transition. a massive re education program for both women and men toward a more natural order.
1 like

imSofaKingRayZest
3 days ago
afp have the power to legally hack into your devices and plant illegal material on it then raid you and charge you for having said material. think about that for 58 seconds while another non white immigrant legally becomes australian, cobber.
0 likes

imSofaKingRayZest
3 days ago
so abbos calling for “their” land back and an end of australia or importing infinity turd world filth is not seen as racially divisive or threatening social cohesion but white aussies wanting a white australia like it used to be is when we are all suppose to be equal?
0 likes

Keane55
VerifiedSupporter
3 days ago
Also important to remember that Winston Churchill was responsible for the Galipolli disaster, of which the ANZACs were a massive percentage of the casualties.
0 likes

palacepony
Supporter
3 days ago
Yeah this DISRUPT LAW shit.. where is the line drawn here? Rape your wife? Kill your dog? Burn your car? Blair is great to expose the frailty of these stooges and their ‘disrupt law’.
1 like

BradC1988
3 days ago
The WAR film is fucking epic and inspirational. AUSTRALIA FOR THE WHITE MAN! THE REST MUST GO!
1 like

Bolzenschleuder
3 days ago
Joel serving up some sweet emo aesthetics tonight
0 likes

Seanybruv
4 days ago
2:22:00 slurs only exist for inferior people and inferior things. It’s why there are no proper slurs for White people, at least none that actually work in the same way they do for other races.
0 likes

SALAustNZ
4 days ago
No. There are no groups in heaven.
1 like

Seanybruv
4 days ago
I can’t believe you didn’t talk about the White Australia Rising documentary. I see it’s been taken off youtube already, it’s criminally underviewed on Rumble
1 like

Scovell7
Supporter
4 days ago
Blair’s blackpilling seems to increase with each episode. It really contrasts with what appears to be the mood of the NSN at the moment.
6 likes

› Show 2 replies
3010phil
4 days ago
They should look at how many from the AFD party in Germany have recently died . Way too many for coincidence
4 likes

fdgrdfg
4 days ago
1:25:50 Blair’s response was goated ahaha
0 likes

DJTriumph
Supporter
4 days ago
If there was a White Britain Party I would vote for the first time in my life
4 likes

TripleGas
VerifiedSupporter
4 days ago
Erika Kirk (née Frantze) is a yenta.
3 likes

TripleGas
VerifiedSupporter
4 days ago
this whole “nigggers are going to heaven” shit is so fucking retarded and is always pushed by fedora fags and Satanists as some kind of own. They don’t even believe in heaven but try concern troll Christians. Pathetic bunch they are.
-2 likes

AltKuyperian
Supporter+
4 days ago
Sad I keep missing these. Show is over before I get out of bed in the morning lol
3 likes

Dissident_Loner
Supporter
4 days ago
I had hoped that Blair would go off on an uplifting rant and he didn’t disappoint.
2 likes

LachlanMD
4 days ago
these ads before the show are getting ridiculous
7 likes

‹ Hide 5 replies
Seanybruv
4 days ago
watch on Brave browser, no ads
6 likes

MajesticCasual
4 days ago
Brave browser, or Adblock Plug in on FireFox, etc I probably haven’t seen an ad since 2008 or so. Ads become obsolete and why on YoudenTube they have people manually read ads.
1 like

AltKuyperian
Supporter+
4 days ago
Unfortunately, it’s due to the large presence of easily fooled boomers on the app.
0 likes

BradC1988
3 days ago
Brave browser solved that problem for me
0 likes

Strueth
3 days ago
p l l
0 likes

‹ Hide 1 reply
Strueth
2 days ago
oops sorry,, I had my phone in my pocket gardening and just noticed this weird pocket message…
0 likes

katana17
5 days ago
[Joel Davis – NSN Conference Speech – Aug 10, 2025 – Transcript] https://katana17.com/2025/11/03/joel-davis-nsn-conference-speech-aug-10-2025-transcript/ [In this speech given at a National Socialism Network conference in August 2025, Aussie nationalist activist Joel Davis talks on “Why Individualism is Cowardice”, and how to be effective Whites need to see politics as a team sport, just like our enemies, organized jewry and other groups, and work together. Key points: Organisational strength and media coverage: “This whole weekend has been such an upgrade for the organisation… They think making us look strong is going to go against us.” Critique of individualist accusations: “These Nazis they can’t get a girlfriend, they’re poor, they’re a bunch of losers… And so they have to blame the jews, blame the system, blame society for their ills.” Political sacrifice as responsibility: “To engage in this form of politics requires incredible sacrifice. We are the ones that are taking personal responsibility for the future of Our nation.” Politics as inherently collective: “There is no such thing as individualism in politics because politics, by definition is how you organise a society.” Criticism of conservative withdrawal: “What these people actually are advocating for is for you to exit political life, for you to not participate in political life, to become apolitical.” Learning from Left-wing tactics: “The Left make the personal political… The reason why your life sucks is because of White supremacy, is because of Patriarchy… And the way that we’re going to fix it is we’re going to go and create a political movement.” Movement costs and commitment: “This movement exacts costs… If you participate in our movement, you get a lot of enemies… They’re trying to put us in jail.” Racial politics as team sport: “Politics is a team sport… We have to play as a team, as White people, if we want to win!” And more, ….
1 like

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

See Also

top

 

 

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

Greg Johnson: I’m Greg Johnson. Welcome to Counter-Currents Radio. Today’s guest is Joel Davis. Joel, welcome.

 

Joel Davis: Hey, how you going? Nice to be here.

 

Greg Johnson: Joel is joining us from the future. It is, I believe, Sunday where you are in Australia, is that right?

 

Joel Davis: Yes, Sunday morning. Yeah.

 

Greg Johnson: Okay.

 

Well, I want to talk to you about your recent debate in the form of two articles. One from Keith Woods responding to you, and then your rejoinder to Keith on the NS question; does nationalism today need National Socialism?

 

And I just want to read a Telegram post that was quoted by Keith. This is you. And this is what he was responding for. You write:

 

“There was a long time when I at least partially concealed my National Socialist sympathies and tried to pursue ideological projects which could circumvent the negative stigma. I realised these paths wouldn’t work because they all required rhetorical and often actual compromises upon racial loyalism. At the core of the pathologisation of White nationalism is its association with the spectre of National Socialism as unique and ultimate evil. It’s simply not possible to avoid this association in good faith with without damaging the conviction of your own position. The only solution to this, if you want the White race to survive, is the rehabilitation of National Socialism. There is no other solution. Stop wasting time.”

 

And Keith responded with an article on his Substack where he raises a number of points.

 

And I thought what we could do is we could talk through some of his main points and that’ll give you a chance to expand upon your counter arguments. So let’s just begin.

 

Joel Davis: I also mention for the audience that I also wrote an essay of my own which was in response to Keith. But the essay was largely an essay in its own right, where I thought instead of just writing an essay, just responding to his arguments, I’d rather actually formulate my position on its own basis and then deal with some of his arguments at the end on the basis of what I laid out. So my essay is also out there if anyone is interested in reading that. But yeah, anyway, we can go, …

 

Greg Johnson: Yeah, and I linked both it and Keith’s piece at Counter-Currents in the show announcement, and I’m sure it will be linked presently in the actual comments by our able moderator. So everybody should, of course, familiarize himself out there with both pieces.

 

So the main argument that Keith makes is that, well, there are four arguments that I can discern here. And I wanted to talk to you about this because I’m sympathetic actually, with Keith’s position on this and that I’ve laid out essentially this position myself over the years. There’s an article I wrote on The Relevance of the Old Right, which is a chapter in the White Nationalist Manifesto, for instance, on this topic.

 

So the first point that he makes is:

 

“That if we’re going to have racial nationalism today, ethnic nationalism today, that National Socialism isn’t all that relevant to it because National Socialism really wasn’t a pan-White nationalist position, it was a German nationalist and Chauvinist position. And that the National Socialists sought to aggrandize Germany at the expense of other White societies, principally Poland and Ukraine and Russia. And therefore if we’re really looking for White nationalism and that means self-determination for all White nations, it just doesn’t do to look at German National Socialism. How are you going to really advocate that as a solution for say, the problems of Poland? Are you even going to get a hearing for that?”

 

So I’m sympathetic with that and I’d just like to talk about your response to that.

 

Joel Davis: Yeah, so I mean, first of all, obviously I’m an Australian and I was speaking from a more Anglo spherical context at the very least. If I was Polish, I don’t think I’d be advocating for adopting something as explicit as what I adopt in my activities here in Australia in regards to National Socialism.

 

But nevertheless the stigma and the kind of the entire ideological paradigm, the way that liberalism has been reshaped in the post World War II international order still affects Poland and Ukraine in ways that are kind of suppressing their ability to express nationalism as well.

 

Because at the end of the day they are within the American led international order. They’re within the Liberal world order, so to speak. They’re within a European order of liberal democracies which fundamentally base their conception upon a rejection of National Socialism and its tenets. And that extends beyond anything specific to National Socialism which you could differentiate from broader ethno-nationalism. It actually, the ethno-nationalist aspect of National Socialism is obviously itself has become stigmatized as a result of this association. So there still needs to be work done in a rehabilitation of National Socialism. Even if you aren’t going to adopt National Socialism as a full on ideological doctrine in Poland or in Ukraine or in Russia. There are actually pretty large National Socialist movements in Ukraine and Russia. They probably have some of the largest National Socialist movements in the kind of contemporary world, which is kind of ironic for Keith’s position or perhaps even your position.

 

But it’s not ironic from my point of view because you can see how if you were to view the Soviet Union as the bad guy of the story, well then that kind of changes and relativises how you would conceive of National Socialism from a Ukrainian perspective, for example.

 

[07:17]

 

And of course, as you know, World War II went on, the rhetoric of Hitler and Goebbels and so on became increasingly more pan-European. The SS became increasingly a pan-European force. By the end of the war, the majority of the SS weren’t even German citizens. Many Slavic peoples from many of these nations, nations joined the SS and also many of these Slavic nations actually became allies of the Third Reich. And the rhetoric became increasingly about a battle to save Europe from Bolshevism and the idea that German leadership of Europe would be fundamentally better for Eastern European peoples, not just simply better for Germans. Now that probably isn’t an argument that’s going to appeal to the Polish specifically because of the unique circumstances there.

 

But nevertheless it is an argument that obviously appeals to a lot of people from Eastern Europe because a lot of Eastern European nations literally allied with the Reich, allied with it against the Soviets and sympathize with it up to this day. I’ve met a lot of people from the Baltic States, for example, who are very, they seem to have very strong NS movements in those countries, for example, and different attitudes towards National Socialism in those countries than a lot of other countries because of their visceral hatred of the Soviet Union and the view of the National Socialists as attempting to basically save their countries from the Soviet Union. So you know, and obviously you’ve got phenomena like the Azov Battalion and so on.

 

You know, I think this idea that National Socialism just can’t fly with Slavic peoples and therefore we need to get rid of it so that we don’t offend them to embrace White unity. I just don’t think that actually makes sense historically and it doesn’t explain all these phenomena I just mentioned. And additionally, the National Socialist movement, insofar as it exists today around the world, is fundamentally pan-European is in its orientation it is kind of spread across all White countries and it is clearly focused on race first and foremost more than any like particular kind of nationalism. Although the respective National Socialists of different countries obviously are nationalists with respect to their own ethnic group at the same time there is a recognition that our race has a shared destiny and that it isn’t just the story of any one particular nation, but it’s the story of the race and the civilisation at large, which is pertinent here in political and historical terms.

 

And additionally a point that I made in my essay was that I’m not even going to, I mean, I didn’t necessarily agree with the characterisation that Keith made. I think he cherry picked a little bit because there are counter examples of statements from, for example, Alfred Rosenberg, who was in charge of the Eastern Front, which were sympathetic and made concrete plans towards creating, for example, a post-war Ukrainian nation in the event of German victory and so on.

 

This idea that they were just going to roll in there and genocide the Slavs is a bit of a meme, a bit of a construction of post World War II propaganda. Like General Plan Ost, for example, in my opinion is a fabrication. But I didn’t want to get bogged down in these historical arguments because the most core and fundamental argument, which I think and most relevant argument, because I mean, there was anti-Slavic attitudes in Germany and there was mistreatment in the war. That’s just a fact. So nevertheless, the more pertinent argument is that what concretely was World War II about? What it concretely was about was who was going to lead Europe, who was going to run Europe.

 

And basically what happened was that Europe was divided on the one side to American influence, on the other side to Soviet influence. And it’s clearly been a disaster for our race. Europe under American or Russian or Soviet rule is far worse off than a Europe under German rule, particularly under the rule of a Germany that was embodying the values of National Socialism and therefore of racialism in probably its most extreme possible form. There would simply not have been the tolerance of racial aliens on the European continent under German rule, just simply wouldn’t have been tolerated.

 

In fact, the jews probably would have been expelled from Europe had the Germans won in almost in entirety. So Europe would have become racially purified under German rule. I think that is completely, that’s pretty uncontroversial statement to make.

 

Whereas effectively under American rule or under Soviet rule, I mean, under the Soviet rule, it actually more or less fared better from a kind of just purely racial stance. But you know, as the phrase goes, you know:

 

“Communism rots the body, but liberalism rots the soul.”

 

The development of Western liberalism in the post World War II time period has been the most horrible thing to ever happen to Europe in its entire history! American rule over Europe, which is now almost total, has basically led to a situation in which there’s a kind of like a kind of a mass suicide occurring due to state sponsored, like American State sponsored subversion of institutions, projects of de-Nazification, etc, the necessity for the Americans to in their view to compete with the Kremlin aligned Left in Europe, in Western Europe by basically funding into existence an even more destructive form of Leftism which conservatives call “Cultural Marxism” or whatever. And you can debate whether that’s a legitimate phrase. But we all know what we mean by that. I mean that’s just objectively what happened.

 

[13:19]

 

So the Germans were fighting for a Europe that would be under their control. And yes, that would mean for them to assert their control. You know, you can’t make an omelette without cracking some eggs. That’s just the reality of war. Like in order for Germany to become strong enough to rule Europe, it needed to expand from its shrunken borders after the First World War. It needed to basically become strong enough to compete with rising superpowers to the East and West, namely the US and the USSR. That required a degree of expansion. That’s what the geopolitical logic was in when it came to that. And it also required a kind of you could say an imperialism. It required, you know, Germany asserting itself over the continent writ large as opposed to just simply bunkering down in Germany and saying:

 

“Well, you know what’s going on in the rest of Europe isn’t our business, we’re just going to focus on Germany.”

 

Well, the reality is that would be naive because the Soviet Union had expansionist designs, that can’t be denied. And they demonstrated it very clearly. And there was ambitions in the American elite to use their influence to basically reshape the entire global international order. So you know, these were powers that were universalist in nature that had larger ambitions than simply being concerned with themselves.

 

So in order to confront these twin threats, the Germans had to figure out a foreign policy and had to figure out an orientation that would enable them to compete for basically European domination. There was no other state in Europe that was capable of taking on that responsibility other than the Germans.

 

So to me, when I look at this in a kind of realistic way, and then also pair that to the fact that for me, German National Socialism wasn’t just like some aberration of the 1920s, but was instead a concrete manifestation of a far deeper historical process whereby the German nation rejected many core elements of the Enlightenment. And that gripped obviously the Anglo-American and French world. To me, the Germans were simply asserting a different form of consciousness, a European particularism and obviously a racial particularism against the encroachment of universalist political projects that now due to their success, are literally threatening the very survival of our race and have reduced Europe to its weakest position perhaps ever! At least in recent centuries.

 

So I think when you take that into consideration holistically, it becomes a lot easier to sympathize with the Germans. And I’ve got nothing against Polish people or against Slavic people. And I even said in my essay, you know, developments in racial science have shown that so-called Slavic peoples, and that’s a bad determination because Slavic is a language group, that kind of groups together people that it can be quite genetically different.

 

But you know, Eastern Europe, northern Eastern European, like the kind of northeast of Europe, people native to that area are actually incredibly genetically similar to people from northwestern Europe and far more similar than either of them are to people from southern Europe actually. And particularly Polish people and German people, they’re actually very genetically similar.

 

So the racialist science of the 19th century, that wasn’t informed by genetics in the same way that contemporary racialist science I think exaggerated these distinctions.

 

But you know, even in Chamberlain, I remember reading in Chamberlain in Foundations of the 19th Century, which is obviously foundational proto-National Socialist text, very influential, you know, he saw the Slavic people as a branch of the Aryan race. It wasn’t that they rejected that the Slavic people were not White or not Aryan. They were just a different branch in the Nordic branch from his perspective.

 

So it wasn’t as though the prevailing thought in Germany was that the Slavic peoples were basically non-Whites or subhuman or something. Maybe there were some comments you could cherry pick, but you could also find comments to the alternative. But the point is that now we have a far more informed understanding and we can say:

 

“Well, actually we’re not that different from people from native to Poland or Russia, like the actual, you know, Russ, or you know, people from the Baltic states or whatever, particularly these places.”

 

And so we can be informed by science from a racialist perspective, you know, seeking greater Unity amongst our peoples and hopefully overcoming these historical differences through time.

 

Greg Johnson: That’s all well and good. The next question I have, and this is relevant. So I want to say it now while it’s still relevant, is why couldn’t you say from a very similar perspective, like if you took Frank Salter very seriously, his book On Genetic Interests, which is a very good case for nationalism, you can make a very strong argument for universal nationalism from his work and you can make a very strong argument for a certain amount of solidarity amongst White national nations and from that point of view. And I’ve heard this argument offered by a scientist I know who’s very into our stuff. His attitude as well, from the point of view of this kind of Saltarian politics. We just have to look at German National Socialism and other forms of 20th century and 19th century national Chauvinism and just say well that’s the bad old form of nationalism. The good form of nationalism today rejects that kind of Chauvinism and is things in terms of pan-racial interest.

 

I remember when I was getting into all of this got a quarter of a century ago, it’s been a long time. My background is in philosophy. I’m very interested in political philosophy and I was very interested in nationalism. I was interested in the case for nationalism and I was in conversations with a lot of people when I first sort of got into the White nationalist movement circles. I’m the first White nationalist thing I ever attended was a David Irving talk in Atlanta!

 

[20:10]

 

And of course it was about World War II. And after I filled the first shelf with David Irving books and then a second shelf with other related books that people kept saying:

 

“Well, you got to read this, you got to read that.”

 

I started thinking, you know:

 

“It doesn’t seem logically necessary from a philosophical point of view that the case for nationalism stands or form falls on debates about mid 20th century history, because history and philosophy are very different things.”

 

Now I don’t want to argue that philosophy is entirely a priori or deductive or anything like that, but philosophy should be able to make cases for things like the best sort of political system for European man or man in general, without having to get off into the weeds about again mid 20th century history and specifically the rehabilitation of National Socialism on charges of being imperialistic and totalitarian. You can throw in the Holocaust and that entire branch of literature that’s connected with that, the revisionist literature on Holocaust. But more broadly, revisionism about the war, about the regime and so forth. I get why people are interested in that, but logically it strikes me that you can argue for ethnic nationalism based simply on a philosophical argument. And you could also argue for ethnic nationalism based on something like Frank Salter’s theory of ethnic genetic interest.

 

So where does the actual mid 20th century history come into this? And why do you maintain that we’ve got to rehabilitate the tarnished, stigmatized reputation of National Socialism?

 

Joel Davis: The argument that I made in my essay, you’ll notice it didn’t really have anything to do with refuting the Holocaust or any of these. And I am a revisionist on a lot of these subjects, but it wasn’t actually based in relitigating the Second World War, and was the Allied atrocity propaganda, legitimate or not? And all of this kind of stuff.

 

My argument was a dialectical argument. The core of my argument, I should say it basically had three main points. Point one is that National Socialism is the purification of the nationalist idea. That the nationalist idea has been kind of mixed up with many other ideological ideas historically. And this is particularly true when it comes to the relationship between nationalism and liberalism. You know, from the late 18th century into the early 20th century. Often they came as a package deal. Now that isn’t always the case. There are other examples. But often they came as a package deal. And so like for example, the refrain that I get as an Australian is:

 

“Why don’t you look back to the Australian nationalist tradition that created the White Australia Policy and set up the Federation of Australia and so on and created a White ethno-state in Australia?”

 

And obviously I do know, you know, studying the history of my own country very closely, and I do take inspiration from my forefathers and I value that tradition. But there is a key problem with them, which is that they mix their nationalism with their liberalism. Now that made sense in the pre-World War II international context, historical context, because liberalism, when it first came into existence, it was fundamentally an anti-monarchical, anti-aristocratic movement. That’s fundamentally what it was about. And it saw common cause with nationalism in many contexts toward that end. Because obviously it makes sense that if you’re trying to expand the franchise and empower larger groups of people, you can be speaking on behalf of the nation and say:

 

“The King or the aristocracy, they’re just in it for themselves. We here, we represent the French people, or we here represent the American people.”

 

And you can assert the necessity of a kind of constitutional liberal state on that basis.

 

And also there was other historical reasons, like you think about, for example, Austro-Hungarian Empire and you know, there’s a whole patchwork of smaller ethnic groups, many of which had nationalist movements agitating for self-determination. Well, if you’re agitating for self-determination against the monarchical order, well then it makes sense to obviously to appeal to nationalism and to liberalism at the same time in that context.

 

So anyway, there was lots of we can go into that. There’s a lot of context for that.

 

But my point was a dialectical point which is inspired a lot by Schmitt’s insights, which obviously are quite pertinent and relevant because we’re talking about the greatest German political philosopher of the time period when the National Socialists are getting their movement together, and he ultimately joined the party.

 

And Schmitt’s point in his Crisis of Parliamentary Democracy, which I believe was published in 1923, obviously it’s a broader text, but the core idea in that text is that liberalism and democracy have come as a package deal, but they’re actually based on core ideas which are contradictory. And that this contradiction will come to manifest itself, he prophesied in the 20th century. And that it was already beginning to manifest itself. And these ideas will become divorced from one another and realise they are actually in opposition. And what he means by democracy is the notion of popular sovereignty. And Schmitt appeals to essentially nationalism and frames it in terms of nationalism that in order to have a true democracy, in order to truly have popular sovereignty, you need a homogeneous population, because otherwise it becomes incoherent for the people to have a collective will. And he references Rousseau and how, you know, Rousseau makes the point that the general will, it’s not just the mere sum total of individual wills, it is the will of those who will the common good of the people.

 

So if you’re voting or politically active in the pursuit of your class interest or your minority, whatever group interest or your individual interest, you’re not actually genuinely participating in the exercise of popular sovereignty. You’re only really doing that insofar as you’re thinking about the common good of your people at large.

 

[26:52]

 

And so that requires a definition. You need to actually know, well, who is the demos, so to speak, that is in charge, who is the people. And that then brings you to a nationalist position of a definition of who they are and who they aren’t. And Schmitt, you know makes this point quite well and convincingly in my view. And he says:

 

“Well, this therefore puts it in opposition to the contractarian liberal view which is built around notions of rights and is built around the notion of Parliamentary discussion between heterogeneous elements. Whereas popular sovereignty implies the imposition of a homogeneous majority and its will over the state. Liberalism is built on the idea of basically creating constitutional protections and normative protections for minority interests and individual interests against the state.”

 

And he said these two ideas therefore are going to be on a collision course. And my argument therefore is that what National Socialism was a concrete historical expression of the nationalist idea, completely divorcing itself of all liberal connotations and taking itself to its logical conclusion.

 

And so when it took itself to its logical conclusion, it turned against Parliamentarianism. It embraced a kind of a very anti-bourgeois orientation. It took and it wasn’t communistic, it didn’t, you know, totally nationalise all industry or something, but it nationalised finance. You know, it pursued a kind of autarkic policy subordinating all economic interests to the national interest and also basically building up national strength and self reliance for the nation to be able to assert itself as an independent will in the world.

 

And this also being tied to its cultural programs where all media that was foreign owned or jewish owned or whatever was to be gotten rid of they went in and they broke up the Freemasonic lodges. They banned Marxist organisations. They just simply wasn’t, they weren’t going to tolerate anything which ran counter to their conception of the German people’s will. In, as in its, in a kind of culturally purified sense, a philosophically informed sense, not just whatever German people are currently supporting is the German people’s will. No! It’s only the self conscious German people’s will. And everything which gets in the way of that self consciousness needs to be basically purified from social and political life.

 

And so this is a very radical project which is differentiated from liberal projects of nationalism. And liberalism, then reconstituted itself in reaction to it. So in the post World War II international order, liberalism has now purged itself of the kind of its old nationalist associations as well. And liberalism has also purified itself according to this idea of protecting minority and individual rights and has greatly expanded its conception of its duty to minority groups and to individual groups and radically suppresses majoritarian organisation and the assertion of the majority will.

 

And you get to the point now where most liberal elites say “populism is the greatest threat to democracy”, which seems like an absurd statement. But it makes sense if you see democracy as liberalism, as Schmitt conceives of it. When they say democracy, obviously Schmitt would say, well that’s not democracy, it’s its antithesis.

 

But you know, so according to that dialectical process, which I think is pretty hard to refute, according to that dialectical process, therefore the notion, the very idea of nationalism in its opposition now to liberalism, therefore needs to be contended with as an idea unto itself. And that is therefore mediated by the spectre of National Socialism. It doesn’t mean that every single movement of illiberal nationalism that can come into existence is a one to one copy of National Socialism. But it bears some association, right? It bears some association, very important association.

 

And also I would argue that it’s necessary for nationalism to take on an illiberal form in order to actually address everything that has happened to our country since, like the infestation of foreign races and so on that has occurred. In order for us to become truly independent of these forces it’s going to require a very interventionist state. It’s going to require a very active programme that is going to be highly exclusionary and is going to have to carry out policies which are extreme according to, like the sensibilities of the common man in today’s world or maybe in any world.

 

And so as a result of that, in order to preserve our racial survival, I think we have to then look to National Socialism as an example of the nationalist idea taken to its logical conclusion and say:

 

“Well, we also kind of need to take this idea to its logical conclusion. We also need to purge ourselves of liberalism.”

 

And so we can take inspiration from them even if we don’t want to copy every aspect. And obviously if we’re not Germans, we’re not going to copy their foreign policy. That would make absolutely no sense.

 

And even in today’s Germany, I don’t think would benefit from the same kind of foreign policy. I think now the situation that Europe is in is going to require a far more pan-European solution than ever before because Europe is comparatively far weaker relative to the rest of the world and is more interdependent than ever before.

 

So the form that it takes, basically the foreign policy of National Socialist Germany is the most irrelevant aspect for us today. The relevant aspects, it’s the process by which National Socialism rose to power. The process by which National Socialism turned itself against liberal Marxist jewish elements and took on International Finance and sought to create self sufficiency and self consciousness within the German people and manifest it in a concrete political form that crushed all of its enemies in the domestic sphere. That to me is what I take inspiration from and what is pertinent and what needs to be basically rehabilitated.

 

[33:24]