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]

 

Greg Johnson: So nationalism that’s anti-liberal, basically what you can call national populism today. What do you believe in terms of the idea of sovereignty? This is related obviously to Schmitt both in the crisis of Parliamentary democracy and also the one idea that everybody seems to know from Schmitt about the sovereign being the person who decides to be the exception. It seems to me that there are really two different concepts of sovereignty there and that the most important one is the idea of popular sovereignty. That ultimately what’s sovereign is the common good of a particular people. That is the criterion by which you judge legitimacy. It’s the criterion by which you judge policies.

 

Basically that is what populism is about. When people talk about populism today, they’re really talking about the assertion of the sovereignty of a particular people usually against a liberal, democratic political system that has battened on these societies.

 

And basically liberal democracy is the art of not giving the people what they want. I think it ultimately boils down to in practice minority rule. It starts out with protection of minority rights, but it ends up being the minority veto.

 

And ultimately that ends up being ruled by empowered minorities, political insiders, political elites, and hence populism tends to array the majority against the elites. So I mean there are two senses of the populace and populism. One is the people as a whole and its legitimate interests. And then there’s the many, the majority who are excluded from power by, and have their interests not represented by the people who do occupy power, which are the elites.

 

Joel Davis: Yeah, of course.

 

Well, I mean obviously populism has a kind of certain vagueness in a lot of its manifestations. For example, if we look at like contemporary examples, like insofar as you could call Donald Trump a populist and the MAGA movement populist or whatever, you can see that it’s completely ideologically vapid. That a lot of contemporary populist movements are like this, where they kind of have this vague kind of appeal to heartland’s traditional understanding of what the country is and is supposed to be about and play to their identity in kind of vague ways.

 

But there isn’t really like a very concrete programme that is put forward or even worldview. And so when these movements get electoral success, usually they just become recuperated by the broader system. And maybe the system makes a few subtle adaptations, or maybe even not so subtle adaptations to incorporate it and kind of return to status quo. Which is like what we’re seeing now in the United States, where what Trump’s original movement was about and what it currently is are two very distinct things. I think what Trump’s success basically means now is a recognition in a large portion of the American elite for the necessity to move from a liberal internationalist to a realist foreign policy in order to deal with a rising China and all of its ramifications. And so that’s why it’s been tolerated.

 

And basically the idea that Americans are not going to be galvanised to really face the threat of a rising China on the basis of wokeness, but instead, [chuckling] or something, they’re going to have some kind of, at least the semblance of patriotism, you know, given to them in addition to the kind of assertion of American interests specifically, rather than just this project of like liberal internationalism, America as the kind of merely like the vanguard of liberal internationalism or something.

 

But anyway, that’s besides the point. I mean, the point basically that I’m putting forward is that National Socialism is a totally cohesive ideology that is actually thought through to its logical conclusions, and it is built off, … Well, if we basically purge all other kind of, all liberal notions from the idea of nationalism and just think through, from it up, you basically get something akin to National Socialism in any kind of equivalent context to Germany in the early 20th century. If you are to repudiate it from a moral standpoint, if you can say:

 

“Oh, well, I don’t agree with this or that foreign policy decision.”

 

That’s one thing. But if you’re to repudiate National Socialism as a tendency, what you’re basically saying is that the nationalist idea itself is dangerous. The nationalist idea itself needs to be immunised against working itself out to its logical conclusion, because its logical conclusion is the most horrible thing that has ever happened ever in world history. And that’s the Spectre that we’re living in.

 

And so the immunisation of the nationalist idea results basically in it being rendered utterly impotent. And so when nationalists have to constantly provide these elaborate forms of justification as to how they’re not Nazis. And why all of the aspects of National Socialism, which are scary are not present in our nationalism. Well, what that basically forces you to do is submit to the paradigm moral and ideological of the enemy.

 

And insofar as you’re doing that, you’re basically not asserting your own idea from a strong moral standpoint. You’re not providing a strong projection of will behind your worldview, which really is the whole essence here. The assertion and total victory of the national will over the state is what the project is supposed to be! Now it becomes known, negotiating from a losing position some modicum of national survival within a system that’s fundamentally built around literally the destruction of your people.

 

[39:51]

 

Greg Johnson: Now, there are two points here. One, I don’t know how worked out a political philosophy National Socialism really was.

 

If you look at it, there were a lot of different tendencies. And when Hitler came to power, there was a lot of improvisation and chaos actually in the government. I don’t know if they had a system worked out in concrete political terms or in intellectual terms. There were all kinds of debates that were going on within Germany at the time.

 

And one of the ways to understand that is that this was part of a larger cultural and political movement, anti-liberalism, the conservative revolution in Germany and so forth. And it wasn’t necessarily a worked out political ideology.

 

But the second thing, and this is more important, I don’t see why it’s problematic for nationalists to say there’s a good kind of nationalism and a bad kind of nationalism. And the bad kind of nationalism is the nationalism for me, but not for the position [opposition]. It’s:

 

“Yes, I’m going to take care of my nation and I’m going to figure out all the ways that I can stick it to my neighbours!”

 

Which historically is what nationalism generally means.

 

And this is why you can get people who issue these pious lectures that the reason why we had the First World War and the Second World War was this bad old form of nationalism. And therefore we need to get beyond nationalism. I get that argument and I can say:

 

“Well, wait, but there’s another kind of nationalism which is not beggar thy neighbour nationalism. It’s not nationalism for me, but not for thee.”

 

It’s a consistent position that acknowledges that there’s a plurality of different peoples in the world with different interests and different ways of life. When these people have to occupy the same territory and compete for control of the same government, they generally start hating each other. And come to blows. Fortunately though, the world is big enough for every people to have its own patch of dirt, its own borders, its own state. And therefore we support nationalism, understood as the principle of self-determination for all nations. I don’t see anything wrong with that.

 

Okay, so what’s your critique of that?

 

Joel Davis: First of all, a very obvious point to make is you’re saying the world is big enough for every people to have their own nation. Okay, but the world isn’t equally divided, right? There is obviously some national territories are much bigger than others. Some national territories are more strategically advantageous than others. Some national territories have far more natural resources than others, and so on and so what this creates there is power is a reality in the global system.

 

So if you have some states that are incredibly large and powerful and some states that are incredibly small and dependent on larger states, you don’t really have self-determination of all peoples. What you have is a system that maybe could dress itself up in that language, but ultimately is a system where there’s some very big states that create orders of alliances of subordinate states in antagonism toward one another. Which is basically what we have. So that then has to then be navigated as its own reality. So in the example of Europe, Europe has been remade in the image of, basically American ideology in the post World War II international order. There hasn’t been a self-determination of all European peoples.

 

There’s been an active project of subversion led by foreign power to change the political culture and culture in general of European nations in order to make them more ideologically simpatico with American foreign policy objectives.

 

Greg Johnson: And I grant that’s an undesirable thing. And I would say:

 

“Okay, isn’t that an example of the bad old form of nationalism too?”

 

Joel Davis: But it isn’t nationalism. The American, …

 

Joel Davis: It’s imperialism. Right?

 

Greg Johnson: Yeah, okay, so this goes to an even deeper point and again to bring up Schmitt again and his Concept of the Political. Schmitt, I think, provided a very good prediction and refutation in advance in 1932 when that book was released of what would ultimately be the Liberal international order. By saying that the doctrine of pacifism is either fundamentally non-political, in other words, no one is willing to actually fight for it, or it becomes, paradoxically and ironically, actually one of the most destructive and violent and imperial doctrines ever asserted. If you actually turn it into a political doctrine and you say:

 

“No one is allowed to make war on this planet because making war is itself immoral.”

 

What does that then necessitate? It necessitates an international order to be asserted to act. It proactively prevent war from breaking out, which requires basically global domination of the pacifists. Right?

 

Greg Johnson: I do think that you can create an international order that penalises people from committing aggressive war with their neighbours. And you could do things like the Persians did to the Greeks after they stopped trying to conquer them. I forget which Persian emperor, I think it was Auto Xerxes II, basically enforced peace on Greece by saying:

 

“If one Greek city state attacks another, I will align myself with the victim and put the Persian Empire’s resources behind them.”

 

And it did manage to pacify Greece for the better part of a generation. These things can happen!

 

Joel Davis: That’s the assertion of a powerful empire though. So if America comes into Europe and says, and offers the same deal, which I guess the British kind of were doing, that I guess you could say to a certain extent. Because it’s in their interests for Europe to remain divided as opposed to becoming dominated by one power and unified underneath their control into a more powerful state than the British Empire or America, then that obviously serves their particular national interests.

 

But maybe the European national interests or the European people’s interests are actually served better by becoming so powerful they don’t have to be subordinated or be mutually weakened to the British or to the Americans, but actually could become powerful enough to assert themselves and assert their destiny.

 

[47:24]

 

Greg Johnson: I think that that would be highly desirable and that’s certainly possible.

 

Joel Davis: That’s the National Socialist worldview, basically one of the core tenets, which is that in order for us to assert our destiny in the world, we have to become strong. We have to become so strong that basically no one can get in our way. That we can become, basically develop sufficient national strength to the point at which no one can say anything to us. And that is the ambition basically of every great world historical state is to become so powerful that no one from the outside can impose its ideas and its culture and its power structures upon you. And that often requires expansionism to actually become feasible. That requires active meddling in the affairs of foreign peoples in order to achieve that.

 

And so this idea that the world is big enough for everyone to be able to determine their own destiny, I just think is false! And history is my witness. Because being a small state subject to much bigger states is not actually self-determination. You aren’t determining your own destiny if for Example, you’re a small European state that, yeah, okay, your people get to elect their own representatives, but ultimately your entire political process and culture is being massively influenced by a foreign state that is trying to impose its will upon you, because you aren’t strong enough to be able to build up your own financial, commercial, military, etc., institutions that enable you to become genuinely self reliant and self-determining in a totalizing way. Self determination requires self assertion and requires far more comprehensive, it actually has far more comprehensive requirements than simply having a nominal state called Germany, where the German citizens elect representatives.

 

Greg Johnson: Yeah, well, this brings into play another concept of sovereignty which I think is important to distinguish, which is you have this idea of sovereign states in the world today and there are 200 of them basically. And under international law, sovereign states are equal. Now what does that mean?

 

Obviously they’re not equal in terms of population, military power or anything like that. So in what sense are they equal? They’re morally equal! Meaning that they have certain rights vis a vis one another and that these rights can be violated of course, because having rights doesn’t make you bulletproof.

 

But the point is that the idea of a sovereign state is not a material feature of a state. It’s autarky, it’s invincibility, it’s invulnerability, it’s a moral concept. It’s basically the international equivalent of moral personhood within a legal order. And if sovereignty doesn’t mean that, if sovereignty means basically invulnerability and autarky, then there is no such thing as a sovereign state. Because even the biggest and most powerful state states in the world today are less powerful than the entire rest of the world if it unites against them.

 

And so if you understand sovereignty simply in terms of autarky and invulnerability, there’s no such thing as sovereignty because nobody is autarkic and nobody’s invulnerable.

 

Joel Davis: Those are ideals to aspire towards, like to become as powerful and self reliant as possible.

 

And the more powerful and self reliant you become, the more capacity you have to self-determine. That’s what self-determination means. That you are literally in control of your own destiny, that you are acting and expressing according to standards you derive from your relation to yourself rather than your relation to others.

 

And so obviously the more powerful you are as a state, the more capacity you have to do this. And the much more difficult it is for other states, foreign states, to argue the point and to undermine you. So that’s just a concrete reality. You can argue for this abstract ideal, but in the real world that’s just a fact.

 

And so what I care about as a nationalist is the actual concrete fact of how much self-determination my people have, rather than the abstract ideal where we could say:

 

“Well, wouldn’t it be so great if everyone in the world could all agree to these abstract rules?”

 

And it’s, well, those abstract rules in practice, no one’s actually willing to fight for them unless they’re getting something out of it, generally speaking.

 

And so the current paradigm under which those rules are upheld is either defended by the Americans when it suits them, or violated by the Americans when it suits them, or defended by the Russians when it suits them, and violated by the Russians when it suits them and so on. It’s not a genuine reality. It is a sham edifice.

 

So I’d rather Pierce through that and get to the fundamental and get to the real. And this is also why it’s important to come back to, I think, Romanticism versus the Enlightenment and German philosophy itself, which in many respects is a radical accounting of particularity and in particular national particularity.

 

If you want to look at people like Herder, Fichte, there is a in romanticist German philosophy tied up within German nationalist project originally in the 19th century was:

 

“Okay, we just got ramroded by Napoleon. There’s this giant British Empire that is imposing its commercial will on the world. We need to bring all these kingdoms together into a big German state so that we can be powerful enough to protect German national particularity against these foreign influences and never be run over by a foreign military in the same way Napoleon did, ever again!”

 

[53:49]

 

And so there was a kind of a very strong movement towards recognizing all that is particular as opposed to looking for just simply what is universal rather than this ideal of well, how do we negotiate this international order according to universal principles? How do we actually find what’s particular about being German and what about our own self relation?

 

And again, the concept of national self-determination. You can see why this is actually way more relevant than what is universal about the idea of trying to universalise the concept of national self-determination into just merely a set of like universal principles that could be respected. Instead, let’s look at the actual concreteness of what is our particular national culture, what is our particular national consciousness? What does it mean? And how can it fundamentally be protected? And how can we fight for our particular, in their case, German national expression?

 

And I don’t care about the national self-determination of fucking Libyans. I don’t care about the national self-determination of fucking Syrians or Indians or all these countries that I have absolutely no care or concern for! I really don’t. I would not permit the sacrifice of one drop of the blood of our race to defend any of their nationalisms. I don’t give a shit about their nationalisms! I only care about the nationalisms of people whom I respect, people with whom I have some kind of fealty, some kind of kinship. They’re the only nationalisms that I actually care about that I find relevant.

 

And so for me, as someone who comes from a more romanticist standpoint, I empathize far more with this view that it’s from like, and particularly if you’re a German at that time, it’s like, in order for Germany to have its own culture and not be dominated by these foreign influences, we have to fall in love with ourselves and we have to build a political movement that is for us in particularity, because we’re the only ones that truly care about being German people who are not German. There’s a few Germanophiles, but generally can’t understand and don’t care about our national destiny because they don’t participate in it. So why would they? And that makes complete sense.

 

And then development of German thought. I mean, if you get to someone like Martin Heidegger, well, obviously this is actually quite this is moving into far more abstract territory.

 

But, you know, Martin Heidegger in his critique of technicity or the kind of technological worldview, technological and framing, or the kind of metaphysics of modernity, the reduction of thought, in his view, to a kind of ratiocinative calculating modes of thought fundamentally deprive us of having a kind of a relation to the homeland. For Heidegger, the homeland is something which actually is ambiguous, which is pretty rational. It’s related a lot to myth, to artistic forms, to spirituality.

 

And so, and this is very much what the German, like volkish tradition was also trying to drive at in its focus upon, you know, reviving, you know, ancient German mythologies and Wagnerian operas, you know, pertaining to pursuit of the Holy Grail, and which obviously isn’t particularly German, but it’s Germanic you could say, or it’s Northern European. It’s part of all Northwestern European culture. Trying to drive to like, what is actually the spiritual meaning of what it means to be German as opposed to just simply what is universal about all nations that Germans also possess? Actually, what is particular about individual nations is far more interesting and far more pertinent.

 

And I agree with Heidegger that basically this ratiocinative, universalistic way of thinking actually came into the world through the conduit of my people. It actually came into the world very strongly through the conduit of the Anglo English people. I actually do feel Germanophilic about this. I actually think that’s a tragedy. I think that’s a great problem. And it’s highly contributive to why we became a, not just in England, but in all of our colonial projects, we became essentially a power in the world that enabled the machinations of international finance and commercialism, and jewish ethnic interest and so on to become so monstrous through the prism of that worldview. Through a kind of loss of a spiritual sense of the homeland and our relation to all that which is pre-rational that makes up our identity as a people. And the Germans were resisting that process. The Germans had a lot more of a cultural immunisation and a high cultural immunisation against that process and a rejection of that process.

 

And so I think the Germans were the correct spiritual leaders of Europe. I think we were the incorrect spiritual leaders of Europe, which is what ended up happening Now. Europe has been remade in the image of our culture which is built, which is these notions of universal rights and so on are derived from. And it’s causing the suicide of our race!

 

And it’s also a worldview. And Heidegger makes the point that in the black notebooks that the jewish people, because they lack a homeland, their fundamental orientation towards the world is calculative, is ratiocinative.

 

And so a worldview they can inhabit, a metaphysic that they can inhabit, which is reductive in that sense, is exemplary to the accumulation of their power.

 

Whereas a worldview which tries to reach back into the pre-rational essence of the homeland into the earth from which our particular national world in the Heideggerian language, out of which it arises, but which is kind of mysterious and ambiguous, and not reducible to any kind of like, conceptual schema, that actually is the form of spiritual immunisation and the form of spiritual resistance, of the assertion of our national cultures against this kind of jewish homelessness.

 

[1:00:10]

 

 

Greg Johnson: Yeah, there’s a lot to that. German romanticism, new German philosophy in general is very, especially the anti-Enlightenment strain of it, is very critical of globalisation, basically. And I think that that’s entirely correct.

 

I do think that the British mind, the tendency of Anglos is to mistake their full consciousness for the universal. And that’s very bad! Anglo-Americans, they really mistake their folkish ways as universal, and they think of themselves as avatars of the universal.

 

And that means that they basically promote the destruction of their own people and every other people, because they just don’t think that there’s any meaningful difference. I know that Swedish liberals are like this too. I was speaking to the Swedish woman who’s saying:

 

“Yes, you know, Swedes in their hearts, the Swedish Leftists believe that everybody wants to be just like them.”

 

They can’t fathom that there would be anybody who would want a radically different way of life and that therefore admitting such people into their societies could threaten it. There is something very peculiar about that.

 

But let’s just say that we affirm folkishness and say, yes, there are many different peoples. They have many different worldviews, different ways of life. And again, the best way to cultivate that is to separate them. Because we notice historically that when they’re competing for territory or government favours or whatever, the more diverse the society is, the more unnecessary conflicts that we support self-determination. You still get this question, okay, well, how is that kind of world going to be governed? You can be a complete realist about enmity, like Schmitt, you can say we will never have a world where there’s no difference between the insiders and the outsiders.

 

But you can still ask, okay, given that we accept that this is the world that we live in, what are the best ways of establishing amicable relations across a globe like that? If you affirm nationalism, if you understand that it’s in a way inevitable and you try and deal with the problems that people who are broad thinking face, which is how are we going to live together on this finite planet? You’ve got to come up with some kind of geopolitical vision of how these different groups are going to get along.

 

Joel Davis: So why is “getting along” just simply conceding to the other, like a really effective strategy in getting along with somebody is becoming far more powerful than them. So they fear you and are forced to submit to you. That’s actually a really effective strategy at people being very friendly to you is when they fear you. When they don’t fear you, it’s actually a lot harder to get their friendship.

 

So this idea that we need to have this universal nationalist ideology in order to get along doesn’t make any sense to me! What makes a lot more sense to me is how about we just become really fucking powerful and then we can negotiate from a position of strength rather than weakness in how we’re going to relate to surrounding groups.

 

Greg Johnson: And this is the situation that Whites are in today, and this is the situation that nationalists are in today. I get the image of George Floyd under the knee of a cop, under the knee of a globalist cop. And there are two ways that you can get out from under the knee of this globalist system, and only one of them really works. And that would be to appeal to whatever elements of fairness and decency there are in the guy who’s got his knee on your neck. Now that doesn’t mean that you can persuade everybody in the world, but there are many, many interlocking powers that are screwing us right now and driving us to extinction. And some of them definitely can be appealed to on moral grounds.

 

But the one thing that I know is never going to work is if George Floyd, you know, under the knee is saying:

 

“I’m going to kill you know, let me up and I’m going to kill you!”

 

And that I think is basically the position that you’re articulating. Because we’re in a situation now where we’re going to have to, because we have no power now. We’re the weak, and, …

 

Joel Davis: I fundamentally disagree that Whites collectively lack the ability to assert ourselves on the basis of our own strength. We do have that ability.

 

Greg Johnson: We do if we change our thinking about certain things, and you’re not addressing, I think, the predominant thinking patterns that stand in the way of that. And any kind of philosophy that smacks of “might is right” or something like that, I think is a non-starter for us today because we’re the weak! And if we believe that might is right, then we believe that we should be believing that our enemies are in the Right. And clearly we don’t believe that.

 

Joel Davis: That doesn’t follow at all! The reason Whites are in the position that we’re in is because of our own ideas and our own kind of moral proclivities. It’s not because of the assertion of any other group against us in a way that dominates us against our will. It is a willful embrace of these ideas. If Whites collectively mobilise the willpower to resist what is happening and assert ourselves on the basis of our own strength, we do have the strength to regain sovereignty over at least some territory, if not pretty much all of the like, our historical territories across the West. We are by far collectively the most powerful, richest, most effective fighting groups in our respective nations. Like no other group, even all of them combined would lose to us if we were organised and assertive on our own terms.

 

[1:07:22]

 

Greg Johnson: What’s stopping us?

 

Joel Davis: Yeah, so what’s stopping us? What’s stopping us is moral cuckoldry essentially. What’s stopping us is this universalistic world view that we’re debating. I mean, what’s stopping us is this necessity to process our self assertion through some kind of like universal humanitarian, abstract set of principles of rights. And that is fundamentally a bullshit edifice. It’s not, …

 

Greg Johnson: I don’t think it’s a bullshit edifice.

 

Joel Davis: And it’s derived in a fundamentally flawed worldview from my standpoint, metaphysically and logically.

 

Greg Johnson: Okay, what is that flawed worldview? Just briefly, where does it come from? What are some of the thinkers that articulate this?

 

Joel Davis: First of all, I mean, we’ve been discussing the kind of the concrete ridiculousness of a kind of universal nationalism that it doesn’t actually in practice realise the principle of self-determination, which is the core principle with which it seeks to realise. And so therefore it’s in contradiction with its own principle. So logically it’s just a non-starter.

 

Secondarily from a metaphysical standpoint, I agree with a Heideggerian premise that this attempt at reducing the moral to a kind of universal rationality rather than asserting one’s particularity is again I think fundamentally incongruent with the human condition as such.

 

Greg Johnson: Right, okay. Okay. Yeah, well, let’s start out with that. Okay. I look at Hobbes and I think Hobbes provides us with a path by which you start out with something like a self assertive group, or a self assertive individual with no rules. Right.

 

What did Trayvon Martin call himself? He called himself a “No Limit Nigger”. I think that was the term. Well, imagine a world of “No Limit Niggers” basically all asserting themselves against one another. That’s the world that you’re picturing. That’s the world that realists in foreign policy picture. It’s the state of nature in Hobbes’s terms. And Hobbes make a very good argument that actually if you’re rational, you will want to get out of that state of nature as quickly as you possibly can and establish certain boundaries, of limits. You want to have limits! You want to have limits because in the end it’s in all of your interests. And he actually makes a fantastically cynical argument for equality. As one of my Professors as an undergraduate put it, he said:

 

“Hobbes argument for equality is this. You might be big and tough, but you’ve got to sleep sometime. And when you do, a bunch of skinny guys can get together and shank you. And that’s the end of you. That’s the end of the high and mighty.”

 

And you could do that in individual terms. Think of the prison house, right? The bully in the prison. Or you can think of it in global terms, in terms of countries.

 

And again, there’s no country that’s so big that the rest of the world couldn’t get together and shank it. You’ve got to sleep sometime, right?

 

And that means that, …

 

Joel Davis: Well, I disagree, actually. I mean, Russia and the United States have nuclear arsenals that could completely wipe humanity off the face of the planet. They are in a certain sense impossible to shank!

 

Greg Johnson: Well, if people really want to go to the limit, they can be shanked.

 

But the point is that, and there is this odd little thing that’s happened that’s very disturbing to my view because I love to say, wait a second here. Nuclear arsenal, it’s the ultimate, it’s the ultimate ace in the hole. We’ve recently had a nuclear power invaded by a non-nuclear power. You know, it’s the whole Kursk thing in the Russia-Ukraine war, which is kind of extraordinary because I was really hoping that the you could basically hide behind those nuclear arsenals.

 

But the point is that, …

 

Joel Davis: That’s a bad example because it didn’t, wouldn’t existentially threaten the Russian state. I mean, they weren’t “shanked”! It was a minor border incursion. It wasn’t going to escalate to like dropping nukes.

 

Greg Johnson: Well, but here’s the thing that they, …

 

Joel Davis: They have designs over integrating into their own federation. And they want to win the public opinion of at least the people who live in the territory they’re annexing.

 

Greg Johnson: Yeah, well, but you know, the point is that if you, … Hobbes makes an argument that if you have a world in the state of nature, you will all rationally, both the very strong and the very weak want to move to a conflict resolution, conflict containment model that involves things like rights.

 

Now, of course, the problem with Hobbes’s view is that it implies the necessity of a sovereign. How do you deal with a world, and by sovereign that’s a decider. And how do you deal with that in a world where states are to one another, as Hobbes would recognised, as individuals are to the state of to one another in the state of nature. There’s no overarching power, so what do you have to do?

 

Well, they’ve been trying that for hundreds and hundreds of years, since really the conclusion of the Thirty Years War, to create international law and international institutions to deal with conflict resolution.

 

And there are two models of globalism. The terrifying, horrible model of globalism, in my view, is the commercial model where everything is interlaced on the levels of the economy of desire and everything becomes commodified and everything slowly becomes homogenised because why wouldn’t you listen to Taylor Swift all over the world if you could, right? That kind of bullshit! That’s a terrifying model of globalisation because it destroys culture and peoples.

 

But there’s another vision of globalisation that I think that we have to try and figure out how to make it work, and that is the “conflict resolution” model. How can we have a world independent states, and yet make sure that these independent states don’t spin out of control and create global thermonuclear wars and things like that? That I think is a reasonable enterprise. And yes, you want to be as strong as you possibly can given that these things might not work. Go ahead.

 

[1:15:07]

 

Joel Davis: I mean, you bringing up Hobbes, I mean, is kind of crazy because the whole theory of Hobbes as you kind of just mentioned and then jutted away from, is that the only way to overcome the state of nature is for there to be a monarch that isn’t just simply formally presiding over some kind of constitutional order, but is actually concretely so powerful as such that it can dominate the entire social sphere and is powerful enough to deprive us universally of all of our rights, but then in the pursuit of peace, grant us a limited series of rights. That’s the basic premise. And that what we inherit from submitting and empowering the monarch to become so powerful as to be essentially impossible to resist is that we then inherit a set of limited rights.

 

Well, in the international system, what that would mean would mean that there would have to be one country that is so powerful that it can utterly dominate the entire earth. Now if that country is dominating the entire earth and it has an ideology that is genociding my race, well, that’s fundamentally unacceptable! Now if it’s a country that is dominating the entire earth and it’s like Nazi Germany, maybe I don’t mind so much.

 

So the question is who is going to be sovereign insofar as that cannot exist, you can only really have limited pockets of negotiated relationships. So if within Europe you have one all powerful state that’s just so much more powerful than all the other states combined with, they create a regional order, but you know, that couldn’t then be universalised. You know, they don’t have the power to dominate maybe the entire planet, but they can dominate a region. Right. Like in North America, America kind of functions like that. Like it’s basically almost impossible to argue with the American government from the perspective of, and they can just flagrantly just go and you know, just, the CIA can just like go into Mexico and just start like taking over, engaging in massive covert operations. And the Mexican government barely says anything because they don’t really have sovereignty because their neighbour is just so powerful that they barely have a very limited amount of sovereignty.

 

So there’s obviously the point that I’m making is that appealing to this notion is itself the refutation of this idea of that we can sit down and just have a rational discussion about the morality of national sovereignty and create an international order around that. No! The Hobbesian argument is that we can’t sit down and have a rational discussion about our mutual rights, that the human condition doesn’t allow for that. All we can do is create a centre of power so powerful that it can impose only a limited series of rights and it basically itself be elevated outside of that same order and have the ability to violate it, have the ability and become so powerful you can’t do anything about its violations.

 

Greg Johnson: Yeah, well, I understand that, but Hobbes understood that right on the global level there is going to be no sovereign. And there were other thinkers who came later, really who tried to figure out, okay, how could we have, how could we model relations between sovereign European states in such a way that they can relate to one another without, …

 

Greg Johnson: That obviously failed, didn’t it?

 

Joel Davis: Well, yes and no. There is this notion of collegiality as a model of relationships. What is that? Well, collegiality means that they’re independent actors with common goals and interests, but no overall hierarchy that controls them. And the idea of the comity of nations in international law, it is basically a collegial model for sovereign states to come together and work out their problems. It’s remarkable, though, how many sovereign states have existed for very long times with no power at all! Some of the oldest sovereign entities in Europe are the tiniest and most powerless, like Monaco or Lichtenstein or San Marino. How is that possible? Well, it’s possible because, …

 

Greg Johnson: They pose no threat!

 

Joel Davis: Well, it be you could say that. Or they have friendly relations with their neighbours.

 

Joel Davis: Yeah, but they pose no threat and obviously don’t have the ability to assert themselves. And so therefore it’s unnecessary to develop enmity with them. Whereas the more powerful you get, the more enemies you’re going to accrue, because the more fearsome you become.

 

And also, I’m not saying that nations can’t be friends or recognise mutual interests. Obviously they can. And from my perspective, the nations of Europe should find common cause at this time in history, because we now are in a very different world than we were in 100 or 200 years ago, when the European powers were so far ahead of the rest of the world technologically that their mutual enmity really was the decisive factor of who controlled global destiny.

 

Whereas now the rest of the world has caught up and our race needs to come together to safeguard the future of our civilisation and culture, which is very largely shared. There is a very substantial aspect of the culture of every individual European nation is the collective European culture. In fact, I would say overwhelmingly so.

 

And so in order to safeguard our civilisation, we need to find common cause and put aside old differences which in previous bygone historical contexts were more relevant, actually.

 

And that’s why there were so many wars in Europe and why now there isn’t really the same appetite for war in Europe, but there still is a current war in Europe. Why is that? Because there’s still a clash between two, basically two fundamental power structures over the determination of Russia’s sphere of influence, NATO’s sphere of influence.

 

[1:21:40]

 

 

And so, in a sense, what that demonstrates is that the only reason why you’ve had relative peace in Europe for so long is because of the domination of really big and powerful superpowers that have nukes pointed at each other and Europe’s subordination essentially to the American led international order. So that isn’t Europe creating this ideal of rational discussion where the Polish are coming and sitting down with the Czechs and sitting down with the French and working out their individual differences. It’s the fact that they’re all subject to much larger powers and so they’re not actually able to assert themselves and have genuine [chuckling] differences under these conditions.

 

Greg Johnson: Let me ask you, do you think that Europe will ever become a formidable separate independent block without one European country dominating the rest of the continent?

 

Joel Davis: Well, the reality is that when Europe, so let’s say America keeps going down this path of moving towards a realist foreign policy away from liberal internationalism which I really hope occurs. I really hope that this isn’t a temporary aberration, and I think it’s necessary because the rise of China is necessitating it. And the Americans get out of Europe largely, and Europe finds some self assertion in coming decades as a result of that and further European integration is pursued. And obviously they’re dealing with Russians to the east. And so they need to be strong and powerful to resist Russian advances.

 

And they also need to be able to provide their people with a political formula that can resist Russian subversion which hopefully moves them towards the assertion of Europe’s particularity, that moves them towards the assertion of their actual ethnic and racial identity. And we get policies like re-migration and the borders get shut. That would be beautiful if that happens. That’d be my ideal.

 

If we get into that kind of world and Europe starts to trying to re-inspire patriotism and develop a kind of a national patriot movements in various European nations that align themselves and build up independent military strength, economic strength and so on. When that Europe sits down and meets, right, the leaders of Europe to whatever this future European Union or if it has a different name, whatever, whoever is the leader of Germany, whoever is the leader of France, what they say and what they want is going to matter a hell of a lot more than whoever the leader of Croatia is or whoever the leader of Lithuania is. Right? And that’s just the reality. Now that doesn’t mean that we hate Lithuanians and we hate Croatians.

 

But at the end of the day the power of Europe is more fundamentally concentrated in those bigger, more consequential States, then there’s more minor states. And so therefore, you know, Europe will come under German and French leadership. It will. And we’ll have to go in that direction.

 

Greg Johnson: Will Germany and France fight it out?

 

Joel Davis: Well, I mean they probably will have antagonism, but you know, if they have a mutual animus of greater enemies around the world, that gives them a strong incentive to work out their differences and form a strong alliance. Right?

 

Greg Johnson: Yeah. I mean, it’s possible to come up with a simulacrum of human behaviour that’s entirely based on selfishness as a motivation. And liberals love to do that. Right. And foreign policy realists love to do that’s sort of what you’re doing now.

 

Joel Davis: It’s not based on selfishness though. It’s securing your national community and its future, that is not selfishness. That’s service to your people!

 

Greg Johnson: Well, but you’re talking about selfishness in terms of vis a vis other countries. And I, …

 

Joel Davis: Yeah. Okay. So obviously Germans care more about Germans than they care about Greek people. But there could still be a wider European fidelity as well. It’s not an either or.

 

Greg Johnson: Yeah.

 

Joel Davis: They can also care about Europe at large.

 

Greg Johnson: Yeah.

 

Joel Davis: Like if you’re really awake, you would realise that the particular national destiny of any one European nation is actually intimately tied to the collective destiny of the European people. And so you have to safeguard that to safeguard your own national interests as well.

 

So you can have concentric circles of identity. It doesn’t have to be one absolute identity to the exclusion of all others. There can be multiple layers of identity at play. Just like you’re a member of a family, you’re a member of member local community, you’re a member of a nation, you’re a member of a race. Like all of these things are important and have to be balanced.

 

The point of reducing it to selfishness, I mean, it’s just that only makes sense in your abstract theoretical model. It doesn’t actually make sense in the concrete humanity of what we’re discussing. Patriotism is not selfish. Patriotism is a love of the other, of the direct other of your blood!

 

Greg Johnson: Yeah. I do think it’s possible for there to be non-selfish relationships of amity and mutual respect between different peoples. And they’re.

 

Joel Davis: Yeah, of course that’s possible, but it’s still like, for example, Australia now has an alliance with the Japanese.

 

Greg Johnson: Yeah.

 

[1:27:09]

 

Joel Davis: Now there was one point in which we were massacring each other, in the Second World War and they were a great threat to us.

 

But now Australia and Japan, because of the strategic circumstances surrounding the rapid rise of Chinese military and economic power, well now we have common cause and we have very strong military agreements. Both of our militaries have permission to operate in each other’s sovereign territories, which is agreement that I think both countries only have with the United States and maybe we have similar agreements maybe with the British actually as well. But it’s a pretty like rare agreement for either country to have with another country.

 

So we have very close military relationship now. And I admire Japanese culture. I think Japanese culture has a lot of very compelling things both historically and contemporarily and I think the Japanese people are very respectable people and I’m happy to be allied, and I think it’s a good thing for both countries for us to have an alliance.

 

But at the end of the day, if circumstances were different like in the Second World War where Japanese interests and Australian interests are diametrically opposed, then I am totally fine with killing Japanese people. Right. Because that’s actually what’s good for Australians. Those two things can both be true.

 

So it isn’t about that I respect their universal right to self-determination. I don’t! I don’t give a shit about this universal concept of self-determination! I care about the particularity of how is my region going to be organised and how can I secure a future for my people. If that means respecting the Japanese nation as our ally, then I respect the Japanese nation as our ally. I would also like it if the Chinese state was divided into like 10 states, because that would be fantastic for Australia because then it would completely weaken them and they could all be turned against each other and massacre each other. That would be in my interest as well.

 

So I don’t give a shit about the Chinese right to national self-determination because that right actually is very scary, if it’s practiced! And that’s, I think that’s a totally reasonable worldview. I care about my people more than I care about Chinese people or I care about Japanese people. So it’s all relative.

 

Greg Johnson: Well, I think that’s completely reasonable because there is this, but that’s a universal fact as well, namely that people have a love of their own and given that you have the greatest interest in your own people, it makes sense for you to take care of your own people first. But you also recognise that that’s true of everybody else on the planet. And again, you can posit an international order that respects that fact, …

 

Joel Davis: And I don’t support Aboriginal self-determination. There are people! Because that directly conflicts with my, the sovereignty of my people over this continent.

 

So I don’t actually respect the universal right to self-determination! That’s the thing. I will respect particular claims to self-determination where it makes sense, but I do not support an abstract universal. The abstract universal doesn’t actually exist! It isn’t based on anything. You’re proposing that we negotiate one into existence on the basis of our shared individual national interests. And I’m providing all these counter examples where, well, the universal often isn’t in my individual national interest.

 

Greg Johnson: We can raise the question like this. You can say, okay, let’s say that, let’s use this example. Let’s talk about property rights within Australia. You have private property rights. Now you could go through life negotiating and calculating all the whole time and saying:

 

“Well, you know, is respecting this person’s property rights in my interests in this particular moment?”

 

And oftentimes it might not be, but you might still recognise that as a general rule, having a system of private property in place benefits you as much as it benefits other people. And therefore you want to, you’re not going to go through life thinking:

 

“Can I steal this pen and get away with it?”

 

You sort of get beyond that because you recognise that you’ve got a general interest in civilised rules like respecting other people’s property. And you can go on to you broaden that out. Any kind of general civilised rules. You might be able to benefit yourself by violating these rules in particular circumstances. But in a broader sense you probably benefit from just having these rules.

 

Joel Davis: As a nationalist, I support seizing the property of foreign nationals. I support seizing the property of racial aliens. I support a taxation system that seizes a significant portion of everyone’s property in order to make arrangements for national defense. And the national interest in various other ways. And so I don’t actually respect the universal right to property. I respect the limited right to property.

 

Greg Johnson: It’s an analogy. Okay, I’m not saying, …

 

Joel Davis: That’s the same as what I’m saying on the international basis. I respect in a limited sense, the national self-determination of various other peoples, but I do not support it in an absolute sense.

 

Greg Johnson: Would you be safer in a world where people treated it as an absolute or treated it as something that they renegotiated in every particular circumstance.

 

Joel Davis: We’re never going to live in a world where people treat it as an absolute because it’s fundamentally incongruent with the human condition and with the political as such! The political is fundamentally a question of:

 

“What are you willing to fight for. On what basis can the state legitimate war? On what basis can the state legitimate putting people in prison? On what basis can the state legitimate organise men with guns, pointing them in people’s faces and potentially shooting?”

 

That’s what politics is about.

 

And so there is not going to be a world in which we all put down our guns and sit down and rationally negotiate some peaceful set of agreements. Now with our guns pointed in mutual directions, we can sit down and negotiate alliances or negotiate agreements to prevent us from engaging in mutually destructive conflicts. So we can have a limited negotiation, but we’re never going to have an absolute negotiation. So it’s not only like frivolous question that has no basis in historical or human reality!

 

[1:33:57]

 

Greg Johnson: I don’t think it’s baseless, because the world has been working in one way or another for hundreds of years to create institutions that allow different states to come together and mediate conflicts and avoid conflicts.

 

Joel Davis: But that is the world underneath the domination of the United States of America. This idea of liberal nationalism has only actually been successfully implanted, implemented underneath American global power where the American led international order has been organised around these institutions. But without the American guarantee of power, sovereignty, etc, what the American Navy guaranteeing global trade, American participation in all these international institutions, they would crumble! They would no longer function! And insofar as states have become powerful enough to challenge the American led international order, they challenge these institutions and they’re, and at the same time America itself has destroyed the legitimacy of these institutions by also violating its dictates where it saw fit, for example, in the invasion of Iran.

 

Greg Johnson: Absolutely! Absolutely!

 

Joel Davis: So these institutions are fundamentally, as I said, I use the phrase “bullshit edifice”! It’s a very reasonable assessment. It’s a very reasonable assessment because what it actually is a form of American imperialism. And that’s all it is, basically.

 

But then with a very amicable negotiation, it’s a very good propaganda. It’s a very good way of bringing your junior partners in the empire in and giving them representation and giving them a voice and so on, which is a prudent way to run an empire. But what it isn’t, is what you’re describing it isn’t actually a respect for the abstract universal of self-determination because that same American empire has been utterly destroying in concrete terms our capacity as Western states to have self-determination by literally genociding our race and creating state sponsored programs to destroy our national self consciousness!

 

So according to the abstract universal, well we’re all in all these international organisations that respect Australian sovereignty or French sovereignty or German sovereignty or Italian sovereignty or whatever. But in concrete terms there’s a series of international institutions and organisations and the perpetuation of an international order that destroys the capacity of our nations to have a genuine seat at the table because we can’t even be self conscious. We can’t even assert our national interest within our own political process!

 

So we have a bunch of traitors that will go and sit at these international meetings and represent us. Well, isn’t that fucking fantastic? I feel:

 

“Oh my national self-determination is so respected when they send some communist traitor like Anthony Albanese to go sit at the UN and go and sit down with the Indian Prime Minister and negotiate how they’re going to bring more Indian immigrants into Australia so I can be genocided more quickly!”

 

That’s fantastic!

 

Greg Johnson: Well I was, last year I gave a talk at the Institute for Historical Review in Southern California and I gave this analogy that I’ve used for years about how institutions fail, how diversity hollows out institutions. And I talked about the fire department. It was just an arbitrary thing. I said imagine the fire department decides to go woke and diversify and you know, it’s all fine, it’s all well and good if you lower standards and you spend more time worrying about the gender and racial mix of the people on the department, so forth. It’s great, it’s great for parades, it’s great for propaganda videos. But what if there’s an actual fire?

 

And then as if on cue, [chuckling] right? As if God wanted to prove my point, Los Angeles bur burned down! And we found that part of the reasons why the fire department was so ineffectual was it was being run by a lesbian and it was full of lesbians and they were all doing TikTok videos showing off their diversity, but they weren’t paying attention to what was necessary to actually put out fires. And you can just say that this is an institution that’s been rotted out by a crazed idea. Right?

 

And this is the way I think we have to understand what’s happened with NATO and the EU, and things like that. The purpose of the fire department is to fight fires and the purpose of NATO is to defend its member states. And the purpose of the EU is to pursue conflict resolution and greater prosperity and mutual understanding and respect in Europe, blah, blah, blah. And these institutions unfortunately have been become infected with these insane ideas, this insane woke ideology.

 

But we have to understand that there’s a distinction between the institutions and its purposes and the bizarre destructive goals that they have been wrenched around to by these ideologues.

 

Joel Davis: They’re not just “bizarre”, Greg. They’re not just like this random appendage of ideas that spontaneously emerged within these institutions and just made them retarded! What these ideas are in concrete and historical terms is a social engineering project to actively destroy the national identities of the constituent states that make up this liberal international order. Because of the recognition that nationalism is an idea which contradicts this liberal international order and its fundamental premises itself, embodied in National Socialist Germany. So, but if you understand it historically and dialectically, then that is the case.

 

Like if you look at the motivations of these “woke” academics, so to speak, if you look at the motivations that they explicitly state themselves, particularly in that 1950s, 1960s period where these ideas are being formulated and they’re being actively supported and so on, their concrete motivation is directed specifically at the Third Reich and its conditions. And there was a mutation in Left-wing ideology around the recognition that:

 

“Well, when the White working class is empowered, they didn’t actually support socialism, they supported fascism and National Socialism. And so the Left needs to be reconstituted around a different set of clients as opposed to the working class.”

 

[1:40:47]

 

 

Greg Johnson: Absolutely, yeah.

 

Joel Davis: And so all of, all of these things are fundamentally relevant. And so the rehabilitation of the nationalist idea as something which can stand necessarily has to stand against the Liberal international order. The rehabilitation of a nation which asserts itself in its particularity that doesn’t need to justify itself within these, the shackles of these moral universalisms that you’re so partial to is fundamentally tied to the historical experience of the National Socialist regime insofar as it existed.

 

Now that doesn’t mean that every single illiberal nationalist is exactly the same as a National Socialist. But what it does mean is that nationalism has been fundamentally cucked and morally outmoded from our political process. It can’t represent itself correctly, it can’t assert itself, and in fact is being actively attacked pre-emptively and purposefully to make it harder and harder and harder for any for a nationalist movement to ever exist, that it has any concrete chances of success in any of our respective democracies. In order to preserve this liberal international order where no nation starts thinking about its own interests too hard and starts asserting them too directly and brings down this whole bullshit edifice as I called it, and starts challenging the American led liberal international order.

 

So this is all interconnected! It’s not just like oh, we had this great idea of liberal internationalism back in the 19th century and it went all wrong with wokeness. We could just get back to it. It’s completely non-dialectical, it’s completely ahistorical to think like that!

 

And it’s also just patently ridiculous when you think about how discourse actually works in the contemporary situation. That’s why it works the way that it does. That’s why whenever you start advocating for anything that sounds like White nationalism or ethno-nationalism in any White country, particularly in Western Europe or the English speaking world, immediately you start getting called the Nazi and all of these discussions around National Socialism start popping back up because it is all fundamentally tied. But there still needs to be a level of rehabilitation where we say:

 

“Okay, but the Germans asserting their national interest wasn’t some unique historical evil.”

 

In fact it actually makes sense why they would react against liberalism, why they would react against Marxism, why they would react against jewish subversion in the way that they did, why they would find a necessity to take on the Soviet Union and the Anglo-American world order to try and assert a different idea for Europe and a different political order for Europe. All of this actually makes sense! And is actually things that we can sympathize with and you should sympathize with, particularly in retrospect after seeing what has happened after their defeat, if you actually care about the European race and its destiny.

 

Greg Johnson: My position still boils down to this. I think that National Socialism was the wrong kind of nationalism! It was the bad kind of nationalism in the sense that it was imperialistic, that it was aggrandizing itself at the expense of other primarily White European nations.

 

And basically I think that what nationalists need to do, and I’m going to put this in an intentionally provocative way, is that we need to solemnly swear that we’re not going to do that kind of shit again!

 

Joel Davis: I diametrically oppose you. I think it was the good kind of nationalism precisely because it didn’t cuck itself to these universalist moral limits that you want to impose upon nationalism, and actually took on a form that was actually capable of asserting itself in a totalizing way against the enemies of nationalism, which were foreign and domestic. And that in order for us to free ourselves as a race of all of these forces, whether it be the Leftists, whether it be jews, whether it be what have you, structures of international finance, capitalist elites that are diametrically opposed to nationalist goals, all the rest of it. We need to take on a similarly uncompromising ideological project that seeks to seize state power and then use state power to utterly destroy and eradicate them from our lands and push them back. Create an international order in which they fear us too much to attack us.

 

That is ultimately the only way in which we can genuinely have self-determination as a race is to become powerful enough to do that, to actually defeat our enemies! And actually be sovereign over our own territories. And that’s what those are the principles in National Socialism, not necessarily the, … Now German Chauvinism I, from the perspective of culture, I do think the Germans had the greatest culture of any nation in Europe. They are the cultural and spiritual Guardians of the European race, particularly in the modern world. You could make historical arguments as well, but particularly in the modern world because okay, you want to cry about Poland. Where’s Poland’s Beethoven? Where’s Poland’s Wagner? Where’s Poland’s Hegel? Where’s Poland’s Nietzsche? Where’s Poland’s Heidegger? Where’s, … The list goes on. The Germans and their contribution is exceptional without equal in the modern world.

 

[1:46:16]

 

And also it is antagonistic directly to the ideas of which have destroyed Europe. The Germans were the great power in Europe that actively, on a cultural and political basis provided the most resistance to the development of this hellscape that is what has become of modernity.

 

So the Germans should be Chauvinistic to a very large extent. They should see themselves as superior because they actually are on a cultural basis. But I don’t necessarily mean that doesn’t necessarily mean they should be genociding the other European peoples. It doesn’t mean though that the other European people should be looking to German culture for leadership as opposed to looking to Anglo-American culture for leadership, which has been a total disaster! Which is what has actually happened due to our imposition. And what that means is jewish cultural subversion and leadership to a very large extent because we’re infected with this.

 

So that’s what has actually become of Europe’s destiny, which has been a total disaster! So I think Germanophilia is actually necessary for the White race because the Germans did provide, in their political thought, in their philosophical thought, in the development of their particular nationalist movement, the most spiritually powerful refutation of all of these forces. And then they then created, in a political form, the most politically powerful opposition to all of these forces.

 

And so, of course we should take inspiration from it. Of course we should defend it. Absolutely!

 

Greg Johnson: And yet they were defeated by liberal internationalism. Is there any lesson in there?

 

Joel Davis: Yeah, they were defeated by an ideology that is genociding our race. So you could say:

 

“Hey, this ideology that is genociding our race won against an ideology that was trying to defend our race. So maybe we should side with the ideology that genocides our race!”

 

No! That’s not the lesson to be taken away.

 

Greg Johnson: Okay, well, I mean, we’ve almost run out of time, so I don’t want to go, … I’m envisioning a huge digression here, which I don’t want to get into. Because I don’t want to digress from history, from philosophy into history again, because I do think that that’s the for me, I wouldn’t say that I wasted my time reading David Irving, but it was a digression from philosophy into history. And to the extent that I learnt anything from it, my feeling is that the rest of the world has a justified suspicion of people who say:

 

“I want nationalism, like Germany between the wars.”

 

Joel Davis: I have a justified suspicion that of anyone who claims to be for our race, but proposes that we frame our nationalism within the ideological and philosophical framework that is precisely antagonistic to nationalism, which is what liberal variants of nationalism are.

 

Greg Johnson: I just don’t think that they are necessarily antagonistic to nationalism properly understood. I think it’s possible for there to be distinct nations that are proud of their identities and wish to pursue their own destinies and that do so without being bad global citizens. And that’s the fear that is constantly being evoked whenever nationalism comes up.

 

And of course, in part, it’s being evoked in bad faith, but it finds purchase in people because they think:

 

“Well, yes, maybe there’s a better way of doing this.”

 

And this is why I do think that I think we should try and get beyond interwar and let’s just not even say National Socialism, but interwar nationalisms, because I think we need a new Right. And that we need to understand that it’s possible to advocate for a plurality of different nations.

 

Joel Davis: We can’t have a totally free discussion about what form that can take in the contemporary world unless National Socialism is at the very least rehabilitated enough to be relativised and for its ideas to be seen as a series of options on the table that should be considered and debated, as opposed to it being like before we even discuss. Start the discussion the premise is that it’s immediately beyond the pale.

 

Greg Johnson: Well, I would agree with that.

 

But I do think that if we had that discussion, and maybe we’ll continue this discussion, because I’d like to bring you around to my thinking, which is to basically say:

 

“We need to step over this.”

 

We need to relativise it. We need to understand it in its context. We can even appreciate it as long as it remains dead. But that we have to create something new for the world situation that we’re in today. And it’s not just because of National Socialism, but they always bring it up.

 

But you know, even if none of the unpleasantness of World War II had happened. Let’s say there was only one World War, you would still have globalists with their pious lectures about the evils of nationalism that led to the First World War. I think it’s bunk, but we have to respond to them.

 

Joel Davis: But the moral weight of these pious lectures is only something that has been able to be asserted through military victory. If the Germans were successful in a military sense in the Second World War, and they were obviously successful at convincing Germans and convincing also substantial portion of other European nations to side with their metaphysical war is what I would describe the Second World War as fundamentally, of the particular against the universal. They did win the argument with a lot of people in the European continent. It wasn’t like they didn’t have a compelling position that was just refuted because it was inherently objectionable. They did have a compelling point of view. They did have an inspirational point of view. Incredibly inspirational point of view. What political leader had a more inspirational point of view than Adolf Hitler? None! He’s the most inspirational politician ever! Right.

 

So they had a very compelling idea. And the reason why that idea is now marginalised is not because it wasn’t compelling. It’s not because it doesn’t carry weight. It’s been marginalised through a totalizing suppression by the State, through mass indoctrination imposed through a military victory of a hostile foreign power, multiple hostile foreign powers. Powers which are fundamentally rooted in evil ideas that we wholeheartedly must refute in defense of our race and in defense of nationalism as an idea! So that you’re not really contending with properly. You know, you’re not really actually acknowledging that reality, which is, I think, impossible to avoid.

 

[1:53:28]

 

Greg Johnson: I’m not sure of your point, because I don’t think it’s true. I think the main stigmatisation of nationalism is based on war! It’s based on unnecessary suffering caused by one nation basically trying to, …

 

Joel Davis: You can describe the Second World War in just as plausible way because you can’t tell me that the Allied narrative on World War II is 100% historically accurate. In fact, they make it illegal in a lot of Europe to even debate the Second World War openly.

 

Joel Davis: Yeah.

 

Greg Johnson: So one side of the argument is entirely suppressed, even in countries like ours. Well, I mean you don’t live in America anymore, but in countries like ours, like in the English speaking world, it is still legal to debate the Holocaust in theory, but in practice, any actual historian who tries to do it they’re not going to be able to work at a university. They’re not even going to be able to get their books published by any kind of mainstream publisher. They’re totally marginalised from mainstream discourse.

 

So that’s not a reasonable:

 

“We’ve sat down and we’ve had a reasonable and rational accounting of the Second World War and of early 20th century European ideologies. And we’ve come together as a society in a spirit of rational discussion and free thinking. And we’ve come to this conclusion.”

 

That’s laughable as a premise! In an actually open discourse where both sides can present themselves the National Socialist sympathetic or fascist sympathetic view of the Second World War, which portrays it as a result of the encroachments of Anglo-American universalism, of the Soviet Union and so on, the revision, the so-called revisionist narrative would be compelling to a very large amount of people.

 

In fact, insofar as it is being able to be to kind of poke its head up on the Internet, it is actually showing a lot of organic popularity right now!

 

So you’re kind of presenting it as if the ideas on your side are just like so incontrovertible and they’re just so compelling and the ideas on my side are just so ridiculous and so morally objectionable that no one would ever consider them!

 

Greg Johnson: Oh no! I would never present things in that way. Not at all! You misunderstand me. What is the root of liberalism? Ultimately, the root of liberalism as an ideology is dealing with the Thirty Years War, and other religious wars in Europe after the Reformation. That’s what drives it! There’s an essay by Judas Schlar called The Liberalism of Fear.

 

And I think liberalism in many ways is driven by fear, fear of insane violence! And I think the Liberal international order is driven by fear of insane violence. Like the First World War, like the Second World War, and the fear of nationalism. Nationalism is scapegoated.

 

And of course, it wasn’t just nationalism that was at the root of these wars. It takes a world to have a World War. And not all the parties were fighting for national self-determination. Obviously Stalin wasn’t doing that. But that aside, people want an alternative to a Third World War, another world at war. And the rehabilitation of interwar fascisms is going to be very difficult, there’s an uphill battle. And it’s not just the battle that’s been set in place since the Second World War. It’s an uphill battle against problems that people have been pushing back against since the Reformation.

 

Joel Davis: But also, you also have the other side of that coin, which is that. Well, yes, like often major conflicts can be quite shocking to the communities involved in them and they can retreat into a more pacifistic set of doctrines for a period of time.

 

But then there always comes a point as well in history where a particular paradigm becomes so intolerable and a different idea in opposition to it becomes so compelling that eventually you get another major conflict. And that’s part of the human condition.

 

And right now our race is being genocided! Right?

 

So this is existential. This isn’t just a battle of ideological preference or something on the basis of these values or those values. This is a fundamentally existential question. Are we going to continue to exist as a race or not? And that is in a very precarious position. And the entire establishment of the Liberal international order is basically in an agreement that. Yeah, that this is either unimportant or that they actively support it. Right. In most cases.

 

So under those conditions, an ideology that is violent or that has violent potential is actually alluring. An ideology which limits itself purely to moralizing and rational discourse and so on lacks appeal because we do not have a rational and sympathetic interlocutor with whom we’re negotiating our survival. Here we have an existential enemy. And an existential enemy can only be confronted through force, through active resistance.

 

Joel Davis: Yeah, yes and no.

 

Greg Johnson: That is why my ideaactually has incredible relevance to the contemporary situation, because I do not believe that we’re going to negotiate our survival under this order. I think we’re going to need to assert it.

 

[1:59:26]

 

Greg Johnson: I disagree with you on this because what we have is we’ve got an existential enemy that’s a rather small party, a rather small number of people spread around the world in key positions. But these people depend upon a large number of other people who are basically just goofy liberals. And these goofy liberals can be persuaded. Especially because even from their point of view, there’s something ridiculously unjust about, say, the idea that:

 

“It’s okay for China to be for the Chinese, and Africa for the Africans, but White countries are for everyone.”

 

There are things about this ideology that’s promoting and greasing the way towards White genocide. They’re just flagrantly immoral by liberal universal standards!

 

And frankly, what we have to do to beat the enemy, which is an existential enemy and is not going to be persuaded, but to beat them, we have to start reducing the number of people who are on their side! People who take their phone calls and take their money and make this shit happen! We have to reduce the number of people on their side. And the way we can do that most easily is not playing into the stereotypes of the 1930s, but by using patient arguments that appeal to moral universalism, ideas of fairness and things like that. Because there’s nothing unfair about nationalism for all people.

 

Joel Davis: What you’re now appealing to is, first of all, a quantitative rather than qualitative argument. You’re saying:

 

“Well, if we remove the moral barriers to entry for the largest number of people, this is going to ultimately be what best serves the nationalist movement.”

 

I believe in quality over quantity. I believe that what is actually necessary is to cultivate a spirit of radicalism and of sacrifice.

 

Because the reality is in politics, there is a Pareto distribution of political influence. A very small amount of people have pretty much all the influence.

 

Joel Davis: Absolutely.

 

Greg Johnson: And most people are not that politically active at all! They maybe vote once every four years, if that. And they don’t really have a very well developed political worldview. Only a very small minority of the population is politically engaged enough to even have an ideological worldview, and is engaged enough to be participating in the political process in a more direct way.

 

And those people fundamentally set the paradigm. So going for broad spectrum mass appeal with people who are largely indifferent towards politics is not going to be that successful. We already have the opinion polls, right? In basically every White country. Nationalist political policies are more popular than their alternatives on basically every metric. What actually will create political power is a committed group of radicals who are willing to devote their life, their resources, their time, their efforts to struggle for political victory. An ideology, …

 

Greg Johnson: I absolutely agree with that.

 

Joel Davis: Inspiring those people than an ideology like mine. An ideology like yours, the spirit of compromise, the spirit of kind of reducing oneself to achieve mass appeal is going to actually turn off those who seek after ideological coherence, those who seek after purity of thought, those who seek after purity of principle.

 

And also your worldview is fundamentally already conceding defeat in many respects to the enemy. It is fundamentally lacking in confidence in our own people’s innate capacity to assert our collective will.

 

Greg Johnson: I absolutely have enormous and reasonable doubts about that! Until they are given, … I mean, people. This is a very cynical thing. People are only as good or bad as they are, … You know, basically, they’re as good as they’re permitted to be, or they’re as bad as they’re permitted to be. What permits them? Well, ultimately it’s going to be their consciences.

 

But there’s another thing about the sort of political process as I understand it, that needs to be brought in here. I do think that most people are politically passive. I do think that our enemies are highly, politically, active. But they exist in tiny numbers. But around them is a group of people who are more politically engaged because they’re cogs in the machine. And it’s those people. And that would include, you know, educated people with above average social capital, people with above average incomes. These people count more. And these people are being held in bondage basically, to the woke idiots who are running our race to ruin by certain moral principles that they hold. I think that that moral consciousness has been hacked and distorted and turned against our interests and that we can, by appealing to them, change things around. And we can’t do that by enacting 30s fascist stereotypes.

 

And there’s no way of doing that!

 

Joel Davis: Let me respond to that though, because number one, what you’re basically saying is that, yes, the issue is the moral state of our people. What I believe the solution then is to create an inspirational, romantic, idealistic notion in direct opposition to those moral values. Because frankly, the vast majority of Whites do not go along with Left-wing ideology, or Leftism gone mad, whatever it is. This ideology of White self-erasure on the basis of its internal compunction and they’re like deeply committed to it, to its values. It’s simply a product of social inertia and a fear of social exclusion and other social penalties. It’s easier to just internalise and believe the prevailing worldview to basically go along to get along. There’s only a very small minority of Whites that are actually active Leftists that really, truly and deeply and viscerally believe in these principles. And they’re obviously largely motivated by themselves being very spiritually and psychologically defective to the point of a collective self hatred which I diagnose as most fundamentally being a consequence of seeing this ideology as a way to drag down their superiors within our own race.

 

[2:06:39]

 

[Remainder of Transcript in Progress]

 

[2:50:10]

END

top

 

 

 

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

 

Odysee Comments

top

(Comments as of 10/22/2025 = 107)

unHerd
6 months ago
If NS didn’t matter the Jews wouldn’t be working so hard to try and stamp it out.

21
0
HH
6 months ago(edited)
Greg Johnson : “1930’s Nationalism gives people bad global citizens concerns”. Conveniently forgets the entire globe was carved up by three liberal democracies Britain, France and the Netherlands all at the peril of a sword/gun.

18
0
Hide replies

@v0lum3
6 months ago
Hitler dindu nuffin

2
1
Show reply

@W_Poe_White
6 months ago(edited)
Britain. France and the Netherlands weren’t anything even close to a democracy when they built up their empires. Nor are they really democracies today. They are liberal plutocracies, not democracies.
Plutocracy is the problem, not democracy as such.
A constitutional ethno-democracy where only members of the ethnos can possess citizenship and vote or hold office, and, furthermore, with a national socialist economic system, would work just fine.
OTOH, a one-party dictatorship is no panacea.

Hide replies

@v0lum3
6 months ago
Democracy is retarded in any context. The Greeks figured this out 2500 years ago.

1
0
Show reply
HH
6 months ago(edited)
Those details you outline matter none. The fact is 90 percent of the modern world views
them as liberal democracies, the original ANTIFA, the antithesis to Natsoc, Fascism and Nationalism. So the statement stands, the swords and guns that actually took over the world were made in democracies and used by the soldiers of liberal democracies. But “ooooo Hitler, the mad man, wanted to rule the entire world”. Of course people who read CC will know this may not be entirely true but to the normal who thinks in terms of global citizen, the actual description of the type of governance does not matter.

1
0
Hide replies

@W_Poe_White
6 months ago
What things are and what people call them can be very different things. You can deal with the illusion if you please. I’ll stick with the reality. Plutocracies, not democracies.
The actual point: decisions for the US, UK, Netherlands and France to go to war are NOT made democratically. They are made behind closed doors by wealthy elites and the politicians who serve them.
“Democracy” is a covering screen for authoritarian rule from the shadows by unaccountable plutocratic elites and their clients in office.

Hide replies
HH
6 months ago(edited)
Again you’ve failed to understand the psyche of the masses.
1930’s to 90 percent of the public: Britain/France Netherlands = liberal democracies therefore good, and no one cares that between them they carved up the entire globe with swords and guns made in democracies.
1930’s to 90 percent of the public: Germany = Nationalist, fascist, authoritarian therefore bad, so bad global citizens.
That’s how 90 percent of the Western mind interprets that time. What you and I may understand about democracies being nothing more than an illusion does not matter. We are in a tiny minority.
Point stands, Greg Johnson overlooks that democracies have been far worse global citizens than any Nationalist one.

Hide replies

@W_Poe_White
6 months ago
You’re failing to realize that public opinion has been manipulated by the plutocrats who own all the media and control education as well. The public has been massively lied to and conditioned to believe what is useful for the plutocrats – who have been increasingly led by Jews as time has unfolded.
However, some of the support for democracy is indeed authentic and this is fine so long as this democracy would be limited to members of the ethnonation, i.e. ethnodemocracy. Jews would lose their citizenship along with all non-Whites and not be able to participate.
I am not advocating a simple one-man one-vote system, but a moderately democratic system involving voting by a subset of “active citizens” who have demonstrated serious commitment to studying public affairs. Active citizens’ votes would be weighted to count as, say, 2/3rds of all votes for President and the Senate. Alternatively, only their votes might be counted in selecting the President and Senate.
The office of the President would also be strengthened by giving Presidents 12 year terms and a Constitutional authority to issue executive orders which would have the same force as laws passed by both houses of Congress.
General elections involving all citizens might be used for selecting the US House of Representatives and for selecting state legislatures and governors. Or, alternatively, weigh active citizen votes more heavily.
Furthermore, there is an absolute need for a more egalitarian and populist economic system.
Eliminating plutocracy eliminates Jewish control of the media and education since it takes away the Jewish money power necessary for monopolizing control of media and education.
Taking away citizenship from Jews and reinstating disabilities on them in combination with ending plutocracy solves the JQ. The solution is to reverse the error of Jewish emancipation while eliminating the means by which Jews rose to power in the first place – i.e. their money power.
Less

Hide replies
HH
6 months ago(edited)
Am not going to read all that given your refusal to understand you’re in an absolute minority.
It’s very simple, the Western world sees Britain, France and the Netherlands as democracies and the NSDAP as baby murdering, oven baking, brain washed psychos. One of those groups ruled the entire world between them and the other is constantly accused of being bad because they wanted to rule the entire world but didn’t.
Democracy good regardless of the millions murdered by them.
Natsoc bad.

Hide replies

@W_Poe_White
6 months ago
You’re flogging a dead horse. Who’s defending liberal imperialism around here? In point of fact the Western nations were not, and are not, democracies. They were, and are, plutocracies with managed public opinion. The “Western world” is not a monolith with a unitary opinion set in stone forever. Western public opinion has been massively manipulated by its ruling liberal plutocracies monopolizing the mass media and education. Opinions are mutable. Especially when they are based on gross propagandistic manipulation and lies.
“Democracy good…Natsoc bad”
Aren’t you simply taking the opposite, dogmatic, equally Manichean, position “Natsoc good; democracy bad”?
1930s German National Socialism is not a panacea nor is democracy necessarily a problem. OTOH liberalism, understood as plutocratic class rule, is definitely bad and needs to end. But a constitutional ethnodemocracy with a national socialist economic system is very different from the so-called “liberal democracy” which has existed in the West.
This is what I am proposing: a CONSTITUTIONAL ETHNODEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC with NATIONAL SOCIALIST (anti-plutocratic) ECONOMIC SYSTEM.
I take the best features of both “liberal democracy” and national socialism while jettisoning their bad (or at least problematic) features. Liberalism/plutocracy is rejected from “liberal democracy” and the fuehrer principle (individual and one party dictatorship) and the spirit of militarism from German National Socialism.
What is wrong with this? Why must there be dictatorship? Why must there be a spirit of militarism? Why must we embrace romantic nationalism as Joel exhorts and believe in extravagant conceits of mystical White superiority (rather than merely substantive innate difference)?
Less

Hide replies
HH
6 months ago
Again not reading all that. Stopped at the first sentence. You clearly have knowledge of esoteric descriptions of different styles of governance and whether they are what they say they are but this does not matter to the masses.
Fact is to the masses : Britain, France, Netherlands all good because democracy and ANTIFA. (Actually ruled the world at sword/gun point.
:NSDAP bad because Nazi, Fascist, nationalist wanted to rule the world (but didn’t). Even the supreme leader Greg Johnson is not above this thought trap.

Hide replies

@W_Poe_White
6 months ago
“Again not reading all that. Stopped at the first sentence.”
You’ve plainly closed your mind to any ideas which challenge your dogmatic beliefs. So I’ll leave you to the “based” echo chamber.

Continue Thread

@W_Poe_White
6 months ago
“Greg Johnson overlooks that democracies have been far worse global citizens than any Nationalist one.”
Replace the word “democracies” by the phrase “liberal pseudo-democracies” and I would agree. I’m not sure Greg would even disagree. He didn’t deny the bellicosity of Britain, France and the US. He simply (and unfairly) accused Hitler of aggression.
Hitler’s hand was forced in Poland. I’m not referring merely to the terrorist attacks on Germans living in Poland. Stalin was building up the Red Army to prepare for the takeover of all Europe (Suvorov’s The Chief Culprit and Meltiukov’s Stalin’s Lost Opportunity). If Hitler had not invaded Poland in tandem with Stalin in 1939, the Soviet onslaught in 1941 would have fallen first on Poland which would have quickly been overrun. The Red Army would then have invaded Germany on the offensive rather that being caught on its back foot as it had been by Barbarossa.

ThinRedLine
6 months ago
Greg conceded every single point of discussion yet still maintained that NS was the bad kind of Nationalism

18
4
Hide replies
HH
6 months ago
Greg Johnson suffers from boomer brain combined with the usual angry liberal mindset.

12
1
HH
6 months ago
Johnson gets emotional towards the end as his points were taken apart and reverts to “NATSOC lost though nuh nuh nuh nuh nuh”. What an emotional response.

16
2
Hide replies

@hhhhwhitepill
6 months ago(edited)
What is such a point intended to even convey? The German military lost owing to a few strategic blunders and an evil (collapsing) British Empire. The latter owing to the Eternal Anglo Problem.
It’s a bit more than a “stretch” to suggest that natsoc was “defeated” in any meaningful way beyond the decidedly narrow lens of warfare. We can’t bring it back? Why not? Because it “failed?”

7
2
Hide replies
HH
6 months ago(edited)
Johnson is effeminate and often exhibits female energy. It was nothing more than a chic lashing out because she’s losing an argument.

4
1

@EverybodywakeUp
6 months ago
Defeated the greatest , people and regime in history. To then pass a empire over to the worst cucked jew, nigger loving country in history, only nigs who have patents come America ffs it’s a disgrace.

ThinRedLine
6 months ago
Germany was defeated by a far larger powers it was a simple numbers game

12
3
Hide replies
PavlovPuppy
6 months ago(edited)
Why are you implying that National Socialism inherently requires Imperialism, Unfriendly Foreign Affairs, Denial of Foreign Sovereignties, Desire for War, Genocide etc?? I think your still falling for some Jewish propaganda, which is hard to believe because your clearly very intelligent. What the hell is going on here Overall I agree with Joel more than you, but you do make some good arguments. I am less might is right than Joel as I think friendly cooperation should be prioritized but there is also a requirement for power, leverage of trade/goods and military strength. However, preservation of the Race/Nation is always number one and it’s requirements can become very situational. I think there is a synthesis to be found here which would create a perfect system. Also I think National Socialist Germany was much more in line with some of your values than you and even Joel seem to think. They really were not Imperialists as much as they were cooperative with foreign states. They were certainly not genocidal, they did not want war, at all. They took the Sudenten which was theirs and was reasonably needed for living space. Other than that they temporarily occupied states for their own protection as well as a shield against communist forces for Europe as a whole. They were literally the friendliest occupations in history lol. They were welcomed with celebration, parades, literally showered with kisses and flowers at their feet in most cases especially in Eastern Europe where they were seen as liberators. Ultimately they did save Europe from becoming one big Bolshevik genocide and they deserve the credit for that. Anyways, this was very intelligent and thought provoking, you guys did a great job staying respectful, not interrupting etc. Its great to see! Be more National Socialist my friend, it is the way!! Hail Victory!
Less

9
1
Hide replies

@EverybodywakeUp
6 months ago
Yeah America. have led everyone into a jew washed state. America is the only place to worship blacks and jews then pushing it into Europe. You have Hollywood and let jews push this bullshit, Hitler said you’re a jewish cesspool and negroid dump who has nothinh in common with Europe. You basically armed isral to the teeth also never kicked them out once apart from cuddle and protect them.

4
0
Earthling Carl
6 months ago
Easy Joel W.

10
3

@filled_soda
6 months ago
Hail Joel, Tom, Blair and Jacob ○/

9
2

@Six
6 months ago
we are all nationalists. so is the socialism the problem? a redundant question unless you think we can have national capitalism. i think thats the proven failure here

7
1
Hide replies
ThinRedLine
6 months ago(edited)
You can’t be a Nationalist with out socialism

10
3
Hide replies

@Six
6 months ago
ties a nice bow on it doesnt it…

7
0
Hide replies
ThinRedLine
6 months ago
it does

5
0

@Arilando
6 months ago
Of course you can.

0
1
Hide replies
ThinRedLine
6 months ago
If you don’t care about the lesser of your people how can you call your self a Nationalist ?

2
0

@Scythe
5 months ago
No I don’t think that’s the issue Keith and Greg have. Free market capitalism obviously isn’t compatible with any form of nationalism. As far as I can see, Keith and Greg’s problem with National Socialism is a matter of taste, optics, genuine ideological difference, and a matter of what is realistic. Though I do sympathize with where they are coming from, and can’t say I’m a proper National Socialist, I think we do need to change the way people view the Third Reich, expose the lies around ww2. As this is the founding mythology of the postwar order. Unlike Joel and many others however, I don’t think we should necessarily change peoples views
from allies good, axis bad, to allies bad, axis good. Because it’s not that simple. We should merely stick to the facts and not narratives.

odysees dumb comment system
6 months ago
Aussies are lucky to have such awesome guys. Ive been following their stuff and they just seem to get it over there. They dont have all this gay infighting. This was very civil, but usually this debate is completely destructive. After Charlottesville the whole movement shattered, and it wasnt so much the actual event, it was the infighting that followed that we never recovered from. But people are becoming less afraid to talk to us again finally, hopefully we dont fuck it all up again fighting over optics like a bunch of retards.

5
0
Love of our People
6 months ago(edited)
Germany’s loss in WWII was without question one of the most profound tragedies and disasters in human history, perhaps THE great tragedy of human history. It was certainly negative. The United States government and the Soviet Union were two of the most evil forces ever seen on the planet (in the case of the former, it remains so).
One point I’ll give Greg, using the moral argument is a tool in our tool box that we have to employ at this point. We’re not in a position to just impose our will, far from it. Even Russia and America today use the facade of moral arguments when presenting their position to the world. Even if we grant that that’s all such arguments are, they’re still useful enough that the great powers resort to them to some extent. We should make a point of arguing our case from a moral perspective, while also working to gain as much power for our people as possible. We should leave no tool unused.

5
0
Northern Blue
6 months ago
Joel butchered him here. Cc came across as a Liberal unfortunately. A little convoluted at times.

5
1
The Ravens Hall
6 months ago
All of these other racial or ethnic groups if they could dominate us or any other group that is not them they would. The truth is that these other groups are fundamentally different to us with different conceptual notions of morals.
Also people misunderstand the ‘might makes right’ phrase, it is illustrates that no laws, morals or ethics actually mean anything as it is power that actually allows you maintain, protect and enforce them.
Also focusing on our own people and having our interests put above all others groups is what all the others are doing.

5
1
ThinRedLine
6 months ago
War is a part of the human experience and there is no reasion to think that Liberalism is less violent , we had plenty of wars since WWII and the reason why we didn’t have a WWIII is because of Nuclear weapons, were it not for these weapons we would surely have had a WWIII already in the fifties or sixties

6
2
Hide replies

@W_Poe_White
6 months ago
Liberalism is the ideology of the capitalist elites, especially the financial capitalist elites. Capitalist elites don’t want a free market. They want monopolies and direct managerial control. J. P. Morgan and John D. Rockefeller made explicit statements to this effect.
Liberalism tends toward imperialism whenever this seems to be a feasible option. Capitalism is inherently expansionist since without continuous growth it ceases to function. The canonical example of a liberal polity is the British Empire. You can’t build and sustain an empire without war and repression. Yes, indeed, liberalism is violent.
One shouldn’t let oneself be deceived by the ideologies that have emerged in association with liberalism such as egalitarianism, democracy and the idea of universal individual rights. They are not what they seem. The core of liberalism is plutocracy. Any ideology which contradicts plutocracy will not get far. Though the capitalist elites make Machiavellian use of such ideologies for social control, they will never allow such ideologies to actually be realized as intended by their sincere adherents. Liberalism, i.e. plutocracy, is inherently authoritarian, elitist and anti-democratic. Even the individualist element in liberalism is deceptive. It is really just a means of atomizing people so as to render them helpless to resist elite control. It is a totalizing strategy, as Michel Foucault described clearly in his lecture/essay Omnes et Singulatum and his 1977-78 lectures at the College de France, Security, Territory, Population.
There is a vanguard element within the capitalist elite which wants to take monopoly to its ultimate logical conclusion and consolidate control over all means of production and run society as if it were a single gigantic megacorporation. This, in essence, is communism, i.e. a centrally planned and directed command economy. Which is to say: The telos of capitalism is communism. Today’s name for such a society is technocracy.
Less

2
1
ThinRedLine
6 months ago
Hail Joel

8
4
Show reply
renunciate
6 months ago
Joel is making the rounds this week, eh?

5
3

@whitemonkey
6 months ago
id just like to say. NATIONAL SOCIALISM FOR ALL NATIONS.

2
0

@chambleth5
6 months ago
I think Joel makes some fair points, but it’s important to look at what he actually does in practice. He led a neo-nazi march thru a public park with his mates dressed in matching outfits which evoked brownshirts and tactical gear. Not surprisingly they got in fights with other citizens and then the police. What did other Austrailians at the park think of this? 16 of his mates were arrested. Joel himself was arrested thereafter. Joel and other NS leaders were bumped off X, probably forever. Was this the outcome of Joel’s philosophy? Was it a positive result?
It’s also important to think about who Joel is as a person. I think he’s an extremist personality type. He really doesn’t seem to have a stable personality at all. He has bounced around from one personality to another over the last 10 years; first he was 4chan shitposter Joel, then he became polisy theorycell Joel, then came tradcath Joel, now we have neo-nazi gymbro Joel. But before any of that he was an actual antifa member. He didn’t just flirt with marxism like some young people do, he was an actual member and he really wasn’t just a member he was in a leadership position. What kind of person is this? How do normal people react to people like this?
I think while Joel’s outlook is not irrational it’s coming from a certain base of personality that isn’t good. I don’t think it’s a wise to follow someone like this or to subscribe to a philosophy like his. It’s probably going to lead you into something bad and counter-productive.

5
3
Hide replies

@filled_soda
6 months ago
I’ve heard him say that the Antifa thing was just a youthful blunder. Where can I read/watch more on this? I don’t mean that in a Leftist “Source?!” way. I’m genuinely curious.

1
0
Hide replies

@chambleth5
6 months ago
It’s hard to say it’s a youthful blunder when he was a leader of the group. As for sources; it’s just something i’ve heard multiple times from different people that’s been confirmed so i don’t have a link or anything.

Hide replies

@whitemonkey
6 months ago
who cares its just part of the journey, hitler and mussolini dabbled with communism ,so what. its all about the destination, joel found the correct place, however is just maybe a little to out there for me, still much respect to the man for sticking his neck out.

Clown World Gamer
6 months ago
If being arrested is enough to undermine legitimacy then we might as well all surrender. I don’t know what other Australians think about it, but I know you won’t be arrested because you’re not doing anything that bothers the enemy.

1
0
Hide replies

@chambleth5
6 months ago
Are those 16 young men more effective or less effective after having been arrested? Bothering the enemy is, right now, like a gnat bothering an elephant.

@whitemonkey
6 months ago
you point to brownshirt likeness, whoa, antifa get a pass?
joel is a little;e= too out there for me, however makes some fine points.
as for joels journey, doesnt matter how he got there ,he got there in the end.
its been said that hitler may have been a communist very early on as was mussolini however there joirney lead them to a real truth ,that being national socialism. which every nation should aspire to.
hitler in 6 years turned the nation around like no other never forget that.

1
0
Hide replies

@chambleth5
6 months ago
If a psychologically unsound person gets you to a certain place, maybe that place isn’t as psychologically sound as you think it is.

Hide replies

@whitemonkey
6 months ago
unsound?thats just an opinion, joel for me has evolved to a much clearer position now, many can see that,
life is a journey of experience ,we all make mistakes. am in my 60s though i make very few mistakes through a learning process there’s always another hurdle to clear in an ever evolving world.
your entitled your opinion ,i would fight for your right to express it also, however i believe you maybe wrong.
with respect.

2
0

@Scythe
5 months ago
Joel is a smart guy, but I think you’re right on what really drives him. He’s definitely an extremist personality type. Not to say he isn’t genuine, but he has a natural proclivity for this kind of thing.

@Six
6 months ago
its odd to pretend that national socialism is bad because its german centric…..during ww2 that is. its obviously not now, it just means racist. our enemies know what it means when they call us nazis

3
0
ThinRedLine
6 months ago(edited)
Third position(NS ) is not so much about the actual policies but about the end goals and the policies will be adapted to fit the end goals
it is kind of like the sophists debate with Aristoteles , for the Sophists the the form is more important than the morals and for aritoles the opposite

4
3

@Maligned
6 months ago
1:12:00
Joel just decimated Greg with his limp wristed ideology. How he cant see that his own limp wristed ideology that he is advocating for is the very reason why Whites are fucked in the first place. The only thing stopping Whites from rising is their own will to rise.

2
1
Long Knife
6 months ago
now upload your recent interview with Martinez, why not

1
2

@Willhelm
6 months ago(edited)
all this “white unity” and “no more brother wars” stuff is an american concept. communists, the democrats, russia and a lot of others are white and anti-white at the same time today. the allies pretty much were antifa back in the day.
looking at ww2 from gregs white american perspective is very shortsighted especially because the allies killed tons of “muh whites” as well. this all looks like a captain hindsight mixed with pacifism. horrible. honestly america can go to hell. i dont care for every white person around the world. thats stupid.

4
11
Hide replies
Based and Rempilled
6 months ago
The antiwhites grin at this

6
0

@hhhhwhitepill
6 months ago
“The only people who care about white collective interests are Americans. ‘No brother wars’ is a corny cliche because white men killed each other before. Also white liberals exist, therefore white collective interests are invalid. Some white people are bad- fuck those bad whites!” No offense, man…you’re really not cut out for this sort of thing.

2
3

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

See Also

top

 

 

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

Thomas Sewell: Sometimes in life you have to fight! Sometimes in life there is a struggle!

 

 

Now, you might not like the guy’s favourite colour or his particular opinions of history, but when you’re in a fight with people that hate this country, sometimes you have to learn to make friends.

 

[crowd cheers]

 

I am aware of the fact that we are a controversial and antagonistic group to the government.

 

[crowd cheers]

 

I am aware of the fact that the media and the academics and the system and the banks, I’m aware that they hate us. I’m aware that the average Australian watching on television doesn’t understand what we’re doing all the time. I’m aware of that. And I’ve copped a lot of hate for it, and so have my men.

 

But today we had to prove a point. Today our men stood in the front of the march. And when the Palestinians and the communists came charging at the Aussie flags, it was our men that fought back!

 

[crowd cheers]

 

Australia is in a fight for its survival. It might not be bullets and guns and bombs. It may be hearts and minds and information. And everything that we do is for Australia! It’s for our nation!

 

[crowd cheers]

 

I’m not asking you to agree with me on everything. What I’m asking you to respect is that we need to put fighters at the front.

 

[crowd cheers]

 

I get asked all the time:

 

“What does it mean to be Australian?”

 

People ask me about pieces of paper and I say to them that:

 

“Australia is not a passport. It’s not a piece of paper. It is a folk, it is a people! It is born, it is bred, and it belongs to us!”

 

[crowd cheers]

 

Australia is beset on all sides by ginormous empires of the Third World. We don’t have to hate these people or set them up as our enemy. But there are 1.4 billion Chinamen and 1.4 billion Indians. And there are billions of other people in this world. And they all have a nation. They all have a home. And if we allow ourselves to be replaced and displaced in this land, if we do not maintain our demographics, if we do not stop immigration, then our death is certain!

 

[crowd booing]

 

We are here today to set aside our minute differences on historical events or versions of ideology. We are here as Australians, proud and true and thoroughbred!

 

[crowd cheers]

 

In this struggle for life our nation must secure its existence. And the first and most reasonable step to secure, not the politicians’ Australia, not this “new Australia” that they’re trying to build, but our Australia, the Australia we were bred in and raised in, if we want to secure our Australia, not their Australia, if we want to secure our Australia and not Parliament’s Australia, then we have to stop immigration and become a nation once again!

 

[crowd cheers, chanting: Oi! Oi! Oi!]

 

If we wish to survive as a nation, we must organise. I’m not asking anyone here to join my organisation. The fighters will go to the front, and I saw that today. But for everyone else that’s here, you need to organise. You came down here as individuals. You came down here with your close friends. We need to come down together as communities, as churches, as footy teams, as workplaces! And as political organisations!

 

[crowd cheers]

 

I’m not here to sell you Tshirts, those people are rallying on a different day. Sorry, there’s a distraction, there’s a communist trying to get at the stage.

 

 

[person being booed and jeered away]

 

My final point to all of you, my final point, and this is what I want you to all go home with, is that next time we do this rally you come as an organisation, you meet friends here today and you connect with people online that share your values and your vision of what you want Australia to be, and we sit at the table and allow each other to speak, and next time representatives from your organisation stand up here and speak in front of Australia and in front of the world!

 

 

This is only the beginning. You must organise! You must form groups! They don’t care if you are complaining, they ignore you! The people that are hurting this country, the people that are destroying it, the people that are blind to the suffering, the people that are pushing us out of housing, the people that are pushing us out of our neighbourhoods, they don’t care! They don’t care about you complaining! The only thing they will listen to is you organising, when you’re organised into groups, then they fear you! Then they attack you! They come after you!

 

 

[loud cheering]

 

If we want to see change, if we want to enforce a future that we want as a nation it is not about voting Liberal or Labor and changing it up every three years. It’s about Australians coming together as community and voicing their politics in the home, in the workplace, and in their community events, and having the strength to put forward what they believe and not allow these “wokes” to rule over us and tell us what to think!

 

[loud cheering]

 

Aussie! Aussie! Aussie!

 

[crowd chanting, Aussie! Aussie! Aussie!]

 

 

[crowd cheering]

 

[8:30]

 

 

END

top

 

 

 

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

 

Youtube Comments

top

(Comments as of 9/6/2025 = 1,173)

@matthewiaboni4552
5 days ago
The most precious possession you have in the world is your own people. And for this people, and for the sake of this people, we will struggle and fight, and never slacken, never tire, never lose courage, and never lose faith.
37

2 replies

@australiaprisonisland9156
5 days ago
Sewell never said that. Hitler did!
2

@translatoractivist
5 days ago
Wise words 0/
6

@jakemichael1011
5 days ago
He’s right. We might not have to agree with everything his group says. But when people can burn the Australian flag, wave terrorist flags freely, and try to change Australia to the places they are escaping from, we have a problem. We can stand together without having to agree with everything his group believes, when we have a common goal. Australia for Australians.
46

2 replies

@TiAi.
5 days ago
I hate to see our flag being burnt. It honestly boils my blood. Knowing aussies are living in tents is past the point and needs to change
4

@ClippyWouldnt
5 days ago
Yeah he has a point, I can’t support him for racial violence on 9’s security guard get blair cottrell back

@loris7468
5 days ago
As a patriot, I keep hearing this guy is a nazi but he came across very well at the rally yesterday, I am not sure I believe the media narrative on calling everyone nazis, he seems to care about Australia and I agree with him.
22

7 replies

@richard3470
5 days ago (edited)
The next step is to understand that there’s nothing wrong with caring for and loving your tribe, your people and the “nazi” stigma will vanish from your mind. Hail Victory.
9

@ffxtms2970
4 days ago
@richard3470 except Nazi’s were a sore losser

@gregtrindall5387
4 days ago
He led the attack open your eyes
1

@richard3470
4 days ago (edited)
​​ @gregtrindall5387 if someone stands in front of a march and holds their ground, THEY start the fight. Attempting to block a march is obviously confrontational and physical
1

@gregtrindall5387
4 days ago
@richard3470 the attack was on sovereign camp of indigenous elders and women that the attacked took place
2

@richard3470
4 days ago
​ @gregtrindall5387 they were attacking lone patriots and shouted abuse at Tom’s men. Bad idea to start a fight that you can’t win
1

@Leanflare
3 days ago
​ @gregtrindall5387 I wonder if those leftists attacking people 50 to 1 who were leaving the rally had anything to do with it
1

@trintle4219
5 days ago
Much respect from the US. I hope to see your movement rise and restore your countries to order, discipline, glory, and strength!
21

1 reply

@moonsunloved8405
4 days ago
Says the guy who openly supports marshal law.

@johnwayne7860
4 days ago (edited)
Good speech, I’m impressed by the young man’s charisma and passion.
He’s right, labor don’t listen when we complain. This approach to organise makes them very afraid.
12

1 reply

@ajbauie1961
3 days ago
Socialism*

@Top_Goy1488
5 days ago
Hail Thomas Sewell, true Aussie patriot
32

6 replies

@GnigerMan
4 days ago
HAIL!
3

@imperialhonorguard1483
4 days ago
HAIL THOMAS SEWELL
2

@ffxtms2970
4 days ago
@imperialhonorguard1483 go sleep with thomas swell
3

@JDHCreations
3 days ago
Aussie patriot? He’s a kiwi
1

@Top_Goy1488
3 days ago
@JDHCreations ok? kiwis and aussies may aswell be the same thing lol, why do lefties use this argument as some sort of “gotcha” its like germany and austria, same shit
1

@ffxtms2970
19 hours ago
@imperialhonorguard1483 F Thomas …

@stanly-zz
5 days ago
This people, like him Australia needs.
33

2 replies

@Cayden-ye3ns
5 days ago
​ @Maniman7676 They had over 5000+ people cheering n praising them when Thomas sowell spoke, he was by far the best speaker. U obviously havent heard it. N they’re doing far more for Australia then anyone else by far. Everyone is just woke to far brainwashed n dont know the truth. They have exact same views
n perspective as the founders, builders, defenders of Australia n even the prime minsters till about 1960 that wanted to keep it a white Australia. We couldn’t get more Australian then them they have done far more then anyone else in this country. Maybe watch there videos n find the truth of why theyre like that, once u know the truth it will anger you n get u very frustrated like them cause everyone thinks they’re villains when theyre the good ones (same as Austrain painter) until u find out truth of ww2 n 1, you probably wont belive it. Stop believing n watching mainstream media n liberal leftarded brainwashed fools who paint them as villains or just everything they say which is propganda.
5

@ffxtms2970
4 days ago
@Cayden-ye3ns yeah right watching too much Skynews Australia.
2

@StGammon77
5 days ago
I came here because people said the Nazi was speaking and I am not seeing anything like that, his words are true & good & right, we are in dire straights and organisation is definitely what is needed with a common objective to maintain Australia as a Country everyone loves but not everyone can live in harmony with us. I say us because even though I am in NZ we are the ANZAC Civils!
22

3 replies

@AndrewLalaga
5 days ago
Stay in NZ
2

@liquidhyperion4189
4 days ago
@behemothsbaby Leftoids trying not to make an attack on someone’s character challenge: Impossible
1

@Paradoxian2
4 days ago
What do you mean? He’s a self-admitted Nazi lmao
1

@thaburger
5 days ago
Wow for someone who is so divisive. He has some good points
26

2 replies

@mushbrain1753
5 days ago
@Kris_Pee_Bacon gonna cry?
3

@Rise1488
4 days ago
​ @Kris_Pee_Bacon by making factual truthful points for the better of his people, that is how he saved Germany from a dark place.

@ragcage
5 days ago
Strength and honor, hail victory!
25

@Madmax22229
5 days ago
Make Australia Aussie Again
25

1 reply

@imperialhonorguard1483
5 days ago
​ @ffxtms2970 They are part of Aussie culture. Aussie culture has accepted them now.
3

@algardner5228
4 days ago
The austrian painter warned us
19

@brenprotelli
5 days ago
Fifteen years ago, everyone in Australia would have agreed with Thomas. Fast forward to 2025, normies call him a “naaarrtsie”. One man stayed true whist sheeple lost their minds. Come on Aussies. Wake up.
18

Gus
2 replies

@Gus-z3u
3 days ago
​ @AussieObiWan “Australia has been accepting immigrants for 90 years”
90 years ago, we had the White Australia policy, which as you can tell by the name was a strictly racial immigration policy.
There were some non-European immigration to Australia between 1945-1973 but in the grand scheme of things it was minimal.
“Deport everyone and kill the rest”
You made that up didn’t you? Joel layed out extensively the plan for remigration and it does not entail murder, there would be a 90 grace period where they can voluntarily choose to emigrate and retain their wealth.
Making Australia a European country once more isn’t going to make us third world, we were first world prior to their inundation, now living standards are expected to decrease until at least 2030.
1

@Gus-z3u
1 day ago
​ @AussieObiWan I said 90 days, not 30 days, I don’t know what you’re complaining about, the fact that they would allow these people to retain the wealth that they accumulated during their presence here is generous in of itself.
Ideally, White Australians and Aboriginal Australians would exist separately, this would be beneficial to both people’s. Aboriginals would stop undermining their cultural integrity by means of miscegenation and White Australians wouldn’t have to put up with their incessant propensity to commit violent crime.
Already disclosed – remigration.
The difference between a sub-saharan African in Australia and Tom is that Tom is both racially and culturally identical to the founding stock of the Australian Nation.
You’re arguing semantics, sure Asians constituted a negligible minority under the White Australia policy, but it was still a negligible minority, White racial identity and consciousness is ingrained into our national psyche and way of life and we’re not going to just abandon that because of this highly utopian idea of a multiracial pluralist society, we want a country ordained for own posterity, where our children and our children’s children will not have to compete with the entire third world for the opportunity to own a home, find employment, start a family, to live in a community that resembles them.

@zrt98
5 days agoAUSTRALIA FOR THE WHITE MAN!
32

5 replies

@translatoractivist
5 days ago
The rest must go
10

@imperialhonorguard1483
5 days ago
THE REST MUST GO
8

@ChristineMeyer-hs9rg
4 days ago
You have a point. They have their own country to holiday in
and ours to exploit. What do we end up with? A tent?
2

@ffxtms2970
4 days ago
@translatoractivist you go first !!!

@oracleofthewestpodcast
22 hours ago
Taking it too far. Black fella was here before us, fought in wars with us, shaped us into what we became. I believe in Australia, but not in this.

@mogenvonbogel7342
5 days ago
HAIL RACISM
29

3 replies

@australiaprisonisland9156
5 days ago
It’s heil !!! It’s not raining.
5

@mogenvonbogel7342
5 days ago
@australiaprisonisland9156 You’re not German, it’s ’hail’ in English
8

@ChristineMeyer-hs9rg
4 days ago
I don’t know about hailing it but see no reason not to return it.

@sotaparta
4 days ago
That’s a leader right there
24

@Bryan-h3m
5 days ago
You should see what they’ve done to Canada this country is gone.
13

@Clark127x99
4 days ago
It’s funny how these communists say how extreme, crazy, and violent they are, then you actually hear them speak and see how reasonable and passionate they are for their country and people
13

2 replies

@mclark667
4 days ago
​ @nomankn have a sook little boy
1

@jj-xm8dp
3 days ago
@nomankn not the real story
1

@anniew4105
5 days ago
God bless the White man
23

@fallout1953
4 days ago
Australian patriot!
24

Gus
2 replies

@Gus-z3u
4 days ago
​ @jojosilva240 He’s Kiwi but culturally he is indistinguishable from a true blue Aussie.
6

@bot-x6i8w
2 days ago
​ @Gus-z3u kiwis have a funny accent
1

@algardner5228
4 days ago
Support for the NSN
21

@cb-7422
5 days ago
Australia has a future Leader in him…
24

1 reply

@Mathew-lg6n
4 days ago (edited)
Australians Change albanese and make sewell pm of Australia

@jayfortyfour
5 days ago
Great speech. We have your back brothers
17

@Theamorphovs1
4 days ago
Time for the NSN!
You had more than long enough, you had your chance.
Move over. This land is OURS!
16

@Nathan-sw8kb
5 days ago
Seems like a nice bloke with a message for unity and Australians coming together against people who want to change the way of life. Wonder why he’s so controversial?
18

Gus
7 replies

@cbrfishingguy9623
5 days ago
Because himself is immigrant too
3

@jessiejordan2853
5 days ago
​ @grahamburns7385
lmao sure, buddy

@BANcuckholdery
5 days ago
@grahamburns7385 You can’t destroy mudhuts, which is the greatest structure abbos ever built
8

@StGammon77
5 days ago
Yeh I came here to listen and can’t see anything wrong I just think the media has bashed them cos they have a regimented organised group
2

@danielarcher1459
5 days ago
@cbrfishingguy9623 If all immigrants were like Thomas there wouldn’t be an issue.
3

@cbrfishingguy9623
5 days ago
@danielarcher1459 ok I understood you want a white Australia
1

@Gus-z3u
1 day ago
​ @cbrfishingguy9623 As opposed to a brown Australia.

@MustyChalupa
4 days ago
Hail Tom
Hail the NSN
15

@susanfergusson9773
3 days ago
POWER TO THE PEOPLE
9

@cybersamurai4578
5 days ago
Good speech mate, keep pushing lads Aussie Aussie Aussie
14

@HD-bv7wl
5 days ago
Love this
12

@paulhanson-brooks4668
2 days ago
There appears to be more hatred and bile spewed into these comments than anything this man said
12

@tobiume28
5 days ago
Very nice
13

@seth1782
4 days ago
PATRIOT!!!
22

@akhalif68
5 days ago
GDay – Thankyou for uploading – Sewell’s speech only confirms how deeply divided Aussies have become over the decades…
8

@Vinculta
4 days ago
so based
16

@josephrichards8736
5 days ago
It’s time we started fighting for our country – Time to Fight for Freedom
15

@LegendofLovecraft
2 days ago
HAIL VICTORY
12

@EstonianLegionnaire
5 days ago
Hail Sewell!
19

@Spudpotato08
4 days ago
1933 all over again…
9

3 replies

@imperialhonorguard1483
4 days ago
God willing
14

@ajbauie1961
3 days ago
Deus Vult
3

@Takeitandchangeit
2 days ago
Good
3

@abadazadytgaming7200
4 days ago
Im 37 born and raised in Australia quarter aboriginal quarter Italian and the rest English, im white, noone would know I had aboriginal or Italian in me, pretty much all Aussies are mixed blood whether they have Irish or whatever in their blood, I also believe immigration needs to slow down and we need to focus on the people that are here now, I also believe the government is useless, the problem is we can’t speak about these things or we are labled racist, and that’s where the problem lies, the government are taking away out freedom to discuss these topics, and that’s why we get idiots like this getting a chance to speak there putrid hate speech, if we can discuss things and have our freedom of speech then this wouldn’t happen, but its now at boiling point, so now it’s a mixture of good people who want to have a discussion mixed with actual racist fools like this hitler wannabe, I dont agree with these bigots… this guy is small minded and needs therapy
9

@bolgert911
3 days ago
Its only a matter of time. To victory
15

2 replies

@TheSpice26
2 days ago

@maelradec6766
1 day ago
@bot-x6i8w that’s more a yank thing kid

@opensourceeverything
5 days ago
Bro’s got the charisma of a wet towel
12

4 replies

@Rise1488
4 days ago
Did you hype yourself up by writing that comment?
8

@opensourceeverything
4 days ago
​ @Rise1488 did you really think you did something with that reply?
2

@thad1488
4 days ago
Say it in person lad
4

@abadazadytgaming7200
4 days ago (edited)
Im 37 born and raised in Australia quarter aboriginal quarter Italian and the rest English, im white, noone would know I had aboriginal or Italian in me, pretty much all Aussies are mixed blood whether they have Irish or whatever in their blood, I also believe immigration needs to slow down and we need to focus on the people that are here now, I also believe the government is useless, the problem is we can’t speak about these things or we are labled racist, and that’s where the problem lies, the government are taking away out freedom to discuss these topics, and that’s why we get idiots like this getting a chance to speak there putrid hate speech, if we can discuss things and have our freedom of speech then this wouldn’t happen, but its now at boiling point, so now it’s a mixture of good people who want to have a discussion mixed with actual racist fools like this hitler wannabe, I dont agree with these bigots… this guy is small minded and needs therapy

@TangoRomeoAU
3 days ago
PATRIOT
14

@Brahmacharyan
5 days ago
Good man.
13

1 reply

@GnigerMan
4 days ago
A true patriot
2

@kebbdawg2603
5 days ago
God bless thomas
16

@wotanfuror
5 days ago
Hail
14

@translatoractivist
5 days ago
Wow for being an evil natzee he seems very reasonable
11

2 replies

@david.7417
4 days ago
Congratulations, you’ve learnt what optics are.

@ChristineMeyer-hs9rg
4 days ago
Yes and 200 years of blood, sweat and tears needs to be respected and honoured. We will accept NO LESS. Our ancestors will not be removed from history and neither will they be allowed to remain denigrated for political points and parasitic ingrates.
2

@brack5251
4 days ago
Really good speech, I really thought the NSN would go full autistic mode and start praising Hitler but at least Sewell knows his audience. Best line of the speech ‘It was our men that fought back!’. Hope the NSN can be involved in future marches as they did a lot for this one. Only critique is they can be a bit self-indulgent in how extreme their rhetoric is. Hope some boomers can get past their pride and give them some pointers in speech writing.
14

2 replies

@richardjohnston-bell476
4 days ago
He had plenty of HItler stuff, he just used different wording. “Australians, proud and true and thoroughbred” , “secure our existence”. He also wants his group (the fighters) to lead. Cant have a peaceful march if you put people up front to do the fighting
1

@jj-xm8dp
4 days ago
@richardjohnston-bell476 that’s the only way you can have a peaceful march?

@gaiusoctavian7062
4 days ago
Love this guy what a beautiful speech
15

@shastaflok
1 day ago
Nick Fuentes reaction to this speech makes me think he’s a fed now for sure
5

3 replies

@Rise1488
1 day ago
that’s your problem right there listening to Nick Fuentes
5

@tagekoolander
1 day ago
Fuented has always been a grifting liar
2

@shastaflok
7 hours ago
Yeah but you realize if Thomas would adopt pro Palestine in his message he would get the lefts support as well. That what AH did

@ericpolan1716
2 days ago
Hail Victory , Australia for Australians
9

@goysyschannel2.0
3 days ago
Love it
3

@souravjaiswal-jr4bj
5 days ago
Stop voting for labor. Start from organizing to the polling booths.
7

@cam3039
3 days ago
The news made this guy famous . . Unfortunately when you hear him talk he is quite reasonable.
8

@LaylaMarston-m9y
1 day ago
Thomas your a legend!
13

3 replies

@Takeitandchangeit
1 day ago
@bot-x6i8w ADL bot

@CoinFueledExotics
1 day ago
​@TownsvileTownsvile so are you.
1

@maelradec6766
1 day ago
@TownsvileTownsvile There are 1000s of Aboriginals just like him on the other side too son

@FOURBEETWOS
4 days ago
How to join NSN?
16

Gus
4 replies

@jessiejordan2853
4 days ago
​@rubyduby2656it’s not illegal
9

@mushbrain1753
4 days ago

@rubyduby2656don’t we live in a democracy? Why would it be illegal? Boomer brain
7

@Gus-z3u
4 days ago
Whiteaus • org or Whiteausbot on telegram
4

@Gus-z3u
4 days ago
​@rubyduby2656When you were born, Australia was ~99% White; a homogeneity. Stop countersignaling those who want to preserve the character of our Nation.
5

@Mr_spoonylegs
4 days ago
Someone’s been doing his home work..
7

@mushbrain1753
5 days ago
Step aside useless “freedom movement boomers” there’s new kids on the block
18

@NightShadowner
3 days ago (edited)
The problem is where are these migrants going? I know where, packed like sardines in the few major cities we have in this country. I pray for anyone who has to live in these areas.
4

@edlumby91
4 days ago
Australia is heading in a very dangerous direction If this is who we are listening to.
We can still reduce immigration without having the NSN as speakers
6

Gus
1 reply

@Gus-z3u
4 days ago
Why stop at delaying replacement?
5

@hazzabailey
4 days ago
Truly an awesome speech. Finally something for all virgins to relate to
9

2 replies

@imperialhonorguard1483
4 days ago
Can ypu explain to me how virgin is an insult
1

@hazzabailey
3 days ago (edited)
⁠ @imperialhonorguard1483 never said it was. Just said it was something for virgins to look up to. Really cool name by the way
1

@haydenhayden7275
5 days ago (edited)
I’m interested in this man’s actual opinion/policies. People keep calling him a ‘Nazi,’ but what does he actually believe, and what is he really proposing? In his speech, he just seems angry. He’s obviously against immigration, but how does he think it should be dealt with?
6

8 replies

@majorlysuspicious3155
5 days ago
Do your research, I googled the name and so much came up about how much he promotes Hitler and Neo-Nazi views. He literally founded the most prominent neo Nazi groups in Australia.
2

@haydenhayden7275
5 days ago

@majorlysuspicious3155 If his beliefs are exactly aligned with Hitler’s and he thinks people will actually support and follow him, he’s insane. How could he possibly explain the entire history of World War II? Millions went to war and died fighting against Hitler’s ideas, so the thought that anyone would want to try that again is too crazy for me to believe. I must be missing something. Does this guy have an official statement on what he supports, or has he only said that he supports Nazism and Hitler?

@timroberts6828
5 days ago (edited)
Exactly. There’s an argument for reducing Australian immigration and it’s based not upon race (we’re one of the most multicultural countries on the planet – I live in Australia’s most multicultural federal electorate and things are good here!) but an argument based upon what’s sustainable for the environment. Hard line conservative views
are often a reaction to the unknown, and what we don’t know, or can’t aggree upon in Australia is what’s a population that our Australian environment can sustain….? Some say 6 milliion, some 35 million – it’s currently just over 27 million.. so Thomas Sewell, the question is what do YOU think is an environmentally sustainable Australian population? Without that bit of info, it’s hard to argue for no immigration – slowing immigration maybe – but.. stopping it? Our new immigrants connect us with the world – Australia is geographically isolated and needs to connect… sure less immigration.. but NO immigration?? I’m in the creative industries where 2 things matter: better support for Australian creatives (musicians, artists etc), a steady flow of international artists including recent immigrants brings new ideas and perspectives. Our arts would stagnate if people didn’t visit our country and a few of those people call Australia their new home… at least for a while. Quite a few Australian creative industry workers also leave Australia. There has to be balance in the immigration / emigration debate.. certainly in my industry.

@imperialhonorguard1483
5 days ago
he is ine but he’s a great guy
5

@cbrfishingguy9623
5 days ago
He can’t tell you what he is actually thinking in public. Don’t listen to what he said, just see what he actually did
1

@haydenhayden7275
5 days ago
@jessiejordan2853 Everything the guy believes is attributed to him by other people. If you search his name, it seems everyone is explaining his beliefs, except him. Even if he does support Hitler, or likes him, or whatever, that does not automatically mean he supports or believes everything Hitler stands for, which is what is being claimed about this man. He is being portrayed as supporting Hitler completely, which is quite a claim. I will believe it once I hear it come out of his mouth, or see it written by him exactly what he believes and wants to do. Until then, all else is just speculation or potential misrepresentation.
2

@StGammon77
5 days ago
He said it, through organisation into groups supporting like-minded people to preserve the Aussie heritage that’s all it is and he’s right I think our ANZAC Nation is being threatened. It’s happening in NZ as well.
2

@zrt98
5 days ago

@majorlysuspicious3155in the western world*

@pando4000
4 days ago
Notice how they dont wear Aussie colors and theyve got their own symbol. This is not our culture. Name one time we were a fascist country
7

4 replies

@CloppingIsMyThing
11 minutes ago
Our country… You’re a kiwi .

@NathFilms
4 days ago
lol
Thomas Sewell is born in New Zealand, he is an immigrant
8

Gus
7 replies

@jj-xm8dp
4 days ago
The sky is blue to. What does that have to do with to much immigration right now?
1

@BigDawg1.01
4 days ago
Deport deport deport
4

@jj-xm8dp
4 days ago
You might have more in common than you realise

@Gus-z3u
4 days ago
Said this under another comment but I’ll send again:
He’s Kiwi-born but the Kiwis are such a culturally similar populace that any difference is irrelevent, He’s a true blue Aussie and a veteran no less.
10

@NathFilms
4 days ago
@Gus-z3u keep telling urself that, he’s no different to any other immigrant, he’s white? He gets a pass, he’s as immigrant as anyone else coming over seas, I’m a generation of immigrants he’s a pure blood born immigrant born overseas
2

@Gus-z3u
4 days ago
​ @NathFilms Yes as he is of European heritage and culturally indistinguishable from our Nation, he is assimilable.
7

@bot-x6i8w
2 days ago
​ @Gus-z3u infantryman in what battle. No battles. Hes a loser.

@houssein2291
1 day ago (edited)
Which part of this speech made him racist or a nazi? He literally discouraged hating people from other countries. He is right that too much migration, especially when it is of students rather than skilled labourers, is a problem. But he missed the part that the majority of migrants taking homes in this country are actually white people from England. 3rd place is New Zealand migrants like him and his family. Otherwise i gotta say i agree with this speech.
2

Gus
4 replies

@Gus-z3u
1 day ago
Most immigrants come from countries like India, China, Philippines, Nepal and such.
To clarify, Tom isn’t anti-immigration on the basis of qualifications or professions.
1

@Gus-z3u
1 day ago
​ @houssein2291 You’re referring to total foreign-born populations, I am referring to net migration in 2024.
No, it wouldn’t. For the record, professions considered “skills” include waiters, hairdressers, dog groomers, baristas, etc.
Occupations where there is a designated skill shortage show at best a minimal response in terms of wage growth, economically this obviously makes no sense, skill shortages is a farce used by elites and employers to undercut local-born wages. And yes, there are plenty of White tradies.
It’s crazy how easy it is for your mask to slip, you are simply anti-White.
My country is not an economic zone, my people are not capital to be exploited or inundated with those who shouldn’t be here.
4

@Gus-z3u
3 hours ago
​ @houssein2291 Immigrants are actually less likely to be employed in construction than the general population, 2.8% of migrants vs 4.4% of the general population. I mentioned occupations like dog groomer because they’re considered skilled occupations by the skill priority list, which by the way acknowledges most skilled occupations have no shortages whatsoever.
What’s the point of building homes en masse if those homes are just going to be inundated with migrants from unassimilable backgrounds at the dismay of the Nation?

@Gus-z3u
3 hours ago
​ @houssein2291 You do not know Australian history, convict transportations ceased entirely in 1868, one of the primary reasons to the White Australia policy was to keep out migrants from low wage countries to protect the wages and living standards of Australian workers, this worked, as late as the 1960s, Australia was known as the working man’s paradise.
if you acknowledge mass immigration (and by extent multiracialization) is a small hat plot, why do you continue pushing for it?

@jessiejordan2853
5 days ago
Hail Sewell!
16

@catsnao
5 hours ago
You are a hero

@AndrewLalaga
5 days ago
Mongrel Mob will love this guy
7

1 reply

@SouthMansWrath
5 days ago
Won’t do anything
3

@Артём-э9ь8г
4 days ago
what a bunch of grifters
4

@WD-4T
5 days ago
Absolute germ
9

4 replies

@jessiejordan2853
5 days ago
*gem
11

@173baker-8
5 days ago
@jessiejordan2853 so you support him??

@GemmaDann
5 days ago
​@173baker-8No, she likes me. Everyone does
1

@StGammon77
5 days ago
That’s dehumanising people that’s wrong and goes against community standards I am reporting your comment

@JiroInagaki416
1 day ago
anyone have auspill’s remarks?
2

Gus
3 replies

@Gus-z3u
1 day ago
I’ll get it.
1

@Gus-z3u
1 day ago

A little low quality but found a clip
2

@JiroInagaki416
1 day ago (edited)
@Gus-z3u top class thank you

@Lampz4
4 days ago (edited)
I’m the son of migrants, I was born here but I guess I’m still the enemy right?
3

Gus
2 replies

@Gus-z3u
4 days ago
What is your background?
1

@Lampz4
4 days ago
@Gus-z3u I’m African
2

@markwheldale8507
6 minutes ago
I might also add this Sewell disrespects our diggers who gave the ultimate sacrifice to battled against this bullshit … think seriously who believes you’re better than the man standing alongside you cos to do that it’s a disservice to mankind?

@kencheung4587
3 days ago
He’s not even from australia mate
4

Gus
4 replies

@TangoRomeoAU
3 days ago
He’s White and served our country. Far more Australian than some born here.
13

@Gus-z3u
2 days ago
>kencheung
1

@Gus-z3u
2 days ago
​ @bot-x6i8w You guys got annihilated trying to ambush the NSN on the bridge, so I don’t know why you are calling us weak.
5

@bot-x6i8w
2 days ago
​ @Gus-z3u weak. Gen z are weak
1

@Joe-g3i7h
11 hours ago
WFP!
1

@westkola7649
2 days ago
Might deport this immigrant back to nz
4

Gus
9 replies

@Gus-z3u
2 days ago
Not legally possible btw
4

@Gus-z3u
2 days ago
​ @bot-x6i8w He’s a citizen, so no he can’t be.
3

@Takeitandchangeit
2 days ago
@euro187 0- / 10 rage bait

@euro187
2 days ago
@Takeitandchangeit rage bait ?

@bot-x6i8w
2 days ago
​ @Gus-z3u hes born in nz
1

@Gus-z3u
20 hours ago
​ @bot-x6i8w And? He’s a citizen and the only way that could be retracted is if there was evidence of an extensive criminal history prior to citizenship.

@Gus-z3u
2 hours ago
​ @bot-x6i8w If you deported him he’d just come back like Napoleon from Elba

@bot-x6i8w
45 minutes ago
​ @Gus-z3u hes also the least charismatic leader

@bot-x6i8w
45 minutes ago
Blair is more intelligent and charismatic

@l.a.210
5 hours ago
Is sovereign citizen thing a shared interest with this group ?

@majorlysuspicious3155
5 days ago
You could tell he REALLY wanted to bust out a salute, what a nut job
7

1 reply

@Rise1488
4 days ago
What’s wrong with that?
3

@sweepers_22
2 days ago
Daniel Andrews = Australian of the Year …

@charliec7178
5 days ago
Funny Thomas Sewell is an immigrant himself from New Zealand at an anti immigration protest.
10

3 replies

@richard3470
5 days ago
The White Australia Policy allowed for migration from fellow Aryan nations and the new White Australia Policy will allow the same.
16

@imperialhonorguard1483
5 days ago
The White Australia allowed New Zealanders to become Australian
8

@liquidhyperion4189
4 days ago
@Coalchurner Truth bomb right here.

@MrMooremelody
4 days ago
he didn’t even do the Aussie Aussie Aussie chant right….
3

2 replies

@thad1488
4 days ago
You weren’t even there Cnt
8

@DeeDee-go2zt
4 days ago
It’s true. I saw a few ppl muff it up on live feeds. Bizarre

@CuchuIainn
5 days ago
Tom standing up against the woke agenda & the palestinians.
Who’s co-opting who at this rally.
7

@ripcurlvegan
5 days ago
just yelling, no policy…
7

2 replies

@imperialhonorguard1483
5 days ago
the policy is White Australia and it must be brought back.
18

@Rise1488
4 days ago
How about do some research and ready a book or two before you make up you’re mind one one speech.
2

@TownsvileTownsvile
1 day ago
He needs a bulllet
6

1 reply

@Mattlikes2skate
1 day ago
Why what’s he saying that you don’t agree with in this video?
1

@gregtrindall5387
4 days ago
You attacked indigenous people very unaustralian
9

5 replies

@Rise1488
4 days ago
It was Antifa actually
9

@thad1488
4 days ago
Well Aboriginals arent Australian sooo
12

@mrbond8975
4 days ago
Indigenous “people” didnt build Australia
2

@tacotuesday7459
4 days ago
our ancestors founded Australia. The aboriginals were stone age tribes and never called it Australia. They never set up the systems, wrote the laws or settled the land. So yes. we are native to the country our ancestors built.
2

@l.a.210
5 hours ago
Terra Nullius ma dude

@parkmontsouris11
4 days ago

6

@eccentricviews
5 days ago
Weak speech and ‘ginormous’ isn’t a word. Also, I don’t think he’s even Australian. He has a South African accent.
5

Gus
6 replies

@bradhorton2456
5 days ago
Hes a kiwi
5

@Gus-z3u
5 days ago
He’s Kiwi-born but the Kiwis are such a culturally similar populace that any difference is irrelevent, he’s a true blue Aussie.
11

@danielarcher1459
5 days ago
He’s of North-Western European descent, so that’s fine he’s one of us. If all our immigrants were like that it wouldn’t be an issue.
2

@eccentricviews
5 days ago
@Gus-z3u I know a South African accent when I hear one. I’m pretty certain is a paid government operative. No way he’s genuine.

@Gus-z3u
4 days ago
​@eccentricviews Not every nationalist is a government operative you know, this guy has been deplatformed everywhere, he is routinely raided, he is legit.
2

@ChristineMeyer-hs9rg
4 days ago
I’ll listen harder. It may be grass roots but it looks like theatre for the camera’s. The mutants love the camera’s too. It turned the rally into a media picnic to paint it violent. They always use racist no matter who or what or where..l like everything he said. It’s the truth after all. I just have a sceptical brain.

@AussieObiWan
5 days ago
During this whole “speech” he never actually says anything.
5

1 reply

@ChristineMeyer-hs9rg
4 days ago
He does but it’s the bigger picture. If you haven’t looked into the history it would go straight over your head. Some people read others don’t.
4

@TWstudios
4 days ago
Sounds like a South African to me
2

@behemothsbaby
4 days ago
Thomas Sewer, what a Smegma Skin!
5

@jojosilva240
4 days ago
what a bozo
9

@doshabsiddiqui3186
5 days ago
Glad most of aussies disown him
9

4 replies

@imperialhonorguard1483
5 days ago
lol they don’t
18

@FideiDefensor1970
5 days ago
haha he got cheered on. who disowned him?
16

@Cayden-ye3ns
5 days ago
They had over 5000+ people cheering n praising them when Thomas sowell spoke, he was by far the best speaker. U obviously havent heard it. N they’re doing far more for Australia then anyone else by far. Everyone is just woke to far brainwashed n dont know the truth. They have exact same views
n perspective as the founders, builders, defenders of Australia n even the prime minsters till about 1960 that wanted to keep it a white Australia. We couldn’t get more Australian then them they have done far more then anyone else in this country. Maybe watch there videos n find the truth of why theyre like that, once u know the truth it will anger you n get u very frustrated like them cause everyone thinks they’re villains when theyre the good ones (same as Austrain painter) until u find out truth of ww2 n 1, you probably wont belive it. Stop believing n watching mainstream media n liberal leftarded brainwashed fools who paint them as villains or just everything they say which is propganda.
5

@larping_again
5 days ago
Australia is with him
4

@TiAi.
4 days ago
You weak cnts attacked woman.
7

1 reply

@primalblissco
4 days ago
@tacotuesday7459 bro they were punching conservatives to get into the protest
3

@3347AKPK
3 days ago
Why does his face remind me of a punching ball?
4

@NathFilms
4 days ago
If he had a problem with Asian and Indians then why did he and his men bash Aboriginal people? He’s on camera kicking an Aboriginal for what reason?
2

Gus
5 replies

@Gus-z3u
4 days ago
Noticer news published a recent article explaining the incident.
9

@NathFilms
4 days ago
@Gus-z3u hahaha incident what a joke
2

@primalblissco
4 days ago
@Gus-z3u they ran up on them and started punching and kicking women.
3

@StGammon77
3 days ago
Cos they attacked first that’s why
1

@jessiejordan2853
3 days ago
​ @NathFilms antifa were using the camp as a base.
1

@HerrKenny1776
1 day ago

2

@stevedavis2473
4 days ago
Nice gay hat
7

@NB-vh9qg
5 days ago
Crazy when your own slogans can be used against you. “Replaced and displaced” is what happened to First Nation peoples, yall do have a home to go back to if you are so inclined.
1

@michaelrossi5128
5 days ago
Oh brother…. THIS GUY STINKSSS
6

@mitch1994ification
4 days ago
Thats your precious Australian flag sitting there. And that’s the leader of the national socialist network speaking behind it. What are you going to do about it Australians?
2

2 replies

@James_MAX_KRIEGER
4 days ago
March with him to victory
10

@mushbrain1753
4 days ago
give him a big kiss
3

@Dioxxh
4 days ago
Gutless
3

2 replies

@maelradec6766
1 day ago
i bet you turned your vpn on and shut your curtins b4 typing that boy lmao

@Dioxxh
1 day ago
​@maelradec6766 Why lmao? Im not a 45kg woman why would I be scared of anyone from this movement

@euro187
4 days ago (edited)AUSTRALIA NEEDS A LEFT WING MILITA / BLACK MILITA #STAYWOKE
6

5 replies

@bot-x6i8w
2 days ago

1

@bot-x6i8w
2 days ago
Let’s create a black red yellow version of this
2

@bot-x6i8w
2 days ago
​ @euro187 you will have to recruit the yellow brown and the black homeboy. You are too few in number. Let’s finish the job. Get organised.
2

@euro187
2 days ago
@primalblissco DID MY COMMENT OFFEND YOU?

@euro187
2 days ago
@elainesabatino7467 AND WHAT SIDE ARE YOU ON?

@zebfernandez
20 hours ago
Filth

@aaron88slick
4 days ago
It’s really disappointing to see how a small group of neo-Nazis hijacked what was meant to be a positive march for Australia yesterday. Their presence completely overshadowed the true purpose of the event and disrespected everyone who came in good faith to celebrate and stand together. Hate has no place in our communities, and it’s on all of us to make sure these extremists don’t define what it means to be Australian.
2

Gus
3 replies

@redemption1991
4 days ago (edited)
Did you hear a single boo for him? lmao.
His standing in front the whole protest you realise?
All i heard was clapping and support.
17

@stantheman8468
4 days ago
Ok chat gpt
4

@Gus-z3u
4 days ago
That’s a nice 88 in your name. 88 too man.
6

@DanMyler-z4e
5 days ago

@dkblaw
5 days ago
This bloke needs to learn how to speak English…
3

@thumptank
2 days ago
Scared little boy.
1

@Gus-z3u
5 days ago (edited)
Whiteaus.org if you want to support or join Tom
26

@jj-xm8dp
3 days ago
Any idea how to stay updated with this group? Rumble telegram?

Gus
3 replies

@Gus-z3u
3 days ago
White Australia on telegram
2

@Gus-z3u
3 days ago
​ @MarkZ-jx1zs I feel like feds would already know where they recruit.
7

@Gus-z3u
2 days ago
​ @jamesbond3125 Source: trust me bro
3

@popcornchat766
4 days ago
what an egg. Probably on the dole.
8

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

See Also

top

 

 

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