Thomas Sewell: Alrighty, we’re live. Max volume, everything. Audio input, capture.

 

All right, testing, 1, 2, 3. Use my big boy voice. Volume’s low. What’s your problem? I actually found a setting. Everyone’s like, Tom, fix your settings. We’re going 150%. There we go. Alrighty. Alrighty. Testing, testing!

 

All right, obligatory, free Joel Davis! Free Brandon [Koschel]! Free Jim Roberts!

 

So I’m going to cover a few subjects today, as you expect, with a solo stream. I really enjoyed my most recent stream with James Mason. It was like a five hour don’t Fed post challenge hard. He Fed posted a couple times, but as you’d expect. But I reviewed it and it wouldn’t breach. It wouldn’t breach even the most ridiculous laws we have here in Australia.

 

Now, one thing that I need to correct from the stream is I think I said that the book Siege is in a grey area of the law. My lawyer has told me that it is potentially banned. So he was like, it’s kind of in a dark grey area of the law. It’s not 100% banned. There is a banned list of books in Australia and Siege isn’t on it. But I cannot encourage anyone to go and buy that book because they haven’t made the case yet.

 

But what he suggests is that they’re trying to make the case. So I’d be very careful with that book in Australia. That’s one thing I want to clarify. Yeah, I think Mason gave a pretty sound explanation of what his intention of the book is. And I’m surprised that there hasn’t been any negative press because I know the journalists will watch a stream like that and get their AI ready to write an article for them about how evil we all are. But, yeah, that hasn’t happened.

 

But I do want to give people caution here in Australia that, yeah, I’m not encouraging you on legal grounds. I’m not encouraging you to read the book.

 

And I think all I said in the stream was that I did read it back in 2019 after being bullied by Jacob Hersant into reading it. I originally didn’t read it because I thought it was what everyone says it is. And I was like:

 

“I’m not really interested in that. I know enough about X, Y and Z through reading army manuals when I was in the army, so I don’t feel the need to read something of that nature.”

 

And then Jacob was like:

 

“No, it’s. That’s not what it’s about at all! There’s like some contentious lines in it. But overall, that’s not what it says.”

 

And Mason clarified that on stream. And I do appreciate him doing that because I think siege culture and accelerationist culture is really misunderstood. You know, accelerationism as a concept is, and siege as a concept is really misunderstood. And you’ll notice when I said to Mason about how our strategy has been to do the maximal amount of work with the minimal amount of damage, you’ll notice he was nodding the most. Mason’s not advocating for anyone to be an idiot and go to jail. He’s actually advocating the opposite. He’s saying:

 

“Do as much as you can to the integrity of the system without ruining your life!”

 

And he is proof that he’s done 60 years in the struggle. 60 years of inspiring people to be like:

 

“Well, hang on a minute, this system is evil and corrupt and contributing to it and trying to seek entry into it in hopes to change it is not an effective strategy.”

 

And he’s always been an advocate of the opposite. To siege it, to besiege it, to starve it. And yeah there’s no point, you know, running at it, doing a hero run, you know, charging at the castle walls, you’re just going to get pinged by some dude with an arrow. You’ve got to just wait it out, you’ve got to siege it, not wait it out and do nothing. But there’s a lot of things you can do while besieging an enemy.

 

And so people have to think creatively about what that means. And not but again, all politics, all politics, when it is in its infancy, attracts radical people. And radical people are more prone to self destructive behaviour. And so you want to have people that are courageous, you want to have courageous men, you want to have courageous leaders. And courageous does not mean foolish!

 

And so you do have to balance the concepts of bravery and courage with patience. And there’s a lot of virtue, a lot of virtue in having the strength to put yourself against a system that’s destroying you without becoming a martyr, you know, without letting the system destroy you. Now if you step over that line and the system puts you in jail for life or you get assassinated, like George Lincoln Rockwell.

 

I mean, Matt Hale, for example, who was involved, my understanding, with the creativity movement, he wasn’t the founder, but he was like the young hotshot that was rising up. And I think he’s in jail for life. I think he gets out of jail in about 10 years time from now. And he’s been in jail for like 20 years. Guys like Matt Howell, for example, just got really unlucky. They got. He got really unlucky and he got caught up in something that he hadn’t. I’ve looked at the case, I’ve looked at the case, the facts of the case, and the guy hasn’t done anything wrong. They could just. He was just a serious threat to the system and something like that could happen to me. But God willing, I’m safe from that level of corruption!

 

[07:42]

 

And I think it might be good luck, it might just be good luck! It might be destiny. But you don’t, what is it? You don’t count your chickens until they come home to roost or something? It’s still early days. It’s very early days. I’m still a young man. I might be bald, but I’m young and fit.

 

So, yeah, it’s, I’m 33 years old this year as of this month. And yeah, there’s a lot of struggle to go.

 

Just open with that if you haven’t checked it out, don’t be intimidated by the fact that it’s five hours. It is broken down into separate conversations. There’s an hour and then there’s a break and then there was meant to be an another hour and a break. But it, the first hour, the first two hours is very consumable for most people.

 

And then obviously, if you’re really into this stuff and you go for long drives and, or you work a job where you can have a, your headphones in a lot of tradies and stuff. Tell me that they like the five hour streams. Don’t be intimidated by having these really long streams. They appreciate, they appreciate the dialogue.

 

So as long as not too often. I don’t think you should listen to streams every day and I don’t think you should listen to music every day. I have been doing a fair bit of community service. I got to do knitting, as you’re all aware, and I advise people not to, I listen to music sometimes the whole time, or a podcast or an audio book. Books are probably the best thing. Books are better than streams because books, streams and dialogue and conversations aren’t as sharp. There’s no way I can communicate with you as clearly and as sharply as, say, reading Mein Kampf on audiobook. It’s not possible because of all the jargon. Those are the clearest thoughts possible. And then they go through an editing process.

 

So where are we? So already in the chat. Already in the chat! They’re arguing about Christianity already. Instantly! It’s incredible! Christianity will come up in this stream. When we talk about Manosphere, we’re going to cover feminism in general. We’re going to talk about all this girl bossing that’s going on at the moment with the Evangelicals. And there’s some heinous stuff that I’ve seen on Twitter where these little soy boy freaks are marrying these goblina jewesses with like 100 body counts. And they’re just saying:

 

“But she’s saved by Christ!”

 

And so it will come up. The conversation will come up. When we’re talking about that. There is definitely part one of this stream. What I’m going to open with is I’ll just. People still saying the volume’s low. Let me just unmute myself. Hold on. Now we’re. I could put up 175. I’ll just go 200. I’ll go 200. Okay. People still complaining. 200%. 200% Audio input, capture, volume. And the mic is like an inch from my face, maybe two. Two inches. Audio input, capture. I’ll put this one at 150. Alrighty. How does that sound? Testing for the last time. Testing. Yeah, fair enough. It is pretty quiet. Yeah, there’s a lot of retards in the chat today. Classic. Everyone’s spurging out. Yeah, that does sound better.

 

All right, sweet. Everyone’s arguing over which strain of Christianity. It’s incredible! It’s incredible! It’s endless. It’s endless, isn’t it? It never ends. It never ends.

 

So to start with the Aboriginal question. So obviously we are still what I am, and I have friends and we are trying to get a political party on the table here in Australia. And so covering the Aboriginal question, and you could call it the woman question, is really important. And it has to be done in a way that’s legal because of these laws here in Australia. And it has to be done in a way that people can understand the values and the rhetoric without getting caught up in the emotional arguments. So one has to be cautious when they approach these two topics. So you might find my speech slightly more refined than normal.

 

Hitler won the female vote in Germany. He actually had more women vote for him than men. And that’s a really interesting phenomenon to consider that more women voted for Hitler than men.

 

And so it shows that women don’t have to necessarily like you in order to respect you and I think that’s an important dynamic. A lot of people have commented, including Mason, about how journalists have behaved, female journalists specifically have behaved when interviewing me. And I saw someone online describe it as “negative tingles”, that they’re not used to someone outside the court giving them negative tingles. Normally it’s boring. Normally their job is boring. And then to have someone that’s got an intense character and an intense personality, it hits the dopamine receptors differently. And I’ve seen grandmas on Facebook comment sections in replies to these interviews saying, “hail Australia”. And all the criticism and all the advice people try to give us over the years is all wrong. It’s all backwards. It’s actually all the other way around. The female question is the opposite of the current orthodoxy, the current belief system of how women should be treated and how politics affects women. It’s all wrong. It’s all an inversion of the truth!

 

The truth is that it comes down to respect! And they respect integrity, not niceties! They don’t respect niceties, they respect integrity. And they respect aggression as long as it’s a as long as it’s not a foolish, foaming at the mouth, barbaric aggression. They don’t have much respect for that, but they almost respect that more and get better tingles from that than Peter Dutton and Anthony Albanese. These characters provide no stimulation to the female political psyche. And so understanding how to win the woman vote, you’re not going to win it with outright misogyny. That’s obviously ridiculous! This idea of just be a prick and you’ll get voted in. That’s not what I’m articulating.

 

[16:04]

 

What I’m saying is that people should not continue to spread the lie and demoralisation within our broader scene, our broader movement and political parties in the West, that the way to win the woman vote is to pander to them. That’s really what this comes down to, is the pandering.

 

So that’s a subject on its own that I’ll cover. So that’s what you got to look forward to.

 

But first we’re going to talk about the Aboriginal question and specific. We’ve talked about both these questions a lot, but the reason why it’s come up again is I’ve had a lot of people in person and online message me saying:

 

“Why is our strategy to go to war with Aboriginals? Won’t we win more votes and won’t we do better in Parliament and won’t our message be more well received if we don’t go to war?”

 

These are their words, not mine, with Aboriginals. And my position is not that we’re going to war with Aboriginals.

 

And obviously the Camp Sovereignty situation has played a part in this dialogue because people think that the reason why there’s allegedly an incident on that hill was because of the Aboriginal question. And it’s completely it’s not irrelevant. It’s not irrelevant, but people are conflating and the media has done this. The media has purposefully misled people and made a significant portion of people that support us question their support on the basis of:

 

“Well, why would they attack innocent elderly Aboriginal women?”

 

And most people can see through it. But there is a portion of our supporters that are like:

 

“Oh, I don’t think that was a good move. You probably shouldn’t have attacked innocent elderly Aboriginal women.”

 

And it’s, well, one, that didn’t happen and two, the conflict., … And this is the position that interestingly, a lot of Aboriginals actually share, not all, but a lot, is that the issue is these White traitors.

 

And so if these White traitors didn’t behave the way they did, there wouldn’t be as much conflict between the Whites and the Aboriginals. And you’ll find there’s a lot of, probably a higher percentage of Aboriginal DNA Aboriginals that aren’t supportive of multiculturalism. And there is, the Left call it like an Uncle Tom syndrome, obviously. But my position has always been towards all races that it’s about respect. And it’s a zero sum game a lot of the time regarding resources and living space. That’s zero sum.

 

And so there’s going to have to be compromise or there’s going to be if there’s not some sort of what I’ve always said about the question of re-migration is people bring up the Aboriginals, whenever you talk about re-migration they say:

 

“Oh, but what about the Aboriginals? They were here before you!”

 

So because of that, they’re in their own select category. And what I’ve been trying to explain to people online is that Aboriginals have a choice. And this is the sound bite and this is what you should be saying to if I know a lot of people have an Aboriginal friend, or a part Aboriginal friend, this is what you say to them:

 

“Our position is that you either have part sovereignty over the whole or over full sovereignty over the part. But you can’t have both.”

 

I’ll explain that again. The Aboriginal people can either have part sovereignty over all, or full sovereignty over part. They can’t have both! That’s not a compromise. That’s White genocide. So White people, Anglo, Celtic people predominantly have come to this continent because the continent wasn’t a country, or a nation, it was a continent. It’s a land mass. It’s an island, a big island.

 

But we’ve come to this place. There’s a whole bunch of warring Aboriginal tribes. Some are in cahoots and some aren’t in cahoots. Some have been here 10,000 years. Some have potentially been here 40,000 years. The numbers keep changing. But either way, we came here and we built something separate to them. We tried to include them. There’s a lot of interesting history from the first and Second Fleet and from Arthur and Bligh, Philip. There’s some interesting history where they’ve tried to integrate the Aboriginals and it’s almost always backfired horribly on both the Whites and on the Aboriginals.

 

And so when you look at and Auspill’s done a very good job at covering this, when there has been massacres of Aboriginals, so-called these genocides or massacres, it’s always come down to establishing the Anglo Saxon law on the land. It’s come down to:

 

“Hey, we want this land, we want this territory. We’re bigger and stronger than you. We’re not going to come after you, we’re not going to attack you. But we want this much space. And, it’s living space for Whites. Europe has to breathe out. We’re overcrowded in the streets of London. We’ve got this problem with criminals or petty criminality, people stealing Spoons and stuff. We’re running out of space. We found this place. We’re in a geopolitical issue with all these other people. We can’t explain this to you. We just need what we, what we need. And we’re prepared to fight for it! And your options are to fight us or to just keep moving deeper and deeper into the bush and away from this spot. It’s ours now. You’re not having it back.”

 

[22:11]

 

And obviously anyone in their right mind would be pissed off by that. If some alien force came, you know, from space and did that to us right now and we had really little ability to fight back because they were so technologically advanced, we would rightfully be pissed off, wouldn’t we? But we would have to retreat into the bush, we would have to White flight. We would have to be like, this is too much. We have to consolidate what we’re doing.

 

And so this is beyond Good and Evil. This is a, this is Nietzschean in this concept. The Left try to put a moral framework on that and say:

 

“That’s wrong, that’s evil. And therefore we have to surrender Australia to everyone! We have to be cucks, we have to bend over and we have to let anyone come here and rape us because of this founding moment!”

 

Because White people equals bad as their moral framework. That is their entire moral framework. White people equals bad. And they’ve got this original sin concept:

 

“We’re bad people! We’re horrible people! We’re horrible, bad people!”

 

Now, obviously straight White men don’t think this way. The only people that think this way are people with slave morality, which is homosexuals, freaks, a lot of women unfortunately think this way:

 

“Oh, no, we’re horrible! What we’ve done is so horrible!”

 

You know, this kind of bleeding heart. Not all women, but it is a naturally, it is a feminine energy to put your empathy for others. Well, it’s not even a, it’s a distortion of feminine energy really.

 

But look, it appeals, it appeals to weak willed people. Masculine men don’t think like this. Testosterone doesn’t allow your brain to even go there. We’ve got a completely different philosophical structure, a completely different reality because we’ve got a solar morality. It really comes down to these simple principles. It’s not about good and evil, it’s about solar morality. It’s about, we are a life form, we must exist, we must continue to exist. We don’t have to be pricks about it, we don’t have to be cunts about it. But we’re not going to back down, we’re not going to surrender, we’re not going to roll over and die. And so how do we make this work?

 

And so obviously, while we’re in a nice friendly talking phase about it, I don’t have an issue with Aboriginal sovereignty. It’s not my issue. I don’t. Good on them, Good for them. That’s my position on the Aboriginals. Good for them! If they can have it, good on them.

 

But it’s got nothing to do with me. I’m not paying for it, I’m not engaged in it, I’m not involved in it. It’s not in my face, it’s not in my place, it’s not in my space. It’s in their space. Now that is the problem! That is the problem is that multiculturalism is forcing all these radically different people to live together. And we’re not meant to live that is going to be the death of us. It’s going to be the death of our culture.

 

Now these people, they have a flag, they have a tribe, they have an identity. They’re trying to rebuild their culture. Good on them. My opinion, and I think the opinion of most Aboriginals and most White people is that they should do it on their own! I think they’ve had enough help. We’ve done enough to help them, more than enough to help them. It’s not our responsibility to help them any further.

 

What part of the land are they going to get? Well, that is the most serious conversation. But the philosophy behind that conversation I think is congruent. I think we can, I think all Australians can get on board with the idea that we have a two-state solution, at a minimum. To me, that’s the minimum. If they want to go to war with us, that’s a different conversation.

 

But I think you’ll find that there could be conversations where they have their own government, they have their own schools, they have their own institutions. Are they going to be as good as ours? No, they’re not. Is that going to cause the bleeding hearts to be like:

 

“See we’re still continuing to oppress them by keeping them separate!”

 

And there’ll be an anti-apartheid argument, but apartheid is the most beneficial thing for both parties. Because they will never have dignity, they will never have sovereignty and they will never have dignity while we play this passive aggressive game where they’re trying to rule over us and we’re trying to say we’re all friends, Kumbaya. That is never, while both of us are actually suffering. So I’ve said in the past things like if they want to, if they want to fight, they might get deported too. They’ll get deported back to India. They walked here 40,000 years ago. They might get told to walk back.

 

And I’ve said things like those are very strong comments and obviously a lot of Aboriginal people want to fight me because of those comments.

 

But that is my position. I’m not backing down on that. I’m never going to change my mind on that is my position. It’s a two-state solution or it’s that because we cannot continue. And when we take power in this country, and we are going to take power in this country, we are going to solve this question and we are going to say:

 

“Let’s sit down, let’s draw up the map and here is a fundamental treaty of you will not let China put bases on your land, you will not let any foreigners put bases on your land, blah, blah, blah!”

 

Like there will be a treaty that will say:

 

“You are a vassal of our realm. This is Australdom, this is our realm, you’re a vassal, you’ve got a territory, you self govern it.”

 

Whether we trade or buy or sell or communicate with each other, whether there’s tourist visas, all this is downstream. We can work something out where they can come visit us and we can go visit them.

 

[28:08]

 

The bleeding hearts can go live with the Aboriginals. But you will not put Chinese bases on it. Like this is fortress Australia. We’re not going to tolerate it and you guys can police yourselves. You can have your own laws, you can have your own courts, you can have your own koori justice and your own jails and your own prisons, and all the complaints that they have all solved overnight. All solved overnight. We have nothing to do with it. We have nothing to do with it. We have no part of it! You want to go spear each other, that’s your culture. That we’re not going to intervene. And that is the absolute best outcome for everyone involved! That it’s the best compromise for us. Certainly it’s the best compromise. Is it perfect? Is it ideal? Can we purity spiral and get a better result? Sure, absolutely!

 

Is that feasible? Of course, anything is feasible if you put your mind to it. Is that how the Australian public feel? No, the Australian public don’t feel that there could be something more than that. There might be people that want to do more than that and go further, certainly. And that ethnic tension arises from living together. But I think once you find, once you take that step in that direction, I think you will find that tension will disappear.

 

So when people say to me:

 

“Tom you know why are we doing this? Anti Aboriginal rhetoric and da, da and we should try to win the Aboriginals over and we should., …”

 

The way they’re talking is they’re treating Aboriginals the same way. They’re like:

 

“We should try to win women over. We should try to win!”

 

It’s kind of similar to attitude. It’s like that’s not how it works. You don’t win Aboriginals over by pandering to them. You don’t win women over by pandering to them. I know they’re two very different biological forms. You know, obviously one is male and female. One is just female. You know, when we’re talking about women, we’re talking about White women, obviously. And I’m not making any further comparisons in that regard.

 

But if you understand, what I’m saying is the politics of the White man, the politics of the White Patriarchy, is not about pandering! Our politics is about laying down the law, explaining what we’re going to do and why we’re going to do it and how we’re going to do it. And then saying:

 

“This is the best outcome for everyone. What we’re doing right now is not working and we’re not making any further compromises on that’s the line in the sand.”

 

We’re actually only going to go further than that, we’re not going to come any less than that.

 

There is never, in my opinion, there’s never going to be a time where I or the vast majority of White people in Australia are going to accept are our slow ethnic replacement. It might appear that way right now, but it’s only because we’re not politically organised. This is not how the average Australian feels. This is not how the average White person around the world feels. The average White person around the world wants re-migration. They want to remain, at a minimum, 90%. That’s like the beginning. That’s not even, like controversial anymore, that the 90% or the 95% rule. That is the super majority of the population. I just like deport all of them except the good ones. That’s the super majority. And then you’ve probably still got the majority saying:

 

“No, no, it shouldn’t be 90, it should be 99%.”

 

So, yeah, anyway, I’ll pause there. I won’t cover that subject much more. Oh, my God! There’s a sorry, there’s a spastic in the chat. How do I do ban this person for life? I don’t want to mute. I keep making this mistake. If I mute, then I can’t ban. Isn’t that right? Okay, that just deleted it. Oh, yeah. Also muting on Rumble because Odysee is different. Muting on Rumble is banning. Cool. Glad we got that sorted.

 

I’ll go through the comments section. If there’s any comments on the Aboriginal question. Geez, everyone’s just arguing about Christianity. We’re not even talking about Christianity. We’re just talking about Aboriginals at this stage.

 

So, yeah, in short, as I said before, tell your friends that say this nonsense to you about how we should work together:

 

“We all got to work together. We all got to work together.”

 

They can have full sovereignty over themselves, but not us. Or they can have this fake sovereignty over everyone. Do they actually want full sovereignty? If they do, it can only be over themselves. That means apartheid. Ultimately, that means apartheid. What that looks like is a man can’t serve the Australian flag and the Aboriginal flag. You can’t go to a at the high school, at the courts, all these institutions. It’s got an Australian flag and it’s got an Aboriginal flag. That is not sustainable. It’s one or the other. It can’t be both.

 

And this idea of:

 

“Oh, we got to show solidarity and they’re not a threat to us and all this.”

 

It’s not sustainable. It’s not sustainable. It’s nice. Tingle feels. It feels really nice:

 

“Oh, look, I’m being empathetic. Oh, I’m a good person.”

 

You can have this virtue signaling, but we’re two very different peoples. We need to have sovereignty over ourselves. They need to have sovereignty over themselves. We need to be focused on Australia and White people and civilisation, the Western civilisation that we’re a part of, and they need to be focused on creating their own harmony, the dream time, their version of reality, fixing their problems, punishing their problems. They have a completely different version of reality to us. That is just how different ethnic groups and different races are built. They have different versions of reality. Things we see as a problem that they see it like a major problem, they see as a minor problem, and vice versa. Their biggest issue is White people are locking them up and putting them in jail. Like, they can’t even comprehend that our problem is that they’re committing heinous crimes. They can’t even comprehend that’s a problem. They see the problem as:

 

“Why are you locking us up?”

 

[35:04]

 

It’s the same with the blacks in America. How can these two groups of people live together when they have completely different versions of reality? So they should police themselves. Simple as! Part sovereignty over all or full sovereignty over part.

 

So you can’t have both. Simple. As I’ll move on. Hopefully the comment section is not talking about Christianity, someone says:

 

“Do I make my own toothpaste?”

 

Very funny. Yeah. And this applies not just to Australia, this applies to obviously, Canada and New Zealand as well. I think the Treaty of Waitangi is a mistake in New Zealand. I don’t know too much about the treaties in Canada. I know Alex Ferryman does. Yeah, it’s a mistake. It’s a mistake. Any treaty that exists needs to be a treaty of:

 

“Here’s your space. Here’s our space. You live there, we live here. You’re citizens of your country. We’re citizens of our country. We’re two separate nations. We’re not the same nation.”

 

They even call themselves the first nation so that by definition, they’re not part of our nation. They’re saying this. They’re saying this, not me. They are saying it. What else?

 

Let’s get into the nuts and bolts. The woman question. I need a need a breather. If we’re going to get into the woman question. I need a breather. Yeah. Someone says:

 

“Easiest solution is allow those same bleeding hearts to transfer their own funds to Aboriginals, not government or social funds. The Left can put their money where their mouth is.”

 

Yeah, absolutely! Well, I believe that all the bleeding hearts should go live with the Aboriginals. They should have Aboriginal citizenship. They want to be so bad. They hate White people so much. They hate being White!:

 

“White people are horrible, horrible people! And having White children is perpetuating White supremacy and blah, blah, blah, blah, blah!”

 

Good bye. Bye. See you later. Awesome! You know, we’ll strip all of these people of Australian citizenship when we come to power and there will be people that will say:

 

“Oh, my God, you can’t do that!”

 

Yes, we can and we will. They’re all going to get stripped of their Australian citizenship. These White people that work, that bow down and worship Aboriginals as their god. They can go live with their god. They can go live with their god. Simple. You know, you want to do the Welcome to Country acknowledgment of country, all this. Absolutely perfect! Perfect. Absolutely! Bye. Bye. Yeah, we don’t want those people living in our society. It doesn’t matter that they’re of the same blood as us. That doesn’t matter because they’re not of the same honour as us. They hate us! There are some sort of mutation of our bloodline that is antithetical to our existence. If Aboriginals didn’t exist, they would find some other group to nut hug. Hypothetically, because there’s no Aboriginals in England. Like you don’t see people advocating for the pre-Belgic-Celtic invasion of Bronze Age England. That doesn’t exist. You know, what kind of strain of Leftism would that be? You know, it’s obviously absurd because you’ve got a thousand years of homogeneity of many different layers of Celtic peoples then breeding in with many different layers of Germanic and Nordic peoples.

 

So it’s the English people, the British people are a relatively homogenised people. And so you don’t see that argument because those tribes can homogenise quite. I mean, obviously it still caused things like, I mean, I don’t want to get too much into the intricacies of English history, but you can see the precursor of things like civil war in previous ethnic distinctions.

 

So, for example, Croatia and Serbia are ethnically very similar, but they’re not ethnically the same. They are two different ethnicities and therefore they also have two different versions of their interpretation of Christianity. You’ve got Orthodoxy and you’ve got Catholicism. So ethnic differences play out also religiously and also politically. You’ll see this a lot through human history. You see it in the American Civil War. There was an ethnic difference in the American Civil War as well. Probably not as predominant, but I won’t go into it. Americans know that for themselves.

 

Now someone says:

 

“Tom’s right. They have a different reality. Go to any Northern Territory prison and you’ll see the system isn’t working.”

 

It’s not working by our standards. Absolutely! Our version, our reality of working and their version of working are two completely different things.

 

And I’ll finish it with this. I had a Dreamtime experience with Aboriginals. I’m sure I’ve told this story on stream years ago, so those that have been around a while will remember this story. But I had a friend in the army, a guy called Christopher Knight. He was a Special Forces guy. He’s a translator, he’s a linguist. And I don’t know what he’s doing now with his life, but I’m sure he’s doing well. And he was adopted. He got adopted in a cultural sense, or a linguistic sense by an Aboriginal. An Aboriginal tribe in Darwin in Northern Territory. And this guy was a, like one of those, what is called politician-linguist or something. This guy spoke like 50 languages. It was incredible! I’ve never seen anything like it. I mean, we would go out drinking in Mitchell street or whatever it’s called in the CBD of Darwin. It’s like one street and there’s like four bars on it. And any backpacker, he could speak their language. Any backpacker. It was really incredible!

 

[41:09]

 

Anyway on his weekends, he was going out and living with Aboriginals out in the middle of nowhere. And there were like some, there were full bloods and it’s very rare to find full bloods, but in Northern Territory it’s more common. There’s no way you can find full bloods outside of Northern Territory or Northern New, Southern Queensland or Northern WA. And he started hanging out with these, basically semi-nude Aboriginals in the bushland near Casuarina Beach on the weekends. And he knocks on my door. I don’t know, it was like one in the morning, one random. It was like a Tuesday, or a Thursday. And he says:

 

“Hey Tom or hey Sewell.”

 

Everyone calls you by your last name in the army:

 

“Hey Sewelly, I’m getting deployed tomorrow. They need a linguist. He was a two commando guy, but for some reason he was in our battalion. And he says, I’m getting deployed tomorrow. I’m getting on a plane and I have to say goodbye to some people and I had to run some errands. Can you drive me?”

 

Because I was one of the only LID, which lid means new guy or live in digger. I was one of the only LID that had a car. And I was friendly with him, and everyone thought he was a weirdo and I did as well. Weird means different things to me than it does to other people. When someone says weird, they mean like not radioactive, but they mean, you know, semi-ostracized. They mean:

 

“Oh, we don’t associate with that guy because he’s a weirdo!”

 

Whereas when someone’s weird, I am fascinated by human psychology. And so I was always very friendly with him because I wanted to know what made him tick. He had such a different version of reality to everyone else that I just really wanted to understand. I mean this guy was probably in his early 30s and I think I was 19 or 20 at the time.

 

So I was like:

 

“Unk, how do you view the world? What’s going on, Unk?”

 

Basically I was the same relationship I have with Zoomers and is like that relationship when I was The Age that a lot of Zoomers are that asked me for advice And I’m now. I’m now 90.

 

But anyway, he says, he’s like:

 

“Sewelly, you’re the only one with a car. You know, can you drive me around? I gotta say goodbye to some people.”

 

And so he drives me out in the middle of nowhere, and then we go walking for like 40 minutes down this beach. And I’m like:

 

“What are we doing?”

 

And we find these Aboriginals just on this beach in the middle of nowhere. And they’re all sitting cross legged and around a little campfire. And he introduces me to them and he’s speaking their language, like full Aboriginal! Like whatever sect of Aboriginal they are. And he’s speaking their language. And he introduces me and he says a bunch of Aboriginal words.

 

And then he says my name. And then he says:

 

“5 RAR, 5th Battalion.”

 

And I was like:

 

“What did you say to them?”

 

And he said:

 

“You’re a young warrior from my tribe, from the 5th Battalion tribe. And that you’re a good warrior. You’re a good, young, strong warrior and that you’re helping me today.”

 

And I was like:

 

“Oh.”

 

And then they all, like, acknowledged me. They’re all sitting different. So it was men. I was sitting with the men, obviously, and the women were sitting at a different campfire with the women, and it was segregated.

 

And so I was with the men and Knighty was explaining to them how I was a good warrior, a good young warrior of the 55 RAR tribe. And we’re sitting there and they’re just talking and talking, and I went into a trance. I was tired, but I didn’t know what was, … It was like someone had drugged me. I was in a trance and I was just staring at the ocean, because we’re on the beach. And I was staring at the ocean and the sky was purple.

 

And I was like:

 

“Is there something in this fireplace? Like, what? Like, am I on?”

 

I’ve never at this stage, I’d never tried any drug ever!

 

And I was like:

 

“Is this what acid feels like?”

 

That’s what I was thinking in my head.

 

And I was like:

 

“What is going on?”

 

And they’re making that noise that they make. They’re talking and yeah. And then the sun’s coming up and I’m like, what is going on? And I look at the time and it’s like 6:30. And it was just surreal! It was a surreal experience. And then he’s like:

 

“All right, we’re gonna go.”

 

He gave them bananas and double A batteries. And he taught them how to like Jerry rig a phone to be able to give co-ordinates so that he could communicate where they were in the bush using GPS. And it was just fascinating! It was just absolutely fascinating! That was my first positive experience with Aboriginals. And I had had only about 500 negative experiences with Aboriginals prior to that moment. And every negative experience I’d had with Aboriginals was them being drunk, or not even drunk, but them just behaving the way they behave, and then being violent and aggressive towards me for just existing, for just walking down the street or just going to the shops at two o’ clock in the afternoon. Or them harassing like pregnant ladies trying to get in their car, demanding money off them. Like just every experience I had was so negative.

 

[46:02]

 

And then this was the first time I was like:

 

“I think I’m starting to understand these people. They live in a dream time.”

 

Like the proper full bloods. They live in a different reality to us. They don’t like time. The way we view time and the way they view time is completely different! And I somehow empathed in that moment into their little hive mind with Knightie, who was like my guide. His name was Christopher Knight, like a knight of Christ! And he was a very spiritually attuned man. And that was an experience I’ll never forget. I think I was almost, 20 years old. I was only 19!

 

But yeah, very interesting stuff. Very, very interesting stuff.

 

The stream looks frozen on my end. What is going on? No, no, it’s not frozen. Excellent! Yeah. What can I say? What can I say? I’ve seen the best of it and I’ve seen the worst of it. And the best of it is we should just leave these people alone. Like the problem is enlightenment. In a lot of ways, [chuckling] enlightenment has benefits, certainly. I’m not anti-enlightenment. You know, that’s a big part of how we’ve come to be. And it was a big part of our life cycle as a civilisation. It’s the second last phase of civilisation is enlightenment. The Greeks went through this around, I don’t know, 400 B.C. And yeah, I’m not against, you can’t be against it because it’s nature, it’s time itself.

 

But one of the dumbest parts of enlightenment is “equality”. That’s the dumbest part of enlightenment. The, the, that is the false enlightenment. The false enlightenment is that we’re all blank slates and that we’re all equal. That you know:

 

“All men are created equal before God and blah blah, blah!”

 

That is the most. How the hell. I don’t even know if they sincerely believe that. I can’t even fathom that they were that stupid that the people that colonised Australia, … Because when I read Clark, I’ve got it right here actually, this one here.

 

So this guy’s a communist. He’s a piece of shit, Leftist communist! And he wrote A History of Australia. I have, I’ve only read this one. I haven’t read the other volumes. I think this one ends around 1830. And he wrote this in I think 1961 or 62. And he’s a full blown communist and was investigated by ASIO for being, for coordinating with. Here’s the big boy here. Here’s the main man. Here’s the main man. Mr. Cook. Captain Cook. Anglo Saxon. Anglo Saxon. But yeah, Melbourne University. He’s a commie at Melbourne University.

 

Anyway, I read it. It’s quite interesting, quite subversive. But he, oh, he really emphasises the how enlightened Captain Cook and you know, Arthur Bligh and all these guys were and how they, but what’s interesting is he can’t hide the fact that despite their Enlightenment, despite the fact that they. Excuse me. They arrived in Australia and they tried to treat the Aboriginals as equals.

 

And so they’re like:

 

“Hey, let’s trade.”

 

And then there was nothing to trade. So they were like:

 

“Hey, let’s, …”

 

It was like a clash of values because they had these Enlightenment values and they didn’t know how to implement them on the Aboriginals. They didn’t know.

 

And so there was a whole bunch of different treat ways the Aboriginals were treated by European colonists. And I think it was the Portuguese and the Spanish in the Americas, but a little bit even in the Asia Pacific region, the Portuguese were in Asia Pacific as well. And they were basically like:

 

“You’re going to convert to Catholicism by the sword!”

 

And what Clark says is that they didn’t have those Enlightenment values. So you’ve got like Protestant Anglos trying to communicate with Aboriginals and like uplift them into humanity and uplift them into civility.

 

And then you’ve got the Portuguese with almost like pre-Enlightenment Catholic values that were just like “convert or die”. And that’s quite interesting. You know, it’s possible to talk about history without talking about Christianity. But yeah, that’s quite interesting. I won’t expand on that too much. You can gather from that what you want.

 

Yeah, where was I going with that? Yeah, he has all these little anecdotes or all these little stories about these first encounters and how, yeah, the enlightened English were just bewildered and were just like:

 

“We’ve never encountered this anywhere in the world!”

 

And he’s actually honest about the criticisms that they had. I think he might over embellish their enlightenment principles. I think they were probably a lot more racist than what he’s articulating because he’s a communist.

 

But yeah, I think I titled this Aboriginal communism, didn’t I? Before we get into the woman question, ultimately, if we don’t segregate from Aboriginals, we’re going to get destroyed by Aboriginal communism the way that what’s going on in South Africa, they’re dealing with African communism. And when you end apartheid and you mix or you attempt to get the races to all live together in equality and one is so different to the other, it’s a race to the bottom! And that’s ultimately what communism is, it’s a race to the bottom.

 

And it’s not just anti-enlightenment because there’s a lot of things that are anti-enlightenment, but it is anti-life! It’s ultimately anti-life because our version of life is an upward force, not a, so it’s hard to cover this without getting into the Greeks. You got to get into the Greeks because they figured all this out! And I don’t mean like the Greeks is in the souvlaki shop. I mean like the ancient Greeks, the philosophy.

 

The Greeks realised that when they went through their enlightenment that there’s not just being, there’s becoming. And that the ultimate being is becoming. And we use the word “progress” now and that word is obviously really dirty and that’s why I don’t use it. It’s a very dirty word. To say something is “progressive”, you’re saying it’s Leftist.

 

[53:19]

 

And so the Leftists have actually somehow inverted “becoming” into “progression”. And so when they say it’s progressive, it’s actually regressive! It’s regressive of the total life force. Leftism is the downward path. It’s not Left versus Right, it’s up versus down! And this is something that you really need to understand. Communism, Aboriginal communism, jewish communism, any form of communism, any form of Leftist progression is a progression downwards! It’s progressing the life form downwards. And this applies to even politics of today.

 

So if you want to talk about party politics, if you want to call it that if you want to talk about Parliamentarianism, what the Labor Party here in. I know this is people like, I’m tuning out. I don’t want to hear this. But normies want to hear this. Normies, you do need to. If you’re listening to this, you’re probably not a normie. And you do need to know how to apply the logic that I’m articulating here in the stream to things other than ancient Greece and ancient Rome and like all this stuff, you need to be able to apply it to be able to explain it to, … You need to be able to speak in tongues and that doesn’t mean like that crazy Evangelical crap. That means you need to be able to speak the tongue of the people.

 

And so what the Labor Party here in Australia has done is they’ll get lost on this because they haven’t read a book on economics, but it’s this Keynesian economics where it’s window breaking. So they believe that if you keep breaking windows, the GDP will go up because the glazier is going to make more money. And, it’s all that in conjunction with Fabian socialism. So Fabian socialism is what:

 

“We want the windows to be broken because we want more money wasted on fixing windows instead of building the power system.”

 

And so Fabian socialists or Fabian Communists, Fabian Marxists. They’re ultimately Marxists. They want to create this workers revolution through accelerating the decline of society by wasting as much money as possible.

 

And so that’s why the NDIS is the way it is. That’s why the NDIS is bigger than the defense budget. That’s why we spend more money on parasites and retards than we do on protecting the nation from foreign invasion. It’s why we spend so much money on basically compounding problems. Not fixing problems, but compounding problems! And the problem itself is often the expenditure, the wastage, the fact that we’re taxing the noble, the good, the healthy, and we’re giving to the evil and the weak and the disgusting and the decrepit.

 

And this is Kali Yuga stuff. This is end of time stuff. This is what Hitler talks about in Mein Kampf. Why you have to read Mein Kampf. It’s not negotiable. It’s not negotiable! If there’s only one book you should read, it’s Mein Kampf, because he explains all of this. He explains exactly what’s happening, exactly why it’s happening and exactly what you need to do to stop it from continuing to destroy your society.

 

So that’s why they’re window breaking. That’s why the Labor Party and all the Greenies and all these freaks, they’re all on board with destroying society through taking money from good people and giving it to broken people. And what that does is that what you feed grows. And they know that! They know that! They know it and they’ve already projected how that industry is going to expand. And it is beyond political parties. I mean it’s the Uni-Party doing it. It’s not just the Labor Party. But it obviously gets worse under one and then the other does Labor Party light. They do Fabian socialism light. That’s what the Liberal Party is. It’s homosexuality light. Fabian socialism light. Retard economics light. You know it’s diet retardation!

 

Anyway. Aboriginal communism. Yeah. Where are we? Yeah. I don’t normally do Superchats mid conversation but Delvian said:

 

“Isn’t the abo love a second order consequence of White men becoming feminised and White women hating their own men?”

 

There’s definitely an element to that. I think there’s a lot of different components to the so-called “Aboriginal love”. There’s the false enlightenment, there’s self hatred. Yes. There’s virtue signaling. So society is structured wrong, which is what we’re going to get into with the feminine society and the woman question. Society is structured with an inversion of natural law. The moral framework of society is an inversion of what our society was built on.

 

So that is often described as late stage decline or degeneration where you forget what your purpose was to such an extent where it’s upside down. There’s obviously nefarious influence. There’s particular (((interest groups))) that are a particular ethno-religious orientation and they compound and accelerate and destabilise. Certainly. They’re obviously a major player in that process but it does happen on its own. And you know there’s a lot of, I won’t go into all the proverbs and quotes on the subject but this festering can only exist if you’re already going in that direction. What we need is a complete re-evaluation of values. And you know we have gone through two or three generations of a nihilist phase and we are re interpreting and revaluing our values. We are so far ahead morally of where we were 50 years ago. And people will aay:

 

“No! That’s not true. No! People were so conservative back in the day.”

 

And it’s like they were running off inertia. They hadn’t actually evaluated their values. They were just running off inertia. We’re actually so much further ahead by going through the decline, seeing the nihilism, seeing the hedonism.

 

[1:00:19]

 

 

And I have so much faith and hope in the young generation. Young White people across the world, obviously, a lot of them are infected with the social disease. A lot of them are infected. But the ones that aren’t infected with the social disease have immunity. They have immunity! They have built up. They don’t need to be injected with anything. They have natural immunity! Young White people across the Western world are growing up immune to this social disease. And the disease of our time is not the plague. It’s not the Spanish Flu. It’s not? What is it? You know, all the ones that people, tuberculosis. It’s not these things that are killing people anymore, you know.

 

And Edward Dutton covers this a lot. I’ve talked about this on streams for years and years, and I’m so glad someone actually wrote a book about it. I’ve only read the blurb. I haven’t actually read the whole book, but I might actually get around to reading it at some point. But Dutton covers this and he explains that just the mutational load has the selection process now is, are you a retard or are you not? And if you’re not a retard, you’re most likely immune to the retardation that’s destroying our society.

 

So, yeah. All right, we’ll do it. We’ll go into the woman question. Check the comments first. Someone says:

 

“Ban women!”

 

No, we don’t need to ban them. Reese White says:

 

“Thomas. So are you a fan of Adam Green?”

 

I don’t really know anything about Adam Green. I’ve seen him on Twitter. He’s the anti-Christian guy, isn’t he? He’s kind of built like a platform. I haven’t seen him at all! I’ve never spoken to him. I don’t really know anything about him. I only know of him. Yeah, I can’t comment on that question. I’ve seen a lot of people attack him saying he’s jewish, and I’ve seen him say that Christianity is jewish.

 

So it’s like everyone’s saying:

 

“You’re a jew! No, you’re a jew! No, you’re a jew!”

 

And it’s like I’m not getting into it. It’s not in my sphere. I think I’ve seen him do chats with HT [Handsome Truth]. Yeah, we will cover a little bit of Christianity here. But yeah, you all know I’m not Christian. But we will cover it and we’ll cover it in a respectful way. I think that any criticism people have of Christianity should be done respectfully. I know that’s hard to do. It is very hard to do. But this is a, yeah, I try to be as secular as possible and yeah, let’s start with that. Let’s actually start with Christianity.

 

Let’s start with. If we’re going to talk about the woman question, let’s talk about Christianity.

 

So the Hebrew mythology or the Hebrew founding story is Adam and Eve. It’s a bit different to other founding stories, but you’ll find there’s so much similarities when you’re talking about the origins of man from. And I don’t use mythology. I don’t say mythology in a bad way. I don’t say it in a, I don’t mean it in a negative way. I’m not putting a pejorative on it. You know, all founding myth is myth. It’s mythos. We don’t know for sure, but we can respect myth. I respect myth. Yeah, and geez, we’re already into it.

 

But we all know the story Genesis. So we have this perfect garden of peace and harmony and the founding story of Christianity and therefore the founding message, the founding message of Christianity is that women are inherently attracted to evil. And breaching the peace and harmony of the garden that’s created by the father.

 

So it’s kind of like women inherently have to “shit test” a situation, a society, a these aren’t my words. This is not even my personal interpretation. I didn’t come up with this is what the Bible says.

 

And anyone that has a different version of Genesis is a moron and hasn’t read it. So many Christians haven’t read the Bible. Probably one of my main issues with Christians is that they haven’t read the Bible. I don’t think you should be allowed to call yourself a Christian if you haven’t read the Bible.

 

And likewise, I don’t think people should call themselves a National Socialist if they haven’t read Mein Kampf. I don’t think you should say that. I think you should say I’m interested in National Socialism, but I don’t think you should identify with it. You should hear the words from the man. He says it all. He outlines 95% of it in one book. And it’s a lot easier to read than the Bible. The Bible is a very hard book to read. It’s very tedious at parts. It, sure, it has beautiful parts, like all religious books have beautiful parts, but it is a very hard read. It’s a very long book. It’s like a million words. It takes a long time. Unless you race through it, if you race through it, you’re going to miss things. But Genesis is very clear. Like the first books, Genesis and Exodus, these things are very clear. Very, very clear. There’s no, not much nuance to it.

 

Now there’s obviously different mythological interpretations. What is the snake and what is the apple and what is God’s command and all this. But if you’re going to found a religion off this principle, it’s going to bleed through the whole text, isn’t it?

 

So whatever you’re reading later on in the Bible has to always come back to Genesis and a belief system that men and women were created unequally, that man was created from breathing life into dust or into matter. Women were created from the rib of man, so from the side. So it’s a peer, but it’s not an equal peer. There’s some sort of difference there. And so, I mean, obviously.

 

[1:07:14]

 

But I was talking to Jacob recently and he’s been deep diving Plato. Absolutely deep diving Plato. I’ve read the Republic, but I haven’t read much else from Plato. And he was negging Aristotle, which I was surprised at because I actually prefer, at this stage, I prefer Aristotle to Plato, not to get too much into philosophy, but I’ve only read the Republic. So and I didn’t really rate it, to be honest. I thought it was an interesting dialogue, but I didn’t rate it as much as it gets glazed. But he’s been reading all the other stuff. Full deep diving into everything, every single thing the guy’s written. And what he said to me was, and this is very recently, he said to me that the Greeks believed that, or Plato believed, and this became quite a common belief system, that if that souls were created, this is before Christianity, they believe that souls were created fresh and that they were all men, that if you lived a bad life, if you were a bit, you know, weak or immoral, that you would be reincarnated in your next life as a woman. And this became a pretty well established belief system. And it’s interesting that that is in some way similar to Christianity, that they arrived at a position where they were ripe for proselytisation from Christian apostles.

 

So let’s start there. Obviously, European Paganism is many things, just as Christianity is many things. There’s so much schism within Paganism. And when you’re talking generally about Paganism, you’re talking about general principles which we know from Greek, Roman, Zoroastrian, Indus Valley, and obviously Germanic and Celtic Paganism. And people will cherry pick what they want.

 

There are female church leaders at the moment. I mean, that’s just absurd to me that the whole book is a document saying that women can’t accurately interpret God. They can’t accurately communicate or interpret or follow instruction from God. And therefore they shouldn’t be in charge of the Church. They can’t be in charge of society, they can’t be in charge of the Church. They just don’t possess the correct component to do that. And the whole religion is founded on that principle.

 

And then you have such a degradation of the Church that you now have women pastors and preachers and priests, priestesses or whatever you’d call them. I mean, it’s absurd! It’s not my church, I’m not a Christian. But the hypocrisy is despicable! It is truly despicable! So fascinating!

 

Now, Paganism has varying degrees of male and female relationships. Some interpretations of Paganism are a bit more equitable, others a lot less equitable.

 

So when we go back to the ancients and when we look at thousands of years of civilisation, there is not really any society that has treated men and women as the same, nor has there been a society that has treated women the way women are being treated right now! And it’s not a surprise that our birth rates are really low. Any society that behaves the way we’re behaving dies. Any civilisation that behaves the way we’re behaving dies. Any nation that behaves the way we’re behaving dies! And therefore it is a footnote in somebody else’s history.

 

So we have to reevaluate our values and we have to completely change the way we behave or we’re going to die!

 

And so the woman question is the same question as White genocide. It’s the same question as White replacement. You cannot separate the two. You can’t say:

 

“Let’s stick to just White nationalism and let’s not talk about how evil feminism is. Let’s talk about White replacement. But we’ve got to keep women on side. We can’t say things that might hurt the feelings of women.”

 

And as I said at the start of the stream, this is a really dumb, weak, coward strategy that’s going to cause us to die as a race! Women don’t respect pandering. They find it disgusting! Feminists are pure evil! And they will because of there’s some force, you know, Christians could say they’re possessed. And I do put a lot of weight in possession. I know not everyone does because not everyone believes they have a soul. And not everyone believes in metaphysics or in like a spirit realm. And so people that are very rational will say:

 

“This person’s unwell, or this person’s mentally ill.”

 

All means the same thing. Whereas the more religious or spiritual way of looking at it is this person is spiritually ill, this person’s potentially possessed. And this isn’t very electable, but I have witnessed what I could only describe as exorcisms. I have seen the way some people have behaved, and there is no rational or logical explanation other than this person is possessed. This person has a demon, a demon in them! They’re not at rest. They’re not in harmony. They’re not. There’s something that is currently occupying them and it’s potentially just a phase, but if it keeps occurring, it’s like there’s something that rears its head, something unbecoming.

 

And that’s a difficult conversation to have with people that don’t believe in demons. They don’t believe that it could be possible. They’re so far into post Enlightenment rationalism that just:

 

“It’s so irrational, the idea that there are forces beyond our control that could perhaps be bad forces!”

 

You know, we can acknowledge that there is a good force and inherently good force on earth, but then we want to pretend that there’s not an inherently bad force on earth?

 

[1:13:57]

 

So instead of arguing about whether Christianity is cucked or not, instead a better conversation is, what can we learn from Christianity? Where is Christianity right? And where is modern Christianity wrong? Or where is Christianity philosophically wrong? That’s a much more important discussion and it’s a more respectful discussion as well. Because what you’ll find is I can have these conversations. I had a conversation recently, probably 20, 30 minutes, with some Christian guys in America, and we could have a respectful conversation about what’s happening through that lens, through that lens of that there is an evil that is possessing. There is a snake in the garden, and it’s corrupting women. And then women are corrupting men. And that women, sorry, men, are aware of the snake. Snake, but most men are not aware of how this snake has perverted women.

 

And so the TLDR [Too Long-Didn’t Read] is we need to normalise Patriarchy. I’m a big, big proponent of Patriarchy. I think that Patriarchy is the only way to save the White race. We cannot save the White race through feminism. We cannot save the White race through equality. We can only save the White race through a proper Patriarchy. A proper Patriarchy! And whether you’re Christian, pagan, agnostic, enlightened, not enlightened, Catholic, orthodox, doesn’t matter! We cannot solve male, female. It does not matter! We cannot solve this problem without Patriarchy.

 

Now, it’s very easy for me to acknowledge Patriarchy because, one, I had a really good father. I have a really good father. My father’s still alive. I have a really good father. A really good father! And he has his flaws. Absolutely! And that’s product of environment and breeding and everything else. Right. We all have our flaws. I have my flaws. Product of environment and breeding and circumstance. But we’re on a mission! My bloodline has definitely been through the wars, and we’re on our way back up. All right. There’s a few more generations of work to do to really get us back on track. But I’m part of a Patriarchy. I have a lot of respect for my family name, my line, my lineage, my ancestry. This is really important to me.

 

And, it’s easy for me to accept and acknowledge this harsh reality. It’s not even a harsh reality. This reality because of what I come from. Women that have good fathers can accept this as well. Most women that can’t accept Patriarchy, they don’t have any respect for their fathers. And they don’t have respect for their fathers because their fathers don’t deserve respect.

 

Respect is not something that you’re entitled to. It is only earned. And I know that’s a platitude, and some people might think that’s a meaningless platitude, but that is absolutely core! Respect is earned! You’re not entitled to anyone’s respect. This is, I think, a false enlightenment principle that, like you should just respect the retard being moved around in the wheelchair. Like, what? What planet are these people on? Like, why that makes you a good person? How does that make me a good person? You know what quality of life is the drooling retard, God? And why are we wasting all our tax dollars paying for the drooling retard? This is solved very easily by Patriarchy. It’s not just solved by having a department in government that deals with the problem. It’s solved by Patriarchy.

 

And so one of the first principles of Patriarchy is that every man is king and priest and judge of his own house! I’ll say it again, for those that aren’t listening. The first principle of Patriarchy is that every man is king, is priest, is judge of his own house! And general. That was a component as well. There’s a martial component to it. And so every son, every boy wants to respect his father for the man that he is. And I can’t empath into how girls think, because I’m not a girl, but I would assume it’s similar. Not the same, but I assume it’s similar. I obviously have daughters. And you know what I was sad about when I was growing up? Not sad, but one thing I was surprised at was I asked my dad why he never joined the army. Because I know his dad was in the navy or in the Defense Force. I know his granddad was in the army.

 

And I remember asking my dad:

 

“Why weren’t you in the army?”

 

And he was just like:

 

“Oh, look.”

 

Because they had the draught for the Vietnam War, and he was of that age, and he just never got called up. So he was like:

 

“Oh, I got lucky!”

 

That was his answer. I think he said something:

 

“I got lucky. You know, you put your birthday in. You had to register. You put your birthday in.”

 

And he said something about “balls with birthdays” on them. Like, it was like the lotto. Like, they’d pull a ball out. And if it was like, March 18th, which is my dad’s birthday, then you’re going, you’re signing up.

 

And I thought that was absurd! But it’s one way to do it. I mean, it’s fucking clown world! But anyway, that was his position, was like:

 

“Oh, he got lucky. He avoided it.”

 

And I always thought to myself, wouldn’t it be cool? I always thought, wouldn’t it be cool to walk into my dad’s office and he’s got all his, like, armour and his rifle? And I just had this idea of like. And it’s probably ancient. It’s probably something like an altar, like an altar to Mars, like an altar to masculinity, an altar to the Patriarchy. And then to be able to see my grandfathers and you know there are families that still, they keep all their family medals, the war medals and stuff.

 

[1:20:20]

 

But I mean let’s put that on steroids. It’s not just having like the medals, it’s like walk in and be able to see like generations and generations of uniforms and rifles and, or even before going all the way back to a family sword. That just, that idea is just so cool! And I think every like 10 year old boy thinks like that.

 

And if you don’t, you’re probably a faggot, or maybe you had the idea but in a different way. But if that doesn’t seem cool to you, yeah, fuck you basically! I don’t know. Yeah, you’re not in my gang, that’s for sure. You’re not in my tribe.

 

So back to the woman question. So [chuckling] respect, respect. You can respect that. And I didn’t respect my dad as much as I would have if we had something like that. If my dad had something like I kind of lost a little bit of respect for my dad when I was like 10 years old. When I was like:

 

“Why wasn’t my dad. His answer was he ‘got lucky’.”

 

I was like:

 

“Huh, I don’t know if that’s luck.”

 

You know what I mean? It’s like why would that be lucky? Obviously it’s a dumb war and blah, blah, blah and geopolitics is so broken and everything now.

 

But I think part of us is whether you go and fight in a war or not, I think men should be war-like. And I think the “retard budget” should be directed entirely into well first of all we shouldn’t be taxed as much as we are. So there shouldn’t even be a retard budget.

 

But obviously I like when we take power. I’m deleting the retard budget and putting all of it or most of it or some of it into building like the Stormtrooper halo suit Department. I’ve said this before.

 

To get back onto, someone just says:

 

“Fuck employment!”

 

[chuckling] Modern world does a Superchat:

 

“Thoughts on the employee question.”

 

I actually haven’t watched the podcast that young Michael Nelson did on the subject of employment but I can imagine what he was saying. My position has always been that you need to be productive, you need to be productive, you need to find a way of being productive. You don’t want to just sit around doing nothing! But you need to have times of sitting around doing nothing in order to think of productive things to do.

 

And when you’re in employment, like I have had nothing but issues with like Gen-X’s and Boomers that have employed me over the years where they want you to work 50, 60 hour weeks, they want you just in employment, they want you just head down and just hammer drill in the concrete and just ernnn! Or if you’re doing some other job that’s slightly more technical or less manual labour, it’s the same thing. It’s just head down and you’ve just got no time, no time to be a better man. You’re just stuck in a trap! You’re stuck in like a debt trap. And I don’t think there’s ever been a time in human history where anyone except slaves have worked six days a week or even five days a week. I just think that that’s slavery and they’re boxing us in. We’re getting boxed in and boxed in and boxed in! It’s so obvious what’s happening and it’s so obvious why Zoomers especially and Gen Alpha will be even more so, why people are checking out of this employee, … We’re just getting boxed in.

 

Like we’ve gone from nice blocks of land. There’s plenty of things to do, there’s plenty of animals to tend to. And then you work a couple days a week, you know, old mate needs help with something, you go help him, this guy and people were these warrior farmer builders first, and they were doctors and doctors and dentists and lawyers and tradesmen or skilled labourers second. And it was the pleb class. It’s always historically been the pleb class that became entirely microscopically focused on a singular trade. So like I do pottery, that’s all I do they live in a tiny little house in the city in Rome and they’re the Potter. And all they do is pottery and they just make pots and nothing else. And they do it six days a week, 12 hours a day. And they make pots and they sell the pots and they make pots and they sell the pots. That is what slaves do. That’s what slaves do. That’s slavery!

 

And so, but the whole economics is geared against us because of what they’ve done, because of interest, because of debt slavery. It’s because of debt slavery we can’t build intergenerational wealth where we can have big families on large plots of land where we can learn a whole bunch of skills and manage our farms and feed ourselves and look after ourselves in tight knit communities.

 

The whole economics is now geared that everyone’s a little bug, a little cog in the system. They do their little bug roll and they get their little bug ration and this is broken. This is not sustainable. It’s not going to last. How many generations is this going to go on for? Judging by how much Zoomers want to check out, I’d suggest that Alphas or Betas or what like two or three generations from now, if this problem hasn’t solved itself, I would assume things are gonna be very different.

 

[1:26:10]

 

 

And obviously tying this into politics we’re gonna completely change the zoning laws. Part of the problem with this is people living on 200 square metre little blocks, apartments, townhouses. Part of this is just so dysgenic. We need to not be slave bug people. We need space, we need land, we need multitudes of tasks. Specialisation is key. Don’t get me wrong. We built higher civilisation because individuals did hyper specialise into things. But making pots is not a hyper specialisation. You know what I mean? Like historically people did their specialisation part time. They’d worked a couple days a week doing, and it was usually what was called journeymen. They were usually journeymen like if they were a dentist, or a doctor or whatever and obviously there was no such thing as a lawyer. The whole system worked differently, like tradition, ancient culture and the higher becoming. We have better technology now, but it’s made us, I think we can do both. I think we can continue to improve technology without living like bugs. And I don’t think that interest slavery helped us increase our technology. The increasing technology is part of the life cycle. It’s part of the life cycle of civilisation. And it’s not going to continue progressing in this direction forever for two reasons. One, the law of diminishing returns. And two, we are destroying our stock. So we can’t. We’re going to be in a system decline. The car, the calibre of men that built the society. We can’t even maintain it. We can’t even maintain it.

 

And there’s an elite. They call it elite overproduction. But it’s not. It’s the false elite overproduction. We’ve built a false elite and that’s why these rodents that are all 100, 105 IQ, they got Master’s degrees. They’re absolute midwits! They’re not idiots, but they’re absolute midwits! They are the ones running this into the ground. We have allowed midwits to take over society!

 

And I’m not going to talk about what my IQ is because I don’t think it’s super important, but I think it’s clear that it’s at least one or two standard deviations above average. And we’re having midwits go through university, male and female, and then they’re taking elite positions, but there’s not enough elite positions, so they have to create positions for these other fake elites.

 

And that’s like psychology, for example. You’ve got so many idiots going through university and studying psychology. And so we’ve created a whole industry of government rebates here in Australia and in America you’ve got all this drug prescription and all this mental illness and all this compounding issues of the parasitism of psychology. Psychology, psychoanalysis, psychotherapists, all of this is a parasite economy. They’re all parasites. They’re all parasites! It’s one giant parasite economy! And the purpose of it is to continue to make the problem worse so that they can have employment. And so they will never, ever be able to solve the problem because a purpose of a system is what it does.

 

So that’s just one element of university that’s caused this over education. We’ve got this over education where if you don’t go to university, you’re a moron. And it’s like we have more engineers and architects than we’ve ever had and our society is uglier and more broken! So it shows you that exclusion is the rule to greatness. You need to be exclusive in order to create hyper specialisation. You can’t just send everyone to university or the vast majority of people to university, and then think:

 

“Oh my God, society is getting so much better!”

 

It’s like, no, we’re running off the inertia of intelligent, hyper selective people. And the show’s about to come to a halt. We have printed so much money! They’re literally printing like $8 trillion, not a trillion, 8 billion dollars a day in the US to keep their bullshit fake economy going. And it’s just leading to the Weimar conditions. And we’re going to pay for all of this. We’re going to pay for all of this.

 

And that’s why you need to be prepared. You need to be prepared. And I’ve gone off topic from Patriarchy, but it all ties together. You can’t cover the subject without covering it all. Obviously. I’ll take a pause and I’ll come back.

 

Someone asked me about the employment question. Yeah. You gotta have skills. Look, you gotta have skills. Home of the brave, says:

 

“Tom, you’re the embodiment of the spiritual healing of the entire European race. Hey, we approach phase one of total re-migration of nons in the West. Segregation. Stay safe!”

 

Nah, I can’t do that on the stream. It’s a good question. I appreciate the question. Maybe I can leave that to the end. I can’t do that at this stage. I have to cover the woman question. Celine says:

 

“As a younger White woman, I’ve had to come to terms with Jesus being brown when I’ve always pictured him as a tall White man. Jesus being brown makes me deny it. Christianity is more of a woman thing.”

 

I don’t necessarily agree with. I don’t know what Jesus looked like. But I’ll tell you a really funny story. I’m not sure if I told this story on stream. Obviously all the Christian identitarians are raging at you now because they’re all saying Jesus was blonde hair, blue eyed, Aryan. I saw a really funny post yesterday or last night where some guy was saying that Jesus was Italian. He was like:

 

“He was born in Judea of the Roman province of Syria. He was therefore Roman. He was therefore Italian. Jesus was Italian!”

 

I just thought it was funny. Obviously he’s not being serious, but I wonder what the implications of everyone saying Jesus was Italian would be. And whether that’s like a bit of an icebreaker. Because it’s like people say Jesus is a jew. Well, the Bible says Jesus is a jew. And then Christian Identitarian said Jesus was like a Nordic Aryan. And then it’d be funny if we just say like:

 

“We meet at halfway and say Jesus was Sicilian or something!”

 

That’ll [chuckling] cause drama, won’t it, that one! But that just would be funny. We’re like, Jesus was White passing. That’s like the compromise. Now I know you people don’t believe in compromise. They want it one way or the other. Maybe that’ll keep the peace for like five minutes. If we just say Jesus was Italian. It’s a theory. What’s the funny story? So someone in the conversation tell me if I’ve said this before on stream. I can’t remember. Some [chuckling] guy replied, “smartest women woman”. Look, I think I’ve only told this story in person. It’s story time. I might have said it once on stream.

 

[1:33:41]

 

So the last time I was in prison last year I was in solitary confinement and I wanted a Bible. Actually, this Bible right here, this one right here. King James. I wanted a King James Bible because I got my other prison Bible. This is the prison Bible I got the first time into prison. It’s the NIV*. Look at that. [chuckling] Presented to Thomas Sewell, Melbourne Assessment Prison. That was in 2021.

 

[* The New International Version (NIV) is a completely original translation of the Bible developed by more than one hundred scholars working from the best available Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts.]

 

Anyway. This is now:

 

“Bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh. She shall be called woman, for she was taken out of man. Adam and his wife were both naked and they felt no shame.”

 

Genesis 3:16:

 

“To the woman, he said, ‘I will make your pains in childbearing very severe. With painful labour you will give birth to children. Your desire will be for your husband and he will rule over you’.”

 

“Then the Lord said to Cain, where is your brother Abel? I don’t know. He replied, am I my brother’s keeper? The Lord said, ‘What have you done? Listen, your brother’s blood cries out to me from the ground. Now you are under a curse and driven from the ground, which opened its mouth to receive your brother’s blood from your hand. When you work the ground, it will no longer yield its crops for. You will be a restless wanderer of the earth.”

 

Yes, well, they got the mark on him. And I really wonder when circumcision started and when the restless wanderers of the earth started getting the anti-semitisms on him. Anyway, that’s just a theory. I won’t go too deep into that or piss people off.

 

But anyway, I got that version and I read it in full.

 

And I was like:

 

“Wow, okay!”

 

I probably should have read this the first time, but I wasn’t ready because you kind of you read the Bible when you’re a kid and you just like, you don’t read it properly, you don’t read it in full. And when you’re in solid confinement, you get a lot of time to read the Bible. And I read the NIV and I was like:

 

“Whoa, okay, this is definitely eye opening.”

 

And everyone’s trying to convert me. And I’m like:

 

“No, I can’t. Like, I just read it. I just read the whole thing. Are you kidding me?”

 

And they were like:

 

“You read the wrong translation.”

 

So then this time I went to prison. I went and got a King James. It didn’t make any difference for me. But I do think the King James is a better Bible. But story time.

 

So how did I get the King James Bible? So when I got to prison this time I got sent to Barwon, which is a much nicer prison. It’s older, but it is better. And because I was in Port Phillip before that. And they wouldn’t give me a Bible, they took my Bible off me. I got another NIV. I got a wait, is that King. No. So that’s a King James. No, they took it off me, sorry. I got that one later I got another NIV and when I got transferred from Melbourne Assessment the second time to the prison, the Barwon prison, they took my NIV off me and I had to fill out a form to get another Bible.

 

And I was like:

 

“Why? Why would you take the Bible off me? I don’t understand. Just let me keep the book.”

 

And they’re like:

 

“Oh, it’s not your property. It’s the property of the MAP.”

 

And I’m like:

 

“So you’re going to send the Bible back to the MAP, back to the other prison?”

 

It’s just crazy! But they’re just there to fuck with you. That’s their existence. And they won’t even let a non-Christian man keep his Christian book. And so then I had to fill out a form to get a Bible. And to get a Bible you had to have a meeting with a priest.

 

So if you want a Quran, you could have a meeting with an imam. If you want to. Whatever it is what it is. I don’t know what the Buddhists have. But like there was these boxes you could tick. I ticked the Christian box and I picked the Anglican one because I’m an Anglo Saxon and I’m not a Catholic, I’m not orthodox, and my grandmother was Anglican. None of the men in my family went to church really, but the women did. And they were Anglicans and so, Church of England. So I picked the Anglican box and it took two weeks.

 

And then this guy, I get pulled out of my cell and I get put in like a visitor room and I’m put in there with a priest. And I’ll just check the comments. Have I told this story on stream? Because I won’t go into too much detail if I have. Oh Jesus, so many comments. Have I told this story before? I’ll just tell the story!

 

And so he was like. I asked him:

 

“Why are you Christian?”

 

And he told me a story. The priest, he said that when he was a teenager he was really angry and him and his mates went out to this golf course and they had a BB gun and they shot a bunch of magpies or something. A bird, I can’t remember what type of bird I think was a magpie. Magpies. And he just felt horrible! He just felt horrible about it afterwards. He had a lot of regret and guilt about killing these magpies.

 

[1:40:02]

 

And then, he was raised in a Christian household, in a Christian environment, but he just wouldn’t go to church. And after like leaving the Church for a year or two and kind of hanging out with the wrong kids and you know, doing bad stuff, like shooting magpies with BB guns, as like most 14 year old boys probably would if they had a BB gun, he started noticing the kids walking home from church. They just looked happier. They just looked happier. And he was like:

 

“I wanted that happiness. I wasn’t happy and I wanted that happiness. And so I started going back to church and I asked my priest, when I was 14, I said I want to be happy like the other kids, they’re all happy. Why am I happy? And the priest said to me, you have to surrender yourself to God. You have to be God’s slave. You have to submit yourself. And once you submit yourself, then you’ll be happy. Then you’ll finally find peace. Because you’re fighting God and that’s why you’re unhappy. And you just have to stop fighting. You have to give up! And when you give up and you let go, then you’ll finally be happy.”

 

And he says:

 

“Why do you ask?”

 

And I was like:

 

“So I asked because I’m not Christian, but I ticked the Anglican box because it was the closest thing that I could do. But what I really want is a Bible. So I’ve got something to read in here because they’re torturing me and I’d like a Bible.”

 

And he was just like:

 

“Oh, okay, okay, yeah, but why do you want to know why I’m a Christian?”

 

I was like:

 

“Oh, I’m just fascinated. I want to know your story. Like you’re a priest. Like you’re obviously highly motivated to be a Catholic, Anglican priest. You know, I just, I want to learn more about your journey and like how that, how do you become an Anglican priest?”

 

And then we talk a lot more about this subject. And he’s very, he’s very apprehensive. He’s very like on the back foot the whole time, very defensive. And yeah, just the way he explained it to me, I said to him:

 

“You know, do you still have this same attitude? Like, do you still feel this way about God? Is that your relationship with God?”

 

And he said to me, he said:

 

“I wake up every morning, and the first thing I do every morning is I pray to God and I say, God, I am your slave. Let your will be done through me! I am your vessel. I am your slave on this earth!”

 

And I was like:

 

“You do that every morning?”

 

And he’s like:

 

“Yep, that’s what I do.”

 

And I was like:

 

“Wow! That is fascinating!”

 

And he’s like:

 

“It is, isn’t it? And I know that might sound really intense, but it works. It works for me! And I’m so much happier. Life is so much easier this way. It’s just so much easier! Like, I don’t feel what I used to feel. And, look, I still have challenges, and I’m a grandfather now, and da, da, da, da. But life is just so much easier this way!”

 

Okay, [chuckling] what the fuck! Okay. Anyway, an hour goes by, we shake hands, and he goes:

 

“Nice to meet you, Tom. Blah, blah, blah.”

 

And then the second time I meet him, so I ticked the box again. I want to have another conversation. He says to me right at the end, he goes:

 

“Do you want to meet me again? Do you want to talk to me again?”

 

I said:

 

“Absolutely! I really enjoyed this conversation.”

 

“Are you sure?”

 

I said:

 

“Yeah, I really enjoyed this conversation. I really enjoyed it. I would like to meet you again.”

 

And he said:

 

“Okay, well, what about next week?”

 

And I was like:

 

“Maybe not next week. I need a bit more time to digest this conversation. But maybe give me two weeks.”

 

He said:

 

“Okay, two weeks, Same time, same day.”

 

I’m like:

 

“Excellent!”

 

So this is my only human contact. I’m in a concrete box for two weeks straight. And then I meet up with him again. He walks in and he’s nervous. He’s so nervous! And he says:

 

“Tom, I have to be honest with you. I Googled your name. I thought I recognised you, but I Googled your name, and it was really hard for me to come in today.”

 

And I was like:

 

“Oh! Why is that?”

 

And he said:

 

“Because, … There’s a lot of people in this prison, and they’ve really beautiful people that have done really horrible things. And I’ve never felt like this before where I felt selfish that I didn’t want to come in. But I prayed to God this morning, and I said God, I don’t want to talk to this man. I don’t like this man. I think this man is evil, and I don’t want to speak to him. What should I do? And what God told me was that’s why you have to go speak to him. Because he’s evil. Because he’s evil, you have to go speak to him. That’s why!”

 

I was like:

 

“Oh, okay, all right.”

 

And then I said to him:

 

“You ever spoken to a paedophile?”

 

I said:

 

“Have you ever felt that way about a paedophile?”

 

And he was like:

 

“No, no. There are some really beautiful people in this prison. Some really beautiful people in this prison.”

 

“Never felt that way about a paedophile? Okay, interesting! Well, luckily, you are God’s slave, and that God forced you to come in here today to speak to me!”

 

And [chuckling] he said:

 

“I want to show you something. I want to show you my God! I want to show you my God!”

 

And I was like:

 

“Okay, you want to show me your God?”

 

“Are you ready? Are you ready for my god?”

 

It’s this weird, passive aggressive, feminine. He’s got tears in his eyes. And he’s like:

 

“Before I do, can I ask you a question? Why did you want to speak with me?”

 

[1:46:16]

 

And I said to him:

 

“Because I told you the truth last time. My grandmother was an Anglican. I’m an Anglo Saxon. I ticked the Anglo box, not the Catholic box. Simple as.”

 

And he was like:

 

“But me specifically, did you know I was the Anglican priest. Me, personally?”

 

And I was like, I think his name was [changed]. And I was like:

 

“Leslie, I don’t know who you are. I just know that you’re an Anglican priest.”

 

He goes:

 

“You don’t know about my past?”

 

I was like:

 

“No, I don’t know. What is your past?”

 

And he said:

 

“Well, I want to tell you a story, Tom. You know, I had to take a stand against, … I mean, there’s a lot of evil men in the world., …”

 

And he’s talking like a lesbian. He speaks like a lesbian, right? He’s like:

 

“There’s a lot of, …”

 

Like a feminist. He’s like:

 

“There’s a lot of evil men in the world. And Donald Trump comes to mind, and Adolf Hitler comes to mind. And when I was younger, there was a man that came to power in Australia that reminds me of Donald Trump, and his name was John Howard. And when John Howard came to power, he had an immigration minister called Peter Dutton, who you might know, because he was running for prime minister recently. And they imprisoned people in concentration camps on, …”

 

I think it was like, Manus Island or something, one of these islands off the coast of Australia:

 

“And there were these people, these desperate, honest, loving, caring, they were God’s children, and they wanted to come to Australia, and they begged for our help and our safety. And they were refugees, …”

 

And he’s literally crying! He’s literally crying!:

 

“And we locked them and their children in concentration camps on these islands and treated them so horribly! And I had to make a stand, so I went and visited them!”

 

So he goes to the concentration camp and he’s like. [chuckling] He says:

 

“And I like painting. And I met this man, and he was a refugee, …”

 

And I think he was Iranian or Iraqi or something like that. I think Iraqi. And he goes:

 

“And I met this Iraqi man, and his name was Fadim, …”

 

Or some shit! And he goes:

 

“I said to him, you are so beautiful! You are such a beautiful man. Can I paint you? I want to paint you. Will you let me paint you?”

 

And then he said:

 

“Yes, I’ll let you paint me. And then I painted him.”

 

And it’s hot. It’s so weird! He’s holding a, he’s got like a, he’s got the, … Imagine this is the painting of the guy, but he’s got it like this, and he’s holding it on the table, and he’s holding it upside down. And he’s holding upside down on the table, and he’s like:

 

“I want to show you this. And the reason why I want to show you this is because when I was painting him, I looked into his eyes and he was crying. He had tears in his eyes as I was painting him. And I was painting him. And the whole time I was thinking about Jesus on the donkey going into Bethlehem as a refugee, needing safety. And I thought, this man is from that region. This man is from the same region, very similar region, near the Euphrates. And he’s a refugee as well., …”

 

You can predict the whole conversation, can’t you? Like, I’m drawing it out, but I’m drawing it out for effect. This was the tone this guy was taking with me.

 

“And I still remember. And I thought to myself, this is what Jesus would look like, and this is how Jesus would feel if he was here right now with us, seeing what John Howard, behaving in a fascist man manner, putting these innocent people in concentration camps! This is how Jesus would be looking at me. So I painted him. So I painted my God! This is my God, Thomas! This is my God!”

 

And then he shows me a painting of a brown man crying. And he’s like:

 

“This is my God! How do you feel?”

 

A picture of a brown man crying. And I was like:

 

“Fascinating! Fascinating! That’s your God?”

 

He’s like:

 

“I want you to have this. I want you to put this up in your cell.”

 

And I was like:

 

“No, no, I don’t want it. It’s your painting.”

 

He’s like:

 

“No, this is a copy of it. This isn’t the one I painted. This is a copy. I want you to have it. I want you to put this in your cell and I want you to look at my God! And I think that will really help you and I think that’s why I was sent here today to give you this painting.”

 

And I was like:

 

“It’s a decent painting. You’ve done a good job painting it, for sure. This is not my God! This is your God. This is not my God! I can’t put this in my cell. It’s just not my God! Not my God! There are many gods. This one’s not mine. This is your one!”

 

And [chuckling] that was the end of the conversation! And yeah, fuck, I’ve just had too much life experience at this stage! [chuckling]

 

[1:52:11]

 

And when I got out of jail, I’m gonna Google this church that this guy’s from. And it’s like gay flags and trans rights and refugees are welcome and all this shit!

 

And it’s like [chuckling] women pastors! These people, they’re sick! They make me sick! People in the chat saying, Jesus’ Italian. Man. A lot of, lot of Superchats to go through. Jeez. How much more do you want me to go, in a detail about that one? Oh, I don’t know what it is. It’s not dopamine, but it’s some sort of chemical. There’s some chemical in the brain. It’s just surreal! It’s like a surreal chemical. It’s not dopamine. It’s the surrealism of it. It’s the surrealism. Hyper, hyper, what do they call it? Hyper realism. How are these people real? They share this planet with us. What planet are they on?:

 

“I felt really bad for the magpies. That’s why I had to go back to the Church!”

 

Well, yeah, obviously you shouldn’t just like indiscriminately kill animals!

 

But what he was doing at 14 was what all 14 year old boys do, is they’re testing themselves. They’re seeing, can I do it? Can I do it? Can I put meat on the table? Can I put meat on the table?

 

And I said to him:

 

“Are you a vegetarian now?”

 

When he talked about the magpies, I said:

 

“Are you a vegetarian?”

 

He’s like:

 

“No, no, I’m not, but I make sure I thank God every time I have meat. And I thank God for what’s happened to the animal and pray for the animal.”

 

And I’m like:

 

“Yeah, that’s fair enough. That’s good. I respect that.”

 

I have a lot of respect for that. I think that’s important when you take life and you’re consuming that life. Trans. The transmutation of it. Transubstantiation. Yeah. Like you’re putting meat on the table and you shouldn’t indiscriminately kill, but you’re doing what all teenage boys do when they’re going through puberty is they’re seeing not just if they can do it, but they go over the top. You know what I mean? They go a little, you go a little bit over the top and then you dial it back in. You’re like:

 

“All right, that was unnecessary.”

 

But he’s gone, he’s dialled it back in so much that his God is a brown man crying. That he has to live with White people!:

 

“He has to come live with the White people! He has to! We have to let them in! We have to!”

 

This is what his God wants. So look, obviously if you’re a Christian and you’re watching this, you would be disgusted by that story, that this is the calibre of priests. This is not Patriarchy. This is not the original church. This is not anything like the Greeks or the Romans or the Hebrews or even the jews. This is like the jews don’t even behave this way. This is like sub-Aryan and sub, even sub-Hebrew behaviour. And like ancient Hebrew, if we’re going to call it that. But this is like a completely poisoned chalice and these people are church leaders.

 

And so, yeah, it’s been completely infiltrated by communists. This is the downward path. They’re cherry picking document a book that has a lot in it.

 

As I said, the Bible’s a million things! There’s a million words in it. There’s a lot going on in that book. You can cherry pick whatever you want to articulate something, but what you can’t lie about is the general progression of themes and the general moral structure that the Bible is putting forward.

 

Now, is there, in my opinion, contradictions of the moral structure? I think there are some things that, and I’ve discussed them, I won’t go into them today. But you’ve all heard me say what I think is contradictory in there, within the moral, within the framing of a lot of things. And in short, I don’t like the story of Jacob and Esau. I don’t like that story.

 

Well, I mean, I don’t like the character! I don’t like the individual. And I don’t like the moral of that story. I think it is either miswritten or it’s not correct, it’s not right, it’s not fair, or there’s missing data, something’s missing from it. In my opinion. Like that would be the only way I could describe it as a moral story. Anyway. But the Bible’s full of that, of this kind of fight of morality. And you can see the schism of morality. You can see the schism of an ethnicity or the schism of a people are schisming, which is I guess one of the main themes of the whole text.

 

But if we just come back a little bit and we don’t talk about the Bible and Christianity, we just talk about the theme of Patriarchy, which is beyond just Christianity. I think that’s one thing the pagans and Christians can both agree on, is that we need Patriarchy.

 

And I think the Christian view is that women are inherently prone to an evil influence, just as men are, but that it infects the women first. And you can kind of see that with how giving women the right to vote and the late Enlightenment values of total, absolute human equality led to the suffragettes and led to women voting and led to first wave, second wave, third wave feminism that has come out of that structure. And we can see the damage that that has done to society. Anyone that can’t is obviously an idiot! But we can see the damage that it’s done. And yet women are also capable of fixing the situation. That’s also interesting.

 

As I said before, when I started women, more women voted for Adolf Hitler than men!

 

[1:58:41]

 

 

So that is a very redeeming quality when you realise that. Well, hang on a minute. Why? How could that possibly be? How could that possibly be? And what that might give a little bit of Credence to is this idea that when there is a strong leader, when there is a return of masculinity and a return of Patriarchy, women are actually more inclined to notice it than men. Women are more intuitive to the cure than men are. They’re more sensitive to the disease, but they’re more sensitive to the cure as well.

 

So I had a thought that ran through my head yesterday or the day before, which was, if we don’t contain women or restrain women, who will? Who’s going to? Because what we can see by the decline of the last hundred years of civilisation is we have removed the barriers, all barriers, every barrier possible, and said:

 

“No. Men and women are exactly the same!”

 

And we have done this to the detriment of women. We have not improved their life, and more importantly, we have not improved civilisation, and we have not improved the fucking mission. And the mission isn’t to make women happy. I want to make that very clear. That’s not the mission. It’s not to make men happy either. You know what this guy’s talking about? It’s like he accepted God because he wanted to be happy. That’s what Nietzsche talks about. That’s crazy! Well, it’s not crazy, but it’s like, that’s not why you should accept God. That’s selfish! That’s not the mission. Morale is not your happiness. It’s your willingness to fight. You have to fight for a mission. You have to fight for a purpose, for meaning.

 

And I believe you have to fight for life itself. Life is an upward struggle. And my religion, my personal religion is what my interpretation of Hitler’s religion is, which is that it’s about struggle into victory. And that these things aren’t necessarily steady states or acts of being, but they’re acts of becoming. Struggle is an act of becoming into victory, which is also an act of becoming.

 

So it’s never ending. It never ends. It’s like beyond time because God has to be above time. God can’t be subject to time because then he’s not God. So God is above time. So therefore, struggle and victory have to be conceived as being principles above time. That it’s like infinite struggle for infinite victory. It’s just like a yeah, it’s like you got a hail victory and you got a hail struggle. You got a hell struggle to hail victory! You know, which is a bit. Yeah, a bit different to:

 

“I just wanted to be happy! I just saw all these people around me and they were happy. And I just wanted to be happy. I just wanted to be a good person because I was a bad person!”

 

You know what? Yeah. [chuckling] Very different sense of moral structure and moral framework. So yes, Patriarchy, restraint, it’s about building a world that is driving towards this goal. And the relationship between men and women in that world is one built off respect, not pandering.

 

And so the issue with our society at the moment at a just socio-economic level with 50, 60% divorce rate, with the family courts tearing families apart like all the societal diseases we’ve got, is about, what they all come down to regarding the bad relationships between men and women and is that women have on average more respect for the government and more respect for the system, for the justice system or for the police than they do for their own husband and their own father. That’s the issue!

 

So a system needs to be built by husbands and fathers that form a collective, that form an organisation that are all on the same page with how they’re managing their family. It’s up to them how they manage their family. But they’re all roughly on the same page as to how they manage their family. A nation is a collection of families. It’s not a bunch of gay men masturbating into each other’s assholes and adopting kids. That’s not a nation. That’s just craziness! A nation is a bunch of families. You know, the family is the building block. This is not a meaningless platitude. It is the truth! You cannot have a nation without families. Because a nation is an extension of the family.

 

And so therefore the leader of a nation has to be the extension of the leader of a family. And the leader of the family is the father or the grandfather or the great grandfather, if he’s still alive. Like that is the leader of the family.

 

And that’s how society has always worked. And it’s a sacred, ancient, basically unwritten rule. I mean, we don’t even need to write this down. This is a reality.

 

And anyone that disagrees with that reality is our enemy. Because they disagree with it, because they care more about something else than making our society, our civilisation, our blood, our spirit, our life force, move upwards. They care about something else. They care about some sort of momentary happiness or some sort of:

 

“I want to feel good. I want to get along with everyone.”

 

Like this is their God, this is their God!

 

And so those people shouldn’t be given the same rights as the Patriarchs, as the people that acknowledge that:

 

“Hang on a minute. We’ve tried that. What it leads to is like millions of Indians and Arabs and Africans coming into our country and just like raping and pillaging and destroying it economically, socially, and sometimes unfortunately, physically.”

 

And these consequences are obvious. And we’re going to structure society in a way that this doesn’t happen going forward. So yeah, it’s non-negotiable. I’ll go through the comments and wrap up the stream.

 

[2:05:06]

 

Where are we? Where are we? Celine’s got another question. Just something about I don’t like Christians. Cool. Three story Rory:

 

“G’day, Thomas. What do you think about starting a petition for Joel Davis similar to one for Brandon Koschel? Chances of their release are low, but this activism can rally support and drive attention.”

 

A petition? I don’t understand what a petition is. Yeah, I’m not in the petition business because it doesn’t work. It doesn’t do anything. There’s a petition to deport me to New Zealand with a hundred thousand signatures, and yet here I am in Melbourne, Australia.

 

So look, the way we get Joel out of prison is either he’s released because the Supreme Court has a sense of the law and will enforce the law and the law says that he should be released from prison. And the Supreme Court follow through with that because the magistrates certainly don’t uphold the law. They’re activists. They’re political activists that do what the politicians tell them to do. That’s the only way to get him out of prison. Or we wait for the infinity amount of time he’s got to be in prison.

 

But yeah, sorry, a petition is not going to do anything. It’ll help raise awareness and that’s really the purpose of petitions. But no, I’m not in that business:

 

“Thank you for your sacrifices and bravery. God bless!”

 

Yep, thank you. A lot of comments. A lot of comments. Fanny Schrute says:

 

“Jesus was Italian.”

 

I think that’s the way to go. Someone gives me $100 for the cause:

 

“No need for acknowledgment.”

 

Thanks, mate. Celine’s got another one. Something about KGV, Shakespearean old English language. Stone Mountain:

 

“What are your thoughts on infidelity in women versus infidelity in men? And are our highly successful Chad man with multiple baby mothers a greater good or bad for society?”

 

Oh, that actually brings me to what I was meant to talk about the manosphere and stuff and we just end up talking about Christianity. Yes. That actually brings me to the second half of the stream, and we’ve been going for like two and a half hours. It’s crazy! This is madness, guys!

 

Yes, yes. Look, let me get a glass of milk. Let me get a glass of milk. And I have all these thoughts that I’m gonna put down. Because there’s just been so much chatter about the manosphere and looks maxing and Louis Thoreau’s recent thing. And I made a little post. Obviously most of you have probably already read my post, just explaining, the TLDR [Too Long-Didn’t Read]. These people that are trying to embarrass the manosphere, which is quite easy, clearly. These people are not morally triumphant. These people are equally as bad, if not worse than the manosphere. And don’t get blindsided by this and fall into some trap where you’re going to take moral, what’s it called? Not legalisms, like lectures. Don’t take moral lectures from these freaks! These people are easily as bad, if not worse than the manosphere people. The manosphere people, a lot of them are not good people. I want to make it clear this next segment is not in defense of the manosphere. I’m not saying that. I’ll explain how you should accurately interpret why this phenomenon exists and how it needs to transmute into something much better. I’ll be back. I’ll just close this little thingy. Two minutes.

 

[2:11:12]

 

 

[Remainder of Transcript in Progress]

 

 

[3:41:59]

 

 

END

top

 

 

 

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

 

Rumble Comments

top

(Comments as of 3/28/2026 = 34)

DJTriumph
Supporter
18 hours ago
the James Mason podcast was great
11
0

‹ Hide 3 replies
FLmetalhead
12 hours ago
Where is it?
2
0

‹ Hide 1 reply
Hazelmango
Supporter
10 hours ago
https://ftjmedia.com/live/0/DaveGahary/ls/2444
3
0

Jaymeo1
12 hours ago
Link ?
1
0

‹ Hide 1 reply
Hazelmango
Supporter
10 hours ago
https://ftjmedia.com/live/0/DaveGahary/ls/2444
2
0

eclipseNF
11 hours ago
Where is it?
1
0

baileyspunts
13 hours ago
Man i love when Sewell streams. White pill every time
11
0

LachlanMD
21 hours ago
L foids
6
1

‹ Hide 1 reply
RoseRock444
Supporter
19 hours ago
Nah. W foids
4
3

Jomaha22
20 hours ago
Every time I see that text “manosphere” I cringe. Where did this analogy came from? Ayn Rand male equivalent?
5
0

‹ Hide 1 reply
imSofaKingRayZest
12 hours ago
im guessing its the “every single time” crowd
2
0

christophawilkins
16 hours ago
hail
4
0

imSofaKingRayZest
12 hours ago
great to see another talk mate
3
0

squatmech
18 hours ago
There never anything wrong with the volume wtf is wrong with these people it’s like if you get kicked out of hundred bars but with low volume…
1
0

eclipseNF
14 hours ago
What’s the 5 hour stream where is it?
1
0

‹ Hide 1 reply
Hazelmango
Supporter
10 hours ago
https://ftjmedia.com/live/0/DaveGahary/ls/2444
2
0

‹ Hide 1 reply
eclipseNF
9 hours ago
Thanks a lot

imSofaKingRayZest
12 hours ago
whats gonna get too us 1st, terminator or mad max?
1
0

‹ Hide 1 reply
CrazyRecluse
Supporter
1 hour ago
Mad Max. These fuel shortages are serious & AI cannot become conscious – it is built from outside-in, life evolves and self-builds from inside-out.

imSofaKingRayZest
12 hours ago
ive never heard of any abbos trying to claiming other abbo land that was taken in their tribal warfare, but the land whites took on the other hand will always be theirs??? and dna shows the have only been here for about 5000 years, coming from india and they were not the 1st people in australia, the originals were eaten by them.
1
0

TRUTH1488
11 hours ago
Where can I find that james mason podcast
1
0

‹ Hide 1 reply
Hazelmango
Supporter
10 hours ago
https://ftjmedia.com/live/0/DaveGahary/ls/2444
1
0

Tax_Cow
VerifiedSupporter
5 hours ago
Our boomer parents have been hooked on the TV since childhood and they’ve been soaking up jewish propaganda for so long that they aren’t capable of independent thought. Despite whatever their friends and family say, what the TV says is the bottom line. Unwitting agents of our destruction, professing to be enlightened because they watch the talking heads on TV every night.
1
0

CrazyRecluse
Supporter
1 hour ago
Tom, im glad you still give Abos a chunk of land as their own country. African americans & native americans are similar. Thats the best way. I like wat you are doing but im softer on nons. I feel that at this point we may have to give all nons a chunk of western nations, as their own nation. Set cameras up and make documentaries on how they make a clean 1st world society to a 3rd world shithole. Juxtapose it with our first world living. This way we will document in 4D why we will never live with them again. We would play multiple weekly reality TV shows akin ‘Running Man’ & ‘Hunger Games’. This would change our culture. Then we will make museums to store these films and all the injustices we suffered with/from them. Especially the lil caps. Then maybe in the future we might decide to conquer them & retake the land, and put them where we want, maybe isntreal? Or put these brown masses in africa, or somewhere low on resources, since they cant mine them anyway. Tom, I also think 90%+ whyte is a good target. Because the good ones that help us have a reason to. But once we have control we can create policies to reduce their breeding over time: a white centred society; they will admire us or leave; we will be re-morale-ized; etc. If they dont want to accept it, they can always leave. Caramel island is an alternate choice for them too.
1
0

birdhouse456
15 hours ago
The problem with “where is the aboriginal land” is that their concept of it completely different to ours. We look at different metrics. They can’t just pick up and move their culture because it’s linked to place. If they don’t want to give that up they will be motivated to go to war regardless. Or, they’ll just be squeezed out and fade away, because once they are away from their territory the culture doesn’t function. Now we have a hybrid that succeeds at neither way. Maybe there can be agreement with some tribes but others will disappear completely. it’s similar to the clans of the Scottish Highlands. The culture survives, but it’s not what it was.

BossLurker
9 hours ago
Parasites and retards

BossLurker
9 hours ago
The whole “in the past they weren’t truly conservative they were only going off inertia” is actually an extremely good point

‹ Hide 1 reply
BossLurker
8 hours ago
Around 59:27

leibekohne
5 hours ago
Tom you have some criticism from USA NS bit-chute or odysee. The abos solution is good. I will give them a bare-bush land without any infrastructure, also they have to create own if needed financial system with own currency. This is about purity and recuperation of race thus Australia + has to be 100% white otherwise there will be no progress.Those idiots want to convert abos and save theirs lives but had no problem with murdering 35.000 white Boers woman and children. Cake destroyed Egypt Greek Roman empires by usury and by miscegenation. 1000 year of Romans were destroyed by 100 years of Christianity=Judaism 2.0= children blood drinking sacrificing cannibalism. Germany were destroyed in WW2 by another stupid and manipulated white men who should know better. White international unity.

CrazyRecluse
Supporter
56 minutes ago
Tom, I emotionally agree to boot out all leftists, or white antiwhites. But something for you to consider: Richard Spencer says that whites can build because we have all levels of people Elites, managerial class & working class. Dr Ed Dutton “white race functions like a bee hive”. So we might need to select the better ones and put in breeding policies to get them to their 15% balance. Because nearly all managerial class are leftists.

eclipseNF
14 hours ago
More and more blackpilled every single day
2
3

‹ Hide 1 reply
imSofaKingRayZest
12 hours ago
life is struggle mate, learn to laugh in the face of these demons and keep the sprits of our ancestors lovingly in your heart. heil victory
7
0

trvkvlt
2 hours ago
Thomas Sewell is my rabbi
0
1

drshreddie
6 hours ago
you need a better background, the baby blue with the books isnt working. How about a more masculine color with a NSDAP banner? I know this seems trivial but perception is a big deal and your message is important.
0
4

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

See Also

top

 

 

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

Jacob Hersant: So this is a video where I’m going to explain this new Bill that the Australian government is bringing out in the wake of the Bondi shooting where two Islamists went and shot a bunch of jewish people. And the jewish lobby has pressured the government to bring out these really extreme laws which practically nobody is happy about, really. Only the jews are really happy. Labor Party obviously draughted these laws on behalf of the jewish lobby. But everyone else seems pretty annoyed about it, so I’ll go through it. I haven’t seen any videos that comprehensively go through what the Bill says and what is so egregious and why it’s problematic. So I’ll do that in this video.

 

First I’ll give a disclaimer that I’m not a lawyer. No lawyer has gone through and talked about all of this stuff. So unfortunately I’m the best that you have. The only reason I’m interested in it is because it’s going to be affecting me and my organisation, the National Socialist Network. So that’s why I’m making this video.

 

I’ll be providing photos of the Exposure draught as I read it. I’ll also show the link so you can go read it yourself to make sure that I’m not misinterpreting it or I’m not making any mistakes. If I’m making a mistake, please message me, tell me how I’m wrong in my interpretation, and I’ll be happy to retract what I said and correct it for people, because I just want to try to give an honest assessment of what this law is and the effects it will have on society.

 

So this is a massive bill, they call it an Omnibus Bill. It is going to change a lot of things.

 

So a lot of its about to do with criminal law and hate speech. But it also does have some gun stuff. Not going to talk about the gun stuff because I don’t know much about guns. And this video is just going to be too long. I’m more interested and know more about the politics aspect of it and the hate crimes and hate speech and that aspect of it.

 

So that’s what I’m going to be talking about. I’m sure there’s someone that can talk about the gun aspect of it and in all likelihood the two are going to be split. The gun stuff will probably be chucked into its own Bill and the hate stuff will be bundled in its own bill.

 

I’m going to start off by talking about what this law does regarding hate and what they call “violent extremism, hate speech, hate crimes” and all the like. It’s all doublespeak. The bill’s called “Combating Anti-semitism, Hate and Extremism Bill 2026”. So in the title, they don’t even hide who it’s for. Obviously, on behalf of the jewish lobby, they’re the only ones that support this law currently. And because they have an outsized influence over Australia’s politics, that’s why this egregious Bill has even been introduced.

 

Part One is “Aggravated offences for preachers and leaders”.

 

So this just goes into the Criminal Code and it makes it so that there’s a bunch of laws where if a person is a religious official, or a spiritual leader, while they commit the offence, they can be imprisoned for longer. So it aggravates it makes the judge give them a more severe sentence. And the charges specifically are to do with encouraging violence and encouraging terrorism and all these kind of charges.

 

So when you look at the Bill here, it doesn’t specify what the crimes are, but those crimes are basically advocacy of violence and advocacy of terrorism. If this Bill passes, if you are an imam, or a priest [or rabbi?] or some other spiritual leader of a religion, you can be punished more because you advocate violence. So that’s part one.

 

And then I’ll move down to Part Six, bundled part six with part one, because it’s the same kind of thing, the same kind of change there. And it’s just for when these spiritual leaders, the charges are when you’re trying to get a young person, someone under 18, to commit violence as well. And more or less the same thing, though it is in a different section of the bill. They have changed the penalty to a person might commit an aggravated offence if the person is a religious official or other spiritual leader.

 

So in terms of grooming children for violence or for advocating terrorism or inciting violence against a particular group, if you are some sort of spiritual leader, religious official, you can be punished more severely. This is obviously going after Muslims. This is to punish Muslims more severely if they’re caught saying stuff about Israel and Palestinian resistance against Israel. This is pretty obviously what this is directed towards.

 

So Part Two is there’s increased penalty for using a postal or similar service to menace, harass or cause offence. And that’s been increased to five years in jail. So that’s what Joel Davis has been charged with and he’s still being remanded now. I think it’s been two months or maybe even more.

 

[06:09]

 

So Part Three is “Aggravated sentencing factor”. And this affects the Crimes Act 1914. And it basically makes it so all criminal offences can be aggravated by being racist. So if you commit a crime because you’re racist, you can be punished more severely by the judge.

 

Read out the specific part:

 

“The person’s conduct constituting the offence was motivated, whether wholly or in part, by hatred of another person, or a group of persons, and that hatred was because of the person’s belief that the target person or persons in the target group are distinguished by race or national or ethnic origin.”

 

So theoretically, if somebody raped a woman because he hated that woman’s race or nation or ethnicity, he can be punished more severely than somebody who rapes a woman for choice and noble reasons, like lust or hatred of some other kind.

 

Every single crime now, if you can be proven to be a racist, you get punished more severely. That’s basically what this aggravated sentencing factor is if the crime you commit is motivated by hate, well, racism or nationalism, then you can be punished more severely. That’s what this change means.

 

But basically every crime can be turned into a hate crime, essentially. So if you assault or rape or murder, then it can aggravate it if it’s proven that you’re a racist.

 

So Part Four is “Prohibited hate group”. And a prohibited hate group is a designation that the Home Affairs Minister can give out. So the current Home Affairs Minister right now is Tony Burke, for the Labor Party. This legislation allows the government to ban particular organisations. It can ban organisations, it can unban them as well, and they can add multiple names to a ban.

 

So if you ban an organisation, you can’t just rename it because that’s going to be banned as well. They’re just going to add it as an alias. So you can’t just get around the ban by rebranding.

 

So to be designated a prohibited hate group, that group has to have committed a “hate crime”. And they define what a hate crime is so here it is. 1 14. A. So definition of a hate crime:

 

“A hate crime is conduct that would constitute any of the following offences. Urging or threatening violence and offences against groups or members of groups to the extent that the targeted group is distinguished by race or national or ethnic origin.”

 

So either:

 

“Publicly displaying prohibited symbols or giving a Nazi salute.”

 

So a hate crime can either be threatening violence or it can be publicly displaying prohibited symbols, like the swastika or giving the Nazi salute. And then here it says:

 

“A hate crime is also conduct that was engaged in at a time before a provision referred to in subsection (1) commenced and would constitute an offence against the provision had the provision been in force at that time.”

 

What this means is that you don’t have to have committed a hate crime after this legislation passed. If you’ve given the Roman salute or you’ve displayed a swastika, as your group, then you’ve committed a hate crime and you can be listed as a hate organisation. So you can be punished retroactively. I will further explain this, but make no mistake, being listed as a hate organisation is a punishment in itself. So the process is the punishment!

 

And you got to remember, a hate crime can be just political expression, like flying the swastika or moving your arm in a gesture in a Nazi salute. That is political expression. And if you just do that, you can be banned for being an organisation that gives the Roman salute. So you can be banned for retroactive conduct.

 

This is insane, because laws aren’t supposed to be retroactive. Non-retroactivity is a fundamental legal principle. That law should only apply to actions occurring after the law was enacted, not before, preventing new laws from punishing past behaviour.

 

Everyone just takes that for granted. But when you have the jewish lobby demanding laws, they really don’t care about what we take for granted, obviously.

 

For banning an organisation, a conviction is not required. So:

 

“A person does not need to have been convicted of a hate crime in order for the AFP minister (which is the Home affairs guy, so Tony Burke) to be satisfied, an organisation has engaged in conduct of a kind mentioned in paragraph one.”

 

And then there is:

 

“No procedural fairness required. The AFP minister (so Tony Burke) is not required to observe any requirements of procedural fairness in deciding whether or not the AFP Minister is satisfied for the purposes of this section.”

 

So basically that means the people that are affected by the banning, so say the National Socialist Network was banned, we get no hearing, no say, no chance to respond, no recourse, no explanation about what’s happening. You’re just basically told:

 

“Tough luck! Like, enjoy being banned!”

 

So yeah, you get no hearing, you get no way to explain yourself or try to defend yourself in front of a judge or anything like that. And that’s what they’ve written right here, “no procedural fairness required”. Which is another legal principle that the jewish lobby don’t care about. They don’t care about what’s called natural justice or procedural fairness.

 

So:

 

“Director-General of Security advice to be provided before specifying an organisation as a prohibited hate group.”

 

So Mike Burgess has to give advice to Tony Burke or the Director General of Security has to give advice to the AFP minister and he has to be satisfied that:

 

“The organisation has engaged in activities, and that the activities or the like, the continued engagement in the activities would or are likely to increase the risk of politically motivated violence or of the promotion of communal violence.”

 

You have to use your intelligence here and think about what they’re saying. Obviously the logic that people like Mark Burgess are going to say is that because you’re engaging activities like giving the Roman salute that those activities are going to make it more likely that people go do terrorism.

 

[14:04]

 

So that’s what it’s saying and that’s what’s going to be argued. So if this Bill passes, Mike Burgess is gonna go tell Tony Burke:

 

“Well, yeah, giving the Roman salute makes it more likely that terrorism is going to happen in the future. They need to be banned!”

 

If Mike Burgess thinks that giving the Roman salute, giving the Hitler salute and saying “Heil Hitler” and wearing black clothes makes it more likely that someone is going to go out and blow up something or kill a bunch of people, well then your organisation gets banned.

 

So that’s what happens. So they can list an organisation. And when an organisation gets listed, then it opens up people to be charged with a number of offences that relate to that prohibited hate group.

 

Those offences are:

 

“Directing the activities of a prohibited hate group.”

 

Which can get you 15 years in jail.

 

“Membership of a prohibited hate group.”

 

And you have to keep in mind that being a member of an organisation you can be an informal member of the organisation and you can be charged with this because they define member of a prohibited hate group as:

 

“A member of an organisation includes a person who is an informal member of the organisation and a person who has taken steps to become a member of the organisation. And in the case of an organisation that is a body corporate, a director or an officer of the body corporate.”

 

So if you’re in so-called informal member of an organisation, you can be charged. So:

 

“Membership of a prohibited hate group”, 7 years.

 

“Recruiting for a prohibited hate group”, 15 years.

 

“Training involving a prohibited hate group”, 15 years.

 

“Getting funds to, from or for a prohibited hate group”, 15 years.

 

“Providing support to a prohibited hate group”, 15 years.

 

And most of these offences have a lower offence if you’re convicted for one of them while being reckless rather than, I guess knowingly doing it. So being reckless means that you’re aware of a substantial risk that you’re doing the crime, and it changes like the imprisonment from like 15 years to 10 years if you’re only proven to have recklessly done it.

 

And the only defenses that you have are either you didn’t do the crime or you were a government agent when you were doing the crime. So if you’re some sort of informant or secret agent infiltrating a hate organisation then you have a defence, but otherwise you have no defence.

 

This legislation is obviously directed towards having a chilling effect on advocacy and activism of organisations outside of the mainstream. That’s obvious.

 

And you gotta remember that there is no procedural fairness. The fact that your organisation gets banned and then you have 15 years hanging over your head, that’s the punishment!

 

And obviously having your rights taken away that you can’t politically associate or politically express yourself in that particular way, that’s the punishment!

 

And I’ll go off on a little bit of a tangent here. In my case, the Roman salute case that was brought against me in the Magistrates Court for which I was convicted and then I appealed. Went to the county court and was had had the conviction against me upheld. They argued that the Roman salute offences are very narrow and hence it could be justified taking away that form of political expression. They did admit it was political expression but they said they could take it away because it was relatively narrow what it was.

 

Well you know, now it’s having very serious consequences because that offence, giving a slew has been recategorized as a “hate crime” and it can be used to retroactively ban a organisation like a 300 man organisation and threaten its leaders with 15 year sentences if they continue. A lot of the judiciary get too focused. They get narrow minded, they don’t understand like how dangerous these laws you give them an inch, they’re going to take a mile. And this legislation is taking a mile. It is insanity! Also vindictiveness! Like I don’t know how it could occur to you to have a maximum of 15 years for some of these charges when you can be prohibited as a hate group because you moved your arm in a particular way that offends the jews!

 

And another case that I saw on the news today actually funnily enough was someone who’s been charged with threatening to kill the Prime Minister Anthony Albanese. And the charge for which he’s been charged, threatening to kill an MP is a maximum of five years.

 

So you get a maximum of five years for threatening to kill an MP. If you direct the activities of a prohibited hate group. A prohibited hate group that gave the Roman salute. You can be in prison for 15 years. That sounds perfectly reasonable!

 

So Part Five is “Racial vilification offence”. And this offence is:

 

“Publicly promoting or inciting hatred. A person commits an offence if the person engages in conduct in a public place.”

 

And to be clear, the Internet includes a public place.

 

Basically everywhere is a public place except for inside your own home where it can’t be seen by the public. But the Internet counts, as is sending it through the mail, some sort of business, or out on the street or something like that. All counts as a public place.

 

So the conduct is:

 

“Promote or incite hatred of another person, or a group of persons because of their race, colour, or national or ethnic origin, or disseminate ideas of superiority over or hatred of another person, or a group of persons because of the race, colour, or national or ethnic origin of the target or target group. And the conduct would, in all the circumstances, cause a reasonable person who is the target, a member, or a member of the target group to be intimidated, to fear harassment or violence, or to fear for their safety.”

 

And they call the “reasonable person test” as an objective test, but really it just comes down to the judge to decide who a reasonable person is, to describe who the reasonable person is so really, it isn’t actually a objective test. It’s just a subjective test. Like, it comes down to what the judge thinks. It’s not like there’s any empirical data about who this average person is based on polling or anything. It just comes down to the judge, who he thinks, he or she thinks this reasonable person of the group of a particular ethnic or racial group is.

 

[21:42]

 

And obviously you can be charged here with a criminal offence if you:

 

“Disseminate ideas of superiority over a group of persons because of their race, colour, national or ethnic origin.”

 

So you can’t say that particular nations are better than other nations. So if you say “Australia is better than China”, well, you could be charged. You could be charged with this. I’m not saying that that’s likely to happen, but with what this law says, I’m somebody who is disliked by the government. If I said that “Australia is a better society, Australia is a better nation than China”, well, that’s disseminating an idea of superiority over a group of persons because of their national origin. Maybe I could say that and someone feels intimidated or they feel fearful. And the issue is, there’s so many people in this society that feel intimidated or fear from the littlest things. We’ve become a very soft society. And judges love to rule based on sentimentality when it comes to these things! And you can be imprisoned up to five years for publicly promoting or inciting racial hatred. Yeah!

 

So:

 

“For the purposes of subsection 1, it is immaterial whether the target or members of the target group actually are distinguished by the particular race, colour, or national or ethnic origin, or the conduct actually results in hatred of another person or group of persons, or the conduct actually results in any person feeling intimidated, feeling harassment or violence, or feeling fearing for their safety.”

 

So what that says is that they don’t have to prove that any person of that particular race or nation or ethnicity was present and kind of a target of it. They don’t have to prove that hatred was actually kind of incited in somebody. They don’t need to prove that anyone was intimidated, felt harassed, or feared for their safety. None of that actually has to be proven because a judge can come up with this magical, reasonable person of that group, this imaginary person, and say:

 

“This person has been targeted. This imaginary person has been targeted. It could potentially have led to hatred being incited in other people and it could have potentially intimidated or made someone, this imaginary person, fear for their life.”

 

At least you have a defense here for religious teaching or discussion:

 

“Subsection (1) does not apply to conduct that consists only of directly quoting from or otherwise referencing a religious text for the purpose of religious teaching or discussion.”

 

So this is lucky for our Muslim friends who can quote directly from that Hadith saying that the stones and the trees are going to tell them where the so the Muslims are safe in that regard, and so they should be.

 

“Part 7. Hate symbols – Reversing the burden of proof for public interest elements of prohibited symbols offences.”

 

So it means that there’s already these hate symbol laws. So if you display a hate symbol or you display the swastika or give the Roman salute, there were defenses saying that you could do these things as long as there was a public interest like a religious, academic, educational, artistic, literary or scientific purpose that isn’t contrary to the public interest.

 

And previously the prosecution would have to prove themselves that this hate symbol or the salute wasn’t given for one of those legitimate purposes. So it’s been flipped now, that if you display this a symbol or give the salute or anything like that, then you can be charged. And then you have to prove that you did it for a legitimate purpose, like a religious, academic, educational, artistic, literary or scientific purpose.

 

And so basically this gets rid of the presumption of innocence, and so it makes it easier for the prosecution to charge people and drag them through the courts. Because if you post a picture of Hitler with the swastika, you can be charged. They don’t need to prove that you did it for hateful reasons. Actually you need to prove that you didn’t do it for hateful reasons.

 

So that’s what it literally does. It reverses the burden of proof. An example would be if I posted a photo of Hitler next to the swastika. I can be charged easier because the prosecution doesn’t have to prove that I posted it for a hateful purpose. I have to defend myself in court and say, perhaps I posted it for an academic purpose or to teach or something like that.

 

[27:15]

 

The other thing is the prohibited hate group symbols are added to the criminal offences. So it’s not only just terrorist symbols and the swastika and the Roman salute. So if NSN got banned, the converging arrows, for example, the converging arrows, flag or the patch, you’d be able to be charged with displaying that.

 

These laws also have a minimum one year in jail. So a judge has to give you a year in jail if you’re convicted of this.

 

I’ve went through all the hate speech stuff in this Bill with you. I think it’s clear that the people that wrote this Bill don’t care about the basic legal principles that are supposed to underpin the whole of our judicial system, like natural justice, presumption of innocence, freedom of speech, freedom of association, proportionality. Non-retroactivity.

 

So what has been the response? One Nation has come out opposing it, which is good for them. The Liberal Party have come out opposing it as well, but they’ve said that they want to come up with their own version of it, which I suggest would be far more watered down than this, which would be good.

 

But these laws don’t need to be passed. There are laws that stop people. Well, that criminalises terrorism. It’s not like the person who went and shot those people in Bondi is at liberty because there’s a fault in the laws. He’s going to spend the rest of his life in jail. Changing the laws isn’t going to fix any of this. It’s going to make it worse!

 

The real danger isn’t what we have to do to apparently solve “hate”. The problem is what are we going to do to solve the fact that we have a government that wants to destroy all the principles that are supposed to underpin our judicial system because they don’t like particular groups, opposition groups in society, whether they be National Socialist or Islamist.

 

The response from the entire online Right has been very positive. Like everyone is raging about this, like it’s all that anyone is talking about in the Australian Right-wing now. Everyone has come out against it.

 

We have the Home Affairs Shadow Minister, this guy, the dishonourable Jonathan Duniam, some total nobody no one’s ever heard of or cares about. And he was mocking the National Socialist Network for us, saying that this Bill is draconian.

 

Jonathan Duniam:

 

“Of course they cite in that statement that these laws ‘most draconian in the universe, making freedom of speech impossible, etc, etc’. Clearly they’ve seen this identification of formal groupings and hate group listing etc., as something to try and avoid, which is good in one sense.”

 

And then I think he went and checked the Internet and saw that everyone else was saying it as well and then he changed his positions.

 

What’s the response been from the Muslims? The Muslim response has been good. They’ve been coming out against it and you know, they shouldn’t be banned. There’s been like arguments that the problem with these laws is it doesn’t come out hard enough against Islam. These laws shouldn’t be passed at all! Even if they were going to be just confined to Muslims. These laws need to be opposed. We don’t need to ban any of these Muslims organisations. Now just because two Muslims went and killed 15 people, it doesn’t mean that we have to destroy the judicial system that governs 27 million people. Like the threat is not these two Muslim terrorists killing 15 people, it’s the Commonwealth that is unnecessarily going to destroy all of our freedoms. Proposing this supposed solution that’s not even going to do anything. It’s not going to do anything to stop terrorism.

 

And then we saw fat Ross who runs the White Rose Society, she’s an anti-fascist. She described it as “state oppression”. I think you’re right there for once. And then Socialist Alternative came out against it. Their front group for Palestine. So they’ve got a group they use to organise Palestinian activists. They came out against it, so good on them.

 

Jews say it doesn’t go far enough. To be expected. I don’t think I need to comment much more on that.

 

Mainstream media has largely came out against it as well. They’ve been publishing voices that come out against it. They haven’t really been publishing any voices that go for it other than the jews. And everyone, when it comes down to it, everyone hates this Bill other than the jews. And luckily I don’t think it’s gonna pass.

 

And the Greens have come out against it. But they said they might be open to just amending it. But I’m not sure how likely that actually is. But wouldn’t it be just a perfect summation of how stupid and disgusting this country is, if after a Muslim terrorist attack in Bondi they draughted these laws which go to severely persecute and oppress National Socialists and Islamists, if the Greens amended it so that it didn’t go after Islamists and then it only affected National Socialists! So White Australians and National Socialists would be the only ones who get punished for an Islamist terrorist attack. Stranger things have happened. That sounds like something the Commonwealth would do. And that just tells you how reprehensible it is.

 

But in the first place, the fact that we are under threat, the National Socialist Network is under threat from laws that are draughted up from a Muslim terrorist attack says all that it needs to. Why are we getting banned from for an attack that has nothing to do with us? I could at least understand the rationale, even though I’d disagree with it, if some sort of Right-wing or nationalist person went out and shot people, or shot an MP or something like that, I could understand the rationale. But for us to be banned for Muslim terrorism?

 

Yeah, with the Greens and the Coalition coming out against its looking more and more like it’s not going to pass, which is a good thing.

 

Nonetheless, the National Socials Network is disbanding. Some people are disappointed by that. I saw someone on Twitter, or X as it’s now called, said that:

 

“We should be martyrs and that we should continue operations until we get charged with these 15 year offences.”

 

He said:

 

“Just be the martyrs, bro!”

 

Well, perhaps you should do that in my stead. Maybe put on a converging arrows patch, make your own one, dress up in black and go out there, get arrested on our behalf. Just be a martyr, bro!

 

And there’s not going to be any way to get around this. Like they’re not going to be charitable, they’re not going to help you out. If you even slightly do something that could be perceived as continuing the organisation after it gets banned, you’re going to be arrested, charged, remanded and facing serious jail time.

 

[35:20]

 

There’s no oversight in terms of whether or not the listing is correct. Like you get listed, it’s a done deal! You go before a judge, if you are genuinely continuing or doing any of those offences, there’s nothing he can do. He has to find you guilty or you go before a jury. And if they find you guilty, then you’re getting punished severely. You’re getting probably half a decade in jail at the very least.

 

And there’s been people on the far-Right who love to engage in victim blaming. So they say:

 

“The only reason this is happening is because the National Socialist Network engages in street activism, dresses up in black, praises Adolf Hitler, gave the Roman salutes in the past.”

 

All of that kind of hard hitting, confronting street activism. But we’re not the ones that pass these laws. Like agency obviously belongs to the legislature and the people who control the people who run the legislature, so obviously the jewish lobby.

 

So if anyone is to blame for these laws, it’s not the groups that are being banned. And it’s being done in response to these two Muslim shooters in Bondi. But it’s not even their fault. It’s not the fault of Muslim preachers, it’s not the fault of National Socialist activists. And this is the thing. It’s taking the blame away from the actual agent that has perpetrated this, who has created this, and it’s pushing it on the people who are getting targeted and who are going to suffer the most from these laws.

 

The real blame is the jewish lobby and the Australian government. That is why these laws are coming through. The people that push for them, the people who wrote them up and the people that passed them. But the issue is even if we had better optics, these laws would still be being brought through and we would still be under threat of getting banned. And this has been proven by other countries where you have groups like Generation Identity in France that got banned by the French state. I don’t think anyone’s gonna argue that their optics were an issue. Their optics were pretty tame, yet they got banned.

 

So whatever represents the strongest force of nationalism in a particular country, the jewish lobby and the government is going to try to legislate them out of existence. That’s what’s going to happen. And if we were the Nationalist Network and we didn’t wear black clothes and we just wore regular clothes, I guess regular bourgeois clothes, maybe suits and ties and had said “Australia for the Australians”, if we were the biggest group, we would still be getting banned. That’s the truth!

 

In this regard, all roads lead to Rome, as I’m sure some of you have seen in the memes recently with the rabbit with its clock. You know, it doesn’t matter which road you go down, you’re eventually going to go to Rome and it doesn’t matter what road you go down when you have an unjust system, you’re eventually going to be banned by it if you’re a big enough threat to its agenda. So you need to stop bargaining with the system when it’s fundamentally unjust.

 

And the optics people, the only thing that would be different in this situation is these optics people, because of their particular ideas of activism, they would just be a bit more sympathetic.

 

But people should stand for principles and ideas and for an actual fair legal system more than just perception and optics, in my opinion.

 

We really don’t need to total our legal system. What angers the government and the jewish lobby is that we have deeply felt political conviction and that we want to do whatever we can to further our political agenda while staying on the right side of the law. So we’re trying to stay within the legal framework while pushing forward our political agenda, what we deeply, deeply believe in. And that is what angers them the most. And it angers them so much that they don’t care about their own rules, they don’t care about their own judicial system, they don’t care about any of this.

 

Of course, the jewish lobby never really cared. It shows you that the people that profess to be liberal Democrats in this government and one of their claims for legitimacy, how little they care about it. They don’t care about their own rules, they don’t care about their own system anymore.

 

And it’s pretty obvious that these people have no respect for the system of government that our ancestors erected at the beginning of the last century. I might have a so-called “violent extremist” opinion here, but I don’t think we should total our legal system. The legal system and the principles underpinning the judicial system of yesteryear, it’s actually one of the things I do like about this country. And they accused me of hating Australia. You know, I don’t hate Australia. I don’t hate the nation, I don’t hate the continent.

 

I do certainly hate the Commonwealth, because a government that cooks up legislation like this is reprehensible!

 

[41:19]

 

 

END

top

 

 

 

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

 

Gab Comments

top

(Comments as of = )

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

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

Blair Cottrell: What do you guys think about mass immigration into Australia?

 

 

Teenager: Fucking deport them all! Deport them all!

 

Woman: (with No Nazis sign on her shirt front) Are you a proud Australia?

 

 

Blair Cottrell: Yeah, absolutely!

 

Something’s happening!

 

 

[Walking with others to the event]

 

Male: No, you’ll be fine:

 

“You’re putting everyone’s lives in danger.”

 

And all this shit! It’s the same event, …

 

 

Male: Hi Blair!

 

Blair Cottrell: Hey, boys, what’s up? I’m trying to squeeze through. Hey, Sewell. How’s it going?

 

 

Thomas Sewell: Yeah, good to see you.

 

Blair Cottrell: How’s everything so far?

 

Thomas Sewell: Well, the update is we’re waiting for the other organisers. We’ve ejected Avi Yemini.

 

Blair Cottrell: Yeah, I heard that.

 

Thomas Sewell: And that’s about it.

 

Blair Cottrell: You all right? You got hit?

 

Thomas Sewell: No, I got pepper sprayed.

 

Blair Cottrell: Okay. You recovered quick.

 

Thomas Sewell: Yeah.

 

Blair Cottrell: Hello.

 

 

Woman: Hello.

 

Anyway, good to see you. Good to see you.

 

Woman: Yeah, nice.

 

Blair Cottrell: Thanks for coming. Glad you can make it. I’m so glad.

 

Hello. How’s it going?

 

Woman: Hi, Blair. Nice to meet you.

 

Blair Cottrell: Nice to meet you.

 

Excuse me, guys. I’m just going to try to get through to the commotion, to see what’s going on right there.

 

Man: Good on you Blair!

 

Avi’s right there.

 

 

Blair Cottrell: Where is he? I can’t see., … He’s really small in real life, Avi. It’s really hard to see him.

 

Man: It’s Sunday, Avi! No work on down on the Shabbath?

 

Blair Cottrell: Excuse me, guys. Troysa, what’s going on?

 

Man: We love you Blair.

 

Blair Cottrell: Have a good one. Thanks, lads.

 

 

So I think what just happened, the path we were planning to march down was blocked. I don’t know who was blocking it, but the crowd just broke through.

 

Good on you, mate. Cheers!

 

It’s a huge march. The numbers here are crazy! I didn’t expect this many people.

 

Excuse me, guys. Sorry, guys. Sorry.

 

Man: How you going, mate?

 

Blair Cottrell: Good, bro. Cheers!

 

 

This is crazy! So many people. This is even bigger than the lockdown protests. Feels bigger. The energy is just electric! Everyone’s so pumped! Media goons and government bureaucrats telling everyone not to go. Looks like it had the opposite effect.

 

Woman: Blair!

 

Blair Cottrell: Hey, how’s it going? Good to see you. Thanks for coming.

 

Something’s happening!

 

[running down the street]

 

So what’s happening is, eggs and water bottles and cans are being thrown by these, … What are they? Socialists? Communists? They’re throwing cans of fruit and eggs and full bottles of people. Someone just got hit in the head with a can of fruit, and there’s no cops! Everyone’s just fighting it.

 

 

[crowd booing and jeering]

 

 

So what happened back there was crazy! The march for Australia was set upon by a counter-protest. Cans of fruit, eggs and full bottles were launched at people trying to march.

 

 

There were no police initially, but the counter-protesters, they don’t seem all that serious on actually fighting because despite there being no police there initially, they didn’t actually charge into the March for Australia. They kind of hung back a few. Few meters and just threw missiles. It seems to have held the march up for maybe five minutes, but hasn’t had much of an impact on the spirit. If anything, it’s just agitated people further.

 

 

This crowd is absolutely massive! What I’m looking at now is what seems to be, I don’t know, somewhere between five and 10,000 people, just completely filling, … What street is this?

 

Woman: Burke Street.

 

Blair Cottrell: Burke Street.

 

Woman: The media said a few hundred people.

 

Blair Cottrell: A few hundred?

 

Woman: The media.

 

Blair Cottrell: Yeah, they will, yeah. Why do the media say there’s only a few hundred people when there’s clearly thousands?

 

 

 

Woman: They’re going with the agenda.

 

Blair Cottrell: What agenda is that?

 

Woman: To destroy us.

 

Blair Cottrell: To destroy us.

 

Woman: To take our freedom.

 

 

Blair Cottrell: This is crazy! There’s just. There’s no police escort, there’s no security, nothing.

 

 

This is just Australian patriots, nationalists, just marching in mass directly through the city!

 

 

 

[A guy handing out leaflets for The Noticer; gives one to Blair]

 

Man: Hey, bro! How you going?

 

 

Blair Cottrell: Good.

 

[shakes hand]

 

So it looks like we’ve just arrived at Parliament. Parliament House, Melbourne.

 

 

 

 

I suppose when you get numbers like this, everyone becomes emboldened. They realise they’re not alone. And so the energy is fire.

 

Excuse me, guys. Cheers.

 

 

Auspilled: And so, as a spokesperson for March for Australia, the announcement I’m about to give is being given across Australia. It is being heard by hundreds of thousands of Australians.

 

 

[Hugo Lennon, aka, Auspilled]

 

After we march here today, I would like every patriot gathered here to participate in Operation Raise the Flag.

 

[crowd cheers]

 

 

I’m honestly surprised they even have the Australian flag up there. [Parliament House]. We must fly the flag every single day at our homes, our work, and in our community. Our brothers in England with their Operation Raise the Colours have been massively successful!

 

 

We must stand in solidarity with them. We have one struggle, and that is to end mass immigration!

 

 

[crowd cheers]

 

Everything you see was built by us!

 

 

[crowd cheers]

 

Harrison McLean: (Australian Freedom Rally) Our single unifying message today is to tell the Australian government to stop mass immigration!

 

 

[crowd cheers]

 

Thomas Sewell: (White Australia) Today, our men stood at 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 loudly]

 

 

I’m not here to sell you T-shirts. Those people are rallying on a different day.

 

[scuffle in the crowd]

 

Sorry, there’s a disruption. There’s a communist trying to get to the stage.

 

[crowd booing disruptor]

 

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!

 

 

[loud cheers from the crowd]

 

Blair Cottrell: Hey, bro.

 

 

Man: Big fan of your work!

 

Blair Cottrell: Thanks, man! I appreciate it.

 

Man: I watch your show every week. [Joel and Blair Show]

 

Blair Cottrell: Hey, mate. How’s it going?

 

Woman: This is Kyle.

 

Man: Good job., … Started the marching, …

 

Blair Cottrell: Bloody oath! I agree. Hey, bro. How’s it going? Hey, bro. Good, man! It all turned out well, huh?

 

 

Man: Let’s get a photo.

 

Blair Cottrell: Absolutely, man! Let’s do it!

 

 

So we’re walking back to Flinders Street now, back down Bourke street the way we came. The speeches were a huge success. They seem to really invigorate the crowd. Everyone’s united against immigration.

 

Woman: Because we’re all just Aussies and we’re sick of the rot and we’re sick of the crap!

 

 

I was a nurse, I quit with Covid because of the abuse of the elderly, and I’m just over it! And I’m here to represent my people, my country. We love everybody! But if you don’t love our country, don’t come!

 

 

Blair Cottrell: Well said and thanks for coming. Good on you.

 

Man: Love your work, mate.

 

 

Blair Cottrell: Thanks, bro. Legend.

 

Man: Nice to meet you.

 

Blair Cottrell: Nice to meet you.

 

Thanks very much.

 

[11:50]

 

 

So the discussions people are having on the march is they feel that they’re being exploited. They feel the government, with its immigration policy, is taking advantage of Australians, taking advantage of the people here. There’s a fire here! There’s a positive energy, but it’s also a fighting energy. People have had enough. They’re fed up and they’re ready to fight! That’s the vibe I’m getting here.

 

Yeah. Good, bro. How’s it going?

 

 

Woman: Thank you Blair! You’re amazing!

 

Blair Cottrell: Thanks very much.

 

Woman: I’m Pru. [shaking hands]

 

 

Blair Cottrell: Blair. Nice to meet you.

 

Not really sure why we’ve stopped.

 

 

[crowd chanting; “Move them on! Move them on!”]

 

 

So the march was blocked by counter-protesters. I think they’re communists.

 

 

There was a strong effort by some of the main Leftist agitators, counter-protesters, to get pro-Palestinian protesters, like the Muslim community, on board against us. But it looks like the communists are on their own. It doesn’t look like all the Palestinian protesters have joined them. There’s probably 300 Leftists and at least 5,000 Australians here.

 

 

It’s amazing that this protest was formed organically. It was just online. People were just talking about it. People were sharing it around. No one, no individual had to actually plan this protest or promote it. The people did this themselves. It really speaks to the initiative of the Australian people. When they feel threatened, they take the initiative. They get things moving. They do it on their own!

 

All right, so it doesn’t appear as though the police are actually making a path for the march to continue.

 

 

So everyone started walking down this alleyway. It seems like this might break the crowd up a fair bit. So I hope everyone will be okay. But we’ll see what happens.

 

See, everyone’s just kind of making it up as they go. There’s no direction. This is what happens when police block your path.

 

Man: Hey, bro. How you going?

 

 

 

Blair Cottrell: Good, what’s up?

 

Man: Yo, are you Blair?

 

 

Blair Cottrell: I am, mate. Yeah.

 

Man: Nice to meet you. [shaking hands]

 

Blair Cottrell: Nice to meet you, bro.

 

Man: You say no [word unclear] forever. Love you, mate.

 

Blair Cottrell: Okay, so we’re almost back at Flinders Street.

 

Hey, gang. What’s up, bro? It’s good to see your face, bro.

 

 

[older guy stands together with Blair]

 

Take care of yourself.

 

This guy’s taller than I am. Where’d you find this monster?

 

 

Hey, bro, what’s going on?

 

[shaking hands]

 

It’s smart what the coppers do, though. They basically use the counter-protesters to form human barriers to prevent the march from going down certain directions going down the main streets.

 

So the march stagnates, everyone stands around, gets bored, and then starts dispersing down alleyways, and it basically breaks the event up early. The march successfully got to Parliament in one piece. Everybody made their speeches, the people who wanted to speak.

 

 

So the march was a huge success! This is where things get spicy, though, because now the march isn’t all together and we’re basically walking through Melbourne. Anyone can kind of jump out from anywhere. So if there’s any time to be high alert, it’s now.

 

 

[a guy wants a photo with Blair]

 

Yeah, bro, sure. Let’s do it! Yo, thanks, man!

 

Is that an American bullie, mate? That dog.

 

 

Man: Yeah. Hey. Hey, baby. Nice to meet you. [patting dog] Wow! She reminds me of my old dog.

 

 

I have to get some calories. [holding a drink]

 

 

Man: Australia for the White man, mate!

 

Blair Cottrell: Good on you, bro. Cheers!

 

The march for Australia seems to have arrived back at Flinders Street. Despite a few problems. Most of the people attending the march seem to have had to find their own way back after the main route was blocked by, …

 

Woman: (with “No Nazis: Never Again” Antifa sign on her shirt front) Are you a proud Australia?

 

 

Blair Cottrell: Yeah, absolutely! What’s your name?

 

 

Woman: None of your business!

 

Blair Cottrell: Well you approached me, so, …

 

Woman: I’m just saying, why do you feel proud today? Do you feel like everyone’s [word unclear] do you feel like everyone, your know, …

 

 

Blair Cottrell: I’m just proud of who I am and where I come from.

 

Woman: Where do you come from?

 

Blair Cottrell: Australia.

 

Woman: You come from England, by the look of you.

 

Blair Cottrell: No, my family’s from here. How about you?

 

Woman: You’re a fucking dumb shit!

 

 

[She walks straight off]

 

Blair Cottrell: All right. So clearly not everyone here is supportive of the rally!

 

Man: How are you? You had fun?

 

Blair Cottrell: Yeah, good, man!

 

How’s it all going? You happy?

 

 

Thomas Sewell: It was a successful day and we’re just waiting for the communists to go the fuck home, so that we can have fun.

 

 

Blair Cottrell: There’s been a few people here who are starting trouble. Have you had any interactions with Leftists.

 

Thomas Sewell: Yeah, they’ve started probably a thousand fights today and they’ve got smashed every time.

 

 

Blair Cottrell: Right. I noticed you guys at the front lines kind of protecting the march.

 

Thomas Sewell: Yeah, absolutely!

 

Blair Cottrell: Is that the role you’re trying to fill?

 

 

Thomas Sewell: That’s one of the roles, yeah. It was a massive success and it shows that the national new system is taking back control.

 

Blair Cottrell: Did you guys go to the march? March for Australia?

 

 

Teenager: No, just got here. But I’m on Australia side.

 

Blair Cottrell: Right, good man. What do you guys think about mass immigration into Australia?

 

Teenager: Fucking deport them all! Deport them all.!

 

Blair Cottrell: Is that your own opinion or did someone tell you to say that? Or you just thought of that yourself?

 

Teenager: No, thought about it myself. I’m a proud Australian, that’s all!

Blair Cottrell: Oh, there you go. The youth’s on board.

What’s up, bro?

 

 

Man: All right, bro.

 

Blair Cottrell: Thanks for coming.

 

 

So it seems like some of the protesters are being pushed down this direction by a combination of riot police and mounted police. The riot police have only shown up in the last 15 minutes, curiously, now that the march is off over.

 

[18:40]

 

 

But it seems like when the march is over and people are trying to leave to go home, that’s when things can become pretty violent because people break off from the main contingent, the main protests, and they’re ambushed, going back to their cars in parks, things like that.

 

Man: Yeah, I’m Travis Bickle*. [wearing army green jacket]

 

 

Blair Cottrell: Are you from Melbourne?

 

Man: Yeah, I’m from Melbourne.

 

Blair Cottrell: Do you know what this march is about?

 

 

Man: Yeah, it’s just to kind of stand up for solidarity for your country.

 

Blair Cottrell: One of the central themes to the march is to stop mass immigration. Do you support that message?

 

Man: Yeah, I do.

 

Blair Cottrell: Do you think there’s too much immigration?

 

Man: Yeah, I do. Yeah, I do think there’s too much immigration.

 

[* Travis Bickle is the antihero protagonist of the 1976 film Taxi Driver directed by Martin Scorsese. The character was created by the film’s screenwriter Paul Schrader. He is portrayed by Robert De Niro, who received an Oscar nomination for his performance.]

 

I’m now standing with remnants of the march, who seem to be mixed in with random citizens or people in Melbourne.

 

 

So some people here support the march and some people don’t. And some people don’t even know what’s going on.

 

I know immigration isn’t popular in Australia right now, but I still didn’t expect that many people to show up at a march to stop immigration with minimal planning, minimal promotion. Normally, to get a march of that size, you need a couple of months of promotion. You need institutional support. You need at least a couple of media channels, mainstream media channels on your side. It’s very difficult to get that many people to a protest on short notice, especially when you have no institutional support.

 

 

The institutions are completely against you! Because major media networks and political bureaucrats, government bureaucrats, they told people not to attend this march. They condemned the march before it happened, and they told people not to go! They made it seem like it was going to be violent and dangerous!

 

But the whole thing went off pretty much without a hitch. It’s extremely popular and the energy was great!

 

[20:47]

 

 

END

top

 

 

 

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

 

Rumble Comments (latest at top)

top

(Comments as of 9/3/2025 = 33)

yogafiretate
Supporter
32 minutes ago
The nsn is hurting our side stop with the larp already
0 likes

Report
ThisIsJamesL
22 hours ago
Good one Blair
0 likes

Report
Seanybruv
1 day ago
You’re a good sport Blair, I would’ve shaken your hand too
0 likes

Report
ZetaReticuli777
1 day ago

Home

0 likes

Report
TinyHatRemover
Supporter
1 day ago
Good work lads! We gotta keep pushing o/
4 likes

Report
ajoh355
1 day ago
awesome video Blair, thanks for posting it
2 likes

Report
fkiwi
1 day ago
I watched Avi’s stream. All he had was a few old boomer retards coming up to him praising and thanking him, no young people. Your experience was the complete opposite. Young proud nationalists stand with you. We are the future, the old boomer civnat liberal order is on its way out.
4 likes

Report
‹ Hide 1 reply
IsuckAtLifeThatsWhyINeedGD
11 hours ago
did you see how many older people were in this video? there were plenty! there are likely many more who couldn’t make it, sitting at home feeling grateful and relieved that those who are younger (and some older) are out there making a stand. stop the age hate!
0 likes

Report
Inevitable1488
1 day ago
Australian patriots are spearheading the secured existence of The White Race.
4 likes

Report
GirlPurple
1 day ago
Nice one
2 likes

Report
Winstein_Synagoguehill
1 day ago
Brilliant job mate you’re a natural. Don’t want to use the disgusting words “reporter/journalist”. Possibly start an independent media channel on YT.
2 likes

Report
SurfSk8Swing
1 day ago
Outstanding, way to go you Aussies!
2 likes

Report
Spaceman69
1 day ago
protests are cool. the will of the people. too bad its the equivalent of prisoners marching in the prison court yard demanding chicken parma everyday… no ones actually listening, and nothing ever changes. someone tell me ONE time a protest/rally ever changed anything, anywhere in the world EVER!?! ill wait… looking forward to the upcoming NSN arrest which are imminent LOL.. live stream that shat
-1 like

Report
‹ Hide 1 reply
GreenGladeAryan
1 day ago
Get back on the couch, pokèmon is on. Lower.
1 like

Report
› Show 2 replies
klinkaard
1 day ago
blair: truly loved by his people
6 likes

Report
Sieger88
Supporter
1 day ago
Tom’s speech was Hitler-esque.
7 likes

Report
WhiteBitchTripleSix
Supporter
1 day ago
Happy for you guys, sending well wishes from the US.
6 likes

Report
RupertV21
Supporter+
1 day ago
reclaim Australia
6 likes

Report
‹ Hide 1 reply
Spaceman69
1 day ago
so… did they stop mass immigration?
-2 likes

Report
Tadhg0003
1 day ago
White pills worldwide. Love the sea of flags. White Australia back in business.
6 likes

Report
EnglandAwake
1 day ago
Push for a march to be organised like that every month.
3 likes

Report
avonlop
1 day ago
I love this much look at all these people standing for their country.
2 likes

Report
MonThirteen
1 day ago
You were way too polite to that skanky Nazi hating hag. You’re going to make a brilliant politician. The sooner that happens the better. Hail Blair.
14 likes

Report
kitsubot
VerifiedSupporter
1 day ago
Love to see what is happening in Australia, cheers from the US.
14 likes

Report
Topsycrets
Supporter
1 day ago
Awesome work big fella
6 likes

Report
madphil69
Verified
1 day ago
Brilliant. Regards from Britain.
14 likes

Report
0_fxcks
2 days ago
The left truly showed their true colours on the corner of Bourke Street and Swanston Street when they spat on that 80-year-old woman for wearing an Australian Flag.
10 likes

Report
Angelalee0
2 days ago
Great content Blair.
12 likes

Report
NullPill
2 days ago
Good job
7 likes

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

See Also

top

 

 

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

 

Blair Cottrell: Okay, this Sunday on 31st of August, is the March for Australia, happening all across Australia.

 

 

Now, let me just be clear. I’m not organising this event. I’m not staking any claim on it. That’ll get me started on explaining to you guys exactly what’s going on, actually, because this is an organic phenomena. It’s happening all on its own. No one is really at the helm of this thing. It’s Australians coming together of their own accord.

 

 

That’s not the first time something like this has happened in my lifetime. I think the last time this happened was about 10 years ago with the Reclaim Australia phenomena.

 

 

And then prior to that I was still just a young fella. That was the Cronulla beach protests, which they call the “Cronulla Riots”. But the system just framed it that way.

 

 

Each time this happens, it happens in response to some form of immigration or foreign presence in Australia, which is a source of pain or disruption to our way of life!

 

And also because anyone who can do anything about this pain, anyone in government, is not only doing nothing, but they’re making the situation worse by forcing more immigration onto Australians! And we’re supposed to live in a democracy, you’re supposed to only get what you vote for. But no one voted for mass immigration! Yet they’re having it forced on them anyway!

 

But mass immigration is obviously becoming a serious source of pain for Australians, which is why they’re responding with this anti-immigration counterculture.

 

But what’s actually happening here, the way I understand it, is its like a national immune response to foreign bodies.

 

 

Just imagine your own body’s immune system. When too many foreign bodies come in, the immune system activates to protect itself, and it does that without you really thinking about it. It’s not like you have to plan out an immune response. Your body reacts on its own.

 

 

Australians are much the same. If you imagine Australia like an organism, when too many foreign bodies start coming in at once, the national immune system activates to protect the country.

 

 

And the cells within the national body which can potentially make up the immune system response are us! The Australian people!

 

That’s why there’s no single organiser or promoter for this March for Australia. There doesn’t need to be. Australians are doing it on their own.

 

 

And naturally, there are some networks of (((people))) who aren’t very happy about the formation of this anti-immigration counterculture.

 

But if you think about it, realistically, there’s only three different types of people who wouldn’t support the March for Australia and the call to stop immigration.

 

 

The first type are immigrants themselves. Obviously, they’re not going to support this agenda. They’re trying to get family members into Australia on some bullshit student visa, just so they can live here together. They want to stay here, they want to get more people in. It’s not really in their interest to support this. So obviously they’re happy to be here and they’re happy to keep exploiting the situation.

 

But the second group that’s actually exploiting the situation are big business owners and big property developers and capital.

 

 

The kind of immigration rates we’re seeing into Australia are inflating the labour pool to such an extent where the traditional Australian worker can be replaced with a more manageable slave class, which will work for less and live in smaller spaces. Which is great for big business owners.

 

But then you’ve got property developers. Immigration drives up the demand for property, so big property owners and lessors can jack up property prices and rent. This means big bucks for big capital. You know the kind of (((people))) that sponsor major political parties.

 

Now, the third group of people who won’t support the march, these are the more deranged types, the kind of people who fell for all the conditioning and propaganda in the schools. You know:

 

 

“Australia was invaded by evil White devils! And everyone in the world can be Australian! It doesn’t matter your race or skin colour!”

 

If you believe that, you’re basically retarded and you support mass immigration because you’re retarded!

 

 

If I go back to my analogy of the organic national body, these people would be like a disease network which are trying to suppress and attack Australia’s immune system to make sure we can’t defend ourselves, which really works to the interests of immigrants and big capital.

 

Now, the first two groups, you can understand their motivation, it’s selfish. But the third group is really twisted! Don’t waste your time arguing with them, just ignore them. These people cannot be reasoned with. They’ll say and do whatever they can to prevent the Australian people from actually organising into some sort of culture where they can resist government policy, because current government policy is feeding disease networks like them.

 

Now, if you don’t fall into one of those three aforementioned categories, you probably do support the March for Australia, because you’re a standard working Australian family!

 

 

You want to be able to afford a home for your family, you want decent living conditions. You don’t want your country overrun by people from the third world. It’s pretty standard, normal stuff!

 

The point is, don’t let anyone gaslight* you into believing that getting involved in political activity and process makes you evil or is pointless. If it was so pointless, then why would they be so intent on stopping you from doing it?

 

[* Gaslighting is a form of psychological manipulation in which a person or group causes someone to question their own reality, memories, or perceptions, often leading to confusion, loss of confidence, and dependence on the manipulator. The term originates from the 1938 play (and later film) Gas Light, where a husband deliberately dims the gas lights in their home and then denies it, making his wife doubt her sanity.]

 

I do think the best result for a protest like this is probably a new political organisation or party which can challenge the major parties, because Liberal and Labor, they both essentially have the same (((sponsors))) and their policies aren’t that much different. They’re not going to stop immigration, they’re just going to keep ramping it up.

 

I think the march on Sunday will be a good start. I’ll see you there!

 

 

[05:01]

 

 

END

top

 

 

Blair on the way to the March for Australia event in Melbourne.

 

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

 

See Also

top

 

 

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