Mark Collett: Hello everybody and welcome to tonight’s stream. We’re live on Odysee, Rumble, DLive and Entropy. And I’ve got a wonderful panel for you here tonight to discuss the big issue of, well, the last week or so, and it’s obviously Trump’s war for Israel or Trump’s war on Iran for Israel, to be more precise.

 

Now, the guys I’ve got with me I’ll be introducing shortly. It’s of course Natty and Yuro from the Nationalist A-Team. We’re going to cover some of the things we covered last Sunday quickly. And then we’re going to go deeper into things. Everyone’s going to get roughly an equal time to talk. I’m not going to be putting people on an egg timer, but we’ve probably got nine or ten topics and if everyone puts sort of three, four minutes into each topic, it’ll be about a 90 minute presentation. So stick around. It’s going to be pretty entertaining or at least pretty enlightening.

 

You might have noticed I’m not on camera tonight. My apologies for that it’s not because I’m being rude. Slightly under the weather today, actually. I don’t know whether I sound it and if I do, my apologies. But I am doing my best to essentially be as chirpy as humanly possible, all things considered.

 

Now, if you like this stream, please share it. If you really like this dream, please consider making a donation. Please consider contributing to my work. You can do so via Entropy and also directly through Rumble. Anything that is sent tonight, any Superchat, any donation that has a message attached, the message will be read out live on tonight’s stream.

 

So we will talk about that. So if you’ve got a different point of view, if you’ve got something you want to raise, if you think we’ve missed something, or if you just say:

 

“Look, Mark, I really appreciate the fact that you’ve been consistent for the last, 26 years and I want to keep you fighting even though you’re banned from everywhere.”

 

I appreciate that as well.

 

So thank you in advance for everyone who Superchats. You can also donate by crypto all the crypto links in the description below.

 

And finally you can write to me at mark@thefallofwesternman.com. Although I didn’t answer emails this morning, again under the weather. So sorry guys, back to things on Monday. Unless I’ve got some kind of horrible illness that drags on past then and sort of takes me out, which I’m sure I haven’t. That’s quite a morbid thought. Anyway! We are going to get into it now, but before we do that, let’s go around the group and we’ll introduce everyone.

 

Now, the first is of course Natty. You know him from the Nationalist A-Team and also from numerous other streams that he’s done with me in the past. Natty’s a guy that’s been around since the beginning of PA. He’s been to all the meetings, at conferences, camps, etc, and he’s always someone that everyone likes hearing from.

 

In fact, I always say that if I had a wingman on PWR, it would be this guy here. Natty, how are you doing, my friend? I hope you are well.

 

Natty: Yeah, I’m good. I’m enjoying watching Tel Aviv burn. I’m sure we’re gonna talk about the ins and outs of what that means, but yeah, I’m good apart from that it’s been a bit of a crazy week trying to keep up with everything and I think my wife has suffered constantly looking across at me and seeing my face buried in my phone because I’m trying to, I’m monitoring the situation. But yeah, it’s very interesting times.

 

Mark Collett: Do you ever get it where you’re out on the sort of a supposed family event and the wife’s like:

 

“Why aren’t you paying any attention? All you’re doing is sitting on the phone. What can be so important that you need to be on your phone at this family event?”

 

And you’re like:

 

“Look, you know, Israel is on fire. Tel Aviv is being hit with hypersonic missiles. Chill out!”

 

Natty: It’s like:

 

“Honey, there’s cluster munitions going off above a suburb in Tel Aviv. This is really important. [chuckling] I’m watching it right now! It’s amazing!”

 

Mark Collett: Well, yeah, [chuckling] that’s kind of that’s kind of the str. I’d say that that’s the struggle that we have.!

 

Anyway, we’ve also got Yuro with us tonight. He’s obviously famous because Yuro used to do The Absolute State of Britain podcast.

 

And again, he’s a very able wing man. He has been on the National A-Team standing in for Sam. He always has good takes, he’s a funny guy and sometimes I bully him a bit, which is a little unfair, but that’s because I love him and see him as like my little brother, My little brother who needs the odd sort of monkey scrub and jab in the ribs, but he’s like my little brother, so I still love him.

 

Anyway, Yuro, how are you doing, my friend?

 

Yuro: I’m good. I’ve also been keenly paying attention watching Middle East Spectator and other such channels on Telegram. You know, it’s, I think there’s a lot more censorship obviously during the 12 Day War that was going on between Iran and Israel before. It was very much like:

 

“Well, what can we believe? How much are they not showing you?”

 

And it’s just that more. So we see all of Iran’s failures and then some things that’s like disinfo and we see all of Israel’s successes and then some, and some of that’s disinfo. And it’s kind of hard to even know what’s real.

 

[04:47]

 

Natty: That’s a good point actually because just briefly, it does seem like the information blackout from Israel was way more intense during the 12 Day War. And it seems like now because of the scope and the breadth of everything, just more is getting through or you’re able to find out more. And I’m sure this isn’t true, if you check the BBC or just some other like ZOG regime outlet, you’re not going to be seeing anything hitting Israel. But that’s what everyone’s interested in. That’s what everyone wants to see. [chuckling] You know, how many hypersonics hit Tel Aviv? This time, you know what US asset has just been blown up by a drone in Saudi Arabia or Bahrain or wherever it is. That’s what people are interested in seeing. They want to see the underdog smacking the bully in the mouth. And that’s what happens when a cheap Shahed drone gets through a multi-million dollar interceptor screen and like blows up a THAAD [Terminal High Altitude Area Defense] radar system or something. That’s what everyone’s into, right? Everyone wants to see that. No one wants to see like Iranian suburbs being like caught on fire and hit with JDAMs and hit with Tomahawk missiles because that’s just brutal civilian casualties, which is what ZOG [Zionist Occupied Government] is good at.

 

Yuro: Well, the funny thing is to see America in this war using the copy of the Iranian kamikaze drones. They’ve got their own basically one to one copy of the Shahed drone that they’ve now rolled out and they’re starting to fire back at the Iranians. Because it was just like the near perfect design that they’re like:

 

“We can’t make any better than this. We’re just going to copy it.”

 

Natty: Yeah. You know, for the grand and mighty American empire is reverse engineering Third World brownoid country drones [chuckling] that sound like lawnmowers when they’re flying through the sky!

 

But yeah, that’s what America’s up to these days. I mean, you can’t really claim it’s the European heritage stock that’s like the most genius country in the world. It’s just not that anymore, I’m afraid, guys.

 

Mark Collett: Well, I agree. But we’ve got a lot to talk about. So and we do actually have just. We do have a little sort of running order as well, tonight. I’m not going to read it out, but I was going to post it actually and say:

 

“Look, these are all the things we’ll be discussing.”

 

But there’s a lot to discuss and we’re going to go through things from the start. Now we’re going to speed run some of the bits we talked about on the Nationalist A-Team because for anyone who watched the Nationalist A-Team and enjoys it, look, it is a banger of a stream, except for when I get killed by somebody and get upset.

 

But other than that! It is a good stream. And if you want to watch it, there’s some takes there. And also there’s the Patriarch there as well who provides quite a lot of good comedy.

 

Anyway, so we’re going to start with the wider justification for this because there’s nowhere better to start than the official justification. Now, I’ve seen these videos where Netanyahu, they’re sort of like compilation videos of every time Netanyahu is claimed that Iran is sort of five months, five weeks, you know, two years from getting the atomic bomb. And he’s been doing this, believe it or not, for over 30 years!

 

So the first example I’ve seen of Netanyahu saying that Iran is just moments away from like nuclear weapon capability was actually all the way back in 1995. And the reason that’s interesting, …

 

Yuro: There are people dying in this war on the American side who have not been alive longer than Iran was supposedly two weeks away from a nuclear weapon!

 

Mark Collett: That’s a very good point. That is Yuro. But you get minus points for butting in. You’ve been told about that.

 

Natty: Oh, no [word unclear] battalion!

 

Mark Collett: Wiffle bat to give you a spanking. Right. So these fake nuclear claims that are interesting for two reasons.

 

Firstly, because they are blatantly fake! It’s been, to my knowledge, 31 years. And Yuro does make, … Look to Yuro’s credit, he makes a very good point. You know, the idea that this has been going on longer than some of the people on these American battleships have been alive is incredible!

 

But one thing that struck me immediately with this was I remember living through the time of the Iraq war. And at the time of the Iraq war, Weapons of Mass Destruction became one of the most maligned phrases to have ever been used in British Parliament, to the point that where if you now say “Weapons of Mass Destruction”, it’s sort of synonymous with war crimes, lies and a regime that took us into what was essentially an illegal war. You know, there was no Weapons of Mass Destruction.

 

But one thing that shocks me is this is the kind of thing where people just seem to have either forgotten this or put it to one side.

 

So the Daily Mail is a classic example of this. The Daily Mail is sort of the populist Right-wing, you know, vote Reform, consider voting Conservative newspaper. And they were all against Blair and the Weapons of Mass Destruction and exposing his lies and speaking out about it once it was exposed via the Chilcot inquiry.

 

But now the Daily Mail, like:

 

“We need this war. You know, usually we’re against war, but in this instance, this needs to happen!”

 

And you’ve got all these shill commenters in the sections underneath the Daily Mail articles in the comment sections, and they’re all saying things like:

 

“Oh, I’m against the war, but this is an exception.”

 

And I don’t know whether these are real people, idiot Boomer types or that’s not all Boomers. But you know, the sort. I mean the kind of person that says:

 

“Oh, well, I’m against the people on the small boats, but I would let the genuine refugees in all. Yes! And if somebody comes here and learns to speak English, well, he’s as British as Yorkshire pudding, isn’t he!”

 

Those sort. Is it one of them or is it a shill account?

 

[11:04]

 

But I think it’s really interesting that exactly the same justification for the attack is being used, as was used in Iraq. But the Iraq, War retrospectively is possibly the most maligned conflict and the conflict seen as the most unjust conflict. Probably post World War II. I’d have said that would have gone to Vietnam at one point, but Iraq seems to have, maybe because it’s more recent, seems to have eclipsed that.

 

So what do you guys think?

 

We’ll start with you, Natty. Obviously this is what they’re saying and we’re going to discuss next the real reason and what we think the real reason is. But what do you think to this sort of fake reasoning for going to war?

 

Natty: Well, just listening to you there, I haven’t done this because I was just reminded by what you said. But I’m fairly certain if you went back to the 2000s and had a look at the lead up to the Iraq war, you, amongst the Daily Mail articles, you wouldn’t find opposition to the actual war itself, because none of these publications were really opposed to it in any meaningful way and certainly weren’t like trying to rally people against the war. So you know, post Iraq war when everyone was kind of saying what disaster it was, I’m sure the Daily Mail were jumping on board that.

 

But as even now publications that you would think would be against the war in Iran are kind of talking around the edge of it whilst not decrying the war and certainly not being like anti-war, like proper anti-war publications and laying out all the connections between the Epstein regime and the people connecting in it like Mandelson and like Boris Johnson and Tony Blair and all the rest of it.

 

But yeah, it’s striking. I mean, one of the things I put in the chat earlier was that before this happened. Well, okay, let’s let me take it back a little bit. Before Iraq, the reason why the term “Weapons of Mass Destruction” became such a big thing is because the media and the government, Blair’s regime spent so much time and energy trying to get public approval for it, because they felt like, they obviously felt like they needed it. They needed a justification. They needed something to sell to the British people as to why it was a good idea, why it was necessary to go into Iraq.

 

Now that just hasn’t happened this time. Because I think they understand that the forces controlling the “Epstein Empire” as people are calling it, which is fairly apt, simply are not in the shadows anymore. You know, this stuff has been laid out. Israel is pulling the strings and it’s pulling the strings of America and it’s America’s pulling the strings of Europe because essentially Europe is just a colony of the United States. So they don’t feel they need to justify it so much.

 

Now, obviously there’s like regime mouthpieces and stoolies like Tommy Robinson and Douglas Murray, the Daily Mail and all the rest of it, who are now going out there and running cover and trying to make this war popular or make it so that it seems like:

 

“Well, it’s not a job any of us want to do, but it’s necessary and we need to do this for stability and peace!”

 

But I just don’t think the public are buying it. And the public for the most part didn’t buy it with Iraq, but that doesn’t stop that happening. And they’re not buying it with Iran either.

 

But there hasn’t been a groundswell of opposition to it in the same way as Iraq because they haven’t spent so long trying to justify it. And for a lot of people this just came out the blue. Not for anyone who’s kind of a properly dissident to the kind of Epstein Empire. This didn’t come out of the blue. This was fairly predictable. But probably just for your average person sitting at home and getting on with life, this kind of immediate blow up in the Middle East, where oil prices are about to skyrocket, petrol prices creeping up and we’re probably about to experience an energy crisis, just came out straight out of the blue! And the justifications, unlike Iraq, are all post hoc. They, it wasn’t a media build up to a war, it’s like a media cover plot after the war has started.

 

Yuro: What I find interesting as well is as you say, with the Iraq thing, there was a lot of build up and there was:

 

“Let’s get the UN involved, let’s condemn them, let’s build a coalition, let’s get Britain involved.”

 

But the other thing is they never said Iraq has a nuke. It was always this nebulous “Weapons of Mass Destruction”. And it’s kind of like the, well, we’re going to say that they have Weapons of Mass Destruction and that’s like we will say:

 

“Oh, actually they have chemical weapons which we’re going to classify as Weapons of Mass Destruction. And we’re going to hope that we can gin that up in people’s minds to be like, ‘Oh, they have a nuclear weapon’.”

 

And it was like:

 

“We won’t explicitly state they have a nuclear weapon. We’ll just try and make people think they have a nuclear weapon.”

 

And then there was the thing about:

 

“They can strike us in 45 minutes with their Weapons of Mass Destruction!”

 

But now they just come out and say:

 

“They’re building a nuke!”

 

It’s not Weapons of Mass Destruction. And as you say, that’s because the term is just completely lost all validity. You know, people at the moment, they hear that, they just know it’s Iraq, War 2. But they’re not even like trying to do that lesser thing.

 

It’s kind of like what they do with racism, where you’ve got like the small definition and the big definition. The Weapons of Mass Destruction is like what they do with racism.

 

So if you’re a “racist”, it’s like you just think that different people are different and you care about your own people. Well, that’s a racist. But the moment you get labelled a racist, it’s like you’re a “supremacist who wants to murder everyone who’s not you”. Well, the Weapons of Mass Destruction is chemical weapons could be a weapon of mass destruction, but the moment you get labelled with that, all of a sudden:

 

“You’ve got nukes, you’re dangerous!”

 

[17:31]

 

Natty: Yeah. And the 45 minute claim was like, they can hit the tip of Cyprus. If they drive a Scud launcher right to the edge of the Iraqi border and fire it, they might just be able to hit Cyprus! And that was translated into British headlines as “British territory”. Yeah:

 

“They can hit us in 45 minutes! Oh my God, the sky’s falling!”

 

And the reality was, it was Scud missiles and some Sarin gas artillery shells which have a range of about 10 or 15 kilometers, which they used in Halabja [1988 against Kurds] apparently. I mean, we saw, I, we got trained on that in the CBRA regiment of what happened in Halabja with the Sarin gas shells. But that was passed into, like you said, Weapons of Mass Destruction. Very nebulous. Well, not easy to disseminate term, but very little detail and very little meaning. And you could say to people:

 

“Well, they’ve got Scud launches on trucks which can fly however many kilometers it is, and they’ve got some Sarin gas shells.”

 

But these, in terms of where the United Kingdom is and the rest of Europe, these are absolutely meaningless! And again, it was just to justify the Greater Israel Project and take out one of Israel’s enemies and destroy one of Israel’s enemies.

 

Yuro: Well, I was having to think about this before we started this stream. And I said to myself, you know:

 

“There is one state, there is a rogue state in the Middle East that has Weapons of Mass Destruction.”

 

And by that I mean a boatload of actual nuclear weapons. And they have the capability of targeting Britain, …

 

Natty: And if rumours are to be believed, then the Samson Option is a real thing and Israel is the lunatic state that has no compunction about using these things. Now, I don’t know if that’s a real thing or whether that’s just something that gets disseminated to scare everyone.

 

But you’ve got to remember the only people who have used nukes as an actual weapon of war against living targets is the Epstein Regime in the Second World War. And I don’t separate the people who are running America now from those people. I mean, it’s the same group of people.

 

Yuro: If you look at the way that they behave on the world stage, the way that they behave against the Palestinians, the way that they behave against the Iranians, it wouldn’t be out of character for them to just lash out at everyone else for “not defending them hard enough”. But according to the publicly available information, they have intercontinental ballistic missiles with a range of 11 and a half thousand kilometers, which basically means they can hit everywhere on the planet with the exception of kind of east Australia, New Zealand and some bits of South America.

 

Natty: So those parts of South America where all the Nazis fled to, so unfortunately they [chuckling] can’t touch them!

 

Yuro: The parts where Javier Milei, who’s converted to Judaism, is currently in charge.

 

Natty: Oh no!

 

Yuro: And they might also not be able to quite hit Mexico where (((Claudia Sheinbaum))) is in charge.

 

Mark Collett: Oh, dear! Well, talking about the control that jews wield, let’s talk about what we think is the real reason for this.

 

Now, I’m going to go straight out and say it. I believe the real reason for this is the Greater Israel Project. I think the Greater Israel Project is something that has gathered pace in the last few years, especially under Trump. We’ve seen the attacks on Gaza, we’ve seen the attacks on Lebanon. We’ve seen the fall of the Syrian regime, which was obviously heavily influenced by Israel, who were helping Islamic terrorists in the region. You know, the head chopper ones that we’re told are the great threat to peace and justice and decency, yet Israel is actually supporting those people!

 

And we’ve also seen Israel be involved in the fall of other regimes. Israel were famously involved. And this came out in the Chilcot Inquiry. I actually did a video on this. Israel were very famously involved with meeting, … And Tony Blair admitted this under oath in the Chilcot Inquiry. He met influential jewish leaders from the then current Israeli regime. And he said:

 

“The meetings had nothing to do with military intelligence. They had everything to do with overall strategy and long term goals.”

 

So take that as you will. But I’m taking that as they were heavily involved in getting rid of Saddam Hussein.

 

[22:24]

 

And I think it’s obviously within Israel’s interest to topple almost every sovereign regime in the region. And they do this quite openly. They are doing it more openly now. They’re getting away with it, sadly. And this is a blatant example of that. Although they’ve loosely talked about the nuke thing, like we said, Natty did make an important point that they felt it’s less necessary to sell this like they sold the Iraq, War. And in some interviews, members of the American regime have simply said:

 

“Yeah, we just want to kill these people. We want to kill them, we want to take them out. This is about regime change. This is about Israel.”

 

And I believe it was Marco Rubio, the Secretary of State, who said:

 

“It was Israel who forced our hand. They began this and we are there to defend them and assist them. So when they began the attacks, we were forced into going along with it.”

 

Now, Trump then furiously denied this, but it’s a very interesting admission from Marco Rubio.

 

So I think this is all about the Greater Israel Project. And I believe that has been the driving force or the driving ideology behind the destabilisation of the Middle East.

 

Natty: Yeah, totally! And it kind of behooves me to say this and to get people to realise that whereas we’re living kind of day to day and prices of things go up and you’re worried about your children. We’ve been totally separated from any idea of our history and our lineage and where we’ve come from and where we might be going.

 

So it’s kind of hard to understand for us the jewish mindset. And this is a plan that’s been in the making for a very long time, years, decades, where once Israel was created and they have a vision of the Greater Israel Project. There’s a whole, there’s a list of countries. Libya, Syria, Iraq, Iran, Egypt. And through various machinations, they’ve all been, one by one, they’ve been taken out or pacified. Egypt is basically paid off by the United States and is under the sway of Israel, has a border with Israel, but it doesn’t do anything about their genociding of the Palestinians and the destabilising and eventual collapse of the Syrian state. What happened in Libya with Gaddafi ending up with a bayonet up his bum, dragged out into the street, and the subsequent flooding of Europe with migrants, which is a kind of side issue we can get onto if you want. But all of this, …

 

Mark Collett: I’ve got that further down the line, mate, that comes at the end, if you look at the show notes, I’ve actually said:

 

“You know, what are the actual repercussions for this, both for the West and for the Middle East?”

 

And that’s one of the things we will talk about.

 

Natty: Yeah, for sure. And it’s clear now, I mean, in my opinion and the opinion of other people who have been following this, that the reason Trump was so heavily pushed into a second term was that the people who are running him and the jews in Israel believe that he was the best chance of getting this done. You know, this final push to topple Iran, which basically gets rid of the last bastion of resistance to Israel. And you’ve got to think:

 

“Well, why is Israel so hell bent on getting rid of people who resist them?”

 

You think, well, the people who are opposing them, the only real people who are opposing them, committing genocide in Gaza, Europe was on board with it. The United States was supplying them with bombs and had carrier groups in the Mediterranean. The United Kingdom, our own government, was flying surveillance flights over Gaza and letting Cyprus be used as a refueling and an air base for Israel. So Europe was aiding in the genocide in Gaza.

 

And it was only Hezbollah and you know, funded via Iran that was really attacking, and the Houthi rebels in Yemen, who were attacking Israel and trying to hold them account for genociding the Gazan people. And that’s unacceptable for Israel to have that resistance in the region, even though the attacks on it are totally justified and being used as like, defense against people who are being hurt and destroyed in this like, brutal way by this lunatic, lunatic group of people who have been squatting on the edge of a Mediterranean.

 

So the justifications the real justification is the toppling of Iran as a coherent state. And I’ll touch on this before I pass this over to Yuro. But there’s talk of regime change. You know, that’s what they say:

 

“We’re trying to enact regime change here.”

 

But that isn’t quite true. They’re not really interested in a regime swap where they swap one regime for another. What they’re interested in is total destabilisation! Just like with Syria, just like with Iraq, just like with Libya, where these are just failed states with tribal warlords with like Mossad and CIA run groups running around HTS, ISIS, all of these people. Which means no coherent defense, no missile bases, no civil defense, nothing! Just a load of groups that you can pay this group to fight this group and you know, you can pay these guys or stop paying these guys and just let chaos reign while Israel just expands and expands and expands and gets to do what it wants.

 

You know, kind of reminiscent, I’ll just finish on this. Kind of reminiscent to how if you import millions and millions of foreign people into a small island nation, it also becomes destabilised and coherent resistance or coherent defense or coherent politics kind of become very difficult and a very well motivated minority can rule the lot! So there’s your answer as to the real reasons for this war.

 

[28:45]

 

 

Yuro: A few things I wanted to pick up on there. Just as Mark was speaking, you kept using the term “regime”. And that’s like one of those MKUltra trigger words that they’ve put in people’s minds that like “regime is bad, regime is authoritarian, evil government”. It was all it was always the “Saddam regime” and the “Iran regime”. They’re just governments. They’re a different form of government. You know some of them are more or less Democratic than others, but it’s like this regime thing is a trigger word. And along that same lines, Natty, you mentioned the Houthis as “rebels”. I think the ones that we call Houthis are pretty much just the government of Yemen now. I mean, and they have pockets of what’s left of the people that they overthrew. But they’re basically just the government of Yemen. They’re not rebels anymore. They’re not a regime, they’re just that government.

 

But obviously this was all part of a plan. This is something that they’ve been going at for a very long time. They had the Project for a New American Century [PNAC] where they said we want to hit like seven countries in 10 years. And they’ve basically got all of them.

 

I mean, they wanted to get Iraq, they wanted to get Syria, they wanted to get Libya, and of course it’s neocon jews behind it all.

 

So that’s been happening for a very long time. There’s a reason why they caught a bunch of jewish Israelis dancing on 911*, already filming before the first plane went into those towers. They were dancing around, they were happy because they knew that was the excuse that they needed to start their own genocidal campaign. And it’s like dominoes falling. They get this one, then they get that one. And I mean, what happens to Libya? He, Gaddafi, gave up his weapons, chemical weapons and things like that.

 

[* 9/11: A false flag carried out by ZOG with Israel being the lead behind its planning and execution. The aim was to unleash the War OF Terror on the countries around Israel, among other aims. See See Also links below, especially the work by Christopher Bollyn.]

 

And as soon as they were gone, they were like:

 

“Right, well he’s defenseless, we can go in there and kill him now!”

 

So that’s what they proceeded to do.

 

And the other thing as well, like looking at what they’re doing to Iran, I mean, you talked about them wanting to destabilise them. As far as I understand, because they can’t really hit these military targets. They don’t know exactly where all the underground bases are and where they’re being launched from. So they’re targeting, I mean, apart from like primary schools for girls and things like that, which they do just because they’re evil and want to blow up kids when they’re not abusing kids in other ways, they’re just like targeting police stations and things like that. Just like blow up all the police stations in the country and hope it destabilises that way!

 

And of course they had this gayop a few weeks ago, maybe a month ago now, where they tried to incite some sort of terrorist uprising in Iran and that failed.

 

And obviously they wanted to coincide these two things at the same time.

 

Natty: But I was going to say that was obviously hilariously mistimed. [chuckling] Right? So they fermented this terrorist uprising and meanwhile they haven’t got all like the military assets in place to strike it. I mean, you might have a better idea of this than me, you guys, but maybe they thought in the January uprisings that they like funded all these terrorist groups to try and overthrow the government of Iran. Maybe they thought that it was still going to be going on now while they moved all these carrier groups and pulled their troops out of the Gulf oil state bases. Maybe they thought it was still going to be going on and that the Iran government was still going to be fighting these guys, but it was crushed within like a few days. Right!

 

Yuro: I have a feeling that maybe they were trying to like wait a little bit longer, but it was about to be compromised and they thought:

 

“If we don’t do it now, we miss the opportunity entirely.”

 

So they had to launch it. And they spent so long getting carriers into place to attack Iran because they’ve had these problems with the sewage system on the Gerald Ford, which obviously some people are saying that’s like a deliberate thing, that soldiers or sailors have clogged the tubes on purpose to destroy the system because they don’t want to go and die and be the next false flag. But they’ve had problems with that before. So it’s not entirely out of the realms of possibility that it is sort of coincidental to some degree.

 

But yeah, obviously that was something that delayed them. So I mean we can be glad about that because it’s meant that Iran’s not facing these two things at the same time.

 

Natty: I’m not sure. Look, I’m not a, like a military analyst or anything, but I’m not sure even if the like Epstein empire, the Epstein regime, had fermented this terrorist uprising whilst they carried out this first strike against Khomeini in a little girl’s school for some reason, whether if those two things occurred, coincided, even then, whether they’d have been able to pull off this kind of toppling of the regime. It seems like, …

 

Yuro: Regime?

 

Natty: Look, [chuckling] it’s the word everyone uses here! I can try, but I’m as susceptible to the MKUltra* terms as everyone else. Right? I’m just not sure it would have worked even if they had pulled it off at the same time.

 

[* MKUltra was a covert program run by the CIA from 1953 to 1973. Its primary goal was to explore methods of mind control and behavior modification through various means, including drugs and psychological techniques. MKUltra is widely condemned for its unethical practices, including: Lack of Consent: Many subjects were unaware they were part of experiments. Abusive Techniques: Included torture, isolation, and drugging without consent. The term MKUltra is a CIA cryptonym: “MK” is an arbitrary prefix standing for the Office of Technical Service and “Ultra” is an arbitrary word out of a dictionary used to name this project.]

 

Mark Collett: Well, look, we’re going to go on to that anyway, so let’s move a little bit further forward because there are other things we want to talk about.

 

Now, I think the next thing we need to talk about, we’ve placed this into context, talk about the Greater Israel Project. Now I think the next thing that’s very important is discussing the issue of these fake negotiations that America has had with the likes of Iran before all of this kicked off.

 

And they obviously had similar sort of fake negotiations with, I think it was Venezuela, didn’t they? And then they go in anyway. This is something that America started doing, you know, fake negotiations, but then we come and get you anyway.

 

[35:06]

 

Yuro: I think they had a similar thing with the, like Hezbollah and Hamas, didn’t they?

 

Mark Collett: Yeah, there’s multiple examples.

 

But what I’m getting at is a real, and we won’t labour this because we spoke about this extensively on the Nationalist A-Team the other night, but when we were talking about that, we did make the point that fundamentally at one point the idea of going in somewhere you know, negotiating, but then using negotiations as a reason or as an excuse to then hit another country. So the negotiations aren’t real negotiations. They’re cover that gets the other side to drop their guard. So, it’s like walking up somebody in a bar saying:

 

“Look, mate, let’s just settle this amicably. Let me buy you a drink. What do you want?”

 

And when the other guy turns to have a look at the list of craft beers, you sucker punch him! You know, that’s an underhanded thing to do. Everyone would be like:

 

“Wow, that’s pretty much scandalous! We don’t want to see that kind of behaviour. That’s the kind of behaviour that’s not becoming of an honourable man.”

 

And there used to be this narrative that the West was honourable, that we were the good guys. And I’ll say these fake negotiations are being used as a means to cover up an attack which is I’m imminent. I do think that is a really shady thing to do.

 

And I think that as time goes by, we are going to see more and more people be unwilling to negotiate with the West. Like, why would Vladimir Putin or China or any other nation, North Korea, negotiate with Trump? Why would any foreign leader trust going to America or sitting in a negotiation room with the Americans when they assassinate leaders, carry out fake negotiations, use the hand of friendship to lock their opponent’s hand in place before they sucker punch them? You know, it’s like holding one hand out to shake the other guy’s hand and when he starts giving the handshake, you just sucker punch them! You know, it’s awful! I mean, what do you guys think to this?

 

I think this is going to fundamentally change the way, the implication of this, is going to change the way that every other nation does business with America. And it’ll put America on a even people like the Europeans, who are essentially vassal states of America, are not going to be trusting of Trump again or America.

 

Yuro: Well, Europe is already not going to be trusting of Trump and America because of the whole thing with Greenland for a start. But I mean, I hope at the end of this, obviously Iran’s going to hold out. They’re going to continue to resist until America and Israel, …

 

Mark Collett: This is the summation, what you hope for comes at the end, like, stay on, …

 

Yuro: It’s related to this! It’s related to this. I was going to say I hope that Israel and America run out of interceptor missiles. Iran fights them to a standstill. And they say:

 

“Right, we will negotiate with Trump in this place.”

 

He goes there to negotiate, and then, …

 

Natty: They just blow him up! [chuckling]

 

Yuro: And it would be entirely justified on moral grounds and on the grounds that it’s already been done to them.

 

Natty: They would cry bitter tears if the same tactics they had used, these same underhand, cowardly, sniveling, weak tactics were used on them! And this is something to point out to. I say I’m gonna use Boomer, but, like, Boomer mindset, Civnat, kind of Tommy Robinson-tard mindset where like:

 

“Oh, yeah, no, we’re the good guys and we should stamp these dirty terrorists into the ground! They’re terrorists!”

 

It’s like your pedo jew empire assassinates little girls for some reason, I guess because they’ve just got bloodlust and we can talk about the Purim Fest, if we want. Assassinates little girls, assassinates world leaders, which is supposed to be off the table. Totally violates, like, any notion of the Geneva Convention or the kind of rules of war and does it in a cowardly way. This is like your medieval knight marching out to the front of a battle under a white flag to negotiate terms and then just pulling a knife and stabbing the negotiator. Your entire army would be, they’re like, forfeit. And the enemy army would be totally justified in just slaughtering prisoners and like, just pillaging and doing whatever it wants at that stage! You’ve set the rules. You’re supposed to be the powerful, the one who’s setting out exactly how things are going to go down. And you open the conflict or the latest round of the conflict with an underhand cowardly assassination under the flag of truce and blowing up 170 schoolgirls! Well, I’m sorry, but what space have you now given for quarters? None! And no one’s going to trust you, and they shouldn’t trust you.

 

And the other world powers looking on Russia and China, who we’re going to touch on in a little while, like Mark said, they’re not going to be trustworthy. They’re going to have that in their minds anytime America tries to talk to them, anytime the jew empire reaches out to say:

 

“Oh, we just want to discuss the Ukraine war and negotiate terms in the Ukraine war.”

 

And like, Yuro said, they would be totally justified in shooting down like diplomatic planes, like bombing, like delegations, peace delegations, assassinating the head of state. Who’s to tell anyone now that that is a wrong or immoral thing to do now that supposedly the world police and a global superpower and the most moral army in the world, Israel, has carried out exactly that, such a thing.

 

And I don’t need to belabour the point, but they’ve been doing this for a long time. And you can look back as far as Dresden and the nuclear bombs dropped on Japan, to say:

 

“Well, that’s how these people act! And people who oppose them should act accordingly and plan accordingly.”

 

[41:35]

 

 

Mark Collett: Well, I agree. And not only this or not only what you guys have said, but I do think it’s very interesting that on top of everything you guys have said, there is also the issue of Russia and Zelensky.

 

Now obviously if Russia had wanted to, they could have bombed Kiev, day one of the conflict and absolutely just beheaded the regime. Now Russia never did that. Now I’m not saying Russia are the good guys or shilling for Russia, but it is an interesting comparison to see that everything that Russia has been accused of, the West has done and the West has done it in a much more sort of egregious fashion. It’s quite interesting.

 

And this so-called “Axis of Evil” now appears to be far less evil than the “good guys”. The “good guys” have shown, I said that in inverted commas. Have shown their hand. They’ve, it’s a mask off moment. I don’t know if anyone wants to add something to this because we did talk about this a lot, but I’ll give you the chance to follow up if anyone wants to talk about this.

 

Natty: Yeah, go on. Yuro, you go first.

 

Yuro: I was just gonna say it’s a complete moral inversion. It’s, we are supposedly the good guys because we fight against the bad guys. And they’re all terrorists. They’re inherently evil. I was listening to, I think this was on the Daily Shoah they were talking about basically the term “terrorist” is a social construction. It’s just a word we can use to label somebody and all of a sudden their grievances illegitimate. We don’t have to stick to the rules of engagement. We can just murder them, we can murder their families and put them in jail. We just put this label on them and they are inherently evil.

 

But you know, the Ayatollah was never in the Epstein files. That’s the difference.

 

Natty: Yeah, the Ayatollah never called me a goyim or demographically replaced my people or ethnically cleansed my people. So you know, what beef do I have with the Ayatollah, at this point? And like Mark was saying, the Russians opened Ukraine, the Ukraine conflict by striking out military targets. They were landing at Hostomel Airport and controlling like major supply routes. And the Jewpedo regime starts its war with an assassination of a leader, or a spiritual leader. Not a military strategist or anything like that. A spiritual leader who’s in his 80s as well as his granddaughter and his family members all blown up. And like blowing up a school with 12 to 17 year old school girls in it. Now you tell me, yeah, you tell me who the bad guys are.

 

Yuro: It’s worth pointing out as well that the entire war in Ukraine or although it was something that had been kind of slowly building up for a while, that NATO had been expanding further and further eastward, it was really brought to the fore because Russia was supporting Assad in Syria. And the Epstein empire had to take out Syria in order to stop Iranian weapons getting to Hezbollah and getting to Gaza.

 

And so they started this whole other conflict to take Russia’s focus away from helping their allies in Syria. And that allowed them to get in there and destroy Syria. And it’s all part of the same program.

 

Natty: The same grand strategy. Yeah, I think people, a lot of people kind of don’t seem to understand that. They’re like:

 

“Well that seems, that seems too far fetched that the Pedojew regime would start a war with Russia in Ukraine just to help topple the Syrian government. Or the Pedo jew regime would kidnap a South American president just to support an ongoing or like support a future war against Iran with oil, you know, oil routes and all the rest of it.”

 

Because people are like:

 

“No, that can’t be right, you know, 50,000 Ukrainian men dead and God knows how many Russian men dead just to tie up Russian forces to leave Syria exposed?”

 

It’s like:

 

“Yeah, that’s how these people think. That’s what they’re willing to do.”

 

And that’s what they did do. And in Syria, Russian troops, Russian air power in Syria was halting Israeli aggression and you know, Western aggression. It was the CIA, it was MI6 and was Mossad, was paying ISIS, which has now become HTS, which is basically ISIS, to mess up Syria and mess with Assad and sanctions on Assad’s government that was turning the place inhospitable. Making it so that just to live there was pain and it wasn’t the government was obviously suffering and trying its best, but the people suffer when you put sanctions on a country. So on behest of like jewish paedophiles and Israel, America just makes people’s lives a misery around the world, everywhere! You know, Ukrainian men dead, Syrian families wiped out, little girls in Iran, hundreds of thousands of civilians everywhere, in Iraq, in Gaza, in Libya, all dead! Because jewish paedophiles just cannot get enough blood.

 

Yuro: And until the extent that they have any support for the Israeli regime in places like the UK, people in the UK who support Israel, they see this as a war against the Muslims. And they hate Muslims because of what gangs of Pakistani men do to White girls after jewish people like Peter Mandelson and his friend Tony Blair, people like that brought them to our country.

 

And it works for them both ways because it destroys the youth of the British people. It destroys our homogeneous country. It creates resentment against Muslims which they can then use and say:

 

“Well, don’t you hate the Muslims, you hate the Pakistanis who are raping children over here!”

 

[48:08]

 

 

Natty: Yeah:

 

“Live vicariously as we bomb them in the Middle East. Oh, we’re getting those dirty Muslims for you know, goyim! Don’t worry, we’re bombing them. You love it, don’t you? Rah, rah, ra! Let’s go Israel! Israel’s defending you! If we weren’t fighting them here, you’d be fighting them in your streets!”

 

Well, how? Okay, thanks, Schlomo. How did they get onto my streets in the first place? Anyone fancy answer that, answering that question?

 

Mark Collett: No, that’s a very good point. Now obviously we discussed that.

 

So when we discussed the Ayatollah being killed, we’ve discussed the schoolgirls being killed. I mean, know, as you said, the paedophiles are now murdering children. And this says something about America and Israel.

 

Now, I don’t think this was an accident. I don’t think that school being hit was in any way an accident. I think they did that on purpose. I think that’s the sort of people that they are. I think they do things like this because it pleases them to do things like this. And it pleases them to do things like this because to them this is they could avoided doing this, but they don’t want to avoid doing this. What they want to do is they want to cause as much hurt and pain as possible. Now these missile systems that they have, they are probably the best missile systems in the world. They understand where they can strike and where they can’t strike. Those missiles are pretty damn accurate.

 

So when they hit a school, I think that’s by some sort of sick design. I don’t believe it’s accidental. I don’t know if you guys want to add anything to that.

 

Natty: Yeah, there’s a term called “sub-metre accuracy” and I think Tomahawk missiles, I’m not sure about JDAMs, but certainly Tomahawk missiles and the types of missiles that the Jewpedo regime uses all have sub-metre accuracy.

 

So the claims about:

 

“Well, this girl school was next to a Iranian military base or something.”

 

These munitions have sub-metre accuracy, which means they can target within a metre, which is where they drop these bombs. I mean, are we supposed to pretend that the Pedojew regime is somehow like squeamish about blowing up children and civilians? A regime that goes out of its way to target hospitals and suburbs and then when it’s blown up the hospitals and suburbs, then blows up the tent cities that spring up around it to house all the refugees and injured people that you’ve just like totally displaced.

 

So these people are not squeamish about killing civilians then. They never have been. They never have been. Not for the last 70 years and probably not before that.

 

Yuro: We’re always told that we have the most advanced, precise, ultra accurate munitions. We can take out a terrorist in a crowd without killing anyone else:

 

“Oh, look, we dropped a bomb dead centre on that school. Total accident! We don’t know how it happened!”

 

Do you remember when they were attacking Gaza? I mean they’re always attacking Gaza, but in particular in the aftermath of October 7th and there were various organisations that went there to try to provide food relief and they had a car with a big logo on the top that says, “Food Kitchen”. It’s a non-governmental organisation, it’s a charity that’s bringing food to starving people in Gaza. And they sent a munition. It’s like a missile, but instead of a bomb, it’s got just like razor blades all around it.

 

And you can see the picture of the car, they sent it straight through the roof, directly on top of the driver’s seat and cut that man to bits! That’s how accurate they can be when they want to be. So they have the ability to do that they have the ability to do it. It is not an accident when they, …

 

Natty: The other interesting thing about the strike on the girls school was in the immediate aftermath, like there were shills online, there were online shills and righttoids and jews and all sorts of like scum coming out the woodwork claiming again, like they used to do in Gaza or like they have done in Gaza, that:

 

“Oh, this was an Iranian missile that kind of missed a target or misfired as they fired it out of Tehran and fell back on the girl school.”

 

Which was utterly disproved! And yet, you know, none of the people who were claiming this was like an Iranian misfire will ever be held to account or ever be made to apologise or made to like confront their lies about what this was. So the misinformation is hot and heavy.

 

But if you think, like I said, I’m going to reiterate this, if you think the Pedojew regime is squeamish about blowing up children, you’re mistaken. They’re not squeamish about blowing them up. Probably the only disappointing thing for the Pedojew regime is that these girls were blown up and didn’t have a chance to be like, sent off to Epstein’s island or something like that.

 

[53:08]

 

Mark Collett: Thank you. The next thing is, this is quite interesting because it’s not the first time that Israel have admitted to bombing civilian populations. And we’ve discussed that they did it in Lebanon. They do it quite indiscriminately, they do it in Gaza.

 

But one thing’s quite interesting about these particular bombings and you guys made the point that they were bombing police stations. And I think they believe that they bombed police stations and took out government leaders and spiritual leaders, that there was going to be a revolution. And we’ve constantly heard this nonsense in the West, haven’t we? That the Iranian regime is hideously unpopular, that normal people in Iran hate the Ayatollah, they hate the government, the police, every organ of the state. I’d actually say more people in Britain hate Keir Starmer than people in Iran hate the Ayatollah.

 

But one thing that’s been very interesting is post these strikes and these indiscriminate missile attacks on schools, police stations and other sites around Tehran, we’ve seen more people out in the street supporting the Iranian government and wanting to fight back against America. I think that really underlines the fact that this idea that the Iranian people are all kept down, they have the Ayatollah’s boot on their head, this is nothing more than propaganda.

 

Natty: Oh, of course! It’s quite interesting to juxtapose it.

 

Can you imagine like a protest, or a march with hundreds of thousands of people ever coming out for any European government? I mean, the closest you got in the West was Trump, right? And that is quickly turned to ash in a lot of people’s mouths. He’s been exposed as basically just another neocon.

 

But if you put yourself in the shoes of like an Iranian, a normal Iranian citizen who’s just watched every single country where his kind of ethnic people, I know that Persians are maybe looked at differently than other people are on the Gulf states, whatever. All the other countries around him who aren’t in league with Israel have been like, brutally broken up and just left as failed states. Well, you’re going to want to cling to anything that stands up to these people and anything that resists being destroyed by them, because you know that if your government falls, that’s the end of any semblance of stability or normality you’ve got. You’re just going to have to either flee or deal with a failed state of a nation. So, of course they support it!

 

And you listen to like the BBC or Piers Morgan or some of these shows and you would think that, …

 

Mark Collett: Andrew Neil!

 

Natty: Yeah, he’s the worst! He’s a total Zio boot licker, man! I’m surprised he hasn’t drowned in jewish semen! [LOL] But like, you listen to these people and you’d think that every single person in Iran is just waiting, crouched behind their door, ready to rise up and take out this hugely unpopular government that everyone hates.

 

And like you said, there’s no government in Europe or anywhere in the West that is as popular with its people as the Iranian government. So take that as you will.

 

Yuro: Obviously, you know, Iran, I mean, I’m guessing, but much like most of the Middle East is awash with weapons from previous gayops and plans that we’ve had to overthrow them in the past.

 

But if you turn this around and let’s say some foreign actor blew up Parliament with every MP in it and blew up every diversity police station across the country and just dropped a bunch of weapons the chance of having a revolution would be much more likely here than it ever would be over there!

 

Natty: Yeah. And just to add on to this point, funnily enough, the strikes on Bahrain, and Bahrain’s a tiny little island nation. I mean, it used to be part of Iran. But the strikes on Bahrain look like they might actually foment a revolution because they’re kind of the Pedojew empire installed monarchy in Bahrain has lost its grip thanks to the Americans retreating and the actual people in Bahrain absolutely hate their rulers. And possibly, you know, news blackout and all the rest of it might actually foment a popular revolution in Bahrain and change governments there, [chuckling] which is supposed to be like a stronghold for the American empire and the Epstein regime and the headquarters of the Fifth Fleet, which controls the Persian Gulf or it used to control the Persian Gulf until the Pedojew regime started this war. So yeah, good one, guys. How’s it going? How’s this war going for you?

 

Mark Collett: Well, I would say that you’ve got a very good point there. And it’s a good point because we are moving on to how is this war going? Well, this is the interesting thing. Trump was elected as the guy who was going to be the President of peace and he was also elected on this America First ticket.

 

The idea that he was going to look after the average American. Now since Iran has closed the Strait of Hormuz, we’ve seen sort of panic buying. Oil prices have spiked. This is something that isn’t helping normal Americans who are already struggling with Trump’s idiotic tariffs.

 

And I would say, for Trump, when you actually look at, you say, how’s it going for him personally? It’s not going well domestically, but his approval ratings are at an all time low. They’re actually beneath his previous approval ratings for his first term and actually beneath Biden’s approval ratings. Now he’s getting savaged.

 

Now obviously he’s going out on TV:

 

“Oh, none of these mean anything. This is rubbish! The people love me!”

 

And I’ve spoken about this before. Post World War II don’t think any Western leader has built a cult of personality as intense as Trump has done with the MAGA movement. Trump has truly built a cult of personality where people see him as the supreme leader.

 

But I think that can be a good thing and it can be a bad thing! It’s a good thing because you have a dedicated support base. It’s a bad thing because often you become insulated and you only listen to that dedicated support base. And because you have that insulation, because you have that ring of people cheering you on and like:

 

“Up Trump! Yeah, you’re doing it right! You’re getting it right! Donald’s got it perfect! Bomb them all!”

 

You don’t actually hear the people outside of your immediate circle. And I think Trump has got this wrong. I think this is going to bring more misery on normal Americans. And I also think it could cost the Republicans the midterm.

 

[1:00:51]

 

 

Yuro: I don’t think Trump got this wrong. I think Trump did this because his handlers wanted him to do this. I mean, was it Marco Rubio who basically came out and said Israel told us they were going to attack and when they attacked, we were going to get hit in response, so we just had to join them, basically, the tail wags the dog. We had to join in. They forced our hand.

 

And of course, Trump’s all over the Epstein files. He’s part of the Epstein class. He is part of that jewish Zionist Occupied Government [ZOG]. He’s not doing it because he thinks it’s going to make him popular. He’s doing it because he is either severely compromised or that’s just his team.

 

Natty: Yeah. And to assume that Trump cares anymore, I mean, he’s not up for a third term. And if he doesn’t care, do you think the jews who are running him and the Epstein, whoever takes over from Epstein cares about Trump’s reputation or cares even less about the American people and what they want? They were just dupes who were fooled into voting for him. And you can say:

 

“Well, the 2016 Trump train.”

 

Which was a lot more based and had a lot more kind of like groundswell, Right-wing energy behind it. Well:

 

“They were tricked as well. Right?”

 

But if you fell for it again and voted for him this time, they really must despise you and just think you’re the most stupid person ever going! And it’s been proven right. I mean, Trump has now burned any credibility he’s had. This is an extremely unpopular war, but it doesn’t matter. His reputation isn’t on the line anymore, and it’s not a consideration for the people pulling his strings. They wanted this war done. Trump was their best shot of getting it done. And so they’ve got him to enact it.

 

And what we’re seeing is the fallout. And who knows where this ends? I’m sure we’re going to move on to that point. But the suffering of the American people, the suffering of European people is not any concern to these people! And you might argue that European suffering and American suffering is just a little bit of icing on their cake.

 

Yuro: This is something that they’ve wanted for decades and they’ve realised that as time’s gone on its getting less and less possible. So they’ve done it now because now is more likely than tomorrow as bad as it is and as badly as they’re doing and not winning what they want to be. If they’d waited longer, they would have had even less chance.

 

So it’s just like it’s do or die. It’s all out now because they’ve got no other choice.

 

Natty: Right. That’s what I totally agree with that.

 

And what I’m saying is the considerations that like a rational government that cared about its people would make, and there’s going to be an energy crisis, our people are going to die in this war. It’s hugely unpopular. This doesn’t benefit us in the slightest. None of that is like, none of that is in consideration. And it’s clear when you listen to people that they don’t quite understand that. And you listen to like the media class trying to justify this war and just grasping for anything.

 

Whereas like the reality, the truth, that this is purely for Israel and purely for the pedojew empire just doesn’t, it’s quite a hard pill to swallow.

 

Yuro: And as always, it’s going to affect Europe and it’s going to affect the UK so much worse than it’s going to affect America, because America has its own energy supplies.

 

Whereas, you know, Europe has been deliberately cut off from Russian energy supplies and made to not take fuel from Iran in the first place. And so Europeans are probably going to freeze this winter because of what the Americans have done or the jewish-American empire has done. Yeah.

 

Natty: Not content with cutting off via like a jewishpedo regime war with Russia. Not content with cutting off like the majority of European energy supplies. Now [chuckling] the pedojew empire now starts another war in the Gulf, which will just totally screw energy prices. And I like you guys know this, but I’m in the middle of, I’ve almost finished building my house and part of that was installing a heating system and we’ve got like a central heating system.

 

Yuro: Didn’t install a heat pump, did you?

 

Natty: We did not install a heat pump. We installed a central heating oil boiler which we needed to run up as like commissioning the system [chuckling] and like we went to fill it up the day after this started and the price of central heating oil was like 63 per litre. And the day after this thing started and Iran closed the Strait of Hormuz, it went up by like 33 P per litre and it’s now at like 1 pound 33 a litre. So I know this isn’t funny because this is going to affect everyone, but it’s like these are real effects and no the people who started this war just don’t care about this. You haven’t felt this at the pumps yet, but my God, like you are going to and the whole of Europe is going to, so.

 

[1:06:19]

 

Yuro: And it will be White pensioners who freeze whilst illegal migrants can turn up the heating as much as they want in hotels and non-Whites all over will get preferential benefits and help to make sure that they’re looked after while our people suffer.

 

Natty: Yeah, I mean that’s a given at this point.

 

But yeah, we’re about to be hit with this thing. I mean, unless it wraps up quickly, which is not going to happen.

 

Yuro: Even if it did wrap up tomorrow, we’d still have the price shocks. I mean this is what always happens when there’s a, like the price of oil shoots up, petrol prices shoot up, the price, …

 

Natty: Two days for it to rise. 106. Yeah, six weeks for it to creep its way back down. Yeah.

 

Mark Collett: They’re very interesting points and obviously it sort of goes into what we said before about Venezuela. It puts everything into context.

 

Now one of the things that he’s really. We’re going to talk a bit about the fight back here and what Iran has done, its retaliatory strikes, but one of the most disappointing things is they talk about this Axis of Evil, but so far Russia have condemned this. I’m not sure what China have said, if anything at all, but there’s largely a wave of silence about this, isn’t there? There isn’t sort of the international, … So when Russia started their, in inverted commas. They’re not my words, but their words, “the Special Military Operation”, you know, there was this wave of condemnation from every European country about the invasion of Ukraine.

 

However, here, this so-called “Axis of Evil”, China, Russia, etc, there doesn’t seem to be much in the way of pushback other than a couple of snappy press statements.

 

And I think this does tell you something about Russia and China’s ability or readiness to get involved. Now I would say China is more concerned with potentially taking Taiwan. And the knock on effects of this is, well, China will look and say:

 

“If America can take out the leadership of countries they don’t like, why can’t we do the same to Taiwan?”

 

And I think Russia is still tied up in Ukraine, which is probably by design. I think part of the issue with Ukraine was pulling Russia so deep into Ukraine that it depleted their resources in places like Syria. So regimes did fall in areas that America wanted them, America and Israel wanted them to fall.

 

But what do you think about the lack of sort of international pushback on this?

 

Yuro: It’s obvious that the Chinese and Russians are helping the Iranians in terms of intelligence gathering, satellite imagery. Supposedly the Iranian missiles use like an encrypted Chinese GPS as opposed to the American run satellites.

 

But yeah, they’re not coming out and publicly saying a lot and they could be doing a lot more kind of out in the open. And if they were really serious, the Chinese and Russians could help the Iranians develop an actual nuclear weapon to allow them to have a deterrent to defend themselves. And that could have happened, you know, within the last decade, but we don’t see them doing it.

 

Natty: Well, I made this point to mark the other day. This is where I kind of disagree with you a little bit. I think there’s only so much they can do. And Russia can’t just import a nuke into Tehran or into Iran without them asking for it. And if you’ve been paying attention, …

 

Yuro: Well, they should ask for it then!

 

Natty: Well that’s, maybe you’re right and they probably should and they probably will if they ever, if they get through this thing in one piece. But Russia has to be asked to provide that nuke. And the Ayatollah, Ayatollah Khomeini has famously had a fatwa on acquiring nuclear weapons. Which, you know, looking back to how we opened this thing puts lie to the fact that:

 

“Iran is two weeks away from having a nuke. Iran is five weeks away from having a nuke!”

 

For the last 30 years, every couple of weeks. So for one, Iran has to ask these countries for things. And I’m fairly certain that Russia is providing military assistance. You know, maybe not flashy supersonic missiles and all the rest of it, but you know it’s a short hop across the Caspian Sea for Russia to send boats and send equipment down to Tehran as much as it can. Like you said, Mark, they’re tied up in Ukraine as per the pedojew regime’s plan.

 

And like you said, Yuro. They’re using encrypted Chinese satellite data for their missiles. And I’m sure, like satellite imagery of the surrounding Gulf states and areas that Iranian like ballistic missiles and drones are hitting is provided by the Chinese.

 

So I think Russia and China understand the stakes here and understand that if Iran falls or we’re kind of at a turning point in history of the future of the Pedojew regime empire and where it stands and if it manages to pull this off and destroy Iran, then who knows what’s next? And we, I guess, we can talk about that. But for Russia and China, they probably think that actually halting the Pedojew regime here is probably a good thing to do.

 

And as much as much as they can do under the table, they’re going to do. And if it gets any hotter than that, well, who knows? But I disagree with you that they’re not helping as much as they could be.

 

Yuro: I don’t expect them to hand over a dozen nuclear weapons and say:

 

“Here you go!”

 

But why is Iran using such an antiquated air force instead of more modern Russian fighter planes, for example? Like, things like that would not be outside of the realm of possibility.

 

[1:12:38]

 

Natty: Well, because that’s not where the Iranian like, national defense has been focused. America, whatever you like to say about it, dominates the air and it always has. It has the most advanced and the most aeroplanes that it can put in the sky. You know, carrier groups all over the place, air bases all over the place. And Iran has had a long time to prepare for this. They’ve watched what’s happened around them and has decided actually our best national defense is in this missile capability and drone capability. And if Russia sent a squadron of like Su-22s or whatever the latest MIGs are, they would probably be shot down in fairly short order, which would be waste of resources.

 

So I think this idea, like I said, I think this idea that they’re not helping as much as they can is misplaced.

 

And interestingly enough, Arab Natsoc in the chat has just said Iran has a hyper fixation on self sufficiency. And he says it’s noble, but it’s not always the best way.

 

And I think that’s probably correct. Like I said it’s not up to China and Russia just to unload the docks in some port somewhere. Just tons and tons of military hardware that Iran never asked for. You know, they’ve got to agree these things and they’ve got to ask for it and they’ve got to trade for it and give things away and they probably feel they don’t need to. And judging by what’s happening so far, maybe they’re right. They didn’t need it. Maybe whatever they’ve asked for, they’re utilising and anything they haven’t asked for, they don’t really need.

 

Yuro: [with a Russian accent]

 

“I’m sorry, comrade, I didn’t mean to leave that pallet of nuclear weapons. You can do what you like with them.”

 

Mark Collett: Yeah, [chuckling] I did say this in all fairness, mate, I think I did say to you it would probably, to do something like this or to create a deal of that sort you would probably actually need for the Iranian regime to fundamentally turn around and say:

 

“Look, you’re gonna have half of our country, you’re gonna have X amount of our oil production. You’re going to be able to put your own bases on our soil. You’re going to have this power over us.”

 

And then Russia or China might say:

 

“Well, this is actually worth it. Then we will put bases on your soil. This is absolutely worth it! We’re going for it. Thanks. Thanks a bunch, guys. You know, this works.”

 

But the Iranians might not actually want that they might not actually want Russia and China to have that much control over Iranian politics.

 

Natty: Yeah, that’s absolutely right!

 

And if you think about it, that would turn Iran into a, like a, not exactly a vassal state, but as a, like an arm of Russia or an arm of China.

 

Whereas if they come out of this unscathed, they emerge as the regional power in the Middle East, which has much bigger implications for them and then makes them bigger on the world stage than just being an outpost of Russia or China.

 

Yuro: But they could trade on more equal terms with the North Koreans. And the North Koreans have come out and said:

 

“If they ask for a nuke, they’ll get one.”

 

Natty: Well maybe they will. I suspect the Iranian government is going to be much more looking at that idea much more favourably after this.

 

Mark Collett: Well, that is an interesting point.

 

And ultimately I’ve said this on many streams, but we are in a situation where that is the only way that you can keep America off your back. That’s the only reason North Korea didn’t fall. It’s the only reason Russia probably hasn’t been invaded or struck by the Americans. I think if Russia didn’t have nukes, undoubtedly America would have attacked them.

 

But despite them not having nukes, I will say this. I think the Iranians retaliatory strikes have been extremely impressive! But amongst those retaliatory strikes, it is noted that, because when this all started, I was thinking:

 

“Why are they bombing refineries? Why are they attacking refineries in other Arab nations? Surely that’s going to annoy potential allies. Why would they do such a thing? You know, we don’t do that, guys, because if you do, you’re going to end up being a pariah state and you know, your next door neighbours aren’t going to want to essentially work with you.”

 

And then the other day it comes out that effectively what you’re seeing here is not Iran striking these oil refineries, but the strikes on the oil refineries have been carried out by Israel!

 

So what do you think to Iran’s actual retaliation and what do you think of Israel’s rather underhanded attacks? Because, and this isn’t just theory crafting. We’ve actually seen over the last, 24 hours scores of Mossad agents being arrested around the Middle East for being involved in false flag operations in numerous Middle Eastern nations.

 

And of course, this is something that we all know happens. This is something that we all are completely aware of you know, we know that Israel is regularly involved in sort of false flag events. This is something that has happened many, many times in the past.

 

And I think it’s interesting that this is being exposed. So we’ve had the USS Liberty, [we’ve had 9/11] we’ve had bombings in the Middle East. We’ve had potential or we’ve had sort of “terror attacks” in inverted commas in numerous countries which have turned out to be the work of Israeli agents. And we’re seeing that again now.

 

So I think Iran has performed far more ably than people might have thought. Sadly, they don’t seem to be winning this. Their navy seems to be taking major hits.

 

But some of these retaliatory strikes are looking questionable, are actually the work of Israel.

 

[1:19:06]

 

 

Yuro: Well, supposedly, I mean, who’s to say that the attack on our base in Cyprus was actually carried out by Iran? Because didn’t Keir Starmer say:

 

“Oh, we won’t actually engage in hostile actions, we’ll only defend Israel with our planes!”

 

Which is, of course, kind of a schizophrenic point of view in the first place. But then all of a sudden:

 

“Oh, look, our base in Cyprus is attacked and now we can kind of get in fully without restriction.”

 

Natty: So that’s a good point. I mean, we can talk about RAF Akrotiri, but if you look at where Cyprus is on a map, any Iranian weapons, munitions, whether it’s drones or missiles or whatever, have to fly over, like directly over Israel. So there’s speculation it was like Hezbollah or possibly someone else or even maybe a, like an Israeli false flag, which is certainly possible. And who can say?

 

But it does seem like the refineries in Saudi Arabia and Qatar are Mossad operations to blow them up. With the point being to try and engage those countries on behalf of Israel to come into the war on behalf of Israel and do what they can or do more for Israel.

 

But coming back to your point, Mark, about the strikes that Iran have carried out, it’s not clear to me that they’re losing. I mean, you say it seems they’re losing. I’m not sure that’s totally true. And we spoke about this before I think a few months back on the Nationalist A-Team, where I think they’re doing much more, they’re doing a much more capable job than anyone except expected them to in the sensibility and where they’re striking.

 

So they’re hitting US bases in these Gulf oil states, you know, Bahrain and Saudi Arabia and Qatar. And they’re forcing the Americans to retreat, which stretches their logistic lines. And like we said earlier, they may have fomented an uprising in Bahrain and they’re making these Arab states which have been paid off or controlled by Israel in some way unstable and shaky. And the Israeli installed governments and monarchs and regimes in these countries are looking incredibly shaky or shaky as you’ve just put in the chat, that you’re on shaky ground. And hitting Dubai, well, that’s just popular with everyone in the entire world. So what do you say about that?

 

Yuro: It’s kind of, it’s almost like their own kind of Samson Option, except inherently justified and not evil because they’re only going after the American bases and the people supporting the Americans and the Israelis.

 

But you know, they’ve said:

 

“If we’re attacked from here. We’re going to take this, and just kind of everything in the region, every American base.”

 

And it’s entirely justified because these countries can’t claim to be not involved:

 

“Oh yes, we’re not involved in this. We just have a base where your enemy is launching attacks on you, but we’re not involved!”

 

And then the moment Iran says:

 

“Okay, well we’re not going to attack you, we’re not going to attack your people, but we’ll take out that base.”

 

And then say Saudi Arabia:

 

“So we’re under attack, we’re being attacked.”

 

Well, no!

 

Natty: That’s American soil. That’s American soil there buddy! A totally legitimate target by anyone’s standards.

 

Yuro: I mean, it seems like Iran is taking a kind of “tank and turtle” strategy. You know, it’s like when you play a, like a strategy game and you can put a lot into units or you can just build up your base and wait for them to come to you. And it can be risky because there’s a possibility that you get overwhelmed.

 

But if you’re turtle enough you can withstand that storm and then you can turn around.

 

Mark Collett: Is Yuro the tank or the turtle? That’s the question. [chuckling]

 

Natty: Depends what he’s had to eat. [chuckling]

 

Yuro: Turtling and tanking, kind of the same thing.

 

Natty: But I think like Iran by its like geography is kind of is able to naturally turtle and the fact is that there’s so many assets that America have placed around it and like the jewpedo regime have around it. And the fact that Israel is within striking distance means it can strike effectively. And America is very powerful and has a very powerful military, but that military still has logistical concerns and still has aircraft carriers that are clogged [chuckling] with like fat Mexican sailors poo!

 

Yuro: American aircraft carriers are as full of shit as Donald Trump!

 

Natty: Well, [chuckling] yeah, agreed.

 

Mark Collett: Well that’s the thing. Look, I mean, we haven’t seen an aircraft carrier at the bottom of the Persian Gulf yet, have we? Now you might be saying:

 

“Oh well, Mark, that’s a big ask.”

 

Because Obviously, if that happened, we would actually probably see the beginning of World War III! Because at that point, I think Trump would have to put boots on the ground. It actually might be the end of him. You know, it’d be one of the other, wouldn’t it? He’d either have to put boots on the ground or it’d be the end of him. But we are yet to see an aircraft carrier effectively being scrapped.

 

Now, that doesn’t mean they’re not doing anything in retaliation, but they’re not hitting the big targets. And look, we’ve had American commentators, some of these American commentators that do these sort of big takes on these things. You hear them talking about this Axis of Resistance and saying:

 

“Oh the time will come when these hypersonic missiles are going to be putting aircraft carriers at the bottom of the Persian Gulf!”

 

We yet to see that, are we? I mean, we’re also yet to see any of these sort of hypersonic super weapons take out leading members of the Israeli government or the Israeli regime. You know, I know Yuro doesn’t like the word “regime”, which we keep using, but that is an interesting point. We haven’t seen Israel struck. Israel has been proved to be not invincible, I think it’s fair to say that. But we haven’t seen the Israeli government reeling in the same way that the Iranian government has.

 

[1:25:49]

 

Yuro: Well, there’s a couple of points to make here. First off, with regards to the aircraft carriers, the American Navy has been keeping the aircraft carriers at a much greater range than they would normally use them to attack somebody because they are scared of those missiles. And the Iranians have launched small salvos of kind of like four missiles at time at them and got them to basically back off and back off to a greater distance, which means they can do much fewer kind of bombing runs at once and they have more fuel requirements and greater maintenance on the planes. So it is diminishing America’s capability to attack.

 

There was also satellite footage, I think, from a Chinese satellite that showed a fire on one of the destroyers in one of the aircraft carriers escorts. So potentially that was hit by Iranian missiles and although not sunk, caught fire. So they’re keeping them at bay. The Americans know if they get any closer, they will be hit.

 

And with regards to the missiles that they’re firing, it seems like they’ve used a lot of their kind of crappier munitions and their older munitions, like everything they’ve been launching at the other Gulf states is short range ballistic missiles that don’t have the range to go anywhere else. So they might as well use them on these targets. And they’ve been using up these older, less advanced munitions and drones and still still getting so many interceptors wasted before they actually bring out the big guns. And we’ve seen within the past day or two they’re starting to launch these missiles. I can’t remember the name of them, but they’re like a very large cluster munition that drops about 60 different submunitions on the way down and they’re dropping those on Israel.

 

And as I said in the very beginning, we just don’t know how much is actually getting through and how much damage they’re actually doing because it’s censored and covered up.

 

Natty: Yeah, we did touch on this and like you said, like an interceptor system, like a THAAD or like a Patriot battery or whatever, costs like in the millions, you know, hundreds of millions of dollars. And they’re being used up [chuckling] like drones with lawnmower engines and like a few kilogram warheads. And Iran’s just like churning these things out, like churning them out and churning them out and they’re still intact and they’re at some point America is going to run out of interceptors.

 

And I don’t know if you saw this, but the pedojew regime in America like called its defense manufacturers, heads of its defense manufacturing industry in for like an emergency meeting to say:

 

“We need more missiles! We need more stuff like come on, make it happen!”

 

But I was listening to something earlier saying this is very well demanding that, but there’s a lot of a very expensive gear that goes into this stuff, like certain gases and certain rare earth elements and guidance systems and radio radar systems and optics and all the rest of it that has to go into this missile production.

 

Meanwhile, you know, Iran can get like a cheap [chuckling] Chinese lawnmower engine, stick it in a, like a fiberglass Shahed drone shell, put a bit of explosive on the tip of it and just launch it wherever it runs, you know, within a few hundred mile radius, which is enough to cover the Gulf states and Strait of Hormuz and all this oil production that Europe relies on and lots of other people rely on and it’s going to destabilise all these countries that surround it.

 

Yuro: There’s a psychological aspect of them just doing the drip, drip, drip, dropping wave after wave of missiles on the Israelis, that’s definitely going to be wearing the Israelis down.

 

And also let’s say they absolutely opened up and dropped every missile that they had on Tel Aviv and the surrounding areas. Well in that situation the Israelis would come out and enact the Samson Option, wouldn’t they? And just you know, destroy them with their own nuclear weapons so that obviously they’re not going to feel like they can just drop everything on them at once because they don’t want to force them into that corner where they say:

 

“All right, well we’re doomed anyway!”

 

Natty: Well the other thing to remember is for Iran, the people in Iran and the government in Iran understands this is like a fight for survival. Like I said earlier, if they lose now, if they fail in this defense of their nation, they turn into a failed state. Israel has free reign and MI6 and the CIA have free reign to just fund all sorts of horrible like disgusting groups like ISIS and like the Kurds and everyone else to come and storm their country and make it into a living hellhole, just like they’ve done with Syria and Iraq and Libya.

 

So they understand this is a fight for their survival. So they’ve got to bend their entire will to doing this. Israel and America can stop anytime and can be forced to their knees if their civilian populations demand it. You know dropping cluster munitions on Tel Aviv is like a terror tactic. Well I mean “terror” in like air quotes, right? But at some point the Israeli people, the jews in Israel were going to have had enough of air raid sirens and cluster munitions raining on their heads and could be going to demand that it ends one way or another.

 

And this is what happened in the 12 Day War. I mean if you listen to shills and like pedojew media you would think that Iran lost a 12 day war, but it was Israel who cried off, who’d taken enough punishment from everything I can see. And it’s only a matter of time. I mean if Iran can sustain what it’s doing the Iron Dome is not stopping a giant like cluster warhead that like you said drops 60 submunitions on the city in a suburb somewhere, they’re going to cry uncle and they’re going to bend the knee to Iran.

 

[1:32:14]

 

Meanwhile Iran can’t stop and it simply can’t otherwise it fails. And I’m sure almost everyone in the country understands that.

 

Yuro: This is like a boxing match where the other side controls the bell. You know, you’ve got Mike Tyson there and he’s got the bell. He chooses when the match ends. You don’t want to give it everything you’ve got and gas out too early because it might go on another five minutes.

 

So they are happy to let this draw out. And everything that the Americans and the Israelis has done has all been about, let’s go in there with the alpha strike, let’s drop as much on them as we can, let’s take out this, let’s take out that, and then we’ll just walk away and say:

 

“Mission successful, we can walk away now.”

 

And the Iranians are like:

 

“No, we’re not surrendering! We’re going to keep on fighting!”

 

Because as time continues it gets more and more in their favour. What they don’t want to do is say:

 

“Right let’s have a ceasefire!”

 

And three months, six months down the line, it starts all over again. They’re better off just continuing it now.

 

Natty: Yeah, I agree with that.

 

I mean, this is, like I said, this is a long, long time in the making. This is a long term plan of Israel’s to destroy and destabilise Iran. So if there’s ever, if there’s a ceasefire, if this stops, it’s going to be back on again at some point. And in the same way that a Gaza ceasefire isn’t really a ceasefire and at some point Israel is going to move on Gaza again and try and wipe those people out. So I think the Iranians understand that. Well, hopefully they understand that.

 

So we’ll see what happens.

 

Mark Collett: Well, it is interesting because they haven’t begged, have they haven’t begged and they haven’t cucked! I think they know there is no negotiations. That’s one of the big problems earlier that we talked about though. You know, when you make it so negotiation is meaningless, you essentially do put people with their backs to the wall. You know, if you’ve got a guy, you know, stood in his house with a pistol and the police are like:

 

“Look, let’s negotiate.”

 

But you know that when the police come through that door, they’re going to shoot you no matter what. At that point, what are you going to do? Is it going to be fight to the death, blaze of glory time, or is it going to be:

 

“Well, I’ll spend 12 hours negotiating only to be shot in the head anyway.”

 

At that point, you are creating an interesting sort of situation where fundamentally the American word is good for nothing! And the only answer is to fight to the death. And look, you know, without going into World War II, many, many Germans surrendered in good faith, believing that they were going to be treated like human beings, that they were going to be treated honourably, that surrendering to the Americans would be the right thing, that they would go home, that they would be treated as prisoners of war. And then they were brutalised and starved to death. I mean, surrendering to America is often, …

 

Natty: Or sent to Russia as slaves.

 

Mark Collett: Yeah.

 

Natty: Even starved on the banks of the Rhine or sent to Russia as slaves. Yeah, you shouldn’t imagine that you’re going to be treated fairly if you surrender to these people. They’ve shown, as we discussed earlier, they’ve shown that they’ve got no honour. They’ve shown that they’re dishonourable people and they don’t treat civilians well. Those are the lessons that should be taken from this.

 

Yuro: They protest for their right to rape captives. When their own people have been caught on video, you know, sodomizing prisoners like Gazans that they’ve captured, they protest. And they don’t say it didn’t happen

 

Natty: Out in the street.

 

Yuro: Yeah, they said they turn out in the street to protest and say:

 

“We should be allowed to sodomize them!”

 

Is there any other country in the world where you would get that?

 

Mark Collett: Well, I think one of the interesting things about Trump, and this is sort of just one of my sort of notes on this, is that Trump came in as this “art of the deal”, wanting to put world peace on the table, get America out of the foreign wars that have dogged it for some time. And essentially what we’ve actually seen is quite the opposite. Trump actually does seem to be. And this isn’t meant to be a compliment, by the way, but it probably comes off as a little bit of a compliment. But he does seem to be sort of the ultimate ZOG warlord, doesn’t he? Trump as a guy, as a mad sort of emperor stood, you know, addressing his troops does seem to be a role that he slips into far more easily and readily than the role of peacemaker.

 

Now, I’ve seen him in these interviews. I’ve seen him talking about future operations. I’ve seen the way he really does love having this power and being able to tell other nations to bow to him or else. And that’s what he’s saying, really, with Iran:

 

“You’ll do what I say or I’m going to completely raze you to the ground!”

 

Now saying that, do you think there has ever been a more philo-semitic president? And following this, do you think this will change the way Americans vote in the future?

 

[1:37:45]

 

 

Natty: I doubt it. And there may have been more philo-semitic presidents, but certainly not in our time, or I mean, our time is in a time when I’ve been a, like an adult. I think I was 12 at the time when the first Gulf War started, when Bush rolled into Iraq and dragged Blair in and dragged the rest of the British people in. But it’s hard to imagine a more philo-semitic president.

 

And I think part of the problem is. Well, maybe it’s not a problem for them, although it might turn out to be, who knows, depending on how this thing goes, is that more and more people were just nakedly seeing it as that it’s like, why, what possible reason could the American people, like the people in America have for engaging in this terminal war with Iran? What possible cause do the British people have against the people of Iran? You know, flimsy excuses like:

 

“Oh, they’re a terrorist nation and you know, they might at some point have a nuke!”

 

This just doesn’t cut it. This isn’t a reason that sensible people would launch wars against people and go on these destructive campaigns against people.

 

Yuro: Sunni Pakistanis rape children. So we need to fight against them

 

Natty: Yeah:

 

“We need to fight a Shia country, a Persian Shia country!”

 

Yeah, absolute lunacy! But people, I think people genuinely understand more now. But this is just jews! This is a war for jews. It’s a war for Israel. And Trump is like deeply, deeply friends with the jewish paedophile who was the mover and shaker for the evil jewish paedophile regime. This is their guy. You know, he is their guy and he’s the guy who’s going to see this done. Not for you, not for your family, not for the American infrastructure, not for the home country and what it means for the future of America, but for Israel and for his jewish handlers. And people, I think, understand that. More and more people understand that, which is why this war is so unpopular.

 

Yuro: We see more and more people waking up to jewish power every day. And in America, I mean, you see mainstream Leftists like Ana Kasparian from the young Turks goes out and just says:

 

“The goyim are waking up! Deal with it!”

 

And that’s amazing to see and it’s a great thing! But at the end of the day there’s no one for them to vote for. The two party system in America is so entrenched, they’re not going to have that option anytime soon to actually get out of it. I mean you’re just going to have a continuation of the same thing where you have presidents get elected and have lower and lower approval ratings, but the people just won’t believe it.

 

Natty: And that’s like you said, no other choice. And I’ll remind, you know, Mark was saying that President Trump ran on like a “no foreign intervention, no foreign wars” ticket. Certainly in 2016 he did. But every president has done that and most of the prime ministers and most of the regimes in this country have run on the same kind of, “we’re not for foreign wars”!

 

And yet every time there’s a foreign war on behalf of Israel and the jews, these people snap to. And all of a sudden it’s:

 

“Well, this war is justified. And this is a terrorist regime and Syria used Sarin gas on its people and Iran is a terrorist state and Iraq has Weapons of Mass Destruction!”

 

So these people know that foreign wars aren’t popular and you know, foreign wars within justifications, but foreign wars where there is literally no justification apart from the jews want us to do this, are extremely unpopular! And burn through the veil that these people use to hide what they do and kind of hide the levers they pull in order to get what they want.

 

Mark Collett: That’s very interesting. And I do concur. I don’t think there is anyone else to vote for. But I’m not really here to correct anyone tonight. I think everyone’s made excellent points, but you are actually wrong that it was just, 2016. There are pictures floating around that I’ve actually shared showing with Trump and Vance stood together and it’s the kind of text around them is “the peace ticket”, you know, saying:

 

“You’re voting first, you’re voting for peace!”

 

This is what they ran on this time as well. And Trump did make these huge sort of overtures to the Nobel Committee, that he wanted the Nobel Prize Peace Prize, that he was going to stop these wars, which obviously he hasn’t done.

 

Natty: I think I’m probably guilty of paying less attention to the Trump campaign in 2022, [chuckling] when it was in 2016. But, yeah, I can well believe it. And I’ve heard, I’ve seen that in headlines, quoted for the peace ticket. And Trump lambasting Obama on Twitter at the time, saying:

 

“Oh, Obama’s going to start a war in Iran because he’s such a terrible negotiator and he sucks at being a peaceful president.”

 

And it’s like, yeah so many years later, you’re the guy. You’re the guy these people have activated to get this done.

 

[1:43:07]

 

Mark Collett: Well, indeed. And the next point, because we’re sort of getting towards what do we think’s going to happen?

 

But before we do that, I think one of the interesting things about this is we’ve seen, so there are a lot of, what can I call them, “Shitbag influencers” like Tommy Robinson, Douglas Murray, Andrew Neil. I despise Andrew Neil! Fat, worthless toad! The day he has sort of a gigantic Coronary as he sat eating his sort of duck pate on his terrace in the south of France will be a good day for the world! That guy is always on the wrong side of everything. He wants to attack Iran, wanted all the Covid restrictions. I can’t remember him ever saying anything good. He is scum of the earth!

 

But on the other side, we have seen this in interesting bipartisan pushback. We’ve seen Tucker Carlson, Marjorie Taylor Greene, Thomas Massie, Ana Kasparian. There has been this mass awakening to Israel! I mean, Tucker Carlson stood in front of Turning Point USA getting a standing ovation for saying:

 

“Israel needs to get out of American politics!”

 

That is seismic. You know, he is still the biggest American political voice in terms of being an influencer. I think this is incredible!

 

Now, I was somebody that was quite happy for Trump to get in for a couple of reasons, but one of the reasons being that I believed that this would bring things to a head. I believe that the Trump regime would be the regime that accelerated things to a point where numerous people who had previously been extremely philo-semitic would end up coming out, breaking ranks, and there would be a mainstream acceptance of our points. I remember saying that, actually I was briefly invited on WarStrike, of all streams, the night of the election.

 

And I was like:

 

“Look, this isn’t a bad thing! Don’t have a cow over this basically. This is something that may well bring us certain benefits.”

 

And I think that we are sort of seeing this to a large degree now. What do you guys think about this? Because I can’t really remember the last time we’ve actually seen a such a bipartisan move against Israel. And it’s not just the ones I’ve mentioned. I mean, Marjorie Taylor Greene has been incredible! Tucker Carlson’s leading the charge with young Right-wing males and females. Turning Point USA, which used to be absolutely ZOGged, is now a hive of like counter-semitism, if you like.

 

And on top of all of that, having the absolutely delightful and wife ready material known as Ana Kasparian.

 

Yuro: She’s absolutely perfect! [chuckling] Coming out for me!

 

Mark Collett: What? What did you say Yuro?

 

Natty: What did you say?

 

Yuro: It’s a bit brown for me.

 

Natty: Get out! Booted from this stream!

 

Mark Collett: You know what? Do you know what? Yuro’s got this thing, right, where you show any girl who’s got the mildest amount of than, and he goes into some kind of like tail spin as if like White women have never ever set foot out of the house!

 

Yuro: Are Armenians White?

 

Natty: This one is. This one certainly is!

 

Yuro: If she’s anti-semitic, she’s White! Okay.

 

Mark Collett: The question is, Yuro, are you White? [chuckling] Because the fact you’ve asked this of our lady in chief, …

 

Natty: Perfect Queen.

 

Mark Collett: Yeah, a perfect Queen means maybe you’re, …

 

Yuro: I’m not as big as simp as you are mate!

 

Mark Collett: Mate, there’s nothing simpy about loving Ana!

 

Natty: It’s [chuckling] a justified simpery.

 

Mark Collett: It’s justified simpery. Yeah. And so why I like Ana as well is when she gets angry, she just doesn’t hold back, does she? She’s one of those people, sometimes watching somebody get really angry, …

 

Natty: There was a clip, there was a clip of her on Piers Morgan and she was like yelling at these like jews. There were like six of them on the panel and I think they were all jews apart from her and Piers Morgan. And she’s like yelling and screaming at them because they’re trying to dissemble and you know, do what “aboutery” about the killing in Gaza and the killing kids in Iran and stuff. And she’s really letting them have it! And she’s screaming at them. There was some like Boomer in the Facebook comments, like:

 

“Oh, I tried to watch it but I couldn’t take the screeching!”

 

I just, I put underneath it, I was like:

 

“I would listen to her scream about jews in my ear all night!”

 

Mark Collett: Look, [chuckling] that is how I feel that like she has come out and when she does it? She does it! So if you’re screaming like some mad, sort of disheveled, for want of a better term, “Karen” and so you’re sort of mad because there was only, …

 

Yuro: Karen is a slur.

 

Mark Collett: Well, it is, but Karen can also, you know what I mean? You get some women who’ll go crackers over like the fact there’s only seven olives in there, you know, olive pasta. And the menu shows eight or something and they throw an absolute fit over it! But the way she blows up, it’s so attractive. She’s like:

 

“Don’t give me this! You disgusting Zionist pig! You make me sick!”

 

And she’s enunciating every one of her words and she’s not holding back either. She’s like:

 

“You child killing monsters!”

 

Natty: It’s like righteous fury at the people she’s like, that’s been put up on these panel shows.

 

Mark Collett: Yeah. Exactly! And when you’re watching it’s extremely attractive! It’s not sort of like I said, I know “Karen” is a bit of an anti-White slur, but it’s not Karen-esque. It’s not like an overly liberal White woman and who’s outraged because of something minor that normal people are like:

 

“Look, just pull yourself together.”

 

The way she does it, I find it to be absolutely cracking! I love it!

 

Anyway, that’s enough glazing of Ana Kasparian. I mean, look, can there ever be enough glazing about the Kasparian? That could be a two hour stream in itself!

 

[1:49:33]

 

 

Natty: It’s for Yuro, apparently. I mean, Yuro’s not on the Kasparian train here, unfortunately. Maybe we’ll have to have a word with [word unclear] after the stream.

 

Mark Collett: We have to, … You mean a beating? [chuckling]

 

Natty: You’re going to a re-education camp.

 

Mark Collett: After the show in the green room, we give him a kicking!

 

So what do you think of this bipartisan movement, though? I find it refreshing. I like it. And it’s got real gravitas. Because, look, I was on the David Duke show earlier and obviously I work with David probably more than anybody else in the world, for better or worse. And I love David! He’s a real character. He can be a bit difficult at times, but he’s a real character. But sadly, David does not have the influence he once had.

 

And I’m not saying that to sort of mock David or deride David. I’m just saying that as a statement of fact. But somebody like Ana Kasparian does have that power! She does have that gravitas, but so does Thomas Massie and Marjorie Taylor Greene. You know, Tucker Carlson. Absolutely massive! And you’re watching these people tear in to the Zionist cause and attack these Warhawk jews. It is very refreshing! I mean, well, for me, it is anyway. I mean, I don’t know about you guys, but I love it!

 

I mean, how does this make you feel after all the years of being in the wilderness? Look, being in the wilderness is something that. I am still very much in the wilderness, despite all my hard work over the years, despite my incredible consistency. Like, if I’m not the perfect guy, okay, not by a long, long means, I am very good at debates, but I’m not the perfect guy. I have my foibles. I screw up, …

 

Yuro: Not good at controlling your temper.

 

Mark Collett: I was gonna joke there by exploding at you!

 

Natty: Yeah. [chuckling]

 

Mark Collett: I’m not brilliant at controlling my temper, but one thing you’ve got to say for me is that throughout all these years, I have been extremely consistent in what I’ve stood for.

 

Now, when it comes down to it, seeing these people, for me, anyway, come out and be sort of so, you know, completely anti-Israel. It’s the first time I’ve ever seen it. And it’s not just relying on, as I said, this isn’t to knock David, but it’s not just to rely on me and David Duke making the point anymore. You know, these points are being made by these more mainstream individuals who’ve got serious gravitas. And I actually like that. I think it’s something that I think is really important. Seeing Ana Kasparian and seeing all these others doing it. I think this has taken our message to a new crowd. And it’s interesting to see that there are people all over the political system who have had enough of Israel.

 

Natty: Yeah. And I think having this kind of, it’s not perfect. The things they say aren’t perfect. Right. And the problem isn’t just Israel. And I think most people get that. And this isn’t to kind of pee on your cornflakes, Mark. But even the things they’re saying do give amount of headroom for anyone who’s less sizable and less influential from them to kind of push those boundaries a little bit more. And there is further to push.

 

I mean, we shouldn’t be coming around the campfire at this stage to stretch your wilderness analogy. We should be trying to, we should still be in the wilderness telling the truth and putting the final truth to it. Because, like I said the things are saying are anti-Israel, which is like 90% of the way there, right?

 

And like I said, giving headroom for more, not extreme, that’s not the word, but for a greater and more deep understanding to come forth.

 

And I think that you are going to see from this war with Iran, you’re going to see a tranche of politicians and people emerge who are willing to say these things. And sure, amongst those people there are going to be shills and they’re going to be subversive people, but at some point it just becomes like a political football whether you support Israel and whether you’re going to do their bidding.

 

I mean, one of the disappointing things with Rupert Lowe is he hasn’t really come out against, he hasn’t made a statement against Israel, which I’m sure none of us really expect, but now would be the perfect time for someone in his position to make that leap. We haven’t seen it yet, but I think this just pushes that football a little bit further down the road. You know, pushes the can a little bit further down the road to give space for that to happen.

 

Yuro: I think every day that the Rupert Lowe goes out and doesn’t support Israel, even if he won’t explicitly say that he’s against them, obviously that’s giving us room and whatnot.

 

But another thing, sort of talking about, obviously, the goyim waking up and Trump, I think it is great that we see all these people realizing the extent of jewish power.

 

And I think Trump especially is to thank for it, because he is just so openly philo-semitic in a way that no previous president, even if they love jews as much as he does, they just wouldn’t do it so openly! You know, he goes out there and declares himself the King of Israel and he says this, that and the other. And it’s again, with the attack on Iran and the thing with Venezuela, there’s not even a pretence anymore. It’s just:

 

“We’re doing this because it’s in our interest and we’re attacking Iran because that’s what we want to do!”

 

They’re not having the pretence anymore.

 

[1:55:32]

 

Mark Collett: I don’t like to cut across people because we’ve all been pretty good at not cutting across people. But I just wanted to further your point. You know, when Trump does things which are so sort of egregious [chuckling] that you sort of wonder why he’s saying them. Like when he said:

 

“Oh the Adelsons basically bought me the White House! So whenever they want to just walk in and ask for a policy to be passed, what am I gonna do? It’s the bloody Adelsons! They gave me about half a billion. How are you gonna say no to the people who gave you half a billion? Come on, guys, let’s get things going!”

 

You’re thinking to yourself:

 

“Are you actually saying this? Are you actually saying to people, ‘look, the Adelsons bought me the White House. So then when they want a policy passing, I just bring them in and say, ‘What do you want?’ And when they say, ‘I want this.’ I just give it to them’.”

 

Most people would know which bits not to say out loud. You know, it’s like when you were a kid, your mom was like:

 

“Did you clean up the house?”

 

You’d be like:

 

“Yeah, I did!”

 

But you wouldn’t be:

 

“Well, actually, I spilt the water from the big vase, partially flooded the living room, spent ages dabbing it up, and have hid the stain under the mat!”

 

Because there’s part of it that you don’t say out loud, isn’t there? And there’s part that you say out loud. But Trump, he says it all out loud, and it becomes sort of so almost jarring to hear him say it, because for years, we’ve heard that politicians are bought, they’re sold. You know, powerful foreign forces pay for politicians to do their bidding. And here’s Trump just honestly saying:

 

“Well, that’s exactly what happens! I do it all the time! The Adelsons basically funded me, and I did everything for them. So when they want a policy, I give them!”

 

You don’t say that out loud, do you? You say:

 

“The Adelsons are an important part of what we’re hoping to do, and no one has undue influence over me, but I’m happy to hear from them.”

 

He doesn’t do any of that. There’s no beating around the bush. He basically says:

 

“Jew’s got me in. And when they want a policy passing, I give it to them!”

 

I mean, is that refreshing to hear? For me, it is, because it confirms everything that we’ve always said.

 

Natty: Yeah, he is known for slurping up the “juju come”. As someone put in the chat earlier.

 

I think the worrying thing is, or I guess it’s not worrying. I mean, it’s interesting. So there was like just this ground swell of JQ awareness, like Israel hatred after October 7th because of what Israel was doing to Gaza.

 

And then the media gets to declare:

 

“There’s a ceasefire, Gaza’s over. We can look away now. We can look away from the fact that Israel has been bombing hospitals and stuff.”

 

Because of the nature of the news cycle and everything else, people let it drop. And then this big orange slave, jew slave, Trump, comes along and starts a war with Iran, like, totally on behalf of his jewish handlers in Israel. And all of a sudden it’s like:

 

“Oh, right, my awareness is shaking again.”

 

Like:

 

“Now there’s just another thing that’s like, cannot be ignored where we have to bring out this question again to the public and try and explain why this war for Israel isn’t anything to do with jews and is secretly about Russia.”

 

Or whatever else it is. You know, so, yeah, I mean, awareness, awareness rising!

 

Mark Collett: So we pretty much wrapped up a lot of the things we were going to talk about. And we’ve already said that Israel has been proven through this not to be invincible.

 

And I think that’s one of the key things here. At one point, Israel touted the Iron Dome. It touted their invincibility. I think this has shown something that’s very interesting. It’s highlighted that America is Israel’s lapdog! But it’s also highlighted that without America, Israel couldn’t exist. And that’s important, I think, for two reasons.

 

There’s this symbolic idea of Israel being this invincible outpost in the Middle East that the Iron Dome protects and they can stand alone if necessary. I think Israel have been really undermined here, not just from a moral perspective, but from the view that they can be hurt, which is important. You know, one of the big things, if you’re ever in some kind of conflict, facing what appears to be an immovable or unstoppable enemy, to show that that enemy is, in fact, fallible and can be hurt is very important.

 

And although we’ve hardly seen Israel sink into the Mediterranean, I do think the strikes on Israel have been significant from the point of view that it has shown them to be scared, that if they don’t have the West on their side, they can’t defend themselves.

 

Yuro: Well, it’s like with October 7th. When October 7th happened, it showed the world that they’re not all powerful, they’re not all knowing, they’re not always just gonna win because they’ve got everything on lockdown. Their power does have limits. And there’s some amount of White nationalists who come out and say:

 

“Oh, no, they let that happen1 You know, they let that happen on purpose! That they have a reason to do this.”

 

But actually, it’s like you’re unwilling to believe that they just screwed up that badly.

 

[2:01:21]

 

 

[Remainder of Transcript in Progress]

 

 

[2:29:32]

 

 

Mark Collett: Look, I’m not going to get into a big debate, but I actually believe they let that happen. I believe that that was part of their plan and gave them this imperative to do what they did in Gaza.

 

However, I think Iran’s a different kettle of fish. I think that what we’re seeing with Iran here is something fundamentally much more damaging for them, because they have nothing to gain by letting Iran smash through the Iron Dome. They have nothing that they can say:

 

“Well, this gives us the moral imperative to do X.”

 

Because in the case of Iran, they’ve already done X, haven’t they? X has already been committed to, it’s already been carried out.

 

So I think there’s different things here.

 

But look, let’s wrap this up and we’re going to wrap this up before we do the questions and answers. If anyone wants to Superchat. If you’ve enjoyed the stream, please consider sending a Superchat. But we’re going to wrap this up with, obviously we’ve said this is for the Greater Israel Project and we’ve talked about the political ramifications around the world for America, for Russia, for China, for future conflicts.

 

But one thing we haven’t talked about is the political ramifications here in Britain. Now, obviously Starmer hasn’t embroiled himself and he’s made the right choice in that case, but probably for the wrong reasons. Rather than doing this because he doesn’t want to serve Israel, he’s done this because he doesn’t want to turn the Muslim bloc vote against him any further because he fears losing the next general election.

 

But what we can see here, or what I see here, is a major problem with refugees and they’re talking about potentially two, … There was the, I think it was the Telegraph that stated this. The calculation is that 2.5 million people will be displaced from the region due to this conflict. At the present time, that number could obviously rise and they’re all going to be coming to Europe, they’re not going to be going to Israel.

 

And I’ve always described this as sort of the twin evils of Israel. On one hand, Israel menaces, murders, maims, terrorizes states in the Middle East for its own gain and to maintain dominance in the region. However, the blowback is never for Israel! The blowback of all this ends up hitting Western nations who take the refugees or the people that are displaced.

 

And I think that’s the final piece of the puzzle, that the Greater Israel Project makes Israel more powerful, but by extension due to the knock on effect, it weakens the West, it pushes us closer to a demographic shift that will be unrecoverable and fundamentally takes us a step nearer to being a minority in our ancestral homelands!

 

Natty: Yeah, destabilising its immediate neighbours, like I said earlier, destabilising its immediate neighbours with missiles and bombs and gayops and all the rest of it, is a short timescale. But destabilising European countries with mass immigration and kind of ethnic cleansing and all the rest of that, that’s still just destabilisation. It’s just on a longer time scale. And I alluded to this earlier, but the Israeli gayops and the CIA and Mossad and MI6 operation, well I mean it was the open British government was just aiding like terrorists in Libya, overthrowing Gaddafi. Gaddafi had an agreement with Italy where Italy would pay him to stop, just endless floods of migrants crossing the Mediterranean into Europe. And Israel uncaring that that was in place or seeing that actually destroying that was a good thing because it helped destabilise everything, not just Europe, but top to Libya, decided to enact you know, plans against Gaddafi that ended with him, like I said, with a bayonet up his bum, dragged out into the street.

 

And that led to the migration crisis in 2015, 2014, 2015, which is ongoing today. And I just posted in the private chat there because I just looked this up, Morgoth’s Law, which was spoken by Morgoth himself:

 

“No matter where the conflict is in the world, the refugees coming to Europe will be fighting age black and brown men!”

 

And that’s going to hold true for this conflict.

 

Now that might be coincidental in other cases but certainly with Iran this is the double, not the double edged sword but like the win-win situation for Israel. They get to destabilise nations by direct war against their like direct competitors. But they also get to destabilise their so-called “allies” in terms of European nations in America with all these displaced people who then through their human rights groups and refugee groups and these kind of NGOs get to set up migration routes into the countries who are supposedly their allies that they help destabilise. The knock on for politics in this country, unfortunately there won’t be much because we don’t have much of a choice. And if Reform was in power at the moment it would probably be just balls out gung-ho for Israel. So what choice do you have in this country? I mean it’s probably less than anywhere else.

 

Mark Collett: I will say though, I think Yuro is right in what he said. Every day that Rupert Lowe spends not endorsing Israel is a victory from our point of view. You know, I know that might sound like a cucky thing to say, but it has been so long since we’ve had anybody in any form of position of genuine power who hasn’t immediately been a slave to Israel. And it’s one of the things that Tommy Robinson’s been quite upset actually by a number of things Rupert Lowe has said and done. I don’t know if you saw, but Tommy Robinson said:

 

“You know, Rupert Lowe needs to clarify whether black people can be British. Rupert Lowe needs to clarify his position on all these things!”

 

Well, I find that very interesting because that suggests that Tommy and his handlers are getting quite nervous that Rupert isn’t going to be the Zio lap dog they hoped he would.

 

[2:07:56]

 

Natty: Yeah, the kind of the cucked civnat stuff that always bends towards this like piss-weak conservatism, as we’ve seen with Reform, where it just turns out they’re just as I mean they’re not really even civic nationalists, they’re just Conservatives in that anyone’s British, anyone who steps foot on this island is British.

 

So yeah, I mean funnily enough, Tommy wrote, those questions from Tommy Robinson he tried to put to Rupert Lowe:

 

“We’re in the wake of the Iran war starting and Rupert Lowe not coming out in support of Israel.”

 

And all of a sudden here you’ve got Tommy Robinson popping up like fresh from snorting up lines of coke on a mirror somewhere in America asking him about the same, well as pulling the same gay ops that he tried with the BNP all those years ago, which you know about very well, Mark.

 

Yuro: And after hopping off his private jet with his son, who’s posting about it on Instagram while he begs for money from poor White people who haven’t got a dime to scrape together.

 

Natty: Yeah, Tommy Robinson, just to reiterate, is absolute scum! He is scum! Everything out of Tommy Robinson’s mouth is like a jewish handler somewhere. And that has become more and more clear! There’s no like, no intersection of lines from real dissidency in this country in the West. And Tommy Robinson, this is like a literal jewish mouthpiece being paid by Israel to say the things he does.

 

And if you think there’s some part of Tommy that’s still good or some part of him that’s still worth listening to, then you simply haven’t been paying attention. And you need to, I don’t know, get with the programme or get your head right, because he’s evil, he’s terrible, and he’s a scumbag!

 

Mark Collett: I concur.

 

So I think we’ve had a pretty robust chat. We’re going to do the Superchats in a couple of seconds. If you want a Superchat, please do.

 

But I’ll say this, I think in conclusion. I’ve said this many times before, but the judeo-American empire is the greatest threat to the world!

 

Yuro: And I’ve said they are the great Satan!

 

Mark Collett: Well, it’s not just the greatest threat, is it to White people. Now we obviously are fundamentally our thoughts are for White people. That’s the most important thing for us, that we look after people of European descent.

 

However, it’s not just people of European descent that suffer under the judeo-American State. Obviously Arabs suffer immensely.

 

And a lot of the problems created by the judeo-American States, actions such as these unnecessary wars, these toppling of sovereign regimes, the murder of government leaders in foreign countries, like Colonel Gaddafi. And look, when we say this, we’re not saying that Colonel Gaddafi is our hero or that we loved everything he did, but he was stopping millions of people passing through his country and entering Europe. And I’m sure that when he was toppled, there were many people within the Israeli regime and many leading jews in America and Europe that were very happy that there was going to be even more migrants headed to Europe.

 

And I believe that the only real way that the world can achieve freedom is for the judeo-American Empire to fall. I don’t know whether you guys agree with that. Obviously have 30 seconds each to sum up, or a minute or whatever you need.

 

Natty: That’s totally correct! And that is the line of, like I said a second ago, real dissidency, and this kind of rightoid, Right-wing, edgy conservatism. Like you said, the judeo-American Empire is the threat, is the problem! And if you’re not willing to say that, if you’re not willing to like cheer on its losses, then you’re not on the same level as you should be. I mean, you’re not where you should be. And I’m sure everyone listening to this is pretty much there, but those are the lines. There’s not a Left, Right, divide. There’s not a third Worldist, whatever it is, divide. It’s just you’re either hoping for this evil entity to fail or you’re not at this point. But, and we’re seeing, hopefully we’re seeing part of it sailing here. We’re going to see it fail more and more.

 

So that’s what I’m looking forward to. Not just that, but the visceral feeling when you, like you said, see a cluster munition raining down on Tel Aviv, feels good too. So enjoy it.

 

Yuro: White people the world over shall not be free until organised jewry is disempowered! Inshallah!

 

Mark Collett: That [chuckling] was the most concise you’ve been all night mate. Superb!

 

So, yeah, I think it’s been a very productive stream this evening.

 

And I think we’ve talked about a lot of things that people would want us to talk about. And without being boastful, I think that tonight we’ve kind of hit on more or less every major point, unless we haven’t.

 

But I think we put a lot of effort, obviously into ensuring that we did hit every major talking point tonight. And this was the, probably, I’d say the most comprehensive coverage of this particular issue that anyone will get. So I’m hoping that you guys enjoyed it. And we are going to do the Superchats now.

 

[2:13:54]

 

So thank you to everyone who has Superchatted. And if you haven’t, there is obviously still time. And remember, if you do send a financial contribution, it’s gratefully received because it’s what allows me to keep doing things like this and doing these streams.

 

Anyway, Mr. Skywalker gave $3. Thank you so much! And he said:

 

“You and Red Ice were definitely correct about ZOG’s superior tactical advantage, which I never doubted. Still Iran and its proxies and have fared better than expected. Landing hits on ZOG’s military assets.”

 

And he goes on with another $3 and said:

 

“It appears ZOG is carpet bombing civilian structures in Iran now, as many military bases and missile sites are up to a thousand feet below ground, very difficult to destroy. Do you think ZOG will use ICBMs?”

 

I think we’ve said that actually that fundamentally we are seeing probably a better sort of defense than people may have initially thought. However, obviously going up against the judeo-American empire is absolutely not an easy thing to do they are doing better than we thought.

 

And interestingly, the Americans are already resorting to these horrific tactics of bombing civilian structures. Do you think Trump would go as far as using an ICBM?

 

Natty: It’s possible. You know, who knows? At every juncture where you think Trump isn’t going to do something, you know, sometimes, well, quite often he will just go ahead and do it. The problem with nukes is, one that’s a line that if you cross has real implications. If you drop a nuke on a country just because you started a war and are then subsequently losing that war,

 

Yuro: If you started a war to stop them having nukes and then when you have lost you use them!

 

Natty: Yeah, it kind of undermines, it’s a massive red line. Like I said, probably implications that none of us even can think about at this stage.

 

The second thing is, nukes, for all this talk of tactical nukes, they’re a surface weapon. You detonate them above ground. So they don’t really, in this war against Iran, they don’t really have like a tactical purpose and they would only be used to destroy, like, surface, weak, soft civilian targets, like cities. I mean, nukes are designed to be used on cities that are all like massed troop build-ups, which Iran doesn’t have. So morally it would be reprehensible and tactically it’d be stupid. Although it would just, it would literally just be against civilians. To use them in this war would be like, against civilian targets.

 

Yuro: Yeah, it wouldn’t benefit them one bit. And there’s no way that Russia and China would not respond to it. And that’s not saying that they would launch nukes themselves, but there would have to be some kind of bigger response from them. To get more actively involved.

 

Mark Collett: And I think Natty hit the real point here. The only time nukes have ever been used are on civilian targets. They are not a weapon that is used really for military sites. There’s all this talk of:

 

“Oh, well, people have got tactical nukes now, and a tactical nuke does this and the fallout’s not as great.”

 

And we’ve heard all of these sort of takes before, but fundamentally the only proven use for a nuke is to be used against a civilian target. That’s just the way it is.

 

And I personally believe that if the Americans did this and took it down that route, it would be this fundamental turning point that I’m not sure the world could recover from that you know, it’s happened obviously twice before and it was horrific what the Americans did to the Japanese. But to do it now and for America to be doing it because they started the war and it wasn’t going their way, I think the world would change in a way that we probably couldn’t actually completely understand right now! But I don’t think it will go nuclear.

 

Thank you so much for the two Superchats, though. Ruins in a Landscape gave $50. Thank you so much for such a generous Superchat. Bay of Kings gave $5. Thank you so much! And said:

 

“Thanks, Mark. It appears Natty’s dropped out.”

 

One of his devices has come unconnected, it says on the screen. I’m sure he’ll be back. Arab Social Nationalist gave $10. Thank you so much! And said:

 

“Thoughts on the spectacle of the Nigerian leader of the opposition, Olukemi Olufuntu Adagoki Badenok and Farage arguing that Starmer hasn’t done enough for the Yanks. There is no opposition in the British establishment. Ignore a whisper of dissent in Parliament. War for jews unites the establishment.”

 

I think this is very interesting. And obviously Badenock and Farage are looking at what got Trump to power. Now, fundamentally, Farage and Badenok are both out of power at the moment and I think they’re both kissing up to Israel as much as they can, hoping that that will be their ticket to a Trump style run at Parliament. And let’s face it, although at the moment Farage is the favourite to win the next general election, that can all change. And he is looking at sort of shoring up his position. But Kemi Badenok is looking at going into a general election where she will be decimated.

 

So it is interesting to see both Badenoch and Farage fighting to see who can be the most philo-semitic on this particular issue.

 

But I’ll say this, and this isn’t meant to be like a cold way to leave the stream, or a black pill at the end or anything of the sort. But there are still an awful lot, and I call them Boomers because they generally are from that sort of age bracket. Now, it’s not to say all Boomers are evil, but there generally is this sort of Boomer mentality of:

 

“Well, bomb them all! Get rid of the Arabs! We need to support Israel! They’re our greatest ally!”

 

And that rhetoric does still appeal to, I would say, a sizable portion of the Boomer population.

 

Natty: Yeah, I agree. And because they don’t really want to think about it and the implications of it. So looks like:

 

“Oh, something else is going on. Well, to hell with them all! Just blow them all up! Bloody Arabs!”

 

And that’s a cultivated mentality. That’s not an accident that people say things like that and think things like that. This callous, cold, bloodthirsty, you know, mentality that’s been instilled in people through, I mean, basically like a real use of the term racism, where it’s:

 

“Yeah, Arabs are like dirty brown people and killing them anywhere is good!”

 

It’s like well, a normal human being, a moral human being doesn’t actually think that way. And if you’ve been led into thinking that some like, cartoon villain version of like, I don’t know, like a Western man, is ridiculous and retarded and immoral, and the people who put that idea in your head have taken a long time to do it, but have succeeded, if you come out making statements like that.

 

Yuro: And to the extent that it is a naturally occurring phenomenon, it’s as a result of having the Pakistani rape gangs that jewish people and organisations brought here and having the Sunni Wahhabi terrorists who are created by the funding of Saudi Arabia and Israel’s allies.

 

[2:22:23]

 

Natty: Oh, yeah, when Israel needed a recruiting ground for ISIS to destabilise Syria, they just used our country. And the overspill where like little girls were getting blown up in concerts or people were getting stabbed on London Bridge, that was exceptional.

 

Yuro: It’s just a bonus to them.

 

Natty: Yeah, that was just like a little side project for them.

 

Mark Collett: Well, thank you so much, guys. We’ll go on to the next Superchat. It’s from Tomorrow’s Victims who gave $5. Thank you so much! Said:

 

“The vast majority of us here in Yank land do not want the stupid war. Cheers to all my UK people.”

 

Thank you so much! Some Guy 14 gave $10. Thank you so much! And he subscribed for $10. Well, that’s much appreciated. Remember, you can subscribe to me over on Entropy and Rumble, and that means you make a monthly donation.

 

And obviously on Entropy you can subscribe for any amount and Rumble is fixed, $5. But on Rumble, we’ve got a good number of subs now, a good number of followers, and if we had sort of 4 or 500 subs, that would just be phenomenal! And obviously it would really help me financially and it wouldn’t really make a massive difference to people as $5 is what, the price of a large can of Red Bull these days. But if enough people did that, it’d make a huge difference to me.

 

We also have one Superchat over on Rumble, only one tonight, and it’s from Archie P007. Thank you so much! Okay, $5. And you said:

 

“I was all in with Trump, the great awakening and all that he has sold his soul for Israeli gold. No one wins a war, only the people suffer always. Follow the money. Trump is Israel first, it seems.”

 

Well, yeah, I mean, I obviously, I completely agree with that. Trump is Israel first. And Trump is someone who is absolutely committed to Israel, I think, in a way that I’m not sure we’ve ever seen before. I don’t think we’ve ever seen a president this committed to the state of Israel, which is obviously interesting in itself to say that, to say we’ve never had a president that is this committed to Israel, but he certainly is.

 

And at the moment, he is proving his loyalty to that nation to an unbelievable point! And whether this works for him in the long run or not, who knows? But I think it’s fair to say that he is risking everything for his loyalty to people who, …

 

And the interesting thing with these people is they did not support him when he was out in the wilderness. One of the interesting things with Trump is when he was saying:

 

“Look, the election was rigged.”

 

Netanyahu was actually the first foreign leader to say to Biden, to congratulate Biden on his victory. Can you remember that? I mean, Trump went mental about that at the time because he thought Netanyahu was his best friend. But it just goes to show, Trump isn’t actually. Well, he doesn’t actually have any principles whatsoever, does he? Trump is actually a guy that the Israelis can kick him, they can treat him like he’s their boy, their little dog. And when it comes down to it, he will take it time and again.

 

Natty: Yeah, I mean the only difference, just to add the only difference is how open it is now. I mean, like I said earlier, the other president have probably done everything to the detriment of their own people on behalf of Israel. But Trump is just open about it and everyone gets it and everyone knows now and he’s just still ploughing ahead with it. So there’s the difference with this one.

 

Mark Collett: Anything to add Yuro?

 

Yuro: No, no, I think we’ve covered most of that already.

 

Mark Collett: Okay, well look, that brings us to the end of the stream.

 

Thank you so much to everyone who has been here and obviously if you haven’t Superchatted and you’re watching this on replay, you can donate anytime you like on replay.

 

And if you do support these streams, especially these long form discussions which take a reasonable amount of time to prepare and we put a lot of effort into, please do consider sending a Superchat and we will keep doing them. Anyway guys, if you want to say good night, we’ll go around the group and then we will wrap things up.

 

[2:26:52]

 

Natty: Night guys. I have been looking at the chat and there’s been a lot of like pretty decent discussion in there. So I appreciate everyone who’s been here and you know, it’s good, it’s good getting all this down and talking about this because a lot of this stuff is beyond the kind of political divide that you see in this country between even nationalists who say things like:

 

“Oh, I don’t care about either side and they can kill each other!”

 

And that’s like the best you can hope for out of supposed Right-wingers and dissidents in this country. But I think a sober analysis and a sober talk about what it all means and what’s happening is worthwhile. So thanks to you two and thanks to the chat for turning up and I’ll see you around.

 

Yuro: Yeah, thanks for having me on. It’s been a good talk with both of you. Obviously we do get a bit of this chat going on with the A-Team, which I’m no longer going to be with because Sam’s back unless I’m a stand-in when someone’s away. But it was good to talk about this stuff. And maybe going forward I will get back into doing some sort of show again on my own. Maybe I’ll revive TASOB. Who knows?

 

Natty: Be very happy if you revived TASOB, buddy. So look forward to it.

 

Mark Collett: Well, look, thank you to both of you, it’s been a great chat. I just want to wrap things up by saying thank you to everybody.

 

Well, thank you first to Natty and Yuro for giving up their evenings. You know, obviously we enjoy doing this. We’re friends in real life and I think we’ve got pretty good chemistry and I think it’s been a pretty entertaining stream. I would also like to say a huge thank you to everyone who donated. Remember, you can donate at any point you wish.

 

And finally, a massive thank you to everybody who tuned in. We had really good attendance night. Lots of people tuning in, lots of people enjoying the stream and a really sort of quick, moving, interesting discussion on both the Odysee and the Rumble chat.

 

So thank you to everyone who participated.

 

Anyway, I won’t be back on Sunday. It was unlikely I’ll be back on Sunday because it was my son’s birthday this week and we’re having a little party for him on Sunday. So that will likely be something that may run on and I don’t really want to be rushing through that to do a Sunday night film review or stream. I probably just want to enjoy just a little bit of family time, which I’m sure no one begrudges me. And I will be doing that.

 

Anyway, I’ll be back on Wednesday for Patriotic Weekly Review. Until then, thank you everybody, good night and look after yourselves.

 

[2:29:32]

 

 

END

top

 

 

 

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

 

Odysee Comments

top

(Comments as of 3/16/2026 = 288)

Mark Collett
9 days ago
Pinned by @MarkCollett
If you would like to contribute to my work:
https://entropystream.live/app/markcollett

5
0

@RonP1
9 days ago
On YT comments, I’ve noticed more people seem to be realising that Kosher Tommy’s brand of Nationalism is fraudulent & serves no purpose to British people.

14
0
Arab Social Nationalist
9 days ago
Like the English, the Iranians have no other country. Resistance is the only option.

11
0
Hide replies
Aspect of Divinity
5 days ago
I pray to God that the Iranian people succeed in their war against the Zionists and their Western puppets

@RonP1
9 days ago
A safe rule: Never get into bed with the Jew

10
0
Hide replies
Capitalist Pigs + Communist Thugs = Jews
8 days ago
I have a cousin that married a Jewess. He is dead to me. I used to talk to his Mom frequently and she would complain how his wife basically ended Christmas in their family and how she’s rarely allowed to see her grandchild. I eventually told her “well what do you expect, he married a Jew”. She won’t talk to me anymore lol. My whole family is a bunch of sleepers, but that particular family is fuked. Her other son adopted a South Korean baby when he could have adopted a White baby. I’m done with that whole family.

7
0
Hide replies

@RonP1
8 days ago
Not a good move, I guess people who are not race-conscious fall into this trap,
they probably believe ‘It’s just a religion’ and end up with an ugly contaminated baby

3
0
Hide replies
Capitalist Pigs + Communist Thugs = Jews
8 days ago
Especially someone who marries a Jew, not much you can do there, especially once kids are involved. Even if they subconsciously start to realize their mistake, not only will they never attribute it to the spouse being a Jew, but they are caught in a bind not easily remedied. Same with White people who adopt non-White kids. Dead to me. If there was any possibility to fixing them in the past, that possibility is long gone.

2
0
Hide replies

@RonP1
8 days ago
Imagine working out their Holo story is BS, but having to go along with it for the rest of your life because the wife is Jewish! lol

2
0
Hide replies
Capitalist Pigs + Communist Thugs = Jews
8 days ago(edited)
I have my doubts my cousin would ever believe at any point that the holo story is a hoax. An old friend of my family also has a son who married a Jewess and from what I know about the 2 families, they are identical – the Jewess wears the pants, the family is Jewish to the core and Whiteness and Christianity has been stripped away. It’s pathetic.

2
0

@Theos19
6 days ago
Sounds like jgew hollywood did its work well on that family bro, sorry to hear this. There is nothing more shameful for a white man than to have a mixed breed child. Adopting another child not of your race is one of the most cucked things you can do. Raising another mans offspring with resources that should be for your own – how f-cking cucked is that. Someone else fcked your girl and put a kid in her, and you are raising their kid LOL. I was in the queue for the checkout once and I got caught staring at a man with his yellow wife (fat b-tch) and his mixed breed freakish looking son, I was with my wife and son around the same age. I couldn’t help but stare, it was like looking at a crash at the side of the road, or someone freakish you know? The cashier had to call me out and ask if she could help. After he noticed me the guy looked crestfallen and his yellow wife didn’t have any respect for him whatsoever lol.

1
0
Alice1488
8 days ago
I’m ashamed to admit that I started out as anti jihad, solely because of my job… I tried to rescue English girls from Pakistani Muslims who were mass raping torturing them, I did 20 years in my profession and saw the government as 100% anti White, anti English in every way. Mark et al helped me understand the truth!

6
0
Hide replies

@Theos19
6 days ago
Were you a social worker? I recall some of your comments on live chats over the years, harrowing stuff. Thank you for trying to stand up to evil. God will recognize his own.

2
0
Hide replies
Alice1488
6 days ago
Yes for 20 years! I did rescue many English girls, the youngest was age 8! The government is extremely anti White.

3
0

@RonP1
9 days ago
Purim explained…
“One of the principal Jewish feast-days is that of Purim. This feast is an orgy of hate against Haman, the story of whom is found in the Book of Esther of the Old Testament. The story, which is probably a myth, is that Xerxes, King of Persia, became enamoured of a Jewess, Esther, and made her Queen in place of his rightful wife. Haman, the King’s minister, complained to him of the conduct of the Jews who, he said, did not keep the laws, and obtained from the King an order to slay them. Esther pleaded with the King and prevailed upon him to summon Haman to a banquet. There, Queen Esther further prevailed upon the King to spare the Jews and hang Haman on a gallows prepared for the execution of her guardian. Instead of the Jews being destroyed, their enemies were slaughtered, including Haman’s ten sons, who were hanged. This feast is often celebrated by an exhibition of gluttony, intoxication, and curses on the memory of Haman; and even to this day in London, the Jewish bakers make cakes in the shape of human ears which are eaten by the Jews on this day, and are called “Haman’s Ears,” revealing once again the inherent hate and barbarism of the Jew in our midst”
JRM by Arnold Leese

6
0
Capitalist Pigs + Communist Thugs = Jews
8 days ago(edited)
The Young Turks, Anna K and all that group are not “awakening”. They are still anti-White and that will never change. While Anna does have harsh words for Jews as well as Israel, she and TYT are still anti-White libtards. Please stop blowing a load in your shorts because you think she’s hot. It is, indeed, simp behavior and quite embarrassing for us all.
She is/They are ANTI-WHITE. Got it?
Covington was right. Being pro-White is something Whites have a really hard time doing, even those that are racially conscious.

5
1
Hide replies
Judy_Izzum
8 days ago
anti-white or not, she is still the guest of honour at my hand party

4
2

@RonP1
9 days ago
Civ Nat = Kosher Nationalism

4
0
Arab Social Nationalist
9 days ago
Trump comes from the jewish community. He has been around them his entire life. They made his career in realestate in New York. He has belonged to them his whole adult life.

4
0
Arab Social Nationalist
9 days ago
Remember: these jews bombed Qatar to kill Hamas’s chief negotiator. They’re out of control, and they cannot be negotiated with.

4
0
Arab Social Nationalist
9 days ago
It’s not that they don’t think about it: the British establishment is actively antagonistic towards native British people; it’s not indifference, it’s active malice.

4
0

@noreplacement
9 days ago
Jews, Muslims, darkies in general. They all gotta go

4
0
Capitalist Pigs + Communist Thugs = Jews
8 days ago(edited)
Next false flag: Nuclear attack on USA, EU country or both. Could be an EMP nuke instead of ground attack.
Lots of dissent for this war on both sides of political aisle, they need something like a “9/11” to force more Westerners to support the war. Approval is falling hard. They need a false flag event. Also would “justify” nuking Iran.

2
0
Hide replies
Truth hurts
8 days ago
Shalom

0
5
Green
9 days ago
Excellent episode title. Spot-on. Thanks for your incredibly important work, Mark.

3
0
Secure the future of our people
9 days ago
THE JEW CRIES OUT IN PAIN AS HE SHITS HIMSELF AT THE BOMB SHELTER!

3
0
Secure the future of our people
9 days ago

@Jagdtiger
yes I know a jew was in charge of the Armenian genocide. And the fact that Armenians are Christians made it so much enjoyable for the jews.

3
0
Secure the future of our people
9 days ago

@Natty
I like that the left woke up to the jq but make no mistake they still hate white men. And want white genocide.

1
0
Hide replies
Capitalist Pigs + Communist Thugs = Jews
8 days ago
The left did not “wake up to the Jewish question”. They still love and defend Jews. They do not see the Israel problem as a Jewish problem, they see it as a White Supremacy problem. I know it all sounds so contradictory and stupid, but that is what you get with a brainwashed group of people. They only oppose and support what they are told to, without thinking about it.

2
0
Prison Ships
9 days ago
The Honourable Pastor Chuck Baldwin leads +40k AntiZionist Christians out of Liberty Fellowship Montana.

3
0
Arab Social Nationalist
9 days ago
Tommy Robinson drives a Bentley, all while his rightoid followers pay for his “legal fund”.

3
0
Alice1488
8 days ago
The likes are 101 and they need to be 109! Or 110, 111 etc

2
0
Edelweiß
8 days ago
Unless Judeo-Christian civilization is destroyed, the European race will die. Crush Jehovah! Hail Jupiter and give us victory!

2
0
Hide replies
Alice1488
8 days ago
We Whites must destroy the enemy race; they have relentlessly been attempted to destroy us for centuries! We Whites, of European descent must end this madness for the sake of all humanity.

@Aunt-Sally
9 days ago
it was a bit like watching the A-Team but without the game and gay dancing tbf

2
0
Natty
9 days ago
night guys

1
1
Arab Social Nationalist
9 days ago
Cheers goyim \o

2
0

@RonP1
9 days ago(edited)
Remember before the 2016 election when the bell end said he would re-investigate 9/11 if he ever got into power

2
0
Ulrich22
9 days ago
most people dont have real opinion at all. they all hope that it goes away and they can forget about it like they did for the last 80 years or so.

1
0
Arab Social Nationalist
9 days ago
Decades of Hollywood propaganda had a big part in it.

2
0

@Aunt-Sally
9 days ago
Well done lads, I’ve learned a lot tonight

2
0
Hide replies
Alice1488
8 days ago
Me too, watching on replay! My friends dog is healing well, and has thoroughly enjoyed the chicken , skin and stock .

Arab Social Nationalist
9 days ago
Imagine a future Britain that has normal relations with foreign countries. It’s not asking for much.

2
0
Arab Social Nationalist
9 days ago

@MarkCollett
– Starmer SAYS he’s not getting involved, but as we know from Gaza, he can assist Israel secretly. Don’t be quick to believe his public stance.

2
0

@Stryker!
9 days ago

@VesselofGrace
I may have to return to my roots. lol

2
0
Arab Social Nationalist
9 days ago
“Peace through perpetual war, goyim!”

2
0

@N-towerConstructor
9 days ago
No Iranian ever called me a goyim

2
0
MarcoEire
9 days ago
I don’t like this new term “Epstein regime” it takes away from “ZOG”, which is much more poignant.

2
0
Hide replies
Capitalist Pigs + Communist Thugs = Jews
8 days ago
“ZOG” deters from Jew though.

1
0
Bronze Green Oakwood
5 days ago
“I’m surprised he hasn’t drowned in jewish semen”
That came out of nowhere, nearly spat out my drink there.

1
0
Capitalist Pigs + Communist Thugs = Jews
8 days ago(edited)
“We tried the internet and spent years tapping to one another on keyboards, because we bought into the idea that ‘education’ was the answer, and if we could just get the truth to people, then things would change. Well, education without action isn’t worth a bucket of warm spit. We got the truth to people, all right, and it turned out to be nothing but a bunch of noise that was simply ignored, because the internet was where it stayed. Nobody ever did anything except tap on keyboards. Tapping on keyboards was no threat to them, we just let off steam and nothing changed. It is now crystal clear to any white man with two brain cells to rub together that the only thing that will make these dogs in power hear the word no is the sound of…”
Brigade

1
0
Arab Social Nationalist
9 days ago
They are banking on the Americanisation of British politics, and I think they’re miscalculating.

1
0
Arab Social Nationalist
9 days ago
You’re not as much in the wilderness as you think, Mark. It’s the Dissident right that has moved the mainstream to the Jewish Question.

1
0
Arab Social Nationalist
9 days ago
I wouldn’t lend a jew my lighter, much less die for him. Imagine it.

1
0
MarcoEire
9 days ago

@ArabSocialNationalist
His father before him was the exact same.

1
0
Arab Social Nationalist
9 days ago
Iran, in principle, doesn’t want to be anyone’s vassal. They want mutually beneficial relationships, not to be a junior partner.

1
0
Arab Social Nationalist
9 days ago
This relationship with Russia is new. Historically, Iran didn’t have options for buying a new airforce, plus they’re fixated on developing their own capabilities.

1
0
Arab Social Nationalist
9 days ago
The jew stands atop a pile of dead children and declares “AND WHAT, GOY?”

1
0
Arab Social Nationalist
9 days ago
The strength of the jew is that he is bold, and he is willing to shock the enemy with acts of depravity that are unthinkable for normal people.

1
0
Arab Social Nationalist
9 days ago
There’s no nobility in Western leadership anymore. These decrepit democracies have allowed the lowest filth of society to take power. Good men, sound men, competent men, are locked out of power.

1
0
Arab Social Nationalist
9 days ago
You can’t be pro-White and drive wedges between Western countries the way Trump does. He’s a diplomatic vandal.

1
0

@why
9 days ago
lol.. its a fun song

0
1

@Germanicus
9 days ago
Purimfest 2026, that’s what I’m calling it

1
0

@noreplacement
9 days ago
Howdy good folk

1
0
Natty
9 days ago
howdy troops

2
1

@Stryker!
9 days ago
Lana Loktef or Anna K….choose one

0
2
Hide replies
Capitalist Pigs + Communist Thugs = Jews
8 days ago(edited)
Dumb question on a channel like this. Anna K is a commie leftist no matter what her views
are on Israel and even Jews. She still believes Whites are evil. She is Anti-White! Lana, on the other hand, it 100% OUR PEOPLE. So, again, dumb question.

3
1
Arab Social Nationalist
9 days ago
They’re White enough, for goodness sake.

0
2
Hide replies
Capitalist Pigs + Communist Thugs = Jews
8 days ago(edited)
I generally like your comments, but as semite you’re non-White thus you have no place defining who is and is not “White”. That is OUR turf. Respect the boundaries (pun intended).

2
1

@why
9 days ago
jews rock

0
3

@why
9 days ago
I LOVE JEWS

0
3

@why
9 days ago
bruh jews rock

0
3

@why
9 days ago
wtf

0
3

@why
9 days ago
jews behind it all????

0
3

@why
9 days ago
gubbermints

0
3

@why
9 days ago
bayonet up the bum is gonna feel like a good option

0
3
Truth hurts
9 days ago(edited)
This comment was slimed to death. (Click to view)

0
6
Hide replies
– 🗲 GamerMosleyMomentUK 🗲 –
8 days ago
Maybe not all you Jews are paedophiles, but enough are that we can make these generalizations.

1
0
Secure the future of our people
9 days ago

@Aunt-Sally
brutal

Secure the future of our people
9 days ago
o/

Secure the future of our people
9 days ago
maybe switch every episode between players so all can play?

Secure the future of our people
9 days ago
good night volks

Secure the future of our people
9 days ago
14

@Jagdtiger
9 days ago
o/

Arab Social Nationalist
9 days ago
That seems like an age ago

Arab Social Nationalist
9 days ago
Boomers-of-the-soul, I call them. And they are mostly evil. It’s okay to say so.

Arab Social Nationalist
9 days ago
Trump is capable of going nut and ordering a nuclear strike. He kept asking about it during his first term, apparently.

Hide replies
Capitalist Pigs + Communist Thugs = Jews
8 days ago
I believe nuclear false flag first on USA, EU or bother, then they blame Iran and will nuke Iran.

1
0
Secure the future of our people
9 days ago

@Jagdtiger
hahaha

Truth hurts
9 days ago(edited)
As far as the ” Greater Israel ” is concerned, Israel has every right to annexe terriories from Judea and Samaria,not because of ” biblical rights ” but because ever since Israel was created has faced constant aggressive wars from its neighbours..
When an aggresor wages a war and looses he has to pay a price.
Palestinians had many chances to create their own state yet they rejected everyone.

0
7
Hide replies

@W_Poe_White
8 days ago
“ever since Israel was created”
The creation of Israel was itself the original massive aggression which initiated all the interminable ongoing wars and unrest.
“Palestinians had many chances to create their own state”
The Zionists would never allow any viable, truly independent Palestinian state to arise. Such an option has never been on the negotiating table. The Zionist maximalists were determined to complete the ethnic cleansing of Palestine begun with the Nakba right from the beginning. Such hardliners have been openly running Israeli governments since Likud was first elected in 1977, and even before that exercised power from behind the scenes. For example, the creation of the Israeli nuclear weapon capability led by Shimon Perez at the behest of Ben Gurion; and the hardliner initiation of the 1967 Six Day War to take control of the West Bank and Golan Heights.

2
0
Hide replies
Truth hurts
8 days ago
So you think that when Israel was created in 1948 ,by concetration camps survivors and a few others and was attacked by 5 Arab countries ,it was able to conduct an aggressive war.Ok

Show reply
Truth hurts
9 days ago
So you guys think that if Israel is destroyed, UK and USA will be safer with the goat loving Agiadolahs, who beleive martyrdom and the 72 virgins ,being in charge of Iran’s nuclear arsenal.
That’s fine.

0
7
Hide replies

@W_Poe_White
8 days ago
The only reason Muslims pose even the slightest threat to the US or UK is because Jewish-led elites have mass imported them into the US and UK as part of their Great Replacement. The Great Replacement is the Jewish master strategy for stealing White nations from their people. It is not merely Muslims being mass imported. It is infinity non-Whites, both Muslim and non-Muslim.
Jewish supremacism is the fundamental problem, never part of the solution.

2
0
Hide replies
Truth hurts
8 days ago
Wow .I didnt know that the Pakistanis and the Somalians are in the UK because of Israel. Thank you for letting me know.

Hide replies

@W_Poe_White
8 days ago
Pakistanis and other immivaders are in the UK because of powerful British Jews and the treasonous elites like Tony Blair who are allied with them. Jewish supremacism includes but is very far from being limited to Zionism.

Hide replies
Truth hurts
7 days ago
Blair brought the Pakistanis
ok.

Hide replies

@W_Poe_White
7 days ago
You really are clueless about history. There were some Pakistanis in Britain before Blair but it was Blair’s New Labor government which opened the floodgates to mass non-White immigration into the UK. I recall reading an article by Keith Woods a few years ago about this. He quoted statistics.

1
0
TDOF
5 days ago
Read:
https://archive.org/details/the-death-of-fragility-2nd-edition_202507

@ゼロHope
6 days ago
1:37:25
It is far more accurate to say Trump is saying, do as a I say and i’ll shot. There is no out option for Iran. It’s like “shame they won’t come to the table” but also Unconditional surrender, and we blew up the table and the guy negotiating with us.
There is nothing to negotiate. This is like the last time we attacked Iran, Trump started with the negotiating position of, “bomb yourself.” What is there to even to discuss? Especially after killing the pope-king of shia islam. You can’t simply do that, declare victory and leave. Everything of value with in striking distance, Iran will strike. They have choice, they couldn’t surrender if they wanted to.

Kevin
6 days ago
Ben Gavir currently in hospital and his house burning. so yes, we have seen such attacks

Kevin
6 days ago
they did hit one of the carriers with a drone, but they moved them too far away. why dont you know anything about what you are trying to talk about?

Kevin
6 days ago
Russia can’t produce infinite airplanes! come on! they don’t even have enough planes for their own war

Kevin
6 days ago
Russia is helping and Russia has made many public statements, they are just not covered. before the whole thing started every day Russia was sending plane after plane of weapons to them. Russia also spoke to Trump today and seems to have warned him they won’t let the US topple the government. right after Trump started talking about backing out.

@Kubatism
8 days ago
You are probably right, but the Venezuelan stuff also points to a broader context not discussed here – the China future war. All Chinese allies: Russia (bogged down in Ukraine), Venezuela (oil), Iran (supports Russian war effort and oil) you’ve got South Africa next (the current Afrikaner emigration policy of US, Ramaphosa humiliated) you’ve got only Brazil and India left – and India won’t help China

Alice1488
8 days ago
I love listening to Mark, Natty and Yuro! Actually real information about what’s going on! I pray that Isreal is nuked!

@Jagdtiger
9 days ago
ALOHA SNACKBAR

Secure the future of our people
9 days ago
lol

Arab Social Nationalist
9 days ago
Warren Balogh is the master of this line of thinking

@Natty

Secure the future of our people
9 days ago
The Colonel’s Fried Chicken was the best

0KT0BER
9 days ago
https://rocketreach.co/orla-minihane-email_748059991

Arab Social Nationalist
9 days ago
DIdn’t he mention Ian Wright in particular?

Arab Social Nationalist
9 days ago
In British politics, crumbs from politicians feel like a slap up meal, alas.

Arab Social Nationalist
9 days ago
That agreement still has legal force in Libya, if the EU decides to keep up their part.

@vengeance
9 days ago
i dont though

@vengeance
9 days ago
dawson agrees with you mark

Secure the future of our people
9 days ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J%C3%B6rg_Haider

Secure the future of our people
9 days ago
I think every leader will get assassinated that are against jews. Remember that Austrian far right prime minister that was killed in a strange car crash?

Hide replies

@W_Poe_White
8 days ago
Jörg Haider, killed in a car crash in 2008 while leading the polls in elections to the Austrian parliament.
“[Haider] was Governor of Carinthia on two occasions, the long-time leader of the Freedom Party of Austria (FPÖ) and later Chairman of the Alliance for the Future of Austria (Bündnis Zukunft Österreich, BZÖ), a breakaway party from the FPÖ….. Haider died in a car accident shortly after leading the BZÖ in the 2008 Austrian parliamentary elections.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J%C3%B6rg_Haider

1
0
Arab Social Nationalist
9 days ago
It’s because he’s thick, Mark. It’s as simple as that.

Arab Social Nationalist
9 days ago
Yes Trump’s crass vulgarity and his lack of discretion and restraint have helped a lot.

Secure the future of our people
9 days ago
*more

Arab Social Nationalist
9 days ago
Lowe is a tory of the soul, and he’s on a journey. Perhaps he will do it.

Secure the future of our people
9 days ago
This stream is the funniest :joy:

Secure the future of our people
9 days ago
kek

Arab Social Nationalist
9 days ago
They’re not National Socialists, but they don’t need to be.

Arab Social Nationalist
9 days ago
We crank anti-semites are vindicated. Years of naming them, against the protests of pearl-clutching rightoids is bearing fruit. Enjoy the compliment.

@Jagdtiger
9 days ago

@utopia148800
the donmeh Turks were jews

Natty
9 days ago

@utopia148800
i get it, shes right now though

Secure the future of our people
9 days ago
kek

Secure the future of our people
9 days ago
It’s like a British person working for an Indian as a servant.

Secure the future of our people
9 days ago

@Natty
Yeah but working for people who genocided you shows a lack of self respect.

Natty
9 days ago

@utopia148800
everyone comes from somewhere buddy

Secure the future of our people
9 days ago
Come on Mark an Armenian woman working for Turks? I like people with self respect.

Arab Social Nationalist
9 days ago
She wants to be careful though. Sometimes, she’s seconds from throwing Romans.

Secure the future of our people
9 days ago
hahaha

Secure the future of our people
9 days ago
NO HE IS GREEN!!!

Secure the future of our people
9 days ago
She is Armenian

@Jagdtiger
9 days ago
MAGA or MIGA

Arab Social Nationalist
9 days ago
Tucker is a very naughty goy. He might end up having some sort of accident.

Secure the future of our people
9 days ago
Tucker was recently denounced by Trum and kicked out of the “MAGA” movement.

Obscure Truth
9 days ago
The Iranians have developed small submarines that are essentially underwater “drones” with which they can target American ships. It’s not just missiles that are a threat to Americans.

@Stryker!
9 days ago
Had a boomer tell me yesterday: “thank g-d trump bombed Iran. My grandbabbies are safe” hhhhWuuuuut???

Arab Social Nationalist
9 days ago
My beloved Ana. Watching her journey has been terrific.

@Jagdtiger
9 days ago
+his jewish mentor

Arab Social Nationalist
9 days ago
Yep

@Jagdtiger
9 days ago
lots of Russian cargo planes delivered something to Iran

Obscure Truth
9 days ago
We don’t know because help would certainly not go through official channels. Who knows how much Russian aid actually is.

Arab Social Nationalist
9 days ago
“You have the clock, but we have the time” – Some Ayatollah.

@bagelsandloxism
9 days ago
they have hypersonic Iran is an advanced country

@vengeance
9 days ago
there are no more missles. they cant be made any faster.

@Jagdtiger
9 days ago
lawnmowers of mass destruction

Secure the future of our people
9 days ago
they say 80%

@Jagdtiger
9 days ago
then the party starts

Arab Social Nationalist
9 days ago
Yeah they’ve used the old stock to drain the AD systems. The good stuff is yet to come, when the jews run out of American interceptors

@Jagdtiger
9 days ago
I hope they wait for the interceptors to be used up first

@vengeance
9 days ago
death, death

Secure the future of our people
9 days ago
lol

@Jagdtiger
9 days ago
lol

Secure the future of our people
9 days ago
or Mario

Secure the future of our people
9 days ago
Iran has no allies only jew controlled enemies.

Arab Social Nationalist
9 days ago
It’s becoming impossible for Iranian moderates to argue against getting the nuclear bomb.

Ulrich22
9 days ago
they suck

Ulrich22
9 days ago
lol russia cant do shit

Secure the future of our people
9 days ago
It didn’t help Syria

Arab Social Nationalist
9 days ago
Sanctions – and historic Russian reluctance to sell them jets

Secure the future of our people
9 days ago
because that costs a ton of money

Arab Social Nationalist
9 days ago
I’m sure that fatwa still stands now that he’s dead.

Arab Social Nationalist
9 days ago
Iran has this hyper-fixation on self-sufficiency. It’s noble, but it’s not always the best way.

Arab Social Nationalist
9 days ago
China will look at this shitshow and conclude that they’ll defeat the Americans if they attempt to stop unification with Taiwan.

Ulrich22
9 days ago
russia and the US suck

Ulrich22
9 days ago
endless whataboutism

@noreplacement
9 days ago
The heat pumps are good for some things. But not homes and DHW

@noreplacement
9 days ago
Heat pumps are noisy and do not get hot enough. We have one

@Jagdtiger
9 days ago
Winter in Europe will get interesting

@Jagdtiger
9 days ago
110%

@Natty

@Jagdtiger
9 days ago
can you imagine making love to jigsaw

Secure the future of our people
9 days ago
imagine the smell…

Arab Social Nationalist
9 days ago

@DoubleOhSieben
I wonder what his reaction was when he first saw her knob?

@noreplacement
9 days ago

@DoubleOhSieben
yuck.

Secure the future of our people
9 days ago
Nihil sub sōle novum, governments have been doing this since the dawn of time since the first peasant revolts.

@Jagdtiger
9 days ago
he needed to attack before the midterms

Arab Social Nationalist
9 days ago
Trump is in constant touch with Laura Loomer, and he thinks that she is connected to the base and he listens to her jewish lies.

Arab Social Nationalist
9 days ago
Franco,

@MarkCollett
Let’s not forget Franco. He lasted till the 70s.

Arab Social Nationalist
9 days ago

@utopia148800
Doing that might be the point of no return.

Secure the future of our people
9 days ago

@ArabSocialNationalist
it depends how much murder the government is willing to commit and I think they will just start mass killing people.

@Jagdtiger
9 days ago
The Peace President

Obscure Truth
9 days ago
Of course, everything was done on purpose, I wouldn’t be surprised if they said that the girls read Mein Kampf.

Arab Social Nationalist
9 days ago
They could topple the regime. The monarchy is despised.

@Jagdtiger
9 days ago
Murdoch Murdoch episode with the Trump train lol

Secure the future of our people
9 days ago

@DoubleOhSieben
LOL!

Arab Social Nationalist
9 days ago
Andrew Neill looks like a clump of haemorrhoids

Secure the future of our people
9 days ago
gross

Secure the future of our people
9 days ago
HAHAHAHAHA

Arab Social Nationalist
9 days ago
They think they can make the state collapse, which means that they refuse to believe that Iran is a real, capable country. This tendency to underestimate and insult the enemy could be their undoing. They did the same with Yemen. They couldn’t understand the resilience of the Yemenis.

@noreplacement
9 days ago

@ArabSocialNationalist
shows the power of PR and sticking to the script

@Jagdtiger
9 days ago
they wanted to hit the girls school

@Jagdtiger
9 days ago

@utopia148800
yes!

@noreplacement
9 days ago

@why
who is that aimed at?

Natty
9 days ago

@why
do we?

Secure the future of our people
9 days ago

@Jagdtiger
I don’t know it’s all the same fake terrorist org working for israel

Arab Social Nationalist
9 days ago
We’ve been assured they do “surgical strikes” for decades. Either they can, or they can’t – or they won’t. It’s clearly deliberate.

@Jagdtiger
9 days ago
“Iran military says Strait of Hormuz remains open, but any US, Israeli ship will be targeted” lol

Secure the future of our people
9 days ago

@why
9 days ago
yet you support faggots who want to blame women and hitler — like keith woods and nativist

@Jagdtiger
9 days ago
isis k

@utopia148800

Secure the future of our people
9 days ago
You guys remember when a jew was screaming at a Russia Today reporter that Russia will pay for supporting Iran than a few months later a giant ISIS terrorist attack was launched at a Russian Mall?

@Jagdtiger
9 days ago
they did the legal games with the German soldiers after the war, too. Instead of POW, called them Disarmed Enemy Forces. To circumvent the Geneva conventions.

0KT0BER
9 days ago
Terror Cimbricus

@noreplacement
9 days ago

@ArabSocialNationalist
I don’t think America actually has allies, but I think you hinted at that

Secure the future of our people
9 days ago
always, because America is controlled by jews so they essentially act as jews.

@teja
9 days ago
Trump Judenknecht!

Arab Social Nationalist
9 days ago
Yes America does betray its “allies”.

Secure the future of our people
9 days ago

@ArabSocialNationalist
no people just have short memories, When Bush senior told the Shias to rebel against Saddam and America will help them than when they revolted Saddam brutally massacred them and America refused to help.

@N-towerConstructor
9 days ago
I’m waiting for the sequel to USS Liberty

Obscure Truth
9 days ago
Right.

@noreplacement
9 days ago
It’s obvious now why Trump kidnapped and took over Venezuala. Oil

Arab Social Nationalist
9 days ago
Trump, with his bad-faith fake negotiations has changed America’s international standing forever. Who on earth would do a deal with them now? He’s a diplomatic arsonist. Look what he’s done to Canada.

@Jagdtiger
9 days ago
Epstein clique works too

Secure the future of our people
9 days ago
They are using the term regime since Saddam

@why
9 days ago
what are we talking about guys?

Arab Social Nationalist
9 days ago
And I imagine there no advisors around Trump who are willing to tell him things he doesn’t want to hear.

Arab Social Nationalist
9 days ago
Trump hates nuance, and complexity, and he wants reality to match his simplistic hopes. He wants this to be easy, and he cannot accept that it isn’t easy at all.

Secure the future of our people
9 days ago
or, or, jews being stoned.

Secure the future of our people
9 days ago

@why
hahah jews don’t think so. That’s why they had Sam Hyde fired.

Arab Social Nationalist
9 days ago
They’re targeting the organs of the state: police stations, hospitals, etc.

@N-towerConstructor
9 days ago
Every Single Time

Obscure Truth
9 days ago
Yes, it’s amazing how they managed to conquer all those countries one by one.

Arab Social Nationalist
9 days ago
They are the government. The capital is theirs, and they act as the state.

Secure the future of our people
9 days ago
I mean what do you except? Tommy is an ex convict and a petty criminal and fraudster. And He claims he is jewish.

Secure the future of our people
9 days ago
he went full jew slave. Bet he is circumcised too like a good slave.

@N-towerConstructor
9 days ago
Trump went full retard

Secure the future of our people
9 days ago

@Chief_Moody
Hi Chief. I understand why people follow Tommy Robinson, jews are putting tens of millions of Pounds behind him and he has a large organization and social media boost. Essentially he has hundreds of liars on the payroll.

Chief Moody
9 days ago

@ArabSocialNationalist
That is true. lol

Arab Social Nationalist
9 days ago

@Chief_Moody
Tommy’s been on a coke bender since October 7. I’m not sure he’s slept for three years.

Secure the future of our people
9 days ago
Albert Einstein wrote a letter to Roosevelt imploring him to use nuclear weapons against Germany but the letter sat on Roosevelt’s desk because Roosevelt has died overnight.

@Jagdtiger
9 days ago
Andinia Plan

Chief Moody
9 days ago
Tommy Robinson and co have been very ghoulish over Iran. How people still support them, I’ll never understand.

Arab Social Nationalist
9 days ago
The Israelis are colonising Patagonia right now.

@noreplacement
9 days ago
Japan had already offered surrender 3 times. They still nuked ’em

Arab Social Nationalist
9 days ago
It’s real, Natty. Israeli journalists are happy to talk about it.

Arab Social Nationalist
9 days ago
It’s real. They talk about it in Hebrew media.

Chief Moody
9 days ago
It’s very blatant what Israel are doing with Iran. It’s shameless at this point.

Based and butterfly-pilled
9 days ago

@DoubleOhSieben
Being desribed as America’s streetwalker is like getting pimped out by a literal whore

Hide replies
Capitalist Pigs + Communist Thugs = Jews
8 days ago
Well that actually happens once an opportunistic whore ages – she becomes a pimp.

Arab Social Nationalist
9 days ago
Well, there is no planning for this war. The war aims change hour to hour, and Iraq was extremely well-organised.

Based and butterfly-pilled
9 days ago

@DoubleOhSieben
It’s always demoralizing to see conservative patriots in America viewing our country’s greatest ambition as being Israel’s bitch

Secure the future of our people
9 days ago
Yeah they just don’t care. What will the goyim do? Nothing.

Arab Social Nationalist
9 days ago
“The Dossier”. At least they had that.

Arab Social Nationalist
9 days ago

@DoubleOhSieben
Farage has been absolutely hysterical over this. “We have angered the Americans!”

Arab Social Nationalist
9 days ago
9-11 made the anti-war position more difficult back then.

@noreplacement
9 days ago

@ArabSocialNationalist
Not me. The state of most young fatties, they won’t even make it to a hospice

MarcoEire
9 days ago
Has anyone else seen Asmongolds blatant warmongering?

Secure the future of our people
9 days ago
Once the Bush administration got away with lying about Sadam and terrorism ties and a complete fabrication of weapons of mass destruction, it was GAME OVER for government accountability.

Arab Social Nationalist
9 days ago
Boomers using their final breaths to comment from their hospice beds.

@noreplacement
9 days ago
Plenty of young folk think that way too sadly

Hide replies
Capitalist Pigs + Communist Thugs = Jews
8 days ago
100%. GenX is largely Boomer 2.0

1
0
Arab Social Nationalist
9 days ago
The Bahraini government is illegitimate, and delusional. I wouldn’t be surprised if the government falls during this conflict. The Bahraini people stand with Iran, by and large.

Secure the future of our people
9 days ago

@noreplacement
There was a Yemeni calling in to a Bahrain TV show and the Bahrain TV host said there is no war in Bahrain

Based and butterfly-pilled
9 days ago
Bibi WhataYahoo

Arab Social Nationalist
9 days ago
Netanyahu has such contempt for the goyim. The fact that he thinks Americans are stupid is becoming very obvious. A rational person wouldn’t buy a used car from him.

Secure the future of our people
9 days ago

@noreplacement
The israelis and the the jew controlled countries hiding a damage.

@noreplacement
9 days ago

@utopia148800
that’s what I meant ha ha

MarcoEire
9 days ago
All true, I wish we weren’t inundated with ai slop of Tel Aviv

Arab Social Nationalist
9 days ago
jews and degenerates; European America is in the past.

Natty
9 days ago

@noreplacement
it only looks that way

Based and butterfly-pilled
9 days ago
The absolute state of the USA…

Secure the future of our people
9 days ago
Winged Lawnmowers from Hell

Secure the future of our people
9 days ago
I just want to see Tel Aviv flattened.

@noreplacement
9 days ago
It is difficult to find any Iranian fight back video. It all looks one way success for the Epstein coalition

Arab Social Nationalist
9 days ago
The UAE is cracking down on videos; Bahrain has banned street gatherings; the jews are cracking down on footage of Tel Aviv. The true extent of this madness won’t be cleat until the dust – or sand – settles.

Arab Social Nationalist
9 days ago
It’s hard to be circumspect, but it’s best to be cautious and not get one’s hopes up.

Secure the future of our people
9 days ago

@Aunt-Sally
haha you do it than.

@Aunt-Sally
9 days ago
Yuro needs a wedgie tbh

MarcoEire
9 days ago
PURIM FEST 26

Secure the future of our people
9 days ago
Evening volks!

MarcoEire
9 days ago
Excellent Germanicus

Secure the future of our people
9 days ago
It’s karma for Mark being very mean to Sam last stream!

Based and butterfly-pilled
9 days ago
Greetings fellow Social Nationalists

Arab Social Nationalist
9 days ago
\o

Esau rising
9 days ago

@ArabSocialNationalist
o/

@Aunt-Sally
9 days ago
Natty

Natty
9 days ago
thats good lol

Arab Social Nationalist
9 days ago
Greetings war-weary goyim.

@Jagdtiger
9 days ago
o/

@Jagdtiger
9 days ago
Epstein regime

@vengeance
9 days ago
o/

0
0

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

See Also

top

 

 

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

Greg Johnson: I’m Greg Johnson. Welcome to Counter-Currents Radio. Today’s guest is Joel Davis. Joel, welcome.

 

Joel Davis: Hey, how you going? Nice to be here.

 

Greg Johnson: Joel is joining us from the future. It is, I believe, Sunday where you are in Australia, is that right?

 

Joel Davis: Yes, Sunday morning. Yeah.

 

Greg Johnson: Okay.

 

Well, I want to talk to you about your recent debate in the form of two articles. One from Keith Woods responding to you, and then your rejoinder to Keith on the NS question; does nationalism today need National Socialism?

 

And I just want to read a Telegram post that was quoted by Keith. This is you. And this is what he was responding for. You write:

 

“There was a long time when I at least partially concealed my National Socialist sympathies and tried to pursue ideological projects which could circumvent the negative stigma. I realised these paths wouldn’t work because they all required rhetorical and often actual compromises upon racial loyalism. At the core of the pathologisation of White nationalism is its association with the spectre of National Socialism as unique and ultimate evil. It’s simply not possible to avoid this association in good faith with without damaging the conviction of your own position. The only solution to this, if you want the White race to survive, is the rehabilitation of National Socialism. There is no other solution. Stop wasting time.”

 

And Keith responded with an article on his Substack where he raises a number of points.

 

And I thought what we could do is we could talk through some of his main points and that’ll give you a chance to expand upon your counter arguments. So let’s just begin.

 

Joel Davis: I also mention for the audience that I also wrote an essay of my own which was in response to Keith. But the essay was largely an essay in its own right, where I thought instead of just writing an essay, just responding to his arguments, I’d rather actually formulate my position on its own basis and then deal with some of his arguments at the end on the basis of what I laid out. So my essay is also out there if anyone is interested in reading that. But yeah, anyway, we can go, …

 

Greg Johnson: Yeah, and I linked both it and Keith’s piece at Counter-Currents in the show announcement, and I’m sure it will be linked presently in the actual comments by our able moderator. So everybody should, of course, familiarize himself out there with both pieces.

 

So the main argument that Keith makes is that, well, there are four arguments that I can discern here. And I wanted to talk to you about this because I’m sympathetic actually, with Keith’s position on this and that I’ve laid out essentially this position myself over the years. There’s an article I wrote on The Relevance of the Old Right, which is a chapter in the White Nationalist Manifesto, for instance, on this topic.

 

So the first point that he makes is:

 

“That if we’re going to have racial nationalism today, ethnic nationalism today, that National Socialism isn’t all that relevant to it because National Socialism really wasn’t a pan-White nationalist position, it was a German nationalist and Chauvinist position. And that the National Socialists sought to aggrandize Germany at the expense of other White societies, principally Poland and Ukraine and Russia. And therefore if we’re really looking for White nationalism and that means self-determination for all White nations, it just doesn’t do to look at German National Socialism. How are you going to really advocate that as a solution for say, the problems of Poland? Are you even going to get a hearing for that?”

 

So I’m sympathetic with that and I’d just like to talk about your response to that.

 

Joel Davis: Yeah, so I mean, first of all, obviously I’m an Australian and I was speaking from a more Anglo spherical context at the very least. If I was Polish, I don’t think I’d be advocating for adopting something as explicit as what I adopt in my activities here in Australia in regards to National Socialism.

 

But nevertheless the stigma and the kind of the entire ideological paradigm, the way that liberalism has been reshaped in the post World War II international order still affects Poland and Ukraine in ways that are kind of suppressing their ability to express nationalism as well.

 

Because at the end of the day they are within the American led international order. They’re within the Liberal world order, so to speak. They’re within a European order of liberal democracies which fundamentally base their conception upon a rejection of National Socialism and its tenets. And that extends beyond anything specific to National Socialism which you could differentiate from broader ethno-nationalism. It actually, the ethno-nationalist aspect of National Socialism is obviously itself has become stigmatized as a result of this association. So there still needs to be work done in a rehabilitation of National Socialism. Even if you aren’t going to adopt National Socialism as a full on ideological doctrine in Poland or in Ukraine or in Russia. There are actually pretty large National Socialist movements in Ukraine and Russia. They probably have some of the largest National Socialist movements in the kind of contemporary world, which is kind of ironic for Keith’s position or perhaps even your position.

 

But it’s not ironic from my point of view because you can see how if you were to view the Soviet Union as the bad guy of the story, well then that kind of changes and relativises how you would conceive of National Socialism from a Ukrainian perspective, for example.

 

[07:17]

 

And of course, as you know, World War II went on, the rhetoric of Hitler and Goebbels and so on became increasingly more pan-European. The SS became increasingly a pan-European force. By the end of the war, the majority of the SS weren’t even German citizens. Many Slavic peoples from many of these nations, nations joined the SS and also many of these Slavic nations actually became allies of the Third Reich. And the rhetoric became increasingly about a battle to save Europe from Bolshevism and the idea that German leadership of Europe would be fundamentally better for Eastern European peoples, not just simply better for Germans. Now that probably isn’t an argument that’s going to appeal to the Polish specifically because of the unique circumstances there.

 

But nevertheless it is an argument that obviously appeals to a lot of people from Eastern Europe because a lot of Eastern European nations literally allied with the Reich, allied with it against the Soviets and sympathize with it up to this day. I’ve met a lot of people from the Baltic States, for example, who are very, they seem to have very strong NS movements in those countries, for example, and different attitudes towards National Socialism in those countries than a lot of other countries because of their visceral hatred of the Soviet Union and the view of the National Socialists as attempting to basically save their countries from the Soviet Union. So you know, and obviously you’ve got phenomena like the Azov Battalion and so on.

 

You know, I think this idea that National Socialism just can’t fly with Slavic peoples and therefore we need to get rid of it so that we don’t offend them to embrace White unity. I just don’t think that actually makes sense historically and it doesn’t explain all these phenomena I just mentioned. And additionally, the National Socialist movement, insofar as it exists today around the world, is fundamentally pan-European is in its orientation it is kind of spread across all White countries and it is clearly focused on race first and foremost more than any like particular kind of nationalism. Although the respective National Socialists of different countries obviously are nationalists with respect to their own ethnic group at the same time there is a recognition that our race has a shared destiny and that it isn’t just the story of any one particular nation, but it’s the story of the race and the civilisation at large, which is pertinent here in political and historical terms.

 

And additionally a point that I made in my essay was that I’m not even going to, I mean, I didn’t necessarily agree with the characterisation that Keith made. I think he cherry picked a little bit because there are counter examples of statements from, for example, Alfred Rosenberg, who was in charge of the Eastern Front, which were sympathetic and made concrete plans towards creating, for example, a post-war Ukrainian nation in the event of German victory and so on.

 

This idea that they were just going to roll in there and genocide the Slavs is a bit of a meme, a bit of a construction of post World War II propaganda. Like General Plan Ost, for example, in my opinion is a fabrication. But I didn’t want to get bogged down in these historical arguments because the most core and fundamental argument, which I think and most relevant argument, because I mean, there was anti-Slavic attitudes in Germany and there was mistreatment in the war. That’s just a fact. So nevertheless, the more pertinent argument is that what concretely was World War II about? What it concretely was about was who was going to lead Europe, who was going to run Europe.

 

And basically what happened was that Europe was divided on the one side to American influence, on the other side to Soviet influence. And it’s clearly been a disaster for our race. Europe under American or Russian or Soviet rule is far worse off than a Europe under German rule, particularly under the rule of a Germany that was embodying the values of National Socialism and therefore of racialism in probably its most extreme possible form. There would simply not have been the tolerance of racial aliens on the European continent under German rule, just simply wouldn’t have been tolerated.

 

In fact, the jews probably would have been expelled from Europe had the Germans won in almost in entirety. So Europe would have become racially purified under German rule. I think that is completely, that’s pretty uncontroversial statement to make.

 

Whereas effectively under American rule or under Soviet rule, I mean, under the Soviet rule, it actually more or less fared better from a kind of just purely racial stance. But you know, as the phrase goes, you know:

 

“Communism rots the body, but liberalism rots the soul.”

 

The development of Western liberalism in the post World War II time period has been the most horrible thing to ever happen to Europe in its entire history! American rule over Europe, which is now almost total, has basically led to a situation in which there’s a kind of like a kind of a mass suicide occurring due to state sponsored, like American State sponsored subversion of institutions, projects of de-Nazification, etc, the necessity for the Americans to in their view to compete with the Kremlin aligned Left in Europe, in Western Europe by basically funding into existence an even more destructive form of Leftism which conservatives call “Cultural Marxism” or whatever. And you can debate whether that’s a legitimate phrase. But we all know what we mean by that. I mean that’s just objectively what happened.

 

[13:19]

 

So the Germans were fighting for a Europe that would be under their control. And yes, that would mean for them to assert their control. You know, you can’t make an omelette without cracking some eggs. That’s just the reality of war. Like in order for Germany to become strong enough to rule Europe, it needed to expand from its shrunken borders after the First World War. It needed to basically become strong enough to compete with rising superpowers to the East and West, namely the US and the USSR. That required a degree of expansion. That’s what the geopolitical logic was in when it came to that. And it also required a kind of you could say an imperialism. It required, you know, Germany asserting itself over the continent writ large as opposed to just simply bunkering down in Germany and saying:

 

“Well, you know what’s going on in the rest of Europe isn’t our business, we’re just going to focus on Germany.”

 

Well, the reality is that would be naive because the Soviet Union had expansionist designs, that can’t be denied. And they demonstrated it very clearly. And there was ambitions in the American elite to use their influence to basically reshape the entire global international order. So you know, these were powers that were universalist in nature that had larger ambitions than simply being concerned with themselves.

 

So in order to confront these twin threats, the Germans had to figure out a foreign policy and had to figure out an orientation that would enable them to compete for basically European domination. There was no other state in Europe that was capable of taking on that responsibility other than the Germans.

 

So to me, when I look at this in a kind of realistic way, and then also pair that to the fact that for me, German National Socialism wasn’t just like some aberration of the 1920s, but was instead a concrete manifestation of a far deeper historical process whereby the German nation rejected many core elements of the Enlightenment. And that gripped obviously the Anglo-American and French world. To me, the Germans were simply asserting a different form of consciousness, a European particularism and obviously a racial particularism against the encroachment of universalist political projects that now due to their success, are literally threatening the very survival of our race and have reduced Europe to its weakest position perhaps ever! At least in recent centuries.

 

So I think when you take that into consideration holistically, it becomes a lot easier to sympathize with the Germans. And I’ve got nothing against Polish people or against Slavic people. And I even said in my essay, you know, developments in racial science have shown that so-called Slavic peoples, and that’s a bad determination because Slavic is a language group, that kind of groups together people that it can be quite genetically different.

 

But you know, Eastern Europe, northern Eastern European, like the kind of northeast of Europe, people native to that area are actually incredibly genetically similar to people from northwestern Europe and far more similar than either of them are to people from southern Europe actually. And particularly Polish people and German people, they’re actually very genetically similar.

 

So the racialist science of the 19th century, that wasn’t informed by genetics in the same way that contemporary racialist science I think exaggerated these distinctions.

 

But you know, even in Chamberlain, I remember reading in Chamberlain in Foundations of the 19th Century, which is obviously foundational proto-National Socialist text, very influential, you know, he saw the Slavic people as a branch of the Aryan race. It wasn’t that they rejected that the Slavic people were not White or not Aryan. They were just a different branch in the Nordic branch from his perspective.

 

So it wasn’t as though the prevailing thought in Germany was that the Slavic peoples were basically non-Whites or subhuman or something. Maybe there were some comments you could cherry pick, but you could also find comments to the alternative. But the point is that now we have a far more informed understanding and we can say:

 

“Well, actually we’re not that different from people from native to Poland or Russia, like the actual, you know, Russ, or you know, people from the Baltic states or whatever, particularly these places.”

 

And so we can be informed by science from a racialist perspective, you know, seeking greater Unity amongst our peoples and hopefully overcoming these historical differences through time.

 

Greg Johnson: That’s all well and good. The next question I have, and this is relevant. So I want to say it now while it’s still relevant, is why couldn’t you say from a very similar perspective, like if you took Frank Salter very seriously, his book On Genetic Interests, which is a very good case for nationalism, you can make a very strong argument for universal nationalism from his work and you can make a very strong argument for a certain amount of solidarity amongst White national nations and from that point of view. And I’ve heard this argument offered by a scientist I know who’s very into our stuff. His attitude as well, from the point of view of this kind of Saltarian politics. We just have to look at German National Socialism and other forms of 20th century and 19th century national Chauvinism and just say well that’s the bad old form of nationalism. The good form of nationalism today rejects that kind of Chauvinism and is things in terms of pan-racial interest.

 

I remember when I was getting into all of this got a quarter of a century ago, it’s been a long time. My background is in philosophy. I’m very interested in political philosophy and I was very interested in nationalism. I was interested in the case for nationalism and I was in conversations with a lot of people when I first sort of got into the White nationalist movement circles. I’m the first White nationalist thing I ever attended was a David Irving talk in Atlanta!

 

[20:10]

 

And of course it was about World War II. And after I filled the first shelf with David Irving books and then a second shelf with other related books that people kept saying:

 

“Well, you got to read this, you got to read that.”

 

I started thinking, you know:

 

“It doesn’t seem logically necessary from a philosophical point of view that the case for nationalism stands or form falls on debates about mid 20th century history, because history and philosophy are very different things.”

 

Now I don’t want to argue that philosophy is entirely a priori or deductive or anything like that, but philosophy should be able to make cases for things like the best sort of political system for European man or man in general, without having to get off into the weeds about again mid 20th century history and specifically the rehabilitation of National Socialism on charges of being imperialistic and totalitarian. You can throw in the Holocaust and that entire branch of literature that’s connected with that, the revisionist literature on Holocaust. But more broadly, revisionism about the war, about the regime and so forth. I get why people are interested in that, but logically it strikes me that you can argue for ethnic nationalism based simply on a philosophical argument. And you could also argue for ethnic nationalism based on something like Frank Salter’s theory of ethnic genetic interest.

 

So where does the actual mid 20th century history come into this? And why do you maintain that we’ve got to rehabilitate the tarnished, stigmatized reputation of National Socialism?

 

Joel Davis: The argument that I made in my essay, you’ll notice it didn’t really have anything to do with refuting the Holocaust or any of these. And I am a revisionist on a lot of these subjects, but it wasn’t actually based in relitigating the Second World War, and was the Allied atrocity propaganda, legitimate or not? And all of this kind of stuff.

 

My argument was a dialectical argument. The core of my argument, I should say it basically had three main points. Point one is that National Socialism is the purification of the nationalist idea. That the nationalist idea has been kind of mixed up with many other ideological ideas historically. And this is particularly true when it comes to the relationship between nationalism and liberalism. You know, from the late 18th century into the early 20th century. Often they came as a package deal. Now that isn’t always the case. There are other examples. But often they came as a package deal. And so like for example, the refrain that I get as an Australian is:

 

“Why don’t you look back to the Australian nationalist tradition that created the White Australia Policy and set up the Federation of Australia and so on and created a White ethno-state in Australia?”

 

And obviously I do know, you know, studying the history of my own country very closely, and I do take inspiration from my forefathers and I value that tradition. But there is a key problem with them, which is that they mix their nationalism with their liberalism. Now that made sense in the pre-World War II international context, historical context, because liberalism, when it first came into existence, it was fundamentally an anti-monarchical, anti-aristocratic movement. That’s fundamentally what it was about. And it saw common cause with nationalism in many contexts toward that end. Because obviously it makes sense that if you’re trying to expand the franchise and empower larger groups of people, you can be speaking on behalf of the nation and say:

 

“The King or the aristocracy, they’re just in it for themselves. We here, we represent the French people, or we here represent the American people.”

 

And you can assert the necessity of a kind of constitutional liberal state on that basis.

 

And also there was other historical reasons, like you think about, for example, Austro-Hungarian Empire and you know, there’s a whole patchwork of smaller ethnic groups, many of which had nationalist movements agitating for self-determination. Well, if you’re agitating for self-determination against the monarchical order, well then it makes sense to obviously to appeal to nationalism and to liberalism at the same time in that context.

 

So anyway, there was lots of we can go into that. There’s a lot of context for that.

 

But my point was a dialectical point which is inspired a lot by Schmitt’s insights, which obviously are quite pertinent and relevant because we’re talking about the greatest German political philosopher of the time period when the National Socialists are getting their movement together, and he ultimately joined the party.

 

And Schmitt’s point in his Crisis of Parliamentary Democracy, which I believe was published in 1923, obviously it’s a broader text, but the core idea in that text is that liberalism and democracy have come as a package deal, but they’re actually based on core ideas which are contradictory. And that this contradiction will come to manifest itself, he prophesied in the 20th century. And that it was already beginning to manifest itself. And these ideas will become divorced from one another and realise they are actually in opposition. And what he means by democracy is the notion of popular sovereignty. And Schmitt appeals to essentially nationalism and frames it in terms of nationalism that in order to have a true democracy, in order to truly have popular sovereignty, you need a homogeneous population, because otherwise it becomes incoherent for the people to have a collective will. And he references Rousseau and how, you know, Rousseau makes the point that the general will, it’s not just the mere sum total of individual wills, it is the will of those who will the common good of the people.

 

So if you’re voting or politically active in the pursuit of your class interest or your minority, whatever group interest or your individual interest, you’re not actually genuinely participating in the exercise of popular sovereignty. You’re only really doing that insofar as you’re thinking about the common good of your people at large.

 

[26:52]

 

And so that requires a definition. You need to actually know, well, who is the demos, so to speak, that is in charge, who is the people. And that then brings you to a nationalist position of a definition of who they are and who they aren’t. And Schmitt, you know makes this point quite well and convincingly in my view. And he says:

 

“Well, this therefore puts it in opposition to the contractarian liberal view which is built around notions of rights and is built around the notion of Parliamentary discussion between heterogeneous elements. Whereas popular sovereignty implies the imposition of a homogeneous majority and its will over the state. Liberalism is built on the idea of basically creating constitutional protections and normative protections for minority interests and individual interests against the state.”

 

And he said these two ideas therefore are going to be on a collision course. And my argument therefore is that what National Socialism was a concrete historical expression of the nationalist idea, completely divorcing itself of all liberal connotations and taking itself to its logical conclusion.

 

And so when it took itself to its logical conclusion, it turned against Parliamentarianism. It embraced a kind of a very anti-bourgeois orientation. It took and it wasn’t communistic, it didn’t, you know, totally nationalise all industry or something, but it nationalised finance. You know, it pursued a kind of autarkic policy subordinating all economic interests to the national interest and also basically building up national strength and self reliance for the nation to be able to assert itself as an independent will in the world.

 

And this also being tied to its cultural programs where all media that was foreign owned or jewish owned or whatever was to be gotten rid of they went in and they broke up the Freemasonic lodges. They banned Marxist organisations. They just simply wasn’t, they weren’t going to tolerate anything which ran counter to their conception of the German people’s will. In, as in its, in a kind of culturally purified sense, a philosophically informed sense, not just whatever German people are currently supporting is the German people’s will. No! It’s only the self conscious German people’s will. And everything which gets in the way of that self consciousness needs to be basically purified from social and political life.

 

And so this is a very radical project which is differentiated from liberal projects of nationalism. And liberalism, then reconstituted itself in reaction to it. So in the post World War II international order, liberalism has now purged itself of the kind of its old nationalist associations as well. And liberalism has also purified itself according to this idea of protecting minority and individual rights and has greatly expanded its conception of its duty to minority groups and to individual groups and radically suppresses majoritarian organisation and the assertion of the majority will.

 

And you get to the point now where most liberal elites say “populism is the greatest threat to democracy”, which seems like an absurd statement. But it makes sense if you see democracy as liberalism, as Schmitt conceives of it. When they say democracy, obviously Schmitt would say, well that’s not democracy, it’s its antithesis.

 

But you know, so according to that dialectical process, which I think is pretty hard to refute, according to that dialectical process, therefore the notion, the very idea of nationalism in its opposition now to liberalism, therefore needs to be contended with as an idea unto itself. And that is therefore mediated by the spectre of National Socialism. It doesn’t mean that every single movement of illiberal nationalism that can come into existence is a one to one copy of National Socialism. But it bears some association, right? It bears some association, very important association.

 

And also I would argue that it’s necessary for nationalism to take on an illiberal form in order to actually address everything that has happened to our country since, like the infestation of foreign races and so on that has occurred. In order for us to become truly independent of these forces it’s going to require a very interventionist state. It’s going to require a very active programme that is going to be highly exclusionary and is going to have to carry out policies which are extreme according to, like the sensibilities of the common man in today’s world or maybe in any world.

 

And so as a result of that, in order to preserve our racial survival, I think we have to then look to National Socialism as an example of the nationalist idea taken to its logical conclusion and say:

 

“Well, we also kind of need to take this idea to its logical conclusion. We also need to purge ourselves of liberalism.”

 

And so we can take inspiration from them even if we don’t want to copy every aspect. And obviously if we’re not Germans, we’re not going to copy their foreign policy. That would make absolutely no sense.

 

And even in today’s Germany, I don’t think would benefit from the same kind of foreign policy. I think now the situation that Europe is in is going to require a far more pan-European solution than ever before because Europe is comparatively far weaker relative to the rest of the world and is more interdependent than ever before.

 

So the form that it takes, basically the foreign policy of National Socialist Germany is the most irrelevant aspect for us today. The relevant aspects, it’s the process by which National Socialism rose to power. The process by which National Socialism turned itself against liberal Marxist jewish elements and took on International Finance and sought to create self sufficiency and self consciousness within the German people and manifest it in a concrete political form that crushed all of its enemies in the domestic sphere. That to me is what I take inspiration from and what is pertinent and what needs to be basically rehabilitated.

 

[33:24]

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Joel Davis: Yeah, of course.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

[39:51]

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Which historically is what nationalism generally means.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Okay, so what’s your critique of that?

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Joel Davis: It’s imperialism. Right?

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

[47:24]

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

[53:49]

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

[1:00:10]

 

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

[1:07:22]

 

Greg Johnson: What’s stopping us?

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

And that means that, …

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

But the point is that, …

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

[1:15:07]

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Greg Johnson: They pose no threat!

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

[1:21:40]

 

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Greg Johnson: Will Germany and France fight it out?

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Greg Johnson: Yeah.

 

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

 

Greg Johnson: Yeah.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Greg Johnson: Yeah.

 

[1:27:09]

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

That’s what politics is about.

 

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

 

[1:33:57]

 

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

 

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

 

Greg Johnson: Absolutely! Absolutely!

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

That’s fantastic!

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

[1:40:47]

 

 

Greg Johnson: Absolutely, yeah.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

[1:46:16]

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Greg Johnson: Well, I would agree with that.

 

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

 

“We need to step over this.”

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

[1:53:28]

 

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

 

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

 

Joel Davis: Yeah.

 

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

 

So that’s not a reasonable:

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

And right now our race is being genocided! Right?

 

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

 

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

 

Joel Davis: Yeah, yes and no.

 

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

 

[1:59:26]

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Joel Davis: Absolutely.

 

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

 

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

 

Greg Johnson: I absolutely agree with that.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

And there’s no way of doing that!

 

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

 

[2:06:39]

 

[Remainder of Transcript in Progress]

 

[2:50:10]

END

top

 

 

 

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

 

Odysee Comments

top

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

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

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

18
0
Hide replies

@v0lum3
6 months ago
Hitler dindu nuffin

2
1
Show reply

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

Hide replies

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

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

1
0
Hide replies

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

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

Hide replies

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

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

Hide replies

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

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

Hide replies

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

Continue Thread

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

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

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

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

16
2
Hide replies

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

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

4
1

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

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

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

9
1
Hide replies

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

4
0
Earthling Carl
6 months ago
Easy Joel W.

10
3

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

9
2

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

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

10
3
Hide replies

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

7
0
Hide replies
ThinRedLine
6 months ago
it does

5
0

@Arilando
6 months ago
Of course you can.

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

2
0

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

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

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

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

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

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

6
2
Hide replies

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

2
1
ThinRedLine
6 months ago
Hail Joel

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

5
3

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

2
0

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

5
3
Hide replies

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

1
0
Hide replies

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

Hide replies

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

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

1
0
Hide replies

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

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

1
0
Hide replies

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

Hide replies

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

2
0

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

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

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

4
3

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

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

1
2

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

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

6
0

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

2
3

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

See Also

top

 

 

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

01 Introducing Special Guest Mark Collett from Patriotic Alternative, UK

top

 

Joel Davis – One Nation – Ineptitude or Controlled Opposition? – Nov 4, 2024 – Transcript

Joel Davis – ZOG Sends in the Fun Police, Donald Trump White Power – Nov 7, 2024 – Transcript

Joel Davis – The Enemy is Weaker Than You Think – Nov 14, 2024 – Transcript

Joel Davis – “It’s Not About Race” – Nov 21, 2024 – Transcript

Joel Davis – The Self-Imploding Legitimacy of Our Opposition, Why Are They So Afraid? – Feb 14, 2025 – Transcript

Mark Collett – Patriotic Weekly Review – with Thomas Sewell – Mar 19, 2025 – Transcript

Mark Collett – Can National Socialism Be Resurrected? – with Joel Davis – Mar 23, 2025 – Transcript

Joel Davis – So Much Has Happened, But We’re Only Just Getting Started – Apr 11, 2025 – Transcript

 

 

Joel Davis – What Did the Anzacs Fight For? – Apr 24, 2025 – Transcript

Australians Vs. the Agenda with Joel Davis – Apr 28, 2025 – Transcript

Joel Davis – Nazi Trolling is Still the Only Interesting Thing in Australian Politics – May 2, 2025 – Transcript

Joel Davis – Defiance – May 16, 2025 – Transcript

Joel Davis – Symbolic Victory – May 30, 2025 – Transcript

Joel Davis – Tactical N-Word – Jun 6, 2025 – Transcript

Joel Davis – The Chink Question – Jul 4, 2025 – Transcript

Joel Davis – The Chink Question – Jul 4, 2025 – Transcript

Joel Davis – MechaHitler – a Manifestation of Musk’s Machiavellianism, or Something More? – Jul 11, 2025 – Transcript

 

 

 

 

 

The World’s First Anti-Holocaust Convention — Instauration Dec, 1979

An Open Letter to New Jersey’s Governor

Historians or Hoaxers?

House of Orwell

Misha: Surviving with Wolves or …

Bradley Smith’s Smith Report # 1

The Liberation of the Camps: Facts vs. Lies

The Plum Cake

 

 

 

Auschwitz: Myths and Facts

Powers and Principalities XI – Ewen Cameron, MK-Ultra, Holocaust Revisionism — TRANSCRIPT

Tales of the Holohoax – A Historian’s Assessment – Part 1

The Holocaust Lie — Made in America

Probing the Holocaust: The Horror Explained — TRANSCRIPT

Jim Rizoli Interviews Prof Robert Faurisson, Oct 2015 — TRANSCRIPT

Holocaust Eyewitnesses: Is the Testimony Reliable?

Alain Soral – My Homage to Robert Faurisson, Oct 2018 — TRANSCRIPT

Inside Auschwitz – You’ve never seen THIS before! — TRANSCRIPT

 

 

Amazion Bans 100s of Holocaust Revisionist Books!

AUSCHWITZ – A Personal Account by Thies Christophersen

Jim Rizoli Interviews Bradley Smith — TRANSCRIPT

London Forum – Alfred Schaefer – Psychological Warfare – TRANSCRIPT

The Realist Report Interviews Eric Hunt — TRANSCRIPT

Red Ice Radio – Germar Rudolf – Persecution of Revisionists & Demographic Disaster – Part 1— TRANSCRIPT

Red Ice Radio: Nicholas Kollerstrom — TRANSCRIPT

Red Ice TV – Ingrid Carlqvist – Scandal in Sweden When Ingrid Questions the Unquestionable — TRANSCRIPT

The Realist Report with Carolyn Yeager on Johnson vs Anglin debate — TRANSCRIPT

 

 

 

 

Mark Collett — It’s Okay To Be White — TRANSCRIPT

Mark Collett — Christmas Adverts – Multicultural Propaganda — TRANSCRIPT

Mark Collett — What We Must Do To Win — TRANSCRIPT

Mark Collett — Assad Didn’t Do It – Faked Syrian Gas Attack — TRANSCRIPT

Mark Collett — The Plot to Flood Europe with 200 Million Africans — TRANSCRIPT

Mark Collett — The jewish Question Explained in Four Minutes — TRANSCRIPT

Mark Collett at The Scandza Forum, Copenhagen – Oct 12, 2019 — Transcript

Patriotic Weekly Review – with Blair Cottrell – Dec 4, 2019 — TRANSCRIPT

Dangerfield – Talking Tough with Mark Collett – Mar 28, 2020 — Transcript

Mark Collett – Sam Melia Sentencing – with Laura Towler – Mar 1, 2024 – Transcript

Joe Marsh – Sam Melia Going into Court Before He was Sentenced – Mar 1, 2024 – Transcript

 

 

 

911 – The Jews Had Me Fooled: A Jewish Engineered Pearl Harbor

Organized jewry Did 9/11

Organized jewry Did 9/11 — The 16th Anniversary, 2017

Know More News — Christopher Bollyn, The Man Who Solved 9/11 — TRANSCRIPT

The Realist Report with Christopher Bollyn – Sep 2018 — TRANSCRIPT

Guns and Butter interviews Christopher Bollyn — The War on Terror – Dec 18, 2019 — Transcript

AE911Truth – Exposing Those Who Covered up the Crime of the Century – May 28, 2023 – Transcript

 

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

PDF Download

top

Total words in transcript = 19883

• Total words in post = xxx
• Total images = xx
• Total A4 pages = xxx

Use your browser to download/export a PDF of this post.

 

Version History

top

Version 5:

Version 4: Mon, Aug 11, 2025 — Table of Contents (up to 20 entries).

Version 3: Sun, Aug 10, 2025 — Table of Contents (up to 10 entries) started.

Version 2: Fri, Aug 8, 2025 — Transcript now completed = 110/110 mins. Transcript Quality = 5/5.

Version 1: Thu, Aug 7, 2025 — Published post. Transcript completed = 32/110 mins. Transcript Quality = 5/5. Includes Rumble comments (28).