Kenny Ko: What is up, guys? Welcome back to Kenny Cancelled. I have a very special guest today. It is Germar Rudolf, who many of you may know, and many of you may yet to know, but I’m sure you will be happy to hear his story for a like-minded cause. Germar, thank you once again for taking the time to join the podcast and chat with me. I’ve been looking forward to this just because I’ve wanted to pick your brains on some of the stuff that I believe happened during the “Holocaust” and other certain events throughout history.

 

I’ll allow you to take the mic, introduce yourself for maybe the people who don’t know much about you as of yet.

 

Germar Rudolf: Yeah, well, thank you first of all for having me. A little bit about my background. I’m a German citizen. I grew up in West Germany. I had a kind of normal lower middle-class upbringing and ended up going to university studying chemistry, graduated from Bonn University, then moved on for postgrad studies for a PhD, got a position at a Max Planck Institute for Solid State Research to work on a PhD there.

 

And while I was doing that research, I became curious and interested in applying my knowledge as a forensic chemist, which I had developed during my graduate studies, to a field that is a little bit exotic—that is to say, history. I stumbled over an expert report that had been submitted in 1988 during a Canadian trial against a German immigrant who had been quote, unquote, “denying the Holocaust”. That expert report was written by the—back then—the only existing expert in execution technologies in the United States. Since we have the death penalty here in several states, there need to be people who can design and equip and maintain that kind of equipment.

 

So he was asked in that trial to come up with his expert opinion of whether or not the homicidal gas chambers that are said to have existed at the Auschwitz and Majdanek camps could have existed. He did that and he came to the conclusion:

 

“No, that wouldn’t have worked!”

 

Caused quite a brouhaha. I learned about it a year later. At the time when I was just graduating and then doing my fledgling PhD studies. I dipped my feet into that field and tried to find out a little bit more because I got a copy of that expert report from Fred Leuchter, from that American expert, and I was not satisfied. It didn’t live up to my expectations and I wanted to do a better job. And then I found actually a legal team who would finance that. So I got expenses paid—didn’t get anything paid but reimbursement for my expenses.

 

But that was good enough for me. I was personally curious about what was going on. And I eventually submitted an expert report that was introduced—or, I should say, the defense lawyers in seven or eight defense cases in Germany, Switzerland, Austria, more so than Germany actually—tried to introduce it. The courts turned it down in these cases. German courts don’t accept any evidence that challenges the mainstream narrative.

 

But anyway, that was my introduction into the topic. My conclusions basically were: Leuchter had it basically right, even though he jumped a little bit to conclusions that were not well founded. But I managed to do a lot of research and back it up.

 

And while this all was going on—doing my PhD studies, doing this forensic work, investigations and appearing in court as an expert witness who was always turned down—I realized, well, Auschwitz, the question of whether or not there were homicidal gas chambers and whether forensic chemistry can elucidate any of the questions of whether it happened or not and if there are any traces, is only a very minor aspect of the Holocaust, which is a big issue. It’s three years, a whole continent, hundreds if not thousands of crime locations. And what can you deduct from thinking to have resolved one tiny issue about one alleged murder location in this context?

 

So I figured the area is bigger. I want to know more. I want to wrap my head around everything. And I was reaching out to other people. I was planning on doing an anthology, a collection of—I think it was initially—15 contributions by various authors from all over the world who were looking into other aspects of the Holocaust. And we eventually published that book. While that was being prepared, German authorities also…

 

Kenny Ko: Sorry to interrupt, just for the people that are watching, what was the name of the book?

 

[04:12]

 

Germar Rudolf: Well, it appeared in an English translation in 2,000 for the first time. And it’s called Dissecting the Holocaust. Now all the books and the research that I have pursued and published ever since, over the past 35 years, can all be accessed free of charge as ebooks on the website called Holocausthandbooks.com. So if anyone’s interested in actually following up and finding out what this is all about, you can go there and find it out.

 

So that was volume one of the Holocaust Handbooks, Dissecting the Holocaust. This anthology has more contributions now. The updated last edition is just two years old, I think. And volume two of it was actually— is now—an updated, expanded edition of my original forensic research into the question of whether or not there were homicidal gas chambers at Auschwitz. That’s volume two.

 

And as I mentioned, there are now 54 volumes, plus we have a range of documentaries and some other, more summary books—they’re called Holocaust Pocketbooks. All of this stuff is available free of charge on HolocaustHandbooks.com. You’ll find links there where you can also purchase hard copies which are not free of charge, of course; they cost to produce and mail.

 

So the authorities were going after me. I had by 1990, I think, five court cases pending, five criminal investigations pending, in addition to my original trial for my forensic research. As I mentioned, introducing that evidence gets impossible in German court cases.

 

And then they went a step further, actually putting me on trial for it, for my forensic research, and denied me then the right to defend myself by proving that I’m correct. Because that is “contesting the mainstream narrative” again; you’re not allowed to commit that crime in a courtroom, so you’re not allowed to defend your views. They actually later turned it into an actual crime to even file a motion to introduce evidence proving that my dissenting views—or anyone’s dissenting views for that matter—are correct, declared that a crime, and they would prosecute defendants or primarily defense lawyers who would file such motions, and convicted them.

 

So defense in Germany in these cases is illegal! It’s kind of absurd—a Kafkaesque situation. I had to go through this in my own trial. Eventually I decided I’m not putting up with this. I was sentenced to 14 months for my forensic research, but I didn’t have to serve time immediately because the appeal was pending. And when more and more criminal investigations were filed by the prosecutors for the various books and journal articles that I was working on, I had published, I decided to leave.

 

So I went into exile and in 1996 lived in England for three years, until a journalist there published a hit piece on me demanding that I be extradited to Germany. And then British Parliament even had a session where I was discussed. And so the situation got tricky there.

 

I had used the three years in England to expand my publishing activities. At that point I was a little bit hemmed in, couldn’t do active research anymore because I was kind of living under an assumed identity and couldn’t travel. But I was giving other researchers a platform; they could submit stuff to me, I would publish it online and in print, initially only in the German language.

 

But then I slowly started to get into doing stuff in English, which of course—if something in this modern world, with the lingua franca being English, does not exist in English—it basically doesn’t exist at all! You have to do stuff in English for it to be recognized and noticed by the world. Now my English initially when I came to England was pretty bad. But the three years helped me to get up to speed. And when things were heating up in England, I decided to leave. In late 1999 I came to this country and after a while applied for political asylum here.

 

Now I expanded then in this country to do what I had done before only in German, also in English, which down the road ended up with these 54 volumes plus all the other stuff.

 

However, there was a little bit of a bump in the road because America has waged two wars against Germany to make them do what they do—suppress historical dissent. So they were not willing to give me political asylum, even though the immigration judge who reviewed my case said multiple times during the hearing that:

 

“This is the best documented asylum case he’s ever seen!”

 

But the immigration judge is not a judge in the legal sense. He’s actually an employee of, back then, the State Department, and later it was the Department of Homeland Security. And he has to follow orders given by the administration, and they said:

 

“Deport him!”

 

And eventually that’s what happened. By that time, however, I had married a US citizen. The marriage had been recognized and I had been granted an immigrant visa. I had the documents that:

 

“Your immigrant visa for a Green Card is granted.”

 

And at that moment—when that certificate, this confirmation, was issued—I was arrested and deported. So just before getting to the counter to get my actual Green Card, they arrested me and deported me back to Germany.

 

Now Germany had an axe to grind because by that time I had published a further 20 books in the German language. And they had an arrest warrant out not only for the 14 months that I had to spend from before, but also for the 21 books that I had published and been selling in the time ever since I had left Germany.

 

Kenny Ko: So my question, and I’m sure the audience too, what’s the crime that they charged you with?

 

Germar Rudolf: Incitement to hate.

 

Kenny Ko: Exposing the truth?

 

[09:40]

 

Germar Rudolf: No, the crimes—they didn’t invent these new laws. They had been on the books, similar laws, ever since Frederick the Great! Believe it or not, Frederick the Great had a massive immigration policy because after the Thirty Years’ War, Prussia/Brandenburg was devastated and was depopulated to a large degree. And he wanted French Huguenots and Protestants who were persecuted in France to come to Prussia. So he invited them by the tens and hundreds of thousands. I don’t know the exact figures, but the Prussian subjects of Frederick the Great were not happy about this massive influx of immigrants from a different culture. So no different situation than today—people being not happy about mass immigration. And there was a lot of polemics going on. Frederick the Great issued a law: You can’t stir up the people against minorities—particularly non-German, non-Prussian minorities back then.

 

So that law has developed over time. It became part of Germany in 1871, when Prussia kind of merged into Germany and Germany took over the Prussian laws more or less. And that’s been on the books ever since. As a matter of fact, in 1936, I think, under National Socialism, a German Catholic priest by the name of Rupert Mayer was indicted by the Third Reich judiciary for inciting the masses and stirring up the masses, because he was preaching in his church against National Socialist policies. He was sent to a concentration camp for a few months. So he was kind of persecuted for the same—and prosecuted for the same—offense that I have been prosecuted for.

 

The group that is protected by this law depends on whatever the zeitgeist demands as a specially protected group. Under Frederick the Great, it was the French immigrants; under the National Socialists, it was the government and the National Socialists that wanted special protection. And nowadays it’s immigrants and jews and Zionists that have this special protection. So it’s a vaster, or more numerous, group of special interest groups that have special protection nowadays.

 

So that was stirring up the people—inciting to hatred—back then. They still have “inciting to racial hatred.” They have taken that term out because “races” don’t exist, as you know. It’s politically incorrect to assume that.

 

And then also “disparaging the commemoration of the dead” and “insults.” Insult is on still-living jewish witnesses—insult them by insinuating that they could not have told the truth! And disparaging the commemoration of the dead is just all the victims that died—you deny that they even existed as victims, and so on. So there are four laws I was actually tried under back then. They did not yet have a special law for, quote-unquote, “denying the Holocaust”. They introduced that in 1994, kind of as a result also of my activities that unfolded back in the years, and all the rest of it.

 

Anyway, I ended up being deported to Germany, put on trial there, got another 30 months for only two of the nine books I was indicted for. Twenty-one were in the arrest, 19 were in the indictment. And for two of them I got convicted to 30 months. Had it been 21, that could have gotten nasty. If you get one year or so for each one of them, you do the math. Because eventually I got 50 months for the two books—the two publications—they booked me for eventually.

 

So 44 months later, I was out. And the US authorities said—they eventually denied my political asylum. The case had still not been resolved by the time I was deported. So I was whisked away, not only in violation because I was rightfully married to a US citizen. And US law says you can adjust status if you have a clean record.

 

And what I was convicted for in Germany was not recognized as a crime here in the United States. It’s First Amendment stuff. So from the US perspective, I had a clean record, should have been allowed to adjust status to permanent legal residence, but they deported me. Plus, it’s a violation of the Fifth Amendment, the right of anyone physically present in the United States to have due process.

 

Now, if in the middle of a hearing and procedure in front of a federal court, you arrest a defendant and throw him out of the country— which is exactly the reason why the case is pending; you want to prevent being deported—that’s the whole reason of the case, whether it’s political asylum or just withholding from deportation. Both of these cases we had filed for. Deporting me in the middle of it is a violation of the Fifth Amendment. Supreme Court didn’t take the case. That’s the way how they prevent not adjudicating a case that is unpleasant to them.

 

So I was back in Germany and then had to fight my way back to get my immigrant visa, even though I had already been granted it; it wasn’t issued physically yet. And then I was outside of the country already, so I needed one to be able to get back. The US authorities weren’t adjudicating the application. They just said:

 

“It’s too complicated. We can’t decide whether we’ll ever be able to adjudicate it.”

 

In other words, they were stonewalling. I had to litigate against them, force them to a decision. Fortunately, I got a judge in the Chicago federal court who kind of sided with me. For once, something went my way. He is an immigrant judge from Syria. No, I think from Syria. Not quite sure. Anyway, from the Middle East. So he evidently saw through what’s going on here, and he rubber-stamped every motion that we filed in kind of lightning speed. For legal considerations, federal courts take months for things to be decided, but he was taking days.

 

And then in August, 2011, after two years of waiting and litigating after having gotten out of prison in Germany, I was back in the United States. So I’ve been in the country ever since. The Germans keep doing what they’re doing, issuing arrest warrants or Europe-wide arrest warrants. And they stopped issuing me a passport because they want to catch me, but I don’t need a passport.

 

So I have no intention of leaving the country.

 

[15:21]

 

Kenny Ko: I was going to say, do you ever plan on leaving the United States now?

 

Germar Rudolf: No, I can’t. I have no passport. I’ve tried to adjust to become a citizen. But no matter what your background is, you have no right to become a US citizen. That’s a discretionary act of the people of the United States, represented by the government. And I applied for it, but they were stonewalling that case too, not adjudicating it.

 

And then eventually a cop framed me for something that didn’t happen. Early in the morning—talking about fitness—I was doing triathlons early in the morning for four years. Some neighbor in the neighborhood didn’t like that I was working out in the park there, doing calisthenics, and going in the river to swim, and ride a bicycle.

 

Kenny Ko: Were they jewish?

 

Germar Rudolf: No, it’s just—I don’t know the neighbor. It’s just a riverfront property. And he went to work every morning and he saw me once in a while, and he was calling the cops for years! Cops were checking on me for years! I didn’t realize what was going on really, but I couldn’t do anything. They got pissed. They got called for years and years—six years or so—every other morning in the summertime when this guy saw me. He wasn’t happy about me working out in the park area there.

 

Kenny Ko: Wait, why did he dislike you so much, or what was his issue? Did he know your work or something?

 

Germar Rudolf: No, no, I don’t know.

 

Kenny Ko: Interesting!

 

Germar Rudolf: I have never contacted the guy. I don’t know anything. I know from a cop that eventually talked to me about this, that there is, they say:

 

“A man in the neighborhood, he calls anonymously.”

 

Nobody can call the police anonymously! So that was just a claim made up in order not to have to reveal to me who that is because they think some people may take revenge for the perpetrator. I know where he lives. I know his daily routine because I was there for 10 years, every morning from April to September/October, and I know his daily routine—what time he gets up, where his bedroom is, what he does next, when he goes to the kitchen, does his breakfast, and which TV channels he watches, until he gets in his car and leaves for work. That’s the routine. I’ve been there for 10 years. I know the routine of that neighborhood.

 

Anyway, the cops realized they can’t get the guy to stop complaining and they can’t do anything against me because it’s legal to be there! That’s a famous fishing, motor-boat, recreational area.

 

And so the guy just said he was going to make up a claim that I was doing indecent exposure there, which wasn’t true. But you have only a cop and yourself at four o’clock, at a dark, vacated park, nobody there. And the guy makes up a story and then he contradicts himself. That’s interesting. Because in the preliminary hearing he makes up a completely wild story. And I couldn’t believe it, what he was telling. And then by the time the trial came, the prosecution had realized that the case was physically impossible. The claims he made couldn’t have been. It was not visible what he was claiming. It was just physically impossible. So they completely changed the story.

 

And if you have that situation that a witness—and that’s only one witness—completely changes the story, that’s automatic proof of perjury.

 

So I have that actually published, both transcripts, and everyone can look at it. You see that a cop’s committing perjury on the behest and on instruction, I would assume, of the prosecution. Because the prosecutor doing the trial showed a photo of the scene, taken from the place where the cop said he saw things. And you could see the things he described in the preliminary time were impossible. The prosecutor must have realized that. And then they told the cop that and he changed his story.

 

I requested after that from three law firms, three lawyers: :

 

“What do we do about it? I want to file a criminal complaint against the cop for perjury.”

 

And the answer is:

 

“They framed you the first time—if you are right that they framed you—and the prosecutor actually was the one working with the cop to get that accomplished. Your criminal complaint against the cop for perjury would come on the desk of the very prosecutor that has framed you in the first place. What do you think is going to happen? You get a second framing so fast you can’t blink an eye! And if you have two of these cases hanging, as an immigrant, you get deported from this country automatically!”

 

And that’s what’s going on. So my attempt to get citizenship was stonewalled. They weren’t deciding it, but the moment I was convicted and the conviction was upheld in the appeal—which was kind of absurd too—they instantly denied my citizenship application because I have a criminal record. Now you see what’s going on. And the appeal, the argument was:

 

“Wait a minute. If a guy with a searchlight goes in a park at night, completely black, and looks around and then happens to find a person with pants down, as he claims, what do you call a person who’s doing that?”

 

Kenny Ko: A streaker, I guess, or flasher.

 

Germar Rudolf: Peeping Tom!

 

Kenny Ko: Yeah.

 

[20:03]

 

Germar Rudolf: Yeah. So if you give that guy a police badge, what do you call that? Still a peeping Tom!

 

So the argument wasn’t made that way. But basically, a crime of indecent exposure requires that somebody has been indecently exposed to someone of the public. A police officer who is going around with searchlights is not a person of the public. It doesn’t count. So therefore, the crime has not been committed, because as we all know, it was completely dark and it was vacated. Even if it were true—which it isn’t—but if it were true that I was there with my pants down, it cannot have been a crime because nobody was around. And the Appeals Court said:

 

“Well, it doesn’t matter. From now on, we say anyone who has the pants down anywhere in public, whether anyone is around or not, commits indecent exposure.”

 

Which means that every person in the world that ever lived has committed indecent exposure! If you were ever in nature and had a pee or did your business—which happens to us sometimes—it’s automatic indecent exposure.

 

Kenny Ko: They might be looking for me. I probably have over 50 charges against me here!

 

Germar Rudolf: Right! So legal professionals after that appeal decision said:

 

“This is impossible! This is completely untenable case law you’ve created here. Now, everyone has committed indecent exposure. Indecent exposure requires the intentional act to expose your genitals to someone in public who does not consent!”

 

If you’re in a nudist area, that’s not, because you have consent there, right? But if it’s not in a nudist area, you don’t get consent, then that’s a crime. But if there’s no one around, there’s no exposure. So later they actually reverted that by simply ignoring the case law. And every case that’s been adjudicated in Pennsylvania ever since still goes after the old law because the new case law is complete bullshit! But it shows you what was going on—trying to prevent me from getting citizenship, to have something, and to go to extreme lengths, to ridiculous lengths!

 

And I suspect that they got to my defense lawyer, because my defense lawyer threw me under the bus. I had all the evidence showing that this thing cannot happen. And of course we had him nailed when he contradicted himself—perjury. And my defense lawyer refused to defend me, refused to introduce any evidence.

 

So this is the curious thing about America. You have the First Amendment when you are outside the courtroom, you can speak your mind. If you’re inside the courtroom in a penal case and you’re the defendant, you don’t have First Amendment rights. You depend—you can speak out only if you go—if you’re defended by a lawyer, of course—you can speak about the case only if you go into the witness stand and then you can only answer to specific questions that you are asked. My defense lawyer, I had given him 10 questions I wanted him to ask me, and then develop the case and introduce all the evidence. And then I get into the witness stand and he doesn’t ask any of the questions! Only one:

 

“What did happen that morning?”

 

Which was complete bullshit because that didn’t allow me to introduce any of the evidence showing that I was working out, that I have a history of working out, and introduce images of my clothing, and so forth.

 

Anyway, the issue is, of course, now I don’t have citizenship and I have this criminal conviction. And the lawyers then said:

 

“Get the hell out of there! The best is to remove yourself from Pennsylvania—not just from this county—most certainly stay away from that county because they have you on their list there, and move!”

 

So that’s what I eventually did.

 

Kenny Ko: So where’d you move to from there?

 

Germar Rudolf: I’m in upstate New York now.

 

Kenny Ko: Okay. And you’ve been there since?

 

Germar Rudolf: Well, you know, it was my marriage that fell apart. That’s been in decline ever since. You know, if you have been forcibly separated for six years, that doesn’t bode well for any marriage. And my wife suffered more than I during that time of separation because it wasn’t her battle and she had to be a single mother raising our daughter all by herself. She was stressed out and not happy.

 

And then of course, I wouldn’t stop doing what I was doing. Coming back, slowly getting my feet back into things—that is not conducive to marital bliss. Plus, which I found later, the family and friends evidently were undermining the marriage from behind the scenes, unbeknownst to me, to one degree or another. So that wasn’t a good situation.

 

Anyway, eventually, when all this unraveled, I left and lived with friends first until my marriage issues were resolved—getting through divorce and splitting up assets and so forth. Until you know what you have, you don’t want to make any moves. So when that was settled, I could actually get my own life back. And that happened a couple of years ago.

 

Now I’ve used that time well. Fifty-four volumes of hard-hitting research accessible at HolocaustHandbooks.com, unparalleled in the world when it comes to the depth and the scale and scope. For instance, if we look at Auschwitz, which is the most iconic crime scene of the Holocaust—whatever happened there—I mean, it was nasty even from a revisionist perspective, from a skeptical perspective: 135, 500 documented cases of deceased inmates. That’s a huge number.

 

[25:04]

 

Kenny Ko: Because I do want to pick your brain heavily on your research and what you found. One question I wanted, and I’m sure a lot of people have it: How’d you go from your PhD field—what you thought you were going to pursue—into so passionately looking into the events surrounding the Holocaust and the World War II time frame? What kind of sparked your interest, I guess, to want to navigate that?

 

Germar Rudolf: I had an interest in German history, just not that topic because it’s an unpleasant topic—modern German history, kind of circumnavigating the Holocaust, ever since, I would say, ever since I started studying at university, it was a kind of a private hobby. I knew about the importance of the topic when it comes to the German psyche, if you want to put it that way, because it weighs heavily on Germans, on their self-confidence as a nation, as an identity. But you kind of take it for granted. It’s cast in stone. It’s inevitable to have to deal with it. So it never crossed my mind to challenge the narrative, let’s say it that way.

 

But I refuse to accept that two wrongs make a right, that one evil can balance out another one. So using what happened in the past—whatever it is—as justification to commit other injustices, whether it’s against my own people and country after the Second World War or in subsequent issues that have come up more recently. Like we look at what’s going on in Gaza or the various wars that Israel is waging—that made me aware that it has relevance, political relevance; still not a way of challenging it.

 

But once I did stumble over arguments that I could verify—or refute, for that matter—the toxicological and forensic research that Fred Leuchter in the United States had done, I said:

 

“Well, I have to look into this is a question, a topic that has huge implications politically.”

 

Back then I thought only in German dimensions. I was kind of still in the German box. In the meantime, I’m more cosmopolitan, I see the larger picture. But it was enough for me to say:

 

“I want to find out!”

 

And the real motivator that got me going is to realize during my time as an expert witness how the system breaks all the rules it claims to defend. It claims to be at the core of its values—be it free speech, be it freedom of science, be it the rule of law. As an expert witness in court—when you are in Germany—the German procedural rules say if an expert witness is already in court, he is an expert at what he is supposed to testify for, he is able to testify, and the testimony is relevant to the case that’s being handled by the court, then he has to be heard. There’s no way of turning them down because there’s no effort for the court to get the expert—he’s already in the court—yet still they violated that law, in every one of the seven or eight cases I was summoned to testify!

 

And the panic that I saw in some cases in the eyes of the judges—because they knew they needed to violate the law; they are the criminals in that case. One of them ran out, called some superior—there is no superior of a judge—but evidently called probably the capital or whatever, some higher court to find out:

 

“Do I get backing from the higher courts if I violate the procedural rules here?”

 

And evidently the decision later on by the German Supreme Court:

 

“Yes, we’ve always done it, we will always keep doing it. That’s the way we have to do it!”

 

Bunch of horseshit! Excuse my English.

 

Kenny Ko: Hey, you can use whatever language you want. They put you through absolute hell! And first, I wanted to say too, thank you for all you have done, by the way. And also, sorry that you’ve been put through so much. But it just shows that the truth will always prevail. And we need people like you. Honestly, from the bottom of my heart, thank you for doing what you did, sacrificing what you have in order to get this information out to the masses.

 

[28:49]

 

 

 

 

Germar Rudolf: Yeah, that is the stage I’m in right now, actually. I was getting to that. Fifty-four volumes of hard-hitting archival and forensic research—too much to wrap your head around. If you want to read it all, it takes you years and by the time you get to the end, you have already forgotten the beginning. And the same was for me.

 

I mean, I’ve published all this stuff in German, in English, I’ve republished it in many, many editions. So I’m the one who actually has that stuff on his fingertips and should have the best knowledge of where to find what. But I couldn’t! I was forgetting stuff. And I had a hard time finding arguments, finding evidence, finding sources. So I decided eventually we need to write an encyclopedia.

 

And that’s what I’ve done. After my marriage fell apart—the depression, it put me into separation from my kids, from my home—I used that time, work therapy, to sit down. Within five months, I wrote an entire encyclopedia. Normally that’s a collective work of many scholars. Now I’ve been in the unique situation of having assembled this research for 35 years, having published it in several languages and republished it over and over again! I also was in charge for many years of the periodicals that were publishing papers on it.

 

So I have it all on my hard drive, kind of in my head. If not I, who else could do it? And I’ve worked with one additional scholar, a Professor of the humanities who helped me. I had some experience in contributing to scholarly works like that, encyclopedias. It’s not something you do every day. I’m most certainly not writing one cover to cover.

 

But I know that having, say, 200 scholars contributing—each several, or one contribution, one entry—to an encyclopedia is actually a much bigger challenge to get because it’s not economically viable. You don’t make money with this. It’s an honor for a scholar to be listed as a contributor to an encyclopedia because then he’s the top of the field in this particular entry that he is writing about, and to get people actually to do it.

 

And then you have a problem of synchronizing things because there’s overlap between entries and cross-referencing. And if you have everyone writing their own style, writing their own opinion, they sometimes don’t even agree on things. It’s a nightmare to co-ordinate that and to get that actually to go together—to have, first of all, everyone submitting their stuff, and then coordinating, synchronizing, streamlining it. And then the ego gets in the way where nobody wants to budge and they have different points of view. It can be a nightmare!

 

 

Now if you have just one guy writing it with one supporting it was actually a much faster job. But I required these 35 years of background in the entire field. And having published—covered—the entire field. HolocaustEncyclopedia.com is freely accessible for everyone. We update it, we expand it as it is needed. You can also get hard copies there in various languages. By now we have it in German, French and Spanish on top of it. And I’m currently working—and that’s what you interrupted me with, …

 

Kenny Ko: Sorry about that!

 

Germar Rudolf: Arabic translation. No, I appreciate that because I want to get the message out. The work is there. It is completely silenced and swept under the carpet by the mainstream. Any work on the Holocaust over the past, 20 years that does not at least consider the work we have done cannot be called scholarly! Scholarly means even if you disagree with a scholar, if it’s a considerable work—and 54 volumes is a considerable amount of work—then you have to at least say:

 

“Well, this work is there and I disagree with this for this and this reason.”

 

And that’s it! If you completely ignore it and you pretend it doesn’t even exist, that means you’re a dogmatist, you’re not a scholar anymore. And that’s the situation we have in the field of Holocaust studies—have had now for the past, 20 years plus. But this is only the scholarly issue; we’re talking about suppression. I frame it in a certain way to make clear what’s going on. History at gunpoint! Writing of history at gunpoint! That’s what we have in the Western world—have had ever since. The first country to introduce a law that basically puts historians under the threat of imprisonment was Israel. Surprise! In ’85 or ’86.

 

Kenny Ko: I wonder why that is!

 

[32:53]

 

Germar Rudolf: Yeah, so that was coming up with the John Demjanjuk show trial that started shortly after, to make sure that nobody gets any funny ideas of challenging the show trial they were about to pull off. So in that context that has to be seen.

 

And then the next one was France. And by now we are up to 28 countries who formally have declared it illegal. But there are many more if you look at those who informally prosecute it. Most of the Arab countries actually throw people in prison if they dissent publicly, not because they want to, but because they are basically in the pockets of the United States and the Europeans. They are all bankrupt states, most of them, except for the really oil-rich countries. When we’re talking about Jordan and Egypt, the two examples that come to my mind, or even Lebanon—they’re in debt and they get bailed out financially by Europe and by the United States over and over again! So they are basically corrupted. They should have an interest in free discussion of the topic because it impacts their region massively these days. But they suppress it too. In South America, there are a number of countries which suppress it.

 

So it has come to the point that over the years many mainstream historians have gotten in touch with me—privately, of course, and some of them anonymously. They just create a Gmail account and get in touch and don’t tell who they are, but by the amount of assistance they have provided—giving us archival material that we don’t have access to because many archives now are closed to us. You have to identify yourself before you can get in. And we can’t do that; we’d get arrested. More and more archival material is being put online. So that will hopefully— we’ll see it.

 

Anyway, these historians give us massive amounts of information from archives that we can’t access, and therefore we know they know what they’re doing. They are professionals.

 

Kenny Ko: Right.

 

Germar Rudolf: And I hear from them the fact that they work from behind this kind of a firewall to prevent any leak who they are and that they’re helping.

 

But also of those who actually have contacted me, I had one of Germany’s most prolific historians, Professor Werner Maser—may not mean much to you, but he has written on modern German history and the World War II era. Many books, many of them were translated in many languages. So he was one of the leading scholars in the field from a German point of view. One of these days he called me! When I was in the United States shortly before my deportation, complaining to me about the dictator-style conditions in Germany and that historians are constantly afraid and can’t write anymore what they want to do.

 

And I had a number of these encounters with half a dozen mainstream historians. These are the ones who stick their neck out and risk getting in touch with me. You can figure out how many more there are who will not say anything and just toe the party line quietly or stay out of this area entirely. One of the leading Polish historians on the Auschwitz matter, Wacław Długoborski [sp], who was an Auschwitz inmate himself—he became the curator of the history department of the Auschwitz Museum after the war for many decades—said in 1998 in an interview why Polish historians from the Auschwitz Museum for decades until the collapse of the Soviet Union had spread false, exaggerated victim numbers even though they admit that they knew better:

 

“Why did you lie?”

 

He said:

 

“Well, we were put under pressure in the Eastern Bloc. We would have faced disciplinary measures had we not toed the party line.”

 

That was 1998, that he had this interview. And that was the same year Poland introduced a law making it up to three years imprisonment to challenge the current narrative. So back in the communist days they were facing disciplinary measures—which is on a professional level, administrative stuff, like you get demoted, you get removed from that position and then have to go somewhere else or whatever. But not criminal proceedings! Now we have criminal proceedings. Poland is finally Democratic—and democracy, as you know, is when two wolves and a lamb decide what’s for dinner!

 

So that’s the situation when it comes to this topic—democracy and dictatorship are not mutually exclusive concepts. If you’re a democracy, the majority decides to dictate to the minority what they can think and say. That’s a Democratic dictatorship! And that’s what we have in these 28 countries.

 

Kenny Ko: Thank you—Canada included! [clapping] By the way, a lot of people don’t understand democracy or how it operates.

 

[37:14]

 

Germar Rudolf: Yeah, if it’s not guardrailed strictly by inalienable civil rights and the right of self-determination—I throw in there for the sake of being complete—then democracy is a lynch mob! That’s just a nice way of saying lynch mob. So in a democracy, a majority should never be allowed to take away essential civil rights—human rights—from minorities, no matter what. But that’s what you see here. So be that as it may—got a little bit sidetracked with this here! Yeah, so Długoborski says:

 

“We acted under coercion. That’s why we lied!”

 

At a time when the Polish government jacked up the coercion that they are threatening.

 

So if they lied before, and they agreed and admitted that they have lied because of coercion, and the coercion has increased—now it’s even worse! Why would you believe them now, the story they tell now? Historians the world over when it comes to this topic all act under coercion! Usually only those people get into the field on the mainstream who are ideologically charged. You see a hyper over-representation of jews in that field—no surprise. And you see people with left-leaning ideologies. So Antifa kind of attitudes—no surprise there too. A lot of the quote, unquote, “evidence” that we have for the mainstream Holocaust narrative was produced, skewed and faked and forged and fabricated by communist Eastern Europe.

 

When you look at the six camps where mass extermination is said to have happened—that’s Auschwitz, Belzec, Chelmno, Majdanek, Sobibor and Treblinka—and the Einsatzgruppen mass murders, gas vans, mass murders etc., that are said to have happened behind the Soviet front. All this is on former Soviet territories. So for 40 years it was behind the Iron Curtain. And the evidence that was presented in the Nuremberg trials and in many trials thereafter was produced in those countries in those years.

 

Can you believe them? I wouldn’t take anything at face value that comes from these countries! Does everything have to be a lie? No, of course not. We have to discern critically, with tools of source criticizm, to figure out what is true and what is not. Forensics. There are a lot of tools that historians have— forensic historians in particular. And in the encyclopedia, with all these crime locations, claimed crime locations, they have entries in there and they go through what the documents say, what the forensic research—if any was done—says, and what forensic research should be done to clarify any issues that we still have a lot of the fields have never been researched in a way that they should have.

 

You probably have heard of the mass murders at Katyn and Vinnytsa. So the Soviets and the Germans divided up Poland in 1939. And the Soviets arrested some 20,000 people of the upper society of Poland that came under their control. And after a year of detention they executed them—or not even a year—in various mass graves. The Germans in ’43 found two of them and made a big fuss about it. But they did not do the forensic examination of these graves all by themselves. They actually invited experts from all over the world, from neutral countries and even from countries they had occupied, and let them do the research or at least partake in that research.

 

And that is the way you should do it. The Soviets after the war—already during the war—did nothing like that! They had a commission that was actually re-examining the Katyn mass graves and blamed it on the Germans with an expert report—complete fake! And the same commission, with the same people, discovered more and more mass graves of German atrocities all over Soviet Russia and claimed outrageous numbers of people killed. On the face of it, obvious exaggerations.

 

What should have been done is somebody go in there and do the actual Katyn, German-style, independent, international forensic examinations. For instance, it happened in Cambodia—massive atrocities, auto-genocide if you wish. They called it a politicide. The intention was not to wipe off an ethnic group—that was not the intention of the Khmer Rouge. The intention was political ideology of an extreme degree. Mass graves of up to 2 million people. So up to one third of the Cambodian population was murdered there. And they had intensive forensic efforts to exhume those mass graves and to count the victims—an absolutely atrocious job when we’re talking about well north of 1 million human beings that were eventually found. Similar thing you had with the Kosovo mass murders that are said to have happened in the Kosovo War, 1999 and thereafter.

 

So this is the way it should be done. It’s never been done in the context of what we are looking at here. And the longer it takes to do it, the less likely it is that things can be clarified. Who are these victims? Who has killed them? It gets more and more problematic because Soviet territory is drenched in blood. We’re talking about 1 to 2 million jews presumably killed by German execution squads in this area. We’re talking an area that has seen the Holodomor, that has seen wars with millions of victims and mass graves of war casualties and prisoners of war, the mass executions that the NKVD, the Cheka, has done in the early years—particularly of the Bolshevik Revolution and the reign of Lenin and Stalin. It’s all in those soils there.

 

So wherever you dig, you’ll find bones. We’re talking north of 10 million, potentially, that are not jews murdered by Germans. Who talks about them? There’s a single focus only on that! But the Soviet Union never had an interest in clarifying any of it. They didn’t want anyone to dig in their soil because what you would find most likely is victims of Lenin and Stalin and so forth, rather than jewish victims of German units. And after the collapse of the Soviet Union, nothing changed really. There were a few attempts of Western scholars to excavate mass graves in Ukraine, which has a more neutral stance now since it’s independent. They have an interest in documenting Soviet atrocities—any kind of atrocities.

 

However, those research efforts into claimed German massacres of jewish civilians were again not done forensically. They were done with the background of public attention and commemoration culture. Locate a mass grave—don’t disturb it. It’s kind of the pressure from jewish groups. A jewish grave is not supposed to be disturbed. That’s against certain interpretations of jewish law. That doesn’t hold up in other crime cases.

 

But in that case they are adamant. Don’t rock the boat—meaning don’t investigate who these people are and how many there are and how they died. Just find the mass grave and put a memorial on top of it, and that’s the end of it. And so that’s kind of what happened, which is unfortunate.

 

Massacres did happen. There’s plenty of documentation and some good forensic evidence in a few cases where this can be found, and anything else would be a surprise. As I just mentioned, the Bolshevik Revolution, the predominance of people with jewish background in the early leadership of the Soviet Union and the early leading figures of the Cheka and the NKVD is well documented.

 

Kenny Ko: Also in America why do you think there’s such a heavy focus on the Holocaust and not the Holodomor, or the Bolshevik Revolution? Like why is it such a matter of the emphasis on one?

 

[44:43]

 

Germar Rudolf: Two reasons. First of all, you have of course mightily influential pressure groups. As you know, the Cambodians have a massive pressure group that can impose a memory/commemoration culture of the Cambodian genocide in this country? No, they don’t! The Ukrainians have somewhat of an immigrant group. They don’t have political clout.

 

Jews most certainly in this country have a lot of political clout, to put it mildly. And that’s the entry to imposing that kind of commemorative culture upon a host nation that has originally nothing to do with it. The United States has neither contributed nor assisted, nor was it in any way the victim of anything that concerns the Holocaust.

 

So why is it here?

 

Kenny Ko: And also why is there Holocaust museums in the United States?

 

Germar Rudolf: The other issue is, of course, you need to have a justification for the suffering of the sick. This has been portrayed in general as the “Good War”. The painting of a black-and-white image of absolute evil against absolute good. The Democratic countries fighting absolute evil in the shape of Adolf Hitler and his cronies. This is a narrative that finds its ultimate confirmation in the Holocaust. Even though the Second World War—when it broke out—there was no Holocaust going on. When it was escalating in 1940, there was still no Holocaust going on. When it was then completely getting off the rails with the invasion of the USSR, there was still no Holocaust going on! It is supposed to have started then, within the first half-year or first year of the war against the Soviet Union, step by step on various levels.

 

So the Second World War in itself—its initiation and its expansion and becoming global—had nothing to do with the Holocaust at all!

 

But it’s a convenient tool for people to say:

 

“Yeah, we fought absolute evil!”

 

In hindsight more than back then. And my reaction to that usually is, I’m not defending a dictatorship that tramples human rights into the dust. And that was National Socialist Germany. As I just mentioned a Catholic priest was sent for a few months to a concentration camp in the Third Reich for speaking out against oppressive policies.

 

Had I been alive and kicking in those years with my attitude to stand up against injustice, I may have ended up in a concentration camp as well. I don’t want to have a government of the Third Reich style when it comes to their disregard for the rule of law and for human rights.

 

But on the other hand, any government that allies itself with Stalin cannot claim to fight a good war! The Second World War breaks out in 1939 by Stalin and Hitler both dividing up Poland. So they are both evil at that point and have started the whole mess.

 

Hitler at that point, when you look at the Third Reich death toll of civilians who had become a victim of the regime, you can amount it to roughly a thousand people—people dying in concentration camps, not too many, but already some dying there who probably wouldn’t have died otherwise. You have the November of ’38 pogrom against jews where roughly 100 jews died. And you had the internal strife of the Röhm Putsch in ’34 where several dozen people were killed.

 

So we’re talking about a thousand people roughly that were victims of that regime. Not necessarily murder all of them, but some of them most definitely, or just gross negligence and so forth.

 

At the same time you have the Stalinist regime, which at that point—we can discuss whether it was 5 million, 10 million or 20 million by the time the Second World War broke out—but we are talking about four or five orders of magnitude more victims on the account of Stalin than Hitler!

 

So why would you pick the side of Stalin? I’m not saying you should have picked the side of Hitler. You should have stayed out of it altogether! If you have an interest—you consider both evil, okay? Make sure that they are well balanced and they start fighting each other and grind each other down and destroy each other. And at the end that both of them are kaput! That would have been a good strategy. Then you wouldn’t have to deal with the mess that we had for the entire Cold War.

 

And now with the conflict with Ukraine and all the rest of it—if Russia had been just as exhausted as Germany would have been and then brought to the point where it collapses internally and becomes reasonable; or Germany collapsed and became reasonable to some degree.

 

So anyway, with all this said, during the 1920s in Europe, German jewish organizations were ringing the alarm bell. In the ’20s, Germany itself was kind of unstable. There were a lot of attempts by Left-wing radical groups and communists to destabilize the country and have a revolution of the Soviet style. While at the same time in Europe they were observing very closely—and particularly in Germany—what was going on in the Soviet Union with the massacres happening, the Holodomor being one, but in general, the absolute atrocities on an order of magnitude that was unimaginable in the history of mankind. And seeing in the early 1920s that a lot of it is done by people with a predominantly jewish background. And people were seeing that. So jewish groups in Germany were saying:

 

“Well, this is bad—what’s going on there. The massacres in the millions—and it’s going to get blamed on jews! So the revolution that Trotsky and the Bronsteins are implementing now is going to end up with a backlash of massive retaliation. And during that coming Holocaust, the Goldsteins and the Goldbergs are going to suffer.”

 

So that was a prediction, I think in 1925 or something, by a German jewish organization. And it was kind of a prophecy. Eventual collision between Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia was a counter-revolutionary war against the initially predominantly jewish-Bolshevik Revolution. Now, by the time Stalin was in power and the Second World War broke out, Stalin had kind of cleansed his own ranks from predominantly jewish people.

 

When you look at the internally recorded ethnic consistency of the NKVD back then, you see that from ’34,’35 onward, the percentage in the higher echelons of that organization went down when it comes to jews—from 40% that they were at that time down to only, I think, 4% within a few years. You see an anti-Jewish cleansing of the entire political apparatus that Stalin put in place.

 

[Image: the mostly jewish CHEKA secret police]

 

Now of course Germany—Third Reich Germany—didn’t know that; it’s something that came out later. But in the view of Third Reich Germany, that was the embodiment of evil—looking at the millions of people massacred, impersonated by people with jewish background on purpose. Because these people were, in the classic sense, not jews anymore in a religious sense, but they had that background. So massacres were inevitable. They started already when the German army went into Russia. The Soviets, were retreating massively! And they— the local population, particularly in Ukraine—had suffered so much. They were the main battlefield of the Bolshevik Revolution.

See: The Other Holocaust — the Terror Famine in Ukraine

 

And then you had the Holodomor—the attempt of the Russians to break Ukrainian will of independence. What’s going on right now was nothing new. They have been through that for the past hundred years. They’ve been through it repeatedly. So the poor Ukrainians, they get it over and over and over again in history.

 

So by that time the Germans move in, the Ukrainians take matters in their own hands. They have massive pogroms directed against officials and against anything jewish. I know from personal account of Otto Strema [sp]. He used to be a major general in the Third Reich and he went into Russia in 1941 himself—that he stopped pogroms. So certain German units were turning a blind eye to it. Some units were encouraging it, others were stopping it, depending on the mood of the command or whatever was going on. But it was going on. And then Ukrainians collaborated in a large degree with whatever suppression and possibly massacres happened afterwards.

 

That was the backlash of 20 years of Bolshevik massacres that killed north of 10 million, mostly Christians, in Russia! If you see that in the context of the greater historical picture, it’s not a justification. As I mentioned initially, two wrongs don’t make a right. That goes on so many levels.

 

So whatever wrong the Bolsheviks had done is no justification for massacring every jew in sight. And many jews who lived in Russia had nothing to do with the Bolshevik massacres. But it makes things understandable.

 

And ultimately, why do we do history? Because we want to understand, we want to learn the Right, the correct lesson. And if you don’t get the story straight, you’re not going to learn the correct lesson. It’s an ever-escalating sequence of massacres, one justified by the other. And we need to see that, see that we all have blood on our hands when it comes to identifiable groups. That’s one with me. We—I don’t mean individually—but Germans have done bad things. Americans—the carpet bombing and throwing nuclear bombs on Japan—there were war crimes, there were atrocities, there were massacres. So destroying basically all of Central Europe and all of Japan.

 

So you need to understand that we need to find a way out of the circle of violence, to learn the correct lesson here. And it is sure not the correct lesson to learn from the Holocaust to teach jews now, already from the cradle—I’m exaggerating, but I think in 2014 they introduced a law in Israel that Holocaust education is now ready to start in elementary school. Elementary school kids in every country in the world— to any, not just elementary—but it is illegal to expose any children to chainsaw massacres and other fiction horror movies for good reason. It should be just as illegal to expose them to gas chamber massacre movies like Schindler’s List or whatever, which is shown to them at an age when they’re heavily impressionable.

 

Kenny Ko: Right.

 

Germar Rudolf: Because it is even more traumatizing if you show them a chainsaw massacre:

 

“Oh, that’s just fiction, it’s just made up!”

 

But it’s bad enough. And I have an adopted son who has been exposed to that prior to his placement—his biological parents had shown him these things. And I know what effect it can have. It should be illegal.

 

And if you tell them:

 

“Oh, this really happened—something like that—and it can happen again and it can happen to you, and the same people who did that are still around and they’re in your back. Yesteryear there were the Germans. Yesteryear there were the Ukrainians; right now they are the Palestinians in Gaza or the Persians in Iran!”

 

And that justifies then the next massacre. So if teaching about historical massacres is used to justify or gloss over the next massacre, we learn the completely wrong lesson! And that’s what this country, with its support of whatever Israel does! And in particular, jews and Israel, Zionists in the vast majority have been learning because of what we experienced, presumably because it was so unprecedented:

 

“It was without logic, without rhyme and reason, without any historical nexus whatsoever! We have to be aware it can happen anytime and therefore pre-emptively we need to lash out at someone as soon as someone looks askance—under every rock a goy can hide who may want to stuff you into the gas chamber—be aware of it jew! So if anyone ever makes the wrong move, kill them pre-emptively!”

 

“Rise and Kill” is actually a book that was written in this context. And that’s what we see in Gaza. And that’s what we hopefully will not see now in South Lebanon. Detraumatizing jews, but also detraumatizing Germans. They have had a similar lesson to learn that leads them to genocide-suicidal tendencies of wanting to give up because they are so evil, historically speaking, that the best they can do is just disappear. So with broken self-confidence they need detraumatizing, but jews need detraumatizing. If you have a heavy trauma as an individual—and the same applies for ethnic or religious communities, whichever way you want to frame it—you need to understand where the trauma is coming from. But then you need to prevent yourself from being constantly exposed to the same triggers. Overcoming trauma—and I had my own trauma: If you’re torn from your family twice and your family’s been destroyed twice and you’re thrown into prison for scientific research you have done—it is traumatizing.

 

And sometimes when people ask me, tell me a little bit more about the story, sometimes I say no. The jewish attitude of “always remember”, and I translate that as “wallowing in your own suffering of the past as an ethnic group” is exactly the wrong way. You can’t overcome trauma if you wallow in it all the time. You need to move forward. The rock climbers say, don’t look backward.

 

And I couldn’t lead a normal life. You know, I know the US authorities—there are strong groups in this country who want to have me deported again, frame me again, or even in this administration, they just arrest anyone they don’t like and deport them even if they have green cards. They have tried that—they could come after me. So I’m constantly in an ejector seat and I have lived that way over the past 35 years and I can’t be constantly reminded of that. I’m trying to have some normalcy. If you’re in this situation, normalcy is what keeps you sane.

 

And if you constantly wallow in it just destroys you! And turns you into a psychopath or at least a sociopath. And that’s what we see with the approval ratings among average Israelis about what’s going on in Gaza.

 

In fact, fully aware that massacres happen on the magnitude that they are happening, that genocide is being committed on the scale as it is described in the Book of Joshua, of the conquest of the Holy Land, where God has ordered the jews to kill everyone in the Holy Land and take the land. That’s kind of what they are reenacting and get the consent of the majority!

 

What kind of mental conditioning must these people have gone through to get to the point to have no empathy whatsoever and to have these attitudes? And the answer to this is Holocaust indoctrination from childhood!

 

Kenny Ko: That’s a great point!

 

[58:36]

 

 

Germar Rudolf: So it needs to stop. And it is, I think, good news for jews to realize the nightmare they’re living under that turns them into these sociopath/psychopaths almost as a nation or as an ethnic or religious group—whichever way you want to frame it. The nightmare of this uniqueness, the icon of which is the gas chamber, is a nightmare! You need to wake up! Yeah, jews were targeted during the Second World War. And it has a historical reason—it was not justified, but there is reason behind it, but not to the extent and with the means that you think there’s one picture that I show sometimes to people of a group of jews from Israel that have been taken on a tour to Poland—because tours, traumatizing tours of jews into former German concentration camps or the former so-called “extermination camps” on Polish territory are organized regularly. They go there to, … It fulfills the same role as in the past the rabbis had with ghetto jews in shtetel * in Eastern Europe—to make them afraid of the Gentiles outside the ghetto, so that they would stay in the ghetto and would stay together as a herd. And these kinds of traumatization serve the same purpose.

 

[* Shtetl or shtetel is a Yiddish term for small towns with predominantly Ashkenazi Jewish populations which existed in Eastern Europe before the Holocaust. The term is used in the context of pre-Second World War European Jewish societies as communities within the surrounding non-Jewish populace, and thus bears certain connotations of discrimination. Shtetls were mainly found in the areas that constituted the 19th-century Pale of Settlement in the Russian Empire, as well as in Congress Poland, Austrian Galicia and Bukovina, the Kingdom of Romania and the Kingdom of Hungary-Source: Wikipedia]

 

And beyond that, leads to these sociopathic tendencies. They go into a gas chamber at the Majdanek camp, or what is depicted to them as a gas chamber—was until several years ago. And they reenact a gassing scene. How traumatizing that must be for young people after all the indoctrination they had already! Now it turns out the Majdanek Museum later says:

 

“Oh, okay, we lied. That wasn’t a gas chamber. That was one of these things that we had to drop.”

 

In 2005 they made that major revision. Over the years dropped the claimed death toll from 2 million down to only 78,000—not even 4%—and scrapped seven of the originally claimed homicidal gas chambers.

 

So a lot of the enactment that jews had done was completely done in places that were fumigation chambers—closed disinfestation chambers—no homicidal gas chambers at all!

 

Now we skeptics knew that a long time ago and published that. It’s good news—it didn’t happen! And the two remaining gas chambers that they claim—it didn’t happen either. Yeah, massacres happened; happened all over the war. The jews weren’t the only victims. If they get themselves into the line of massacres and genocides that have happened during and after the Second World War—get down from your attitude of being unique! Unique victims feel uniquely entitled not only for recognition, but also for blank checks, …

 

Kenny Ko: For reparations.

 

Germar Rudolf: For lashing out, for repression, for pre-emptive lashing out against whoever is in their way. And this is bad! They need to stop! And the way of doing it is realizing the story has been blown out of proportion and is used to traumatize you need to downgrade it to the real size, which is still bad enough, but not extraordinary. And it just is one link in the chain of human atrocities and catastrophes that have happened. The good news, …

 

Kenny Ko: Based on your findings of doing the forensic research, for instance at Auschwitz, and of course I know I’ve looked into the Treblinka forensic studies of ’99 from Australian researchers—do you believe that gas chambers were actually used to exterminate the jews in any regard?

 

[1:01:49]

 

 

Germar Rudolf: No! Gas chambers, … I have actually written a book that you can find as an ebook on HolocaustHandbooks.com. It’s titled Nazi Gas Chambers: The Roots of the Story. After doing 35 years of research on several levels and writing the Encyclopedia, finally when I wrote it, I had to get an overview and had to connect all the pieces and interconnect everything so that it all fits together. And I started to connect dots that I hadn’t seen before and started to realize who has created that story. After the war primarily jewish witnesses—or witnesses with jewish background, I should say—testified and attested to the existence and use of homicidal gas chambers. Which is no surprise because they were the primary targets for persecution of the National Socialist regime and therefore would of course make up the main body of the witnesses.

 

However, if you look at the claims they made, they were completely disorganized, contradictory. You can say it’s a testimonial chaos and anarchy! Nothing made sense, nothing was disallowed. Whatever claim you can come up with, you find testimonies. This story was streamlined during the postwar years, 1945, 1946, 1947. And I document in that book what the original chaotic claims were—made no sense whatsoever! You could find the absolute most ridiculous claims about anything! And how then step by step, by whom and for what reasons and with which methods the narrative was created.

 

Basically created out of whole cloth, invented out of thin air! And the actors, as I mentioned before—primarily they were actors of the Soviet communist bloc. All these six camps were in Poland.

 

So we’re talking about just four Polish individuals who streamlined. They were—three of them—investigative judges who were interrogating all these witnesses, faced complete chaos:

 

“What are we going to do?”

 

And eventually they agreed on one method, threw everything else out—or in one case actually threw out all the witnesses because none of them made sense—and replaced it with something they copied over from a different camp. So it’s all neatly documented there. It was an operation that was done under the auspices of the Soviet Union—of the Stalinist regime—and the new Stalinist authorities that had been imposed upon Poland after the war, and with the help of, just as I mentioned, fleeing Polish scholars—one historian and three investigative judges. So, no! We know from one particular case that is so elucidating that logic tells you it can’t be anything to it.

 

And I’ll give you a quick rundown of that. Josef Kramer was an SS officer who ran, in the earlier war years, a concentration camp in Alsace-Lorraine. And then later he was transferred over to Auschwitz, ran a camp there for part of the camp for a time, and at the end of the war ended up in Bergen-Belsen, which is an infamous camp too because of the typhus epidemic that caused tens of thousands of victims there, as the British found and filmed the mountains of dead inmates.

 

 

[Image: British army bulldozer at Bergen Belsen being used to move bodies]

 

Now he was put on trial there and he was made—after torture, we have actually accounts of how he was tortured—he claimed that in Natzweiler, in the camp in Alsace-Lorraine, he rigged a little room and did a test gassing. And the way he describes it is absolutely ridiculous from a technical and toxicological point of view. Makes no sense!

 

However, that is supposed to have happened at a time when massive gassing operations are said to have been ongoing in the Third Reich already for years. So had it happened, Kramer, who had experience in various camps, would have known how to do it! But they have him testify to something completely ludicrous that makes no sense at all!

 

Kenny Ko: So you think that was through means of torture, …

 

Germar Rudolf: Yes!

 

Kenny Ko: And essentially getting him to confess to something that was never done?

 

[1:05:31]

 

Germar Rudolf: Yeah, exactly! Now we have proof that it was never done because he was made to testify that this gassing happened with a number of Auschwitz inmates that had been transferred to it in 1943, I think, to that camp in order for their skeletons to be used in a skeleton collection at the Strasbourg University—rather macabre claim. At the Strasbourg Anatomical Institute they found corpse parts with tattooed numbers and they figured these are some of the victims that were transferred from Auschwitz. So there seems to be some truth to it. We don’t know what exactly!

 

But then they made forensic investigations of those inmates. Did they die of the poison that Kramer said he used? That investigation— forensic investigation by a French scholar—conducted in 1946, as I’m not mistaken, disappeared in archives for many years, and only in 2018, I think, was it finally released by the French authorities, and the result is negative. No, it didn’t happen!

 

Of course they’re dead. They died somehow, but not with gassing with hydrogen cyanide.

 

So the whole thing is clear to have been made up. And on the face of the absurd claims of how it’s supposed to have happened—which is technically impossible—it was clear that it can’t have happened. But had Kramer had any idea of post-application in Auschwitz and wherever else he was of such massacres, he would have known what to say and so would the French have. So it’s clear the whole story is made up.

 

Also it’s one of, I would say, the only clear-cut cases where we know from forensic testing of the actual claimed victims—no, it didn’t happen. They have been executed, but not that way. No gas chambers! That doesn’t mean that people didn’t die. I just mentioned in Auschwitz we have documented cases of 135, 500 people dying. Most of them of disease. Typhus epidemic was raging in that camp for one and a half years—and they had dysentery, other issues.

 

And so the biggest death toll of any recorded, documented case in Third Reich German history— all the other camps did not come close to that in itself is a humanitarian disaster! Putting people who are snatched from their homes without due process, without anything, and putting them in camps and exposing them to conditions where they have to die like flies may not be outright murder, but it is manslaughter with gross negligence at least—and 135, 500 cases in that camp alone. And that’s something that Third Reich leadership, …

 

Kenny Ko: Do you believe the amount of deaths was due to the Allied powers cutting off supply routes and whatnot into Germany?

 

Germar Rudolf: In some of the Western camps at the end of the war, ye! When we’re talking about Bergen-Belsen and the amount of corpses there, that was due to force majeure, if you wanted. But still, somebody put these people in the camps. Unless they were hardened criminals or some people who justly were in there—POWs would have been in a war; that’s legal to put POWs in camps—and they would have succumbed to the same circumstances. And some of them did. But if you take civilians—Jewish or otherwise—without due process* and just deport them and put them in these camps, you can’t evade responsibility.

 

[* This is a weak argument as the jews were considered a security threat to the war effort, just as Japanese were put in camps in the USA, Germans and Italians in Australia, etc.]

 

When it comes to Auschwitz, no—the typhus epidemic there broke out in 1942 and got under control only in late 1943. So there were no mass bombing raids disrupting supply lines in the eastern part of Europe at that time, at all! What we do have there, however—we have evidence of the Polish underground spreading typhus germs, typhus-infectious lice, in hundreds of cases on purpose! So it stands to reason that they had some impact, were quote, unquote, “successful” with this kind of underground biological warfare, and made sure that German attempts at wiping out the disease in order to have camp inmates fit for labor and work for their war efforts would be undermined in one way or another. Now that’s war. You can look at it which way you want; the Polish underground killed mainly their own compatriots with that, because they were mostly the inmates in those camps.

 

I mean, there were other East Europeans. But anyway, people who were just as oppressed and occupied as the Poles were. And so it should undermine some part of the German war effort. Whether that’s morally justifiable—this is a different issue.

 

But again, it was the Germans who deported jews by the millions without due process just because they belong to a group—and that this shouldn’t be acceptable.

 

Kenny Ko: Another question I did have for you is—because of the non-gassing of jews and them fabricating the story—why do you think they would have chosen that means if it would have been so hard to prove, of course, through forensic studies and people could have come years later to see that the story was untrue? Why did they choose the route of gassing essentially? Or what do you think your opinion on that would be?

 

[1:10:19]

Germar Rudolf: Again, it is kind of laid out in my book Nazi Gas Chambers. If you look at the Nuremberg Trials, when the story hadn’t coalesced yet, they were claiming for Treblinka steam chambers; they were claiming for Belzec electrocution; Sobibor hadn’t settled yet—they were claiming there mainly chlorine as gas. Auschwitz had Zyklon B. So as I just mentioned, chaotic testimonies about what happened there at the Nuremberg Trial hadn’t settled in yet. It’s completely contradictory that we then eventually agreed—or the Polish scholars agreed—on engine exhaust gas in some of the camps and Zyklon B in Auschwitz. It’s a long story. It starts already in the First World War. I would say. The absolute horror of gas warfare is what people were most afraid of in the interwar period—that if another war breaks out, this is going to erupt again and it’s going to get much nastier than during the First World War.

 

 

So the first stories we have coming out of Auschwitz are actually claims by the underground that the Germans are testing war gases on Russian POWs. It was completely made up, but that was how things started—on that level—and developed from there. Zyklon B was of course used in camps because it’s an insecticide to fight lice. As we just mentioned, epidemics broke out—always break out in war. It’s almost inevitable. In many, many wars in the history of mankind, epidemics have caused more victims, particularly in the civilian population, than the war itself. And to some degree that’s true for World War II. Zyklon B is a convenient item that can— even though originally it’s a benign thing to preserve the life of the inmates by fighting epidemics— be twisted around and be seen as evidence for evil things if it has been used for homicide. You see that on various levels, that things that have the ability for dual interpretation—both benign as well as evil—have been used by the Allies. There is evidence that there was Zyklon B. Therefore they twist the story and say:

 

“You used it for homicide! Because there was so much sold and shipped to Auschwitz. You can’t explain that possibly with disinfestation—you must have committed mass murder!”

 

That’s actually the reasoning that was done by the Allies.

 

When you look at the actual record—Auschwitz being such a huge camp, the hundreds of thousands of inmates that were led through that camp, the huge size of it and the epidemic lice problems they had—it perfectly justified the amount of Zyklon B they received. As a matter of fact, they didn’t have enough to combat the epidemics, evidently. But it gives the opportunity for propagandists then to twist it into something that it was not.

 

And the same with the fact that there were crematoria. Crematoria are also a thing that can fire up the imagination of people. Back then, cremation wasn’t quite as common as it is now. And funerals by fire had been illegal in most European countries—in Christian countries, I should say—because of opposition from the Catholic Church and also a lot of Protestant churches, to the effect that it was just illegal by state law. And that was rescinded only starting in the early 20th century, step by step.

 

And by the time the Second World War was on, it was still not a widespread method, particularly in Eastern Europe. The imagination that people get burned, whether they’re dead or not, is just a horrifying imagination. A lot of people still—they want to be interred, they don’t want to be cremated—because the feeling is, my body is getting burned. It doesn’t sound right.

 

So that’s a convenient way for black propaganda to latch onto their fear and turn the hygienic way of disposing of the victims of mass epidemics and mass casualties into something evil that looks like mass murder. “Gas ovens”—the combination of the two—which is a term that shouldn’t exist because the oven, the furnace, and the gas for killing are two separate things.

 

But it’s this imagination, the merging of these two horrific things, that gives black propaganda a perfect opportunity—proving that many of these German camps had crematoria, and therefore mass murder must have been committed there. And this is just fallacious reasoning, but it was an opportunity that the victorious powers seized and they had the total power to ram this narrative down the throat of the general public. And they succeeded with it.

 

Kenny Ko: Right.

 

And another opinion I wanted of yours is, of course, Treblinka, which I think is one of the more interesting ones due to the revisions and everything that were done once the forensic studies and stuff started to happen. I just wanted your overall input on Treblinka as well.

 

[1:15:00]

 

Germar Rudolf: Treblinka is one of the three camps—in the more narrow sense—said to have been pure extermination camps, close to the demarcation line that separated the German-occupied area of Poland from what the Soviet Union gobbled up after the division in ’39 and which used to be Soviet up to 1921. Poland had just gained them— border stations, if you wish.

 

The revisionist take is that they were transit camps for jews who were sent east. Now the mainstream said they were pure extermination camps. Jews were sent there just to be killed in gas chambers. And as I just mentioned, the initial story for Treblinka was actually steam. That was the predominant claim. How murder was, …

 

Kenny Ko: I thought it was diesel—or was it steam?

 

Germar Rudolf: Diesel is the narrative that became predominant starting in ’46,’47. Back during the war it was steam. There’s an official government report of the Polish government in exile from 15th of November 1942 that explicitly says it was steam. Very detailed, describing the camp and anything that’s going on—allegedly based on witness accounts. So it’s so detailed that it is either a fictitious story made up well, or it had a lot of witness claims to it. Be that as it may, steam was the thing. And the steam is also how it was entered at the International Military Tribunal there. Well, there’s a little bit of— they introduced two. One of them said steam and the other one said:

 

“Well, steam, vacuum, electrocution, gas, whatever.”

 

So as I mentioned, anything goes. The shift to engine exhaust gas happened after the war and it was kind of ongoing when the International Military Tribunal was unfolding. It didn’t find entrance really in the documentation there. But you find it, as I mentioned, in the interrogation protocols that were going on, particularly in Poland. And one key event was a German high-ranking official—high-ranking not by military grade, but by the importance in the context of what we’re talking about—that’s Kurt Gerstein. He has been an officer in charge of the SS Office for Hygienic Technologies and in particular there for disinfestation. He was the man who was overseeing the delivery of gas chambers and Zyklon B and other disinfestants to the various camps—gas chambers in terms of fumigation chambers.

 

So at the end of the war, when the gas chamber propaganda took off and Zyklon B appeared as a mass murder instrument at the Majdanek and Auschwitz camps—Majdanek already in July 1944; it was the first camp to be overrun by the Soviets— and then in January in Auschwitz as well—January ’45—Gerstein was sitting in his office in Berlin and knew that he’s toast! Because he is the one who was in charge of supplying all these camps with the technical means and the disinfestants and the Zyklon B to do whatever they have been doing. So he eventually flees from Berlin, surrenders in his hometown in southwest Germany to the French authorities, and writes a report where it says:

 

“Well, yes, I have been in charge of that Zyklon B. And I was actually ordered to drive to one of these camps—to Treblinka—to change the murder method from diesel engine exhaust to Zyklon B. And I didn’t do it because I convinced the guy that, keep your diesel, Zyklon B is no good. And he kind of destroyed it.”

 

Now why did he do that? He had to depict himself to the authorities as a secret resistor, who would actually destroy the Zyklon B and would make sure that the Zyklon B never reaches the camp—and his account is full of it—that he actually intercepted and made sure that it disappears and that it doesn’t get used and that it gets used for disinfestation at a different place after all.

 

So it was an attempt for him, because on the scale of evil of the Third Reich depicted by the mainstream, you have of course Adolf Hitler, Himmler and so forth. And then you have Adolf Eichmann who deployed all the people to the camp. You have Kurt Gerstein who supplied them with this poison gas and the technical means for applying the poison gas. And then you have the local camp commander. So Kurt Gerstein should have been right up there with Adolf Eichmann—and he knew it.

 

So he makes up this story:

 

“Oh, Zyklon B, I was resisting, I was making sure it doesn’t get there. And instead this stuff actually wasn’t happening with Zyklon B. It was diesel engines. So Zyklon B wasn’t even used. And I made sure the switch to Zyklon B didn’t happen!”

 

A big lie! Mainstream historians nowadays have completely discredited him. The testimonies he made are full of complete absurdities and insanities and historical lies!

 

What has been found out is that he actually embezzled, in today’s money, worth more than $100,000 of funding for Zyklon B purchases and had made a luxurious life during the war for himself. Had people go to Paris, get exotic food items and so forth. And he even stole a painting from a jewish estate that was found in his estate later. So he was corrupt, he was a thief, and he knew he’s on the chopping block and he made up this wild story.

 

Now this wild story he tells to the French authorities; the French authorities wrap it up, they interrogate him and they figure out that he’s probably lying because the stuff he’s saying makes no sense. But they convey this message:

 

“Oh, diesel exhaust is said to have happened. We have this high-ranking, top-notch Nazi official who tells us all about how this is supposed to have happened!”

 

And they communicate that to the Poles and in late 1945 send the whole set of documents to the Polish authorities. And that’s when you see the Polish authorities suddenly switching from electrocution, from steam, from vacuum and all the rest to diesel engine—or engine exhaust. And they throw out everything else and rewrite—1946,’47—the stories of Sobibor, Treblinka and Belzec. They don’t even commit necessarily to diesel, but definitely engine exhaust. In decades thereafter, mainstream historians, when it comes to Belzec – and based on Gerstein – and Treblinka, they say then:

 

“Okay, it was diesel exhaust!”

 

Now diesel exhaust doesn’t have the toxicity needed to commit that kind of mass murder. Diesel engines run on a vast excess of oxygen and so oxygen comes out the tailpipe too, and very little carbon monoxide, which is the lethal part. Tests made with small mammals show that it takes many hours—under worst-case scenario conditions—to kill those little mammals. Humans are usually a little bit less susceptible to this kind of toxin, so it takes even longer. So we’re talking about many, many hours that it would have taken.

 

[1:21:24]

 

 

German engineers knew engines! If you look at who has invented all these engines, you find out the Germans were the center of engine invention. They knew the toxicology and they had even better methods at hand. They had the producer gas generators, because they were cut off from petroleum supplies during the war. Mainly they switched their truck fleet, their buses and even some tanks over to producer gas, which is basically: You take coal, coke or wood and restrict the oxygen supply and make it a little wet. Then it burns incompletely and the gas that comes out is very rich in carbon monoxide, which you then can funnel into the engine and use as fuel. They had hundreds of thousands of them. And the top-notch officials of the Third Reich—Hitler, Himmler, Heydrich—everyone was promoting it to get out from underneath the dependency on liquid petroleum products.

 

And German engineers knew about this technology. It is so rich in carbon monoxide, up to 30% and more, that it’s very quickly lethal. It was everywhere, mass-produced, deployed everywhere, particularly in the transport region. So jews were transported—probably some of them—in vehicles with this kind of producer gas technology. There’s no record anywhere that anyone was ever murdered with this. It was well known. Even this technology was used at times before the invention of Zyklon B to kill vermin! Insects are not susceptible to it. It works only for mammals, but to kill mice and rats. So, known that it is a good method to kill—never used.

 

So the Germans had that and then they are supposed to have settled for the worst possible solution—that doesn’t work: Diesel! No, didn’t happen. In the meantime, mainstream historians have shifted the goalposts again. First they were at steam, then they moved on to diesel. Now they figured out—after the research we’ve done and pointed it out for decades—diesel doesn’t work:

 

“Okay, it wasn’t diesel; it was gasoline engines!”

 

So how long does it take for people to stop believing these mainstream historians if they keep shifting the goalposts, here as well? So much about the technological background. The forensic investigations that were conducted over the years—the Soviets did one, and the Poles after the war,’45,’46. The Poles were doing some excavations but didn’t find the mass graves or leftovers of mass graves that witnesses claimed were there. Then we had a preliminary, somewhat superficial, ground-penetrating radar analysis by an Australian engineer back in 1999, and he’s never published his research because he got cold feet with this.

 

And then we had a British team of forensic archaeologists starting research in 2011—2011, 2012, if I’m not mistaken. And they had preliminary conclusions published in a series of BBC interviews and then in a documentary that they made about Treblinka. But the scientific publication of the actual research results has never been released to this day. And we suspect the reason for that is that they didn’t find what they’re supposed to have found.

 

The claim is that in Treblinka at least 700,000 victims were initially buried in mass graves. And you can roughly calculate what kind of earth volume you need to bury that many people. You can have a theoretical maximum of, say, 10 people per cubic meter.

 

But more realistically, if you’re looking at all the mass graves that have ever been disinterred—where victims of National Socialist massacres have been found, or even other circumstances like the Katyn massacre, like mass graves in Bergen-Belsen that the British dug at the end of the war, or mass graves in Hamburg from the Allied air raids—the 40,000 German civilians that died there were put to rest—so we know roughly what kind of a density these mass graves have. And you don’t get up to 10 per cubic meter; it’s lower than that.

 

But even if you were to do that, the amount of disturbed soil that the ground-penetrating radar research found by this British team doesn’t come anywhere close to what should have been found—certainly in the order of magnitude of 10 or 20% or so. I don’t remember exactly the number. But anyway—way too little! And we are talking about just indications of disturbed ground—that doesn’t mean there were mass graves. Because we know the Soviets did excavations in the area and they didn’t find any. No. So did the Poles—and they didn’t find anything. So they definitely disturbed the soil on a massive scale with these excavations they did. But these are not mass graves.

 

And then the civilian population in the area did wild diggings after the war because there was the rumor running around that the jews had left treasures behind. Whatever jewelry or money they were taking with them—some of it fell on the ground, was buried secretly, or whatever. So civilians were digging up the whole place. There’s actually a Polish report that describes the area kind of like a moonscape with craters. Evidently Soviet soldiers had joined in the frenzy of trying to discover jewish gold by using munitions they had and blowing some artillery shells or whatever to quickly, quote-unquote, “excavate” areas. So there were craters of ordnance that had exploded. Some of it has exposed a few bones here and there, but not to the degree that you would expect for a massacre of that size.

 

But anyway, all these disturbances of the soils—some of them may intersect with actual former mass graves, who knows? But some of them may not so we don’t really know from ground-penetrating radar what we are looking at. You would have to actually do a whole-scale excavation to figure out what is there.

 

Now, as I mentioned earlier, jewish authorities disagree with the disturbance of jewish graves. So they prevent anyone from looking.

 

Kenny Ko: Did they lay pave stones or something over the area of Treblinka?

 

[1:27:11]

 

Germar Rudolf: Yes, I think in the 1960s they paved over a large area where it is said to have happened—whatever that is—with concrete. And they have a lot of rocks erected there as monuments. So ground-penetrating radar, depending on the technology, can look through that.

 

And it’s also not completely covered, so there are areas where it’s not so that wouldn’t completely prevent you. It makes it a little bit more difficult, but it does not completely prevent you from using that technology.

 

Similar in Belzec, however—there they did do core drillings. So it shows you if there’s a will you can do more than just non-invasive methods. You can use mildly invasive methods. And the jews agreed to that they found there as well disturbed ground—way less than is needed, even under the worst-case scenario. So if the jews that were deported—of which we know; we have the records— so and so many jews were deported to these camps—not all of them, only a minority of them in the worst-case scenario—can have ended up in the ground there, according to the data we have for now.

 

Where did the rest go? We know the claims—how the murder is supposed to have happened—can’t work. We know that the claims of how the traces of the mass murder were made to disappear—all those mass graves are said to have been excavated eventually, in the course of mainly 1943, and burned on huge pyres. The claims made there are technically unfeasible for open-Air incinerations. The amount of wood and labor force and space that would have been needed—and time that would have been needed for that makes it completely incompatible with the claims.

 

So this is just a convenient and very anti-scientific way of explaining why the evidence isn’t there:

 

“Oh, because the evidence was destroyed!”

 

The absence of evidence doesn’t prove what you’re claiming. And when you are adding another claim on top of it, which you can’t prove either—that something was destroyed:

 

“I don’t have evidence you killed my wife.”

 

“Where’s your evidence?”

 

“You destroyed the evidence. So you have committed two crimes—you killed my wife and you destroyed the evidence.”

 

So you have to go to jail two times. That’s the way the argument goes here. And that’s ridiculous! With that kind of attitude you can prove every crime.

 

Kenny Ko: Right.

 

Germar Rudolf: That’s not the way it works. That’s not how science works. That’s not how law should work. Which isn’t to say that criminals do not try, and sometimes succeed to some degree or another, to actually make traces of their crimes disappear. Of course it does happen, but that doesn’t alleviate you from the duty to prove that something like that did happen.

 

And by the way, if you have 700,000 corpses in the ground and you have no technical means other than wooden logs and a lighter to make them disappear—they don’t disappear tracelessly. There’s just no way in heaven! So things need to be there! Will anyone ever look, with the attitude societies have now? No! By the time that may have changed—down the road in decades or centuries to come—I don’t know whether it will still have any way of succeeding.

 

But then again, technology—hundreds of years down the road, who knows. Forensic archaeology can find out amazing things about human settlements and human graves that are thousands or even tens of thousands of years old. So who knows what we can find out in future.

 

So there’s a lot of things to be done that mainstream doesn’t want to do.

 

Actually, the lead scientist who did the British archaeological research in Treblinka is going to have a lecture at the US Holocaust Memorial Museum upcoming in a few weeks, I think. And we guys are actually considering going there—but a little bit of a logistical challenge, and it’s a risk because if you start asking inconvenient questions, you don’t know what happens, because you’re going into the midst of people who get very angry. If you challenge—just challenge. Not even say:

 

“Well, it’s wrong.”

 

Just ask inconvenient questions. Then all kinds of shit can hit the fan.

 

So let’s see whether that’s something we can pull off.

 

Kenny Ko: Right.

 

[1:30:56]

 

 

Germar Rudolf: So this is Treblinka. The Achilles’ heel of Holocaust skeptics in this regard is, of course, we don’t— we know that many of them can’t possibly have ended up in the ground, and they can’t have been made to disappear with these fires either. So where are they? Where’s our answer to the question—where are they? We do have anecdotal evidence of people who have claimed—witnesses during the projects launched in the 1980s to get as many survivor testimonies on tape, on record—quite a few witnesses have testified that their trains full of jews were transited through Treblinka, through Sobibor, through Belzec. We have actually a paper about that— it kind of goes through them and lists how many we have—that shows yes, these camps did operate as transit camps. That doesn’t mean they operated only as transit camps, but they definitely did serve to some degree and had the ability to serve that purpose, because there are plenty of witnesses that say:

 

“We were transited through there.”

 

Now, unfortunately, I have experience with getting transited through situations like that, because when I was in Germany spending time, I was several times relocated to different prisons. And sometimes you get through the transit section of another prison on the way to your final destination.

 

Kenny Ko: Right.

 

Germar Rudolf: And I know from experience, I remember having been through a transit camp, but I can’t remember the name of it because you’re there only for a few hours, a few days, depending. In my case, it was even six days. Actually, it was long.

 

In the case of Bełżec/Treblinka, people say they were there only a few hours, or a day or so. why would you remember the name? How likely is it that a train full of 5,000 people or 10,000 or 1,000 people—whatever the train may have had, how many people in it that have been in this place that’s completely remote, unknown back then, completely unknown name of a little, tiny settlement, not even a village in the deep backwoods of Eastern Poland—why would you remember that name? So that some of these witnesses do remember. And they were not alone. They were not brought there individually in a car. No, they were in a train full of people who were all transited through there.

 

So you can extrapolate—if you find 10 witnesses who say that, 100 may have forgotten the name and will never have thought of it. And maybe 10,000 never testified anywhere.

 

Kenny Ko: Very interesting.

 

Germar Rudolf: And then we have, of course, records of resettlement actually having happened. That is the official narrative that you find in the documentation—resettling the jews to the east—because Germany thought they were having the Soviet Union close to its collapse after the ’41 onslaught, and then in ’42—which we’re retreating still deep—the whole thing turned around only in Stalingrad, 1942, 1943.

 

Kenny Ko: I think that was the turning point in the war.

 

Germar Rudolf: Right. That’s when the Germans knew it’s not working. And that’s when all these camps were shut down—no transit anymore.

 

So you have a historical coincidence there. Yeah, coincidence that points to—yeah, in late ’41 and throughout ’42, they thought they can ship those jews to the east, have them work there, have them resettle there, because they’re going to control the area. The Soviet Union is going to collapse. We’re going to reign until the Bering Strait. That didn’t happen.

 

And then in late ’42, early ’43, when things were clear, these camps all got shut down.

 

So what happened to the jews that were resettled to the east? I’m sure we have a number of documents saying as soon as they get unloaded, the local German authorities—they can’t handle them. They are stretched thin with all the limited resources they have in a war. We have no camps, we have no nothing here. These jews, they run all over the place. They run into the woods. So they join the partisans right away. And then we have a major partisan problem. They are fighting us.

 

So one of these local commanders says:

 

“If you don’t announce ahead that we’re going to have these jews coming and if you don’t give us the means to actually accommodate them somewhere, the next train that comes unannounced, we’re just going to shoot all these people. Because if we don’t, they join the partisans right away and then they are going to come back and kill us!”

 

So he was ordered to stop this nonsense and to find accommodations for them and make sure that they all get settled there. That’s what was going on. Massacres did happen in this situation of local commanders saying:

 

“I can’t handle these jews. What are you guys doing? They are joining the partisans!”

 

And so some of them got killed ahead of time. Some of them joined the partisans, got killed in that process. Some of them survived. There’s actually one report saying that the Russians, at the end of the war—the Soviets—overran a camp where Germans had concentrated many of them, and the Soviets ran into them. There were jews that had been deported from Western Europe. So there they were. And that was only one case that was reported. Maybe there were more. So some of them got overrun by the Soviets. They may or may not have let them pass.

 

The number of people in Europe who were displaced persons—that includes jews, but not just jews. Eastern Europeans were fleeing from the Red Army advancing. The Germans were being ethnically cleansed all over the place. End-of-war and post-war Europe was a mess where people by the millions were moving Left and Right. How many jews who had been pushed this way and that ended up in displaced person camps that eventually led to them immigrating to Israel—what was to become Israel—obviously a lot of them to the United States, which stopped counting jews or registering the religious affiliation of people somewhere in the early stages of the war actually— and to other countries—is not 100% recorded. So there are a number of fates that these people will have had.

 

And another nasty one could be that a lot of these jews, if they were fit to work, were made to work for fortifications, improving infrastructure. You see that in Ukraine now in the war—each fall and spring they have a mud problem. And they had that back in the Second World War too. The roads back there were in worse shape.

 

So they had a lot of these jewish labor columns improve the roads so that the German supply runs could actually go to the front. And these jews, if they were ever overrun by the Red Army, had collaborated with the Germans—with the German war effort. Stalin didn’t have any mercy for these people. They didn’t really do it voluntarily for the Germans and were forced laborers. But Stalin didn’t give a rat’s arse! If you surrender as a Soviet soldier and become a prisoner of war, Stalin would kill you! A similar situation you have actually right now with what’s going on in Ukraine.

 

And if you are a civilian, you surrender to the German authorities and you work for them rather than fight to your death, then I’m going to kill you! So yeah, people were deported to Siberia. Even if they were concentration camp inmates, forced laborers whatsoever—not all of them, but I’m sure some of them were.

 

So there’s a whole broad variety of things that can have happened to these people. Some of them led to their death, some of them led to them immigrating and being just fine. So we will, at the end of the day—with history being obscured by the Eastern Bloc having been obscured for 40 years, and the Western powers not having too much of an interest in clarifying this issue, of diversifying historical data, historical viewpoints, historical interpretations; and then of course keeping that narrative as it is because it’s supportive of the post-war order and the powers, the pecking order, so to say—the chances of us ever finding out exactly what happened to these people will not be improving.

 

And Russia nowadays—after the collapse of the Soviet Union—they haven’t been cooperative either. Initially, yes, we could actually get access. A lot of the material that we’ve published is based on documentary resources that we found in archives that had been hidden from Western researchers up to the collapse of the Soviet Union.

 

But then, mainly on pressure of the German government, these Eastern archives closed their Gates again to independent researchers. You now need university or government accreditation before they let you in. So much about freedom of science and scholarship.

 

So that’s where we are with this. Is that a good answer for your Treblinka question?

 

[1:38:50]

 

Kenny Ko: Those were great answers all around, I must say.

 

And actually we just hit around the two-hour mark. I would definitely be down to do a part 2 diving into some more with you, without a doubt. Before we wrap up, I also of course want to thank you, Germar, for not only standing up and doing this for the masses and the future generations to get this information—continuing down that journey and seeking the truth! Because I think it is a core fundamental part, like you said, with history, to learn lessons. And if we don’t have the history correct, how are we supposed to learn lessons moving forward?

 

So is there anything you want to close with? I know you already said, of course, where people can find a lot of your writings and of course the free and then also the purchasable versions. But any social medias or anything you would like to tell the people?

 

Germar Rudolf: Well, the easy way, if you want to get in touch with me or follow me—I have it here on the screen. My website, my personal website, is GermarRudolf.com. It also has links there to all the things that I mentioned: To the Holocaust Handbooks, the encyclopedia. We have a Holocaust Academy where we teach the ropes of Holocaust skepticism. And we have actually a HoloCast—a podcast—where I elaborate on these things. The Holocaust 101 from a skeptical point of view, and 102, and the rest of it. Links to the free speech lobby group that I’m involved in, the Committee for Open Debate on the Holocaust—CODOH.com. You’ll find links there to that, to our stores where you can purchase the books, and social media links you can find on that website too. My channel on X, which is basically what I focus on. The rest is too much censorious and you get thrown out.

 

Kenny Ko: I get that. Blanket censorship is a little out of control! But you guys that are watching, make sure to leave a like on the video. Go show him some support for what he has been through for all of us to obtain this knowledge and understanding and evidence, and through the forensic studies. Leave in the comments down below what you guys think of all of this, or any future topics—if we do a part two—that you guys would like Germar to discuss or cover for you.

 

And once again, Germar, thank you once again for your time. I appreciate you sitting down and having this conversation with me.

 

Germar Rudolf: Yeah, much appreciated.

 

Kenny Ko: Of course. Have a good one.

 

Germar Rudolf: You too.

 

Kenny Ko: Awesome! All right, here—I’ll stop the recording.

 

 

[1:40:59]

 

 

END

top

 

 

 

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

 

Rumble Comments

top

(Comments as of 5/8/2026 = )

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

See Also

top

 

 

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

Blair Cottrell: If this is really ordinary quality, let me know and I’ll figure something out. I’m just streaming through OBS because the streaming services are really fucking annoying trying to work them out! Am I just a Boomer or are they really fucking annoying? They say you can sign up for free and stream for like 20 hours free or something, but then you sign up and I can’t fucking work out how to actually stream. If it’s good enough quality, I’ll just stick with this. If it’s good enough for you guys. Can you hear me okay? Give me some feedback on the audio.

 

I don’t usually stream by myself. Haven’t streamed by myself in probably three years. It makes me realise actually how much I was hinging off Joel’s initiative because I would just respond to Joel’s invitations. I wouldn’t set anything up. I don’t know how streaming works.

 

Okay, great! If the video and audio seems okay for you guys. God, every time before a stream starts, I can think of a hundred reasons not to do it. And I’m like, even when I was streaming with Joel.

 

But as I was saying, I was really hinging off Joel’s initiative because Joel had the Streamyard account. He understood how to set it up. He would just send me a link and I would just show up. That’s why I was always fine with Joel taking all the money that was raised through the streams. I didn’t care because he was the one who came up with all the talking points and did most of the talking as well.

 

But I’m basically just responding to requests that I should stream because he’s in jail now and people are used to seeing me on with Joel and they’re not getting their weekly fix of the Joel and Blair Show, right? Where else could I share the link for this? Is Gab still a thing? Does anyone use Gab? All the alternative platforms? [chuckling] I’m still completely banned from X. I was never emailed explaining why I was banned. If you ask Grok, X’s AI system why I was banned, it’ll come up with, oh, no, that’s not right. Hang on. It’ll give you some arbitrary reason about neo-Nazism, but they won’t give you an actual reason because there’s no reason accept ideology.

 

And I suppose that’s what I’ll begin talking about, ideology. Because that’s why Joel Davis is in jail! And that’s why pretty much everyone influential in nationalism is going to jail. Everyone’s going to jail1 Everyone you can think of in Australian nationalism will go to jail, myself included. They’re going to lock us up! And it was always going to happen. That’s not being black-pilled. That’s just observing things as they unfold. It’s just the objective reality.

 

Joel’s not in jail because of anything he said necessarily. No one was hurt. There’s been no serious crime committed. He’s been held in prison for ideological reasons. It’s pretty obvious, right?

 

I was thinking about playing the game that I usually play when I stream with Joel, so you guys could see what game I play. But I thought it might be too distracting. Usually it’s really helpful. It assists my thinking process to do something with my hands while I’m listening. Much to the dismay of school teachers. I was always told by school teachers that because I was scribbling on a book, I must not be listening. But actually it helped me to listen more. Can anyone relate to that? I found if I was looking at a schoolteacher as a kid, if I was watching the teacher while they said something, I was too busy picking up, like, intuitive signals, like facial expression, body language. I was reading how much they believed in what they were actually saying, whether or not they were feeling bored. All of that was coming through to me.

 

So in order to actually listen to the words they were speaking, not looking at them was important. Because if I was looking at the teacher, all I was getting was like, body language and facial expression signals, like intuitive signals. It was hard to listen to what the teacher was actually saying. Usually because teachers don’t believe what they’re saying. They’re just regurgitating bullshit from textbooks, right?

 

So here I was just scribbling in my book, trying to listen, and I’d be reprimanded for it. Obviously, I’m not listening if I’m scribbling in my book!

 

But it’s the same sort of situation when streaming with Joel or anybody else. I need to be doing something else in order to listen effectively.

 

Down? What am I down about? I’m not down. How do I seem down to you? Do I seem down in the dumps? Because I don’t really experience depression or any down sensation. To be honest, every day I wake up and I’m not surrounded by cops, every day I wake up and I don’t get dragged off to prison for hate speech or just some ideological reason, every day I’m not set up on charges and put in jail, it’s a great day! I get to be free for one nore day. That’s how I live my life. So I’m happy to be here, guys! [chuckling] I’m happy to still not be in jail despite believing the wrong things.

 

Yeah, I feel like I’m always pretty happy. I tend to be either happy or really angry! I kind of switch between those two states of emotion. It’s important that I’m kind. I have to make a strong effort to be kind because the alternative is not a great thing! Hasn’t produced great results for me. [chuckling]

 

Yeah, it does suck that Joel’s in jail. Did you guys see the article? I’ll actually post it here, if I can find it first. Hang on. Where? I sent it to a friend. Here it is here. Mainstream media creating paywalls, like expecting people to pay to read the shit that they write. Imagine paying for the Herald Sun or the Daily Mail! Check out that link there. If you guys haven’t read that already. We’ll go through this together actually.

 

[08:24]

 

Actually, if you guys are on your computer, phone, whatever, click this link. It should take you to a Daily Mail article. We have to use this link to get around the paywall because we’re not paying the Daily Mail to read this shit!:

 

“Crushing legal blow for the Bondi Nazi as we track down his girlfriend after she welcomed their first baby or first child while he was behind bars!”

 

The essence of this article is basically, should I bring it up on screen share? Does that make it better for everybody? It probably does, right? Let’s see if I can figure that out. What I’ve got to do is Joel usually does this stuff. What I’ve got to do is, I think, display capture.

 

Actually, I’m not going to bring it up on the screen because it has pictures of Joel’s girlfriend or the mother of Joel’s child. To be honest, I know so little about this relationship that I don’t know whether to suggest this is Joel’s girlfriend. So I’m just going to say this is the mother of his first child. And the pictures taken of her were taken without her knowledge or consent. How’s this? Right? How do we live in a country where a bunch of people with cameras can find out where you live, go out the front, go and wait out the front of your house indefinitely and just sit there taking photos of you and your house. You come out to put the trash out, they’re taking photos of you. They’re sitting there stalking you, waiting for you! Then they publish those photos publicly with personal information about where you live, personal circumstances about your family, your children. They publish all that publicly, and there’s no consequence. That’s really confusing to me.

 

There should be brutal consequences for doing that to someone’s family. Brutal consequences, man! I think it would do the mother of Joel’s child at disservice to share that article. But you guys can read it for yourself if you want. I just think it’s very disrespectful to hide behind bushes and take photos of someone’s partner. She’s just had a baby and you’re stalking her. That’s fucking weird, man! Who are these fucking journalists, actually, who wrote this article? I noticed some journalists don’t even put their names to their articles anymore.

 

Lucy Manley. Who’s Lucy Manley? I suppose I better be careful about what I say because I could be eroding. What am I doing? What are we all doing? We’ve been labelled “Nazis”, right? Everybody who’s ethnically White and believes that is significant and not negative. We’re all Nazis! And what are we doing?:

 

“We’re eroding the social fabric!”

 

Is that what that federal copper said? I’ve got to be careful because something I say may contribute to the erosion of the social fabric! Lucy Manley, senior news reporter.

 

To be honest, she probably didn’t take the pictures. It probably wasn’t Lucy Manley sitting at the front of this girl’s house, but she still publicly posted all this information. I suppose this is just like how paparazzi works, right? You can understand why people in Hollywood just hate journalists so much because they don’t have any respect. They’re like vultures.

 

But I think it’s always been that way, hasn’t it? It’s not really a new thing. I just didn’t expect this to happen so suddenly. Like, if you guys think about it for a moment, right? Joel is notorious for pushing boundaries with the language he chooses to use. Racial slurs are just part of Joel’s regular vocabulary, regular dialogue. I don’t think what he wrote on Telegram about that “rhetorical rape” comment, I don’t think that’s the worst thing he said in the past few years. I think he said worse stuff than that on streams. I actually think if he made that comment, the one he’s supposedly in jail for, if he made that comment, like, four or five months ago, I don’t think anyone would have bat an eyelid. I don’t think anyone would have cared. It would have just been standard Joel Davis. Because it is standard Joel Davis to say stuff like that isn’t it?

 

Everything’s just taken a dramatic shift since the government seems to have become very sensitive and frightened about this White Australia political party. The Home Affairs Minister after deporting that civil engineer guy, Matthew. What was his name? Matthew Gutter or Guther? [Matthew Gruter] He arrived back in South Africa recently. But Tony Burke said:

 

“If they’re going to put their numbers to the test (he’s referring to the White Australia party or community), then they will fail spectacularly!”

 

If that is true, then why not just let them put their numbers to the test and watch them fail? Why is it necessary for all the political policing and to put them in prison and to make laws that they can’t even express their ideology freely? If you’re so sure they’re going to fail when they put their numbers to the test democratically, why all the political policing? Why the aggression? I suppose political bureaucrats aren’t so sure that they’re going to fail spectacularly! They want to manipulate the system to make sure they fail, I guess.

 

I should solo stream more often. The problem is I don’t really like it, bro. I don’t think I like it anyway. Usually I get about half an hour in and I’m done. Maybe I’m fully like ADHD brain or something. It’s not that I don’t like streaming, it’s just before I’m about to start doing it, I can just think of more efficient things I can do.

 

Like right now I’m working on a video course which is going to be the primary product that I’ll be offering for my online coaching service.

 

[16:12]

 

But I want to make sure it’s an extremely good, polished product. What it basically is I’m thinking about every problem someone will have with getting their diet and their training right and I’m trying to solve those problems for the viewers, for people who actually download this product. I want to solve all your problems for you. I want it to be very good! And I’ve been working on that in my spare time. That’s just one of the things I can think of that I would rather do instead of stream. But I feel a bit of a duty, I suppose, to produce some stream content since you guys would usually watch Joel and enjoy what he’s saying.

 

Thanks for the donations, by the way. I don’t know how to access money through Rumble. I’ve never done it before. I don’t expect that it’s a good idea for me to try to extract any money from Rumble. My Australian bank account will probably just get deleted if I do that. I can tell you from experience, any money that comes from any overseas source, when you’re an Australian and you’re into ethnic nationalism like I am, your bank account just gets frozen and deleted, straight away, pretty much within a week of receiving the funds or before the funds actually clear. God, how many bank accounts have I lost? I don’t even know, I don’t remember.

 

But I think I was the first guy in Australia to have his bank accounts deleted because of his ideology. And now it’s just like a standard thing. Now it just happens every day to someone for some stupid reason. Maybe I should have tried to sue the bank or something to create a precedent. The problem is I’m not a court guy. I don’t want to go to court. I don’t want to take people to court and stand there and complain to a judge, you know, I’d rather just headbutt someone! Do you understand what I mean? I would rather just headbutt someone and crush their skull if I have a problem with them. I do not want to stand in court and say:

 

“Your honour, this person, blah blah, blah, I’m right, they’re wrong, please believe me. Have my money, have more of my money. $10,000, $20,000. Please rule in my favour, your honour!”

 

That’s really fucking gay in my mind! I can’t bring myself to do it. But that’s how the system works. If you don’t have money and if you don’t grovel to judges with a lot of money, well, you really don’t get anywhere, do you?

 

We have a problem in society though, don’t we? In post violence society. Everything still happens the same way it would when violence was a main feature of society. It just happens non-violently. So you still get humiliated, you still get targeted, people still get assassinated. It just happens socially and politically rather than physically. The problem with that though is everyone is just treating each other like shit because there’s no immediate physical consequence anymore. No one’s worried about getting their teeth knocked out. Nobody’s worried about getting their jaw broken and having to drink their food through a straw for three months. If people were worried about that, as they should be, everyone would be more kind. Everyone would be nice to each other. We would just have a more, how should I suggest? It would just be a more enjoyable place to live. It’d be a more tolerable place to live because everyone would be naturally kind for fear of having their jaws broken.

 

Everyone just does whatever they want because:

 

“Oh, you can’t touch me. That’s against the law. That’s a salt and pepper!”

 

That’s [chuckling] another aspect of modern society which is really gay.

 

Yeah. Interesting question, Oznat News:

 

“Do I have any comment on the Brisbane crew splitting from March for Australia? One of the organisers name dropping me.”

 

I have no idea what’s going on with that! No idea! Whenever there’s like drama and people are arguing and splitting and you know what I mean, I just back the fuck out! I can’t deal with that petty gay drama and people saying words because they don’t like each other online. It’s not my style at all, bro. I don’t know anything about that. I can’t comment. I don’t know why everyone can’t just have a rally against immigration. Like, shut up about this evil caricature of Nazis that everyone’s obsessed with. Just get over it. Have a rally to stop immigration. The subject shouldn’t be Nazis. Anyone who’s trying to divert the attention of the people interested in the rally to Nazis instead of the purpose of the rally, which is stopping immigration. They are an enemy of your country. They are a fucking enemy of your country! Everyone should just have a rally against immigration. Stop immigration! Anyone saying Nazis, they’re an enemy, ignore them.

 

The Nazis appear to be public enemy number one for the government in Australia right now! But what is that? What is a Nazi? What do you guys think? I mean, for the standard person, when you say the word “Nazi”, a certain image of something undesirable appears in your mind. That word “Nazi” is associated with genocide, is it not? Like the killing of large amounts of people through gassing and systemic execution of various kinds. But is that what history really tells us? And see, this is the issue.

 

I’ll tell you guys a story, right? I was at the gym yesterday doing some leg press and a guy approached me. And this happens all the time now. [chuckling] He’s about 6 foot 7, this guy. He’s really tall, but he’s only young. He tells me:

 

“Hey man, you look familiar.”

 

I said:

 

“Yeah, I get that a bit.”

 

And I outstretched my hand to shake his hand because he was just kind of staring at me. And he gave me a Roman handshake. And I’m thinking:

 

“Okay, this is one of the boys.”

 

And I noticed he’s wearing a T-shirt with a stencil of Hitler on it. This guy tells me he’s 18. For the last few years, he’s just been researching online and he’s on this trajectory. He discovers National Socialism and he explains it as just the truth! That’s what he says to me. He says:

 

“Mate, it’s just the truth! I don’t even see it as a philosophy necessarily. It’s just the truth of this world and how things are.”

 

And that’s when I realised, because this keeps happening, like young people keep approaching me and talking to me about stuff like this. Either they recognise me or they don’t. It’s literally just a subject matter in the public right now! It made me realise why the Australian government is trying to ban social media for people under 16 years old. The government will say it’s “for your safety”. [chuckling] Can you believe they’re still trying to sell that?

 

[22:27]

 

The fact that the government does anything for your safety. Like, imagine actually believing that! I suppose it’s comfortable to believe that if you’re a standard person:

 

“Government trying to protect me, keeping me safe. Thanks government!”

 

God, imagine actually believing that! Imagine buying into that, man. It freaks me out to think that people actually buy into that.

 

But anyway, the social media ban is, again, it’s about ideology, isn’t it? Because Hitler seems to have become this core feature of youth culture. A large section of the youth either think that Hitler wasn’t that bad or that he’s been lied about a great deal and he’s an interesting character. Like a massive amount of Generation Z, the Zoomers, they believe, they’re straight up. That’s what they believe to the extent where they’re in the gym, in a public gym, wearing Hitler T-shirts, and just talking to people about Hitler. I mean, you might think that this guy that approached me is unusual, but it doesn’t seem that way. It really doesn’t seem that way. It seems like these kids are everywhere.

 

And I think that’s what the social media ban in Australia is about. It’s about preventing new generation from accessing the nuance which leads to an appreciation for National Socialism and Hitler. Fundamentally that seems to be what it’s about.

 

Because the problem is, because I’ve read the Hitler’s book many times. To be honest, the first time I read it, I was really disappointed. When I saw it, I’m like, wow! I was only 18 when I first found it in a random bookshop in Fitzroy, which is a northern suburb of Melbourne. I was working there on an apartment building. I bought the book and was excited because I thought I was going to read, I was going to learn about the inner workings of this evil genius who mass murdered all of these jews and tried to take over the world. But then I’m reading the book and I’m like:

 

“Huh? There’s nothing in here about that!”

 

Okay. There’s a chapter on his early life, his service in the First World War, how propaganda works. Wow, that’s interesting. About race and how nation and race mean the same thing. How he wants to protect the Germans. Okay. There’s a bit in here about how the jews represent a threat to Germany.

 

And then there’s just a whole bunch of stuff on foreign policy. And I’m like:

 

“Where’s the genocide? Where’s the evil genius take over the world part? It’s not in here!”

 

But someone who’s still linked in with the Matrix might say:

 

“Well, of course he’s not going to admit that in his book, Blair. Otherwise, no one would have voted for him!”

 

Maybe you’re right. I don’t think that’s how it is.

 

But anyway, the reason I brought that up, because it is because in Hitler’s book, he writes. And first I’ll quote it word for word, then I’ll explain what he means. But he writes:

 

“As soon as an atom, or a glimpse of right is admitted on the opposing side, the process of doubting one’s preconceived ideas begins.”

 

I’ll repeat that so it sinks in. Right:

 

“As soon as an atom, or a glimpse of right is admitted on the evil side, or the side, the opposing side, the designated enemy side, then the process of doubting or beginning to doubt your own existing belief system begins.”

 

What does that mean? It means it is very important that an administrative government does not allow you to access any information which helps you understand the point of view of your enemy. You’re not supposed to understand your enemy’s point of view at all! You’re supposed to reject it as incontrovertibly evil! The moment any nuance is available to you that allows you to understand things from an enemy or opposition perspective, and the moment you’re actually able to understand even one thing that the enemy believes, the moment you’re able to sympathize with even one thing that the previously or an enemy stood for, a previously understood enemy stood for.

 

[26:59]

 

The moment you acknowledge that one thing an enemy did or represented was actually not that bad, then your whole worldview starts to tip. You eventually start to sympathize with an enemy, and you start to see what your previous beliefs were. You start to see them as potentially evil. That’s why when politicians talk about Nazism, they will not include even the slightest bit of nuance, ever! It will always be absolutely incontrovertibly evil! They will always associate Nazism with genocide, regardless of the facts. They will always reject Nazism as not even a real philosophy, but just a caricature of evil itself. Nazism and Hitler are evil incarnate, and you’re not supposed to look at it any other way. If you do, that’s a problem. And social media and the Internet, the age of the Internet has made it not only possible, but easy to see things from Hitler’s perspective. And the results you can see for yourself. It’s a whole fraction of the new generation which actually thinks that Hitler was the good guy, or maybe not even that bad. That’s like, some of them think he’s not that bad. The rest of them think:

 

“Oh, he’s actually the good guy!”

 

Right? That’s what happens when you allow free information, when you allow nuance. And naturally, if people start thinking that Hitler wasn’t that bad, then they end up thinking Hitler’s enemies might actually be bad. The people who oppose Hitler might actually be the bad ones. And that’s the mess that the social media system has created for the existing government. It’s allowed this nuance, which has transformed the perspective of the new generation. People are just kind of running wild with this whole new idea of recent history.

 

To summarize what I’ve said, just to wrap that up, there is a reason you will never hear a single government bureaucrat acknowledge that anything Hitler ever did, that anything the German National Socialist ever did was good. They will never acknowledge National Socialism even as a legitimate political ideology. They will always hold it up as evil incarnate. And they have to do that, because if they’ll contribute to a process where people begin to sympathize with National Socialism. Because that’s the way human psychology works. Everything is either good or evil. It’s either black or White. And the minute you allow nuance to enter that equation, everything begins to tip in the other direction. Black becomes White and good becomes evil. It’s really interesting process. And long story short, that’s what the social media ban is about, because all of the nuance, like, I’ll open up Instagram on my phone right now, for example, and I’ll see, let’s say three videos.

 

The first one will be about. It’ll be some girl who’s like 23 years old talking about how the Holocaust is just what they said happened with the Holocaust is logistically impossible. Then the next video will be about how the government murdered X amount of people with vaccines, how it caused heart conditions, nervous system disorders and premature deaths in infants.

 

And then the next video will just literally be a clip glorifying Hitler. That’s on Instagram right now! Like that’s what young people are being exposed to. 10 years old, 11 years old. Well, prior to the social media ban anyway. And that’s created a serious problem for administrative government, because all of that is going to undermine the dominating ideology of society right now, which is multiculturalism. It’s like the opposite ideology of National Socialism.

 

National Socialism represents the opposite to the current system ideology. It’s the opposite of multiculturalism. It’s the opposite of racial equality. Right. And that’s why people are in jail. That’s why Joel Davis is in jail. That’s why we’re all basically going to jail sooner or later. If you’re an influential person in ethnic nationalism, myself included, at some stage in the next year or two, the police are going to kick your door down at 4 in the morning. They’re going to take your computer, they’re going to set you up with some bullshit and put you in jail for political reasons, ideological reasons, because you represent a threat to the dominating ideology within government, media and police right now!

 

But, it can’t be any other way. I mean, just look at it the way it is. Put yourself in the position of the enemy and understand that they’re ruthless savages! They don’t give a fuck about your rights. You don’t have any rights. I’ve got no rights. I’ve got the right to die quietly and get replaced by Indians. That’s the way the government looks at it. That’s my foremost right as a White Australian. It’s to fucking shut up and die and get quietly replaced by an Indian family. One that won’t give this government as much trouble as we do. [chuckling] And that’s your right too. If you share my ethnicity and my viewpoints. That’s about as many rights as this government affords you right. Now if you think I’m wrong, just give it some time, man!

 

What can you do about it? Not a lot for the time being, I suppose. Like I said, every day I wake up where a gang of coppers haven’t kicked my door down and aren’t accusing me of some shit to put me in jail. That’s another good day. It was always going to come to this, though. It was always going to come to this:

 

“Have I thought about entering politics?”

 

In what capacity? Like, because I feel like I’ve been in politics for the last 11 years. Do you mean like official political process, like getting voted for and whatnot?

 

Of course I’ve thought about it, but it’s not really possible. You’ll find that Australian system is so corrupt, they’ll put you in jail before you can get to Parliament. But that’s part of a process that I think we need to pass through, that Australians need to pass through in order to work out or adapt to that environment, to work out a way where we can stay out of prison and actually arrive in Parliament somehow. I don’t know. I don’t like the idea of a Parliament. I’ll tell you right now!

 

[33:38]

 

I mean, look at Parliament. What is Parliament? It’s a group of hysterical women screeching about racism or other interpersonal nonsense which doesn’t actually matter. And if it’s not that, then it’s a group of men taking money from foreign lobbyists, climbing over each other to try to prove who can fill Australia with more immigrants faster. That’s what Parliament is! It’s just a snake den! It’s a rat’s nest! And anyone who goes into Parliament with good intentions will find that they have to become a snake, or a rat, in order to survive in that environment. I think we need to do away with Parliament as a country. It might be fun for someone like Joel to sit in Parliament because Joel really enjoys debating, doesn’t he? I mean, Joel thrives when he’s in an environment where he gets to argue his point with people who don’t like him. That’s why I think Joel would be excellent in Parliament.

 

But personally, I think I would get too frustrated by Parliament. I think I’m good at doing what I do now, which is just influencing from my small corner, what do you call people like me? Micro influencers? And I provide people with advice. I’m an advisor. I’m an advisor in the shadows. [chuckling] But I’m not really in the shadows, am I? I’m pretty public right now!

 

To be honest, since everything that’s happened in Australia over the past couple of months, like Joel going to jail, stacks of criminal charges being laid against activists left, right and centre, you know, nationalist activists, the Federal Police seemingly being converted into a political police, an ideological policing unit to prevent nationalism from taking hold. I’m not even sure what I should say! Like, I go to post something on Telegram and I’m thinking:

 

“Fuck, what can I even write that won’t just land me in prison right now?”

 

I don’t even know. I’m not really sure. The culture’s changed so quickly that I’m not really sure if I should write anything at all!

 

But then I think to myself:

 

“I’m probably going to go to jail anyway. So fuck it! I’ll just keep writing what I think. I’ll just keep doing what I’ve always done.”

 

All right, how far in are we? How long have I survived so far? I don’t think I can see. Oh, no, I can. No, I can’t see how long I’ve been streaming because I’m just streaming through OBS. I’m not using any of the streaming services. I couldn’t work them out man. I’m just going to close this blind. It’s like some brutal sun glare coming through there. Is that better or worse? Maybe I’ll open it again. Wow! Survived longer than half an hour. That’s nice.

 

Well, thanks for the appreciation, guys. Thanks for joining me. What else was there? There was another article or two that I wanted to discuss with you guys because there’s just been so much going on in Australia for the past couple of weeks, and I spend most of my time working and trying to, what do you call it? Trying to build this online coaching business. So my head hasn’t been as into the news as it should be. It’s like I have one day off. I get like a Sunday afternoon off every week, and that’s the time where I try to catch up on the news and what’s been happening.

 

I saw that Tom Sewell was streaming with, is it called the Fight Back podcast with Blizzerian and Jake Shields? That should be interesting. Isn’t it crazy The Times we’re living in where you can open a social media app and you got Dan Blizzerian talking about how Israel is the most evil thing in the world. And that guy is like, that guy’s watched by a lot of people. He’s someone who’s quite wealthy, according to my understanding.

 

Yeah, I know people want to speak to me about March for Australia, Queensland. Like I said, I’ve got no idea what’s going on with that. I know that there’s drama and there’s people on X who are like, and I don’t even know what’s happening.

 

As I said, I don’t know why everyone can’t just have a rally about a single issue. Single issue rallies are really easy! Anyone trying to complicate it to make it about something other than that single issue, in this case, stopping immigration. They’re an enemy. They’re an enemy! It’s that simple. Just keep them out, get away from them, don’t let them in, don’t let them anywhere near the organisation of the rally itself. Just stick to that one issue. It’s that simple! The moment someone says:

 

“Oh, but there’s Nazis over there!”

 

Shut the fuck up! Shut the fuck up! It’s about stopping immigration. It’s not about Nazis. Simple! Why can’t people figure that out? It’s like it requires the same kind of mental strength that is necessary to ignore arguing with people, or to not argue with people. Which is like when someone’s trying to compel you to argue with them, you literally just ignore them and go about whatever it is you’re doing. You learn to do that in politics. You have to be able to do that in politics. If you can’t ignore what people are saying, you’ll always be dragged into dirty little corners of tit for tat that are just going to waste your time. You have to be able to actually not care what people are saying. You have to actually be amused at people trying to derail you or detract you from your single purpose.

 

Politics is really simple and easy. You just have to stay on that one narrow, single purpose goal route. Very easy! It’s actually the stupidest business in the world, politics. I think Napoleon said that, because you’re literally in the business of influencing simpletons who really want and desire that one train of thought system, that one message that us against them dynamic. And the moment you make it more complicated than that with arguing about ideology and stuff, then you’re basically cooked. No longer are you appealing to the ordinary folk. You just need to keep things simple. It’s really easy.

 

[40:59]

 

 

I noticed I’m being called a “White supremacist” now in the press whenever I’m mentioned. I don’t know why I’m still being mentioned. I haven’t hosted or attended a protest in the capacity of actually participating in it in quite a while. All I do is appear on stream occasionally as a result of being invited onto it, but I still get mentioned in media articles on occasion. And I’m now White supremacist! I used to be far-Right activist, then I was far-Right extremist. Then I was accused neo-Nazi. Then they just took the word accused out and started saying neo-Nazi.

 

And now it’s neo-Nazi, but also White supremacist. It’s interesting, isn’t it? Because I’ve never actually described myself as White supremacist. It’s all very dirty language, curse language, designed to make you look, you know, evil, undesirable. Don’t listen to this person. What a horrible man. [chuckling] It’s probably illegal. I actually know that it is illegal. A former colleague of mine, Dennis Hutz, who was quite close to us during our early years of activism with United Patriots Front. I don’t know if it was Channel Seven or Channel Nine. It was one of the major media corporations, but they just called him a White supremacist after he did some sort of political activity. It was a stunt or something. He issued a legal notice or something like that opened up a lawsuit. And they settled with him before the court date. And they paid him out I don’t know, somewhere between 50 and $70,000. So he got a payout because they called him White supremacist without any basis.

 

I wonder what the basis for calling me a White supremacist is? It’s guilt by association, isn’t it? It’s because I’ve streamed or sat on a panel with people who might accept that identity. I don’t know. But what does White supremacist entail as well? It’s like if someone calls you White supremacist, right, what that means to the ordinary mind is they think that you’re the kind of person who walks around and just thinks you’re superior to everyone because you’re White. Like, it would mean that I would just walk past a Chinaman or something like that and just hate this person because he’s Chinese and not White. It’s like, imagine going through life like that. Imagine how exhausting that would be to have to hate everyone around you just because they’re not White all the time.

 

I mean, I’ve never really felt that way. To be honest, I don’t really feel anything towards people who aren’t White. I don’t really have any room to feel anything for them. It’s not like they’re not significant to me in any way. I don’t really live in a place where there’s a lot of people who aren’t White. So being a White supremacist is not really something that’s ever occurred to me. I’ve never really thought of myself that way.

 

But apparently Australian journalists, mainstream media journalists, they know more about me than I do! [chuckling] they get to decide my ideology and how to describe me, regardless of the facts. And that’s the country we live in, ladies and gentlemen. It’s also a country where you go to jail if you write the wrong thing on Telegram.

 

And if you go to a protest, a police approved protest, you don’t commit any crimes. You’re even a highly regarded civil engineer. And you’ve been in Australia for years without committing any crimes. But you went to one protest for ideological reasons the government doesn’t like, you’re getting deported! You’re out of here within a day or two. Well, I don’t think he was actually out of here within a day or two, but I know that he ended up in immigration detention within a day or two. God, that’s crazy, man! I don’t think that’s ever happened in the history of Australia. I actually tried to find another situation where someone was deported, like taken to immigration and deported that quickly. Not even serious rapists and murderers. No one in the history of this country has been apprehended and deported along with his family that fast! That’s never happened before.

 

Think about what that means. It means that a whole new precedent of political policing is now occurring in Australia. And it means everyone who was influential in nationalism is bound to go to jail at some point or another. That is the logical mathematical conclusion! So brace yourselves!

 

Like I said I was gonna play a game. I was gonna play a game for you guys that I usually play with Joel. You know what’s funny? Someone said in the comments on one of the last streams that I did with Joel before he was in jail, someone said:

 

“Oh, Blair’s losing hope! Blair’s so black pilled he’s even started playing a game while streaming with Joel. He’s not serious anymore!”

 

I thought to myself, bro, I’ve been playing a game while streaming with Joel for like three years. I just didn’t say anything because I thought maybe it’s rude.

 

[46:13]

 

But now I’m just being honest because it kind of explains why sometimes I’m a bit distracted. But that’s how I listen. As I explained at the start of the stream, I listen by doing something else with my hands. And so like some people do that. Some people need to be able to like do something else in order to intake information effectively. Like if I’m just sitting there staring at the screen, I get bored. It’s hard for me to actually listen. It’s easy to listen if I’m doing something else.

 

It is World of Warcraft hardcore, but it’s a private server called Turtle Wow! You guys know what that is? It’s like, how would you describe it? It’s like classic. Plus, it’s the original World of Warcraft, but it’s had all this additional content bolted on. It’s even got new raids and new dungeons, but it’s all at level 60. Because you can only play Classic World of Warcraft or Vanilla so many times before you know every single weapon that drops, every single item that drops. The good thing about Turtle Wow is its got like an array of new items and weapons and quests that you’ve never seen before added into places like Westfall and Elwyn Forest, and all the early human starting zones and beyond. There’s whole new zones as well. And it’s all based on what Blizzard was going to release with the original Vanilla, but they didn’t end up releasing it because they didn’t have enough manpower or time to actually implement those things into the game. But the original World of Warcraft, the original vanilla, that came out in like 2004, I think, or 2000, 2003, when I was like 13 or 14, it was basically an unfinished game.

 

If you look at the way the classes were set up, it wasn’t finished. Mage was finished, Rogue was finished, Warrior was kind of finished. The other classes weren’t finished and the game wasn’t finished, but they released it anyway and it still became an international phenomenon.

 

But it’s an easy game to play while you’re streaming because you don’t need to pay that much attention to it. It’s not a game like Doom Eternal, for example, where God, I’m like, that game requires 100% of your attention.

 

Nick Patterson. I don’t want to talk about individuals. I don’t want to talk about individuals. It’s not my style. What could I say, though in summary? I think Nick’s doubling down on his support for Israel because he probably got bullied for supporting Israel. And some people, when you bully them, they actually double down on what you’re bullying them for. That’s the way they respond. He’s probably copped a lot of shit online for being a bit of an attack dog for Avi Yemeni and the Israeli crew.

 

But eventually he’s going to realise, guys, eventually, you can’t stay ignorant forever. Eventually, Nick Patterson will realise that he’s not jewish and the jews laugh at him when he’s not there. Avi Yemeni would go home and laugh at him. He’s going to work it out eventually. It’ll just take him a bit more time. Bullying probably won’t work. Doesn’t work on everyone, bullying. Well, there’s probably a process people go through, but everyone’s different.

 

So the next March for Australia event is on Australia Day, is that right? It’s like everyone seems to be gearing up for Australia Day. Ever since the original March for Australia, there’s been some drama, hasn’t there? And it all seems to be, at the centre of that drama, seems to be this whole Nazi debacle! Like you’re sort of Zionist-conservatives trying to Reclaim Australian patriotism from the Nazis. That seems to be the main crux of the issue. I honestly just think it should be ignored and everyone should just get together again for the next march, like I said, for that single issue thing. If you consider yourself a conservative, if you consider yourself a Christian, even if you’re like a Zionist conservative Christian, if that’s still actually a thing, it shouldn’t be. But even if you are, if that’s what you consider yourself, or even if you’re a Nazi, or a regular Australian patriot or whatever, these are all just words! You’re just saying things.

 

At the end of the day, you’re still part of the same cultural, ethnic community. Like, just look at each other. It’s easy to tell who is one of us and who is not. And you should be, in my opinion, we should be united on that basis, not the basis of word identities. Like, I’m centre Right conservative and I’m far-Right Nazi and I’m centre kind of I don’t even know, like, what is this? It’s all just words. The political spectrum is just words. This is people saying words, making noises with their mouth, which, how is that more of an identifying factor than how we look, how we think and where we come from physically and biologically? To me, it’s just like I can tell who’s on my side and who’s not usually just by looking at them. That’s the way I tend to approach politics.

 

But apparently everybody’s more intelligent than me because they invest a great deal more in their political spectrum identities. That makes you smarter than anyone who’s using biology as an identifying factor first. It’s embarrassing how the tendency people have to believe they’re super intelligent can actually confuse the fuck out of them and can actually take them away from their fundamental identity because they’re so invested in the idea of their own intelligence that they end up identifying with something that is completely alien to their own biological identity because they’re so smart, right? They spend all of their time thinking about how to verbalise or structure their identity and how to explain it to people. I don’t know. I’ve always just thought, like, being a White Australian is not like a big deal. Well, it’s not a bad thing is what I’m trying to say. Like, what’s wrong with just being a White Australian? I don’t get it. I realise that the current system wants to kill you and replace you with a more manageable slave population from overseas if you’re a White Australian, I get it.

 

And so from the perspective of the administrative class, the institutional class, there’s a lot wrong with being a White Australian. If you’re a White Australian, you’re held responsible for everything bad that ever happened in this land, ever! Especially to Aboriginal people.

 

[53:21]

 

But even if you want to extend outside of Australia, you’re responsible for all suffering of the native Maori people! Evil White colonial barbarians are responsible for the suffering of South Africans! And the only way we manage to advance our civilisation as White people was by exploiting and dominating other cultures around the world like the cruel colonials we were. And for all the suffering we’ve caused around the world, we now have to pay! We have to pay by dying quietly and getting replaced!

 

That’s the attitude of the institutional class. And it’s kind of creepy, isn’t it, to live in an environment, in a civilisation where your own government essentially wants to kill you and they think it’s justified for racial reasons. There’s like this relentless race hate that’s motivating your own governing forces and they don’t even see it. Like, they don’t even realise if you’re someone who works for media, government, Ranking police officer, if you’re actually thinking this much, you won’t even realise that you’ve been spelled by race hate propaganda, which is anti-White in essence. Like, you’ll just look at White people and you’ll even look at yourself if you’re a White person with these kind of preconceptions, and you’ll just despise that ethnicity because of what you’re being led to believe has happened as a result of that ethnicity and colonialism.

 

So it’s interesting, isn’t it? They say that evil is a point of view and every way of man is right in his own mind. And that is so true. It is so true because the people in government who are actually in the process of punishing White people for being White evil colonials, they think that they’re doing a good thing. They think it’s justified because they do believe White people have caused all that suffering. So they think it’s all justifiable and it’s all just consequence of the evil things our ancestors did.

 

Every way of man is right in his own mind. It’s eerily similar to the story of Attack on Titan. If anyone hasn’t watched Attack on Titan, you should try to watch it. I understand the first season or two might be hard to get through and you might feel like you’re just watching some stupid cartoon about these weird looking giants, but god, as it gets into the final season, man, wow! I’m of the opinion that that show has the power to deprogram Leftists. It’s that powerful! It’s a story that teaches you about race hate propaganda and how it works and how it’s used as, or to establish an effective power dynamic to unite people against that single ethnic enemy. I don’t think I’ve ever watched a story as impactful as Attack on Titan. I can’t even believe some Japanese guy came up with a story that impactful. It’s fucking crazy!

 

Or maybe it’s just that I’m used to Western media just being so bland, just so full of pathetic propaganda. You know, I watched this movie, or I tried to watch this movie a couple of weeks ago called Frankenstein. Supposed to be a movie about Frankenstein. That was one of the worst movies I’ve ever tried to watch. It went for a long time and it’s like for perhaps for maybe two hours or at least an hour and a half, I just sat there waiting for it to get good. I’m thinking:

 

“Surely with this cast, surely with the material they have to work with the amount of money they’ve spent on this film, surely it’s about to get good. At any stage now it’s going to get good!”

 

But every decision made by the main characters doesn’t make a lot of sense. And every scene is just a crybaby story about poor Frankenstein! Everyone so mean to Frankenstein and he’s just so good and kind, the poor thing! And after you’ve just been hit with that scene after scene after scene after scene for almost two hours, you’re like:

 

“Where the fuck is this story going? I can’t even watch this anymore!”

 

I just turned it off. It is just so bland, uninteresting and weird! It’s weird!

 

And so you watch Japanese animation and you get really impactful, compelling stories about ethnic tensions and race hate propaganda and political power dynamics. And even involved in that is like time manipulation and shit on top of all that stuff put into this incredible, incredible story! And it really speaks volumes of the quality of Western entertainment when it’s being completely smashed in terms of quality, thoughtfulness, creativity by random Japanese cartoonists!

 

It’s getting really hot in this part of the house that I’m in the sun is beating down on this window in front of me. I’ve got the blind down, but maybe I’m just getting frustrated. I can never tell if it’s actually hot or if I’m just getting angry. I’m one of those people that when I get frustrated, my head turns bright red and I just start getting really hot. Mepola says:

 

“Yeah, Frankenstein was absolutely awful! I saw it with the missus. We both looked at each other throughout the film, cringing. It was insufferable!”

 

It was absolutely insufferable. It was. What else did I watch recently? I watched a show that was just absolutely miserable! And it had that Australian actor in it. What’s his name again? He’s in that movie Warrior with Tom Hardy. He’s Tom Hardy’s brother in the movie Warrior. What’s that guy’s name again?

 

[59:21]

 

Anyway, it’s a movie about this guy who loses his family. He loses his family and he kind of waits for his family to come back, but they never do because they died in a fire. And that’s basically the whole movie. It’s just really depressing. But there’s several elements of the film that I thought were interesting. You know what? I don’t remember it well enough to go through it. All I know is that was laced with low key propaganda. That was just “White man bad.” You know Joel Edgerton. That’s the guy. Thank you, Joel Edgerton. You guys might know the movie I’m talking about. I think it’s on Netflix or one of the major streaming services right now! It’s just the most miserable, pointless film laced with evil propaganda. I won’t even say evil necessarily. It’s just hostile propaganda. It’s hostile!

 

Like there’s one scene that doesn’t make a lot of sense. There’s just some guy because they’re all part of some tree logging company. And there’s a guy who’s just ranting about Jesus and stuff like that. He’s just some random White guy, kind of overweight. Then this black cowboy comes into the scene, asks if anyone’s seen this guy. And the overweight White guy, we’re talking about just starts running and the black cowboy shoots him and says:

 

“He killed my brother for no reason but the colour of his skin. Anyone got a problem with what I’ve just done, speak up and we’ll have it out now.”

 

And no one says anything. And the black cowboy just rides off. And that scene is just inconsequential to the rest of the movie. It was just completely fucking unnecessary! And you realise it’s only in the movie just to put that:

 

“Ha. White guy gets shot by a black guy for noble reason!”

 

I don’t even know, man! I won’t. Like I said, I don’t remember all the scene structure, the structures of each scene well enough to actually analyze it. I’ve noticed people get really famous from analyzing films. Like The Critical Drinker on YouTube. I always liked that guy.

 

I started watching him before he had the huge following too, that Scottish character. And it’s one of those things that I think I could have done quite well, analyzing films. I was just basically always so busy trying to afford rent, losing every job that I got after three months because someone would Google my name and some woman at the HR department of whatever company I was working for would take issue with me. I was too busy doing that to actually invest any time into analyzing film.

 

But it’s really easy to take a Western film and analyze it and just unpack the propaganda. In my opinion, it’s really easy. But there’s some good influences. There’s some good people on YouTube doing that right now! And yeah, I don’t like the heat. I’m not looking forward to summer this year. It’s officially summer in Australia, but it’s been raining a lot.

 

Anyway, again, thanks for joining me everyone. I expect that this stream will be available to watch after I’ve finished it. So if you have missed the start of it, I think it should still be there. I believe that I set it up in that way, but I’m not entirely sure. I’m here to streaming through OBS because I couldn’t work out Streamyard. And there’s this new one called Restream, I think. You connect it to your Rumble account and it says that it’s connected. But then there’s no stream key and there’s no source and there’s nowhere to put that stuff. And so I’m thinking how the fuck does this work? This is not intuitive at all! They pretend it’s like the easiest thing ever to set up, but it’s really not.

 

What’s a good movie? What’s a good movie? Give me a movie, guys, that’s worth watching, in your opinion. The last good show that I watched was called God, it’s getting so hot in here. I’m sweating. I can’t last much longer, lads. The last good show I watched was Ripley. Anyone seen Ripley? It was a black and white film, I believe, set in the 60s. I think it was on Netflix. I believe that Tom Ripley is almost like a folklore character in certain cultures, but it’s about identity theft. And it makes you realise when you watch the film how easy identity theft was or would have been in the 60s. It’s not so easy now due to all developing technologies, but in the 60s, all you needed was, yeah, you could just glue your passport photo on top of someone else’s passport photo and then that’s who you were.

 

Recommend anime solo leveling. I don’t know if I have it in me to sit there and watch another anime. It’s like after I did Attack on Titan. I’ve done Attack on Titan twice as well. Because I liked it that much. I watched it again gradually. Took me months. But, yeah, I don’t know if I have any more anime in me for another six months, but I’ll try.

 

When you get to a certain age, this is a sad reality, but it is a reality nonetheless. When you get to a certain age, it’s more difficult to intake new information. It’s not impossible, but it’s more difficult. So when you’re exposed to new things, it’s kind of like you get tired really quickly. Makes you miss being a kid where everything was just, your brain is just able to absorb everything so quickly and efficiently when you’re young.

 

[1:05:18]

 

I’ve heard about Nuremberg with Russell Crowe, but I haven’t watched it yet. I saw Russell Crowe on the Joe Rogan podcast. I actually clipped it. I clipped the part where Russell Crowe was talking about how, and this links back into what we were talking about earlier in the stream. Russell Crowe is talking about nuance regarding certain Nazi officials, specifically Hermann Goring, the chief of the Luftwaffe, the German Air Force. Nuance regarding him as a person looking into his life and the circumstances of Germany before and after the war. And I clipped that and tried posting it to TikTok, and it got instantly deleted! I thought maybe it was the song that I put on with it. So I deleted the song and tried to upload it without the music. Instantly deleted again.

 

And that takes me back to what I was talking about before, how nuance cannot be permitted by the existing administrative forces. The hand behind the government, you might say. It is their job right now to eliminate nuance, to ban nuance, or to limit your access to nuance, specifically on the subject of the Second World War and any revisionism or extra information that people are making available on the Second World War, on Hitler and the Nazis. Because nuance, once made available, is eventually and with mathematical certainty going to result in people having more sympathy for Hitler and the Nazis. That’s where nuance leads.

 

Have a cold beer. How the hell is beer gonna cool me down when I’m hot? You realise alcohol raises your body temperature. Beer! I shouldn’t judge people for drinking, though. Joel drinks. Joel enjoys a beer. He seems to handle it pretty well, too. Joel’s not one of those people who loses his shit when he gets drunk. He kind of becomes more entertaining. He loosens up a little bit, and it doesn’t seem to impact his intelligence at all! If anything, it just slightly sharpens it.

 

They’re incapable of allowing nuance. It’s not that they’re incapable, it’s that they’re absolutely unwilling because they understand the destructive power of nuance. That’s what I’m trying to get at. Anyone who is permitting nuance or encouraging nuance, that is more open discussion or objective discussion regarding Second World War and Hitler specifically, will be considered a dangerous enemy of the administrative forces of government right now!

 

It’s really important to understand that, too. They’re not just disregarding National Socialism as incontrovertibly evil out of ignorance. It’s not out of ignorance. It’s very deliberate. Because any open discussion on the topic is eventually going to lead to a broader and better understanding of the topic. And that is not in the interests of current government media alliance to have you actually understanding the Second World War in any broad capacity. You’re supposed to just write Hitler and the Nazis off as evil, and that’s it. You’re not supposed to look into it beyond that.

 

Basically, this whole society is built on not allowing nuance on this particular topic. [chuckling] Again, they’re going to lock down social media. I think I mentioned that, but I didn’t really unpack it fully. It begins with this whole:

 

“Oh, we’re protecting people under 16 by not allowing them on social media!”

 

That’s just them getting their foot in the door when they can work out how to accomplish that and force the social media companies to abide by that rule, they’ll take the next step. Not really sure what the next step will be, but the goal will be to lock down social media specifically. And the final goal will be to censor the Internet in entirety.

 

I actually saw a video recently of a guy who managed to get his hands on two smartphones from North Korea. And both of these phones were totally locked down. They already come with heaps of apps, but they’re several years behind the technology of the phones we have available to us. There is access to the Internet, but it’s like an internal Internet controlled by the government. And you have to put your details in. You have to punch in all your details before you can use it. So they know exactly who you are and what you’re looking at, even though what’s available is still censored and controlled by them. Just in case you find a way to use that Internet service to get beyond what they can control, then they know who you are and where to find you and I found it curious because when I was watching the video, the guy presenting this information to people, he was like:

 

“I wonder if we’ll ever see the fall of North Korea in our lifetime. I think we will?”

 

And I laughed because I thought to myself:

 

“Not only are you not going to see the fall of North Korea and the circumstances in North Korea, you’re going to see those same circumstances implemented in the West. It’s actually the opposite. You’re not going to see the fall of stuff like this. You’re going to see it becoming a widespread thing!”

 

But at least North Koreans have national pride laced into their particular brand of communism, which is kind of like. What do they call it? It’s like National Bolshevism. Nazbol. I suppose that’s how you would summarize the North Korean system. The kind of totalitarian system we’re going to end up with is an Internet that’s totally censored and controlled. But you’re also not allowed to express any national or ethnic pride because that exhibits opposition to the dominant ideology within Western society, which is multiculturalism, everyone’s equal, right? So national ethnic pride is a problem for the current ruling ideology. So that won’t be allowed.

 

It’s almost like North Korea will be a preferable alternative. The system of North Korea will be a preferable alternative to what’s around the corner for the West. But I don’t know, maybe even though we’re going to go through a time where everyone’s going to jail for no reason other than ideology. You’ve got America. I just saw in the news recently that America is like, probing Australia to try to gather as much information on how corrupt Australia actually is and how much damage like multicultural dogma and mass immigration has done to Australia, where that damage has been done specifically and who’s responsible for it, at an institutional level. America is apparently collecting data on that subject. I’d say they’re pretty late to the party. It’s been going on for a long fucking time!

 

[1:12:08]

 

And my guess is the reason they’re collecting data is to work out how bad the situation really is and whether it’s reversible. Well, certain elements of America, anyway. It could just be all like certain elements of American government pretending that they’re going to do something to help Western society, but really they’re powerless to do anything at all because they’re too under the thumb.

 

Yeah, people like Avi Yemeni won’t go to jail. Yeah, I’m talking about, like actual Australian nationalists, not T-shirt salesmen. Not your (((dual citizens))) who really just are champions of Israel and some sort of subversive foreign policy. Would I even consider Avi to be a champion of subversive foreign policy? I don’t know. All I know is that this guy, you can’t compare this guy to an actual someone like me, for example, we’re totally different.

 

I actually watched Avi Yemeni kick Hugo Lennon. Is it Hugo Lennon? Auspill. Try to remove him from a rally. He claims that it wasn’t him removing Hugo. It was Nick Patterson removing him.

 

But it’s clearly Avi standing there arguing with him, coming up with reasons why he should leave:

 

“You’re a Nazi. You’re wearing a Helly Hansen jacket. That’s Nazism. How dare you!”

 

I thought it was amusing how Hugo accused Harvey of schizophrenia because I think there’s a high rate of schizophrenia in the jewish population. I think that’s statistically fact. It’s got something to do with their breeding patterns, or a genetic variation that produces higher levels of schizophrenia on a per capita basis.

 

But I don’t know, I’ve got to watch that again. I haven’t actually. I don’t have in my mind an effective memory of that video. I’ve only watched it once, so I did notice that not many people were on his side, though. Not many people appreciated Avi just yelling “Nazi” at Auspill because of a jacket brand he was wearing and having him removed from a rally when he was just standing there on his own, not bothering anyone, trying to listen to the speakers. Yeah, everyone in the comments was against him. That’s understandable why.

 

As I said, any real Australian nationalist is going to be focused on a single issue right now, which is stopping immigration. If they’re focused on anything else, especially “Nazi hunting”, you should just treat them as an enemy to the cause, because all they’re doing is diluting and detracting from that single issue, which is going to unite everyone! People can only be united by a single issue. The moment they detract from that issue or they’re detracted from that issue by someone trying to drag their attention away elsewhere, then the whole cause begins to crash. It’s very simple.

 

Well, thanks for joining me, guys. First solo stream I’ve done in several years. MaybeNextTime I will play that game. But funnily enough, to my surprise, I didn’t have any trouble talking this long. Usually I would have gotten bored 40 minutes ago.

 

So we got Superchats, don’t we? Is that how it works? We read out Superchats. I think I’ve got them all here, but I’m not entirely sure. Philip Mellor gave $5 and says:

 

“Hail Boomer Tech. I’ve missed my fix of the Joel and Blair Show.”

 

Am I Boomer Tech? I am pretty old now. Neil tells me that all the time. Neil Erikson, if you guys know who that is, an old friend of mine. He keeps reminding me that:

 

“Bro, we’re old now. You realise that there’s a whole new generation of activists. We’re the old guys now!”

 

I’m thinking:

 

“Yeah, I suppose he’s right about that. Fuck, when did that happen?”

 

Pedro Escobar gives $20.

 

Thank you very much. He says:

 

“Shekels for you. Hail Australia. You are the vanguard for us all.”

 

I’m just a guy, man! I’m just a guy in a room right now! But thanks. I do what I can. The Queen’s Guard gave $5 and says:

 

“Do you ever think you’ll inevitably have to take up a more free frontline position in nationalism again? Like starting up UPF again or becoming a politician or something?”

 

First we have to get through this period of going to jail for what we believe and surviving the political policing. We need to adapt to that and work out how bad that’s actually going to be. So first we need to get our doors kicked in early in the morning, get arrested, go to jail for ideological reasons. Work out how we’re going to get out of jail and then develop a strategy for stopping them doing that to us in the future.

 

So that’s what’s in the immediate future for us activists of the nationalist cause. We’ll talk about taking more frontline positions up again after we’ve been through that and adapted to it. Queens Guard again says, Gives $2 and says:

 

“Tell us about UPF days, Blair. Staunching pedos, [word unclear], bashing Antifa, etc.”

 

What do I say specifically? It was all very, it was all very impulsive. The United Patriots Front, I’ll be honest, on my behalf at least, it was all very impulsive. I didn’t really have much of a long term plan. I just had a Facebook page. We had that idea, that single issue, as I mentioned several times in the stream beforehand. And we just ran with it. We ran with it and we tried to affect public discourse as much as possible. And we knew eventually we had to build a political party.

 

But interestingly, as soon as we segued into building a political party, that’s when all the trouble started. That’s when I got charged, me and two of my colleagues, actually, we all got charged with what was essentially a speech crime for a Facebook post, “intent to incite ridicule” on Facebook. My bank accounts got frozen and deleted. I got blacklisted from Facebook, Instagram and Twitter, all within three months. And I couldn’t even communicate with my supporters to tell them what was going on in court. And suddenly due to all that random intervention, the political party was basically bust. And we didn’t really know what to do, because we didn’t have like a physical place where we all went. We didn’t have a physical membership necessarily. All it was a Facebook page. We just had social media and that was it.

 

And that was the mistake we made, I suppose, because at the end of the day someone just pushed a button:

 

“Delete them off Facebook, delete their bank accounts, charge them with hate speech. Done!”

 

[1:19:23]

 

 

It was that easy for them to get rid of us back in the day. I gotta be honest though, actually, I’ll tell that story another time. That’s a little bit too much for how much brain power I have remaining. The Queens Guard again sends $2:

 

“You should start vlogging, Blair. I was just thinking of whether Nick Patterson would have the same balls to confront and try to kick you out if you decided to attend one of his Zio-Christ coming events.”

 

Personally, I’ve never had an issue With Nick Patterson. And I went to his gym once. It was probably three or four years ago. I went to his gym and we did some training. Kickboxing training. He used to do kickboxing, I think it was kickboxing or maybe some form of MMA. And, yeah, he used to rant about Christian stuff back then, too. So he’s always been into the same stuff. But I don’t know. I’m not really in a position where I’m attending protests in the capacity of participating. If I was going to attend something, it would just be to listen. But Hugo Lennon just did that. He attended one of these rallies these guys had, just to listen to the speakers. And he was ejected because Avi decided he was a Nazi as a consequence of his jacket brand [Helly Hanson], which is the same brand I’m wearing, by the way. It’s becoming quite popular. It’s good stuff, actually.

 

It reminds me of Kathmandu before Kathmandu got shit! Kathmandu used to be good, quality merchandise, but then it’s like they sold out to some cheap shit! There’s different qualities of Chinese merch, right? There’s some good factories in China, and but they’re only like 10% of the factories, then 90% of the factories just dirt shit!

 

And it’s like Kathmandu started in the top 10% and then they ended up in the 90% ones. And now. Now it just sucks! Their merch doesn’t really feel good anymore. But this stuff feels like the way Kathmandu merch used to feel. It’s good shit!

 

The Bearded Indian sends through $8. Thank you. He says:

 

“Nazi smears. I respond, the National Socialist German Workers party dissolved in 1945. So does that make you a commie? And people usually shut the fuck up!”

 

Right. Are you saying you call people a communist when they call you a Nazi? I don’t think that’s powerful enough, personally. You’re better off calling people, anyone who says you’re a Nazi you can presuppose that they support mass immigration into the West. And so you should just call them a rapist! Because the immigrants that are coming into this country are, per capita, they’re committing more rapes than, like, standard Australians would, by and large.

 

So if you’re an advocate for mass immigration, you’re an advocate for rape. So you need to use language which is a little bit more potent than communist. You see, Nazi and racists. Racist doesn’t carry the same weight as it used to, which is why the media stopped using it. Because it’s been overused. But Nazi, or neo-Nazi and White supremacists. These are curse words which have a particular bite to them. And you can only match that level of bite with something like rapists or murderer! Rapists might be a better one. But you don’t need to concern yourself so much with whether or not the word can be applied logically or truthfully, because your enemy is not concerned with that, you just need to be concerned with the impact the accusation has and the effect it has on your opponent in an argument. So they call you a Nazi. You say:

 

“Well, you’re a rapist. You’re a rapist dog!”

 

You know what I mean? You can practice stuff like that you need to use language which is just as strong or has an even stronger impact on them than the Nazi phrase or smear has on you. Broden Nielsen sends $10. Thank you and says:

 

“Hail from Sweden!”

 

Well, hello back to you from Australia, Sweden. The only person I know from Sweden is Marcus Follin, also known as the Golden One. I can’t say that we talk all the time, but we occasionally nod to each other from across the pond, that is almost the rest of the world. We’re very far away. But he’s always been someone I’ve appreciated and sort of looked up to, Marcus. So whenever I think of Sweden, I usually think of Marcus because he’s the only person I’ve spoken to from Sweden.

 

I’m not sure what “gifted subscription” means, but thank you. Thank you to Broden Nielsen for that. And look, guys, I’m like, roasting in here! I’m cooking, so I’m gonna go pretty soon. I hope the stream has been comparably as entertaining as it would have been with Joel. I know that I can’t provide the same level of intellectual discourse that Joel can. It’s funny, actually, when you sit on stream with Joel, you feel kind of dumb when you listen to Joel’s platitudes and how excellent he is at actually phrasing or piecing together an explanation or argument, especially when you already agree with him, by and large, you kind of just feel like nothing you can say is going to match the level of intelligence that Joel’s put out there or expressed.

 

[1:25:18]

 

So usually what I do is actually try to play devil’s advocate with him and act like I’m opposing him on a few things because that actually tends to open his mind up even more.

 

Well, thanks, guys. I suppose that’s it. Cheers for joining me. Was there anything I didn’t touch on that I wanted to? Well, I hope no one is like, disheartened or believes what I’ve said here is like a black pill or something like that it’s not that way at all! When I say that everyone who is influential in nationalism is going to jail, it’s not that much of a big deal. Like, we have good prisons in Australia and it’s relatively easy to spend time in prison. It tends to be a bit of a holiday in my experience. However, I’ve never been to jail in solitary confinement as a result of my ideology.

 

But when you look at everything, the way it’s happening, what the Federal police are saying, the way they’re targeting influential people who are advocates for our kind of ideology, the ideology that I’ve always advocated for, then you just need to be objective about it. You need to be honest with yourself and you need to be like, okay, we’re going into a new threshold of political policing where just being me is going to be illegal! You know, just being a nationalist of the ethnic kind is basically going to be illegal.

 

And I don’t think anyone should be too concerned about that, though. It’s just part of how politics goes throughout history. Things get pretty bad and then they sort of settle down and then they get pretty bad again. And you shouldn’t take things too seriously like that because, I don’t know, life goes on for most of us, [chuckling] but it doesn’t concern me that much. Like I said, it’s all just part of the game. I just do what I can to make sure that it’s not too easy for them to throw me in jail for ideological reasons. As you guys know, I’m pretty careful with the way I word things and I keep my nose clean, so that’s about as much as I can do.

 

I hope the quality of this has been okay. I hope the quality’s been okay. I use one of these little Bluetooth mics because, how strange is this? I have this huge Rode microphone which is like, it plugs into your computer, like, USB attachment so it uses your computer’s power supply.

 

But then you’ve got this little thing here, this little Bluetooth mic, which is it operates through a receiver and stuff. But that little thing is like, significantly better quality and more powerful than this. How does that work? That’s like alien technology, lads. I don’t understand it. I remember how much I was astounded by our technology had developed after I got out of jail when I was younger. I went to prison in 2011, I believe. I think it was 2011. I believe it was December 2011, and I got out for the first time. I got out November 2012, right before my birthday, I think. And before I went to prison, I was working for a building company and we just had work phones with buttons on them. Just your standard, like, button phone. The company gave everyone these phones. It was just part of working for the company. It was the deal. And then I’m remanded in custody for a while and I’m out on bail, but then I’m back in jail, whatever.

 

And then a couple of years later, I’m out of prison, I’m on parole, and everyone has these smartphones. A friend of mine gives me an old apple iPhone 4, and for the first time I’m exposed to Instagram and Facebook on a phone. And I’m like:

 

“Fucking, wow! Where the fuck did this technology come from? How does this even work?”

 

You know how people speculate that during the Second World War, Hitler must have been in touch with aliens or something, because how did he manage to develop all of this crazy technology that no one else has heard of? How did they build jet planes for the first time? And I don’t even know. There’s like a long list of technological developments that the Germans were responsible for during the Second World War.

 

And it’s like I feel the same about the development of all this micro technology, the smartphones, and how much data that they can actually fit on a solid state drive these days, which is like as big as your finger. Considering how fast it developed, it’s fucking incredible! It doesn’t make a lot of sense how we went from like Nokia brick phones when I was like 13 or 14 to literally like five years later, everyone’s got an iPhone. Like, how did it develop that quickly? I think the way, you know, someone in tech would explain it is everything just got like, shrunk down and multiplied, and they just kept shrinking things down and things kept multiplying, shrunk and multiplied over and over again!

 

All right, well, I’m glad the quality of the stream was good. I didn’t expect it would be going through just OBS. But 65 Stoney sends $20. Thanks, mate. And he said:

 

“Drop Turtle Wow Server and Faction Blair currently on classic anniversary.”

 

Hang on, I’ll have to look it up. Have to look it up. I’ll have to log into it. Hang on. What server am I in? Definitely I play Alliance because I’m not a degenerate mutant. Yeah, I’m Alliance Master Race.

 

[1:31:20]

 

I’ll probably show you guys actually. Let’s jump on. If I go display capture and I put this down here like that this is my hardcore character. I’ve got a few characters. I’ve been playing this server for about. I’ve been playing the server when it first came out, I think. Oh, shit! Hang on. Let me make sure I kill this guy. Just going to move my streaming thing over here to this screen so I can see what I’m doing. I’m getting lag. I don’t know. My bags are full.

 

So, yeah, this is my Paladin. He’s level 37. I made this character probably about two or three years ago. That’s how much chance I get to actually play this game. But I’ve had to be really careful. Had to be very careful with this character because if this character dies, he’s gone! It’s just over for me. As you can see. If you play actual Vanilla World of Warcraft, you might notice that the talents are slightly different and my abilities are slightly different too. In this one, you get a combination of strikes which actually make playing Retribution Paladin a little bit more interesting. You get Holy Strike and Crusader Strike, which share a cooldown. So you choose between them and they provide unique buffs. So you ideally want to use both of them when you’re fighting something. I’ll give you an example here.

 

So this is the best Seal you get, which is Seal of Command. It basically gives you a chance to do double damage on an attack. And because I just used. Because I just use Crusader Strike, it increases my attack and casting speed by 3%, which stacks three times. And then Holy Strike gives you strength increase, which is also stackable. I’m gonna die, man! What am I doing? Imagine if I died. This character, that’s years old, you forget how much. Oh, don’t heal! Fuck you! Don’t worry. I still have ways out here. I’ve still got bubble. Oh, I’m out of here. You can’t take any chances, guys, on these hardcore characters. Let’s get the fuck out of here before she comes back with her mates.

 

I really should do some work. I’ve got to start making money. Yeah, see, she’s coming back with her mates. I told you. And look at my health. This is what they do. These fucking mongrel half breeds! Look at them! Half horse, half human. What an abomination! I shouldn’t be here anyway. I don’t know what I’m doing around Moradin. Let’s head back.

 

I’m about to close the stream. I think of I don’t think I want to become one of those video game streamers. Someone said once, actually, that the day Blair starts streaming a game is the day Australia, …

 

[stream ends]

 

 

[1:34:14]

 

 

END

top

 

 

 

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

 

Rumble Comments

top

(Comments as of 1/12/2026 = 57)

goyslopdesigns
2 days ago
blair is chronically correct and early on censorship and overreach. been a month tho buddy give us a stream

katana17
2 days ago
[Blair Cottrell – The Joel Davis Situation – Jan 9, 2026 – Transcript] https://katana17.com/2026/01/09/blair-cottrell-the-joel-davis-situation-jan-9-2026-transcript/ [In this video Australian pro-White activist Blair Cottrell gives us an update on Joel Davis, a political prisoner being held in Sydney’s Long Bay Correctional Complex, in a punishment cell without basic amenities, all for making a social media post critical of the politician Allegra Spender who had called for him and other NSN members to be jailed for a peaceful legal protest urging that the all-powerful jewish lobby in Australia be abolished. That lobby has had Davis denied bail and held in detention since he was arrested on Nov 20, 2025, at Bondi. – KATANA]
1
0

Delete
TheHender
1 week ago
I notice that you ask Joel obvious questions or devil’s advocate questions (the ones people think are ‘black pill’) so that Joel can lead off from there and expound on that topic. There is a reason for this and it seems a lot of people just don’t get that. It is that or you’re just a dumb dumb, Blair hahaha
1
0

TheHender
1 week ago
I enjoy playing games while listening to podcasts. Currently on a spreadsheet-like game, Football Manager 2024. Or I will be on Turtle WoW while listening to the backlog of you and Joel. Add me if you want: Waughloch

TheHender
1 week ago
The moment I heard about the Social Media Ban for young people, I knew immediately they were aware that the “H*tler Youth” is rising and the government knows it. They’re trying to get ahead of the game.

kitsubot
VerifiedSupporter
1 week ago
The far right whites worldwide should converge on the only white nation left with free speech and gun rights – namely the United States. We are the only nation with a chance, our right wingers are out breeding liberals, we out voted them several times recently, and the Australian stock are descended from people who left England and Ireland to build again. It is your heritage to leave when the government oversteps their bounds. As a heritage American myself i welcome the real Aussies to come build with us here where we still have a shot. We can always come back and conquer Australia with u again in the future but for now you are welcome here.

goyslopdesigns
2 weeks ago
one stream a month? I thought this dude was an influencer

leibekohne
3 weeks ago
Blair I would blame Australian melting Pot non-white situation women not because they are weaker vessel but because they are evil by not having children. Those young unvaccinated white bitches who hate men =misandry should fuck them and have every year child,saying “I do not know who the father is, there were few of them it was one day stand, I was drunk”. gov. will pay them and give housing at least that way they will blocked street shitters and other non-whites scum savage aboerectus out of free housing market. I know is bad advice but better then die young of alcohol drugs and be replace. Perhaps bastardized children will fight for us those treasonous filth politician and feminists.

leibekohne
3 weeks ago
Is jew? word allowed, Hitler is banned??in Australia??

SolarStormMan
3 weeks ago
Been waiting for you to do a solo stream while Joel is locked up. Hopefully the Joel and Blair show can return in early January
1
0

whitehonkymonkey
3 weeks ago
the thought police have arrived so its up to us to be smarter and find some other way to get around there BS laws.

goyslopdesigns
3 weeks ago
bro is an influencer but can’t stream once a week and only pulls up for an hour on other streams

Gabe0007
4 weeks ago
I’m at 31 minutes mark. Blair! YOU’RE WRONG..!!!!!!!! WRONG!!! >>>> There’s another way, big man! THE ONLY WAY FORWARD OR YOU, AS WHITE AUSTRALIANS WILL BE NO MORE!!!!!!! CLICK ON THIS PICTURE!!! : https://i.imgur.com/50D5YeO.jpeg You WHITE Aussie boys either UNDERSTAND this or you, as White Australians will be no more. ( I cannot type it more simple as this. ) And I don’t want it, you don’t want it, none of us WHITE MEN want it..!! But there will be no other peaceful option.

Gabe0007
4 weeks ago
Meanwhile here in the f.cked up UK…. : Woman’s little daughter was denied by LEFTIE ( all schools are fkn’ leftist here! ) SCHOOL, – because of her mother’s hurty words! LINK : https://freespeechunion.org/lucy-connollys-daughter-banned-from-new-school/?v=7885444af42e

TACTICALBOY88
4 weeks ago
Merry Christmas Heil Brother o/ 110

MigC
4 weeks ago
I could listen to this man talk all day. God bless you, Blair.

Sinagoglies
4 weeks ago
Oh, that’s why downplays Israhell and MoSSAD, glorifies war and unjust invasions; and doesn’t like conspiracies!? Occultist Joel & co always plays down soviet fake Israel and glorifies war Kosher Collett and Joel Davis (Antifa Man) https://www.bitchute.com/video/XsI7RgOHpdVG Joel Davis Baphomet Tattoo https://www.bitchute.com/video/ijm47i4rYBkd Thomas Sewell admits to Snitching (and Black and Tans in his family (British Bolsheviks) attacking and invading Ireland. https://www.bitchute.com/video/hoOljtlDj2vb Occult Forces (1943) National Socialist Anti-Freemasonry Film https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gW4NzVxhnUg The hard-line anti-occultist faction within the NS movement was concentrated in the SD, the Sicherheitsdienst or “security service” of the SS under Reinhard Heydrich (Roman Catholic). They were largely kept in check from 1933 to 1941 by other NS officials including the staff of Rudolf Hess Thomas Sewell wants esoteric Hitlerism! I see now– Joel loves his trance techno non music! Psytrance music bridges the divide between secular and religious Jews in Israel https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/community/articles/dancing-on-common-ground https://harvardindependent.com/kleztronica-how-techno-raves-modernize-traditional-jewish-music/ Jewish Techno Party https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ep_35FTnYVA&list=RDEp_35FTnYVA&start_radio=1 https://supertravelr.com/en/trip/israel/heres-ultra-orthodox-jewish-sect-israel-rave-trance-music-7E4A9E9D97/ In 1933, the Vatican signed a Concordat with the Hitler & the Nazi Party. This made the Vatican the first state of officially recognise Nazi Germany. Find out more on our online resource https://www.concordatwatch.eu/showkb.php?org_id=858&kb_header_id=752&kb_id=1211 HITLER SPEAKS OF CHRISTIANITY AND HIS AND GERMANY’S CHRISTIAN FAITH https://www.bitchute.com/video/vBiW14nRKDNI/ https://www.wikiart.org/en/adolf-hitler/mother-mary-with-the-holy-child-jesus-christ

IcarusWax
4 weeks ago
We will win.

jonkvh
4 weeks ago
Great stream Blair.

Bigboy6669
4 weeks ago
hail

DonaldDucktator
Supporter
4 weeks ago
Wow, you really nailed the ending of this solo stream Give yourself some credit this was very enjoyable.

TVR_
4 weeks ago
Great stream Blair

amundsentb
4 weeks ago
Great stream!

wyrdweasel
4 weeks ago
Haven’t seen the recent ‘Frankenstein’ but the director Guillermo del Toro is a leftist so not surprised it’s a fail with no balls. Try the 2014 film ‘Unbroken’ for the true survival story of a WWII airman who went through hell (surprisingly well directed by Angelina Jolie but don’t let it put you off).

loosifur
4 weeks ago
https://www.linkedin.com/in/lucy-manly-8a2aa851/

shorterboy
5 weeks ago
Use TOX or SimpleX to create online spaces

› Show 1 reply
shorterboy
5 weeks ago
Frankenstein was written by a woman, your supposed to feel sympathy for the alien because female sex preferences

shorterboy
5 weeks ago
buy yacht a starlink mini and make them work to catch you while sail the coast

TinyHatRemover
Supporter
5 weeks ago
“You’ve had too much to think” -Australia police
9
0

SomerledsBlood
5 weeks ago
here’s a movie recommendation for you Blair: The Proposition (2005)
3
0

› Show 1 reply
Goraxium
5 weeks ago
The funniest part of Joel’s arrest is that ASIO has warned the government about men who do not believe that there is a political solution to the bullshit the government is forcing on people, and the government is proving it. “Those who make peaceful revolution impossible make violent revolution inevitable”. ASIO needs to start arresting politicians for their deliberate attacks on social cohesion, because if there is no political solution…
3
0

Girnigoe
5 weeks ago
Good to find you streaming! Greetings from America. Joel will be avenged and return to erode the social fabric again! Here’s to the White Australia Party. The ZOG knows how popular it will be, and what a problem it will be for them, probably even more so than what happened in Germany recently. Hail!
8
0

Tachibana88
5 weeks ago
I watched The King on Netflix recently, and it was actually really good. it’s from 2019, about the rise of Henry V.
2
0

charliebrownau
5 weeks ago
Gday Blairs Solo Sunday Stream was really good I hope he continues it each Sunday No Victory without Struggle _________ Regards Charlie b * Email – charliebrownau@protonmail.com * Videos – https://poast.tv/c/charliebrownau/videos * Telegram – t.me/s/Charliebrownau
2
0

DJTriumph
Supporter
5 weeks ago
Blair watch Mr Inbetween, its a great Australian series
4
0

› Show 1 reply
WhiteBitchTripleSix
Supporter+
5 weeks ago
I prefer to fidget while learning as well. Especially when I had to sit in a class for 8 hours a day..
3
0

CovenantSolidier
Supporter
5 weeks ago
Hail from Montana brother
9
0

FellowComrade
Supporter+
5 weeks ago
I love how Blair is so measured in his perspective. He has seen shit and created things. Been through a lot, but still comes across as a good guy who has his mind in the right place. Gotta appreciate anyone who can handle the world coming down on them and retain the twinkle in their eye.
11
0

DJTriumph
Supporter
5 weeks ago
I genuinely sense a sadness in you Blair like you really miss your friends when they’re locked up, as a man you wanna be surrounded by your mates building something positive
5
0

TraskJackson
5 weeks ago
Heck-yeah. Glad to be here.
9
0

Cardiff4
Verified
5 weeks ago
Great Talk Blair. I empathize with your frustration of technology, it gets to me sometimes as well. Your mic/sound and video quality were really good. For a minute I thought you were in a jail cell…. solid white walls. haha. Glad your not. Cheers Mate. Looking forward to hearing from you again. FREE JOEL….. Helly Hansen
13
0

GreenGladeAryan
5 weeks ago
The Iron Claw 2023
1
0

Ethereal1562
5 weeks ago
Good to see you Blair. You mentioned the rapid development of technology after you got out of prison, and WW2 etc. You might find Diana Pasulka’s research on ‘human satellites’ and NASA’s secret programs, where they receive ‘downloads’ of information, interesting. Sounds schizo, but she is a legit professor and researcher.
2
0

TheShowgun
VerifiedSupporter++
5 weeks ago
Fuck i didn’t know you were streaming!! If you do this regularly I’ll definitely be here and donating my guy. I’ll pay attention to telegram for noti’s from now on. o/
15
0

AngloSaxon88
5 weeks ago
Even here in Scandinavia Blair and Joel are missed. It’s great to hear from you Blair!
30
0

Greatsouthern
5 weeks ago
Is anyone else being asked to “verify” their rumble account?
2
0

› Show 2 replies
Greatsouthern
5 weeks ago
Great to hear from you Blair.
33
0

› Show 2 replies
LachlanMD
5 weeks ago
Heil
14
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

Mark Collett: Hello everybody and welcome to Patriotic Weekly Review, episode number 328. And we’re here at this irregular time two hours later than usual to accommodate Thomas. We had an agreement to do a show and Thomas obviously has gone away for a while and is kindly still doing the show despite the fact that we I a little bit sort of intruding on his family life. Which is unfortunate. But it is very good of him to still do be doing this.

 

So thank you so much for joining us.

 

Now I’m going to give a very brief intro. I’ve got a lot of things planned later this week. I’ll be live tomorrow with James Goddard. I’ll be live tomorrow with David Duke. I’ve got a live stream about the Lucy Connolly situation over on my channel on Friday night. And Sunday night we should be doing a film review of 28 Years Later. So plenty of things coming up.

 

Now if you like my work, if you support my work, if you like the streams that I do, please consider giving a donation. You can donate via Rumble, you can donate via Odysee and you can donate via Entropy. Everything helps. And obviously I work full-time for the cause. What I make is what you see on the screen here.

 

So if you want to contribute to my work, if you want to contribute to the stuff I do, please do consider giving something, whether that’s a little bit, or a lot. We usually get thousands of people watching these streams. So if everyone could consider giving $3, $5, $10, whatever you can afford, that would be really appreciated. And if you want to give more, please do consider that as well.

 

So obviously anyone who would like to donate, if you donate to the stream, we’ll read out any questions you have in the second hour of the show. So me and Thomas will be answering questions. It’s a two hour show, first hour with me and Thomas talking.

 

By the way, if you’re on Rumble, there was a little technical issue which I’ve just sorted. Sorry about that. It should be working now. You’ll be starting a couple minutes late on Rumble because of that. My apologies, but you’ll get the meat of the stream. You’ll probably just miss the first couple of minutes. Don’t know why that happened but it is fixed now. So that’s me doing the technical issues on the fly.

 

But yeah, if you donate, we will answer any questions in the second half of the show. Please be as generous as you can. It is very much appreciated. You can also donate via crypto. All the crypto links are in the description below.

 

And finally you can write to me at thefallofwesternman.com. That’s mark@thefallofwesternman.com. And my website, thefallofwesternman.com is where you can download my book for free. Everything I do is free of charge. Nothing goes behind a paywall. There is no charge for any of my work!

 

So if you appreciate my work, please consider donating because that’s what keeps me able to do the work I’m doing, whether it be the streams, whether it be the political organisation or whether it is some of the numerous sort of outreach programs or help that I provide for people within the movement.

 

02 NSN’s Midnight Melbourne March on Aug 8, 2025

top

 

Anyway, let’s get on with the show. We’ve got Thomas Sewell with us tonight. I’ve been really looking forward to this because I wanted him on a week or so ago, but I had a packed schedule. And the reason I wanted him on is because Thomas Sewell and his group managed to hold one of the most awe inspiring marches that I’ve seen in recent times through Melbourne.

 

And it’s quite interesting because it was a midnight march, which might sound a little bit strange, marching in the middle of the night, but this created absolutely massive ripples and I’ve often heard sort of weird criticisms of groups for:

 

“Why didn’t you do it in the middle of the day?”

 

Well, I think these guys have generated enough publicity that everyone in Australia must have seen this was an absolute masterpiece of publicity creation, and it whipped the media up into a frenzy!

 

So Thomas has been doing some amazing things and definitely deserves the time away with his family which he’s having at the moment now, after all this excellent work. So Thomas, how have you been since I last saw you? Believe it or not, it’s been about 25 weeks since you last came on, almost half a year. So a lot has happened and it seems like your group is the group that everyone in Australia is talking about the media can’t get enough of you.

 

Thomas Sewell: Yeah, well, thank you for having me on. I hope you can hear me all right. Yeah, it’s a bit risky to have me on this week considering all the things that’s happened on the news. Mark, you know my feelings about particular subjects, but I’ll try to keep it UK friendly.

 

But yeah, to stay on topic with the march, it feels like ages ago, but yeah, it was about. I think it was two weeks ago. It was actually just over two weeks ago. It’s actually been a while. But we’ve been very busy planning other things. And I haven’t had the chance to take a holiday like I’d hoped. But I have managed to try, try to do a bit of a getaway. But I might have to finish my holiday later. I’ve got a court trial coming up and things are very busy.

 

03 Australian Nationalism is Treated as Quasi Illegal by the Treasonous State

top

 

But the march itself, we marched on Australia Day exactly six months ago, or you know, when we did our last stream, and we did it mask off and we did it during the day. And the police arrested us marching through the street singing Waltzing Matilda with our face out and carrying Australian flags. And that was a huge, you know, public relations win for us.

 

[05:56]

 

I mean, the Australian public got to see that Australian nationalism is quasi illegal by the treasonous state. And it provided a very clear and obvious visual symbol or visual description of the “friend-enemy” concept. The Schmittian friend-enemy concept*.

 

[* The Schmittian friend-enemy concept, articulated by Carl Schmitt in his work “The Concept of the Political,” posits that the essence of politics is defined by the distinction between friends and enemies. This framework suggests that political actions and identities are fundamentally shaped by conflicts and antagonisms, emphasising that politics arises when these distinctions become pronounced. Carl Schmitt (1888–1985) was a conservative German legal, constitutional, and political theorist. Schmitt is often considered to be one of the most important critics of liberalism, Parliamentary democracy, and liberal cosmopolitanism. But the value and significance of Schmitt’s work is subject to controversy, mainly due to his intellectual support for and active involvement with National Socialism.]

 

So this idea that we live in a democracy is obviously a fallacy. But you have to point that out to people. You have to show people with your actions that it’s a fallacy.

 

04 An Ancient Aryan Tradition of Marching at Night

top

 

So that was a really successful march six months ago. And off the back of that march we’ve been working really hard the last six months and we’ve recruited a lot of people.

 

And so we came into this one with about three times as many guys willing to march. And I decided that, well:

 

“If this is the winter march, we’ll do it at night time and we’ll do it mask on!”

 

And the idea was that there’s an ancient Aryan tradition and it’s documented very heavily with the Greeks and the Romans, but it documented a little bit with the other Aryan tribes like the Germanics and the Celts.

 

But obviously there’s not as much written information about their history as there is the Greeks and the Romans. But many Greek cities and the Romans themselves would pick one day a year or one holiday a year, and there would be maybe a week either side of that holiday where they would march every foreigner out of the city. And the city was meant to be sacred, meaning secret. And foreigners weren’t allowed to hear the prayers or the songs of the citizens of the people. And this was also a time when they did a census. And you have other traditions outside of the Greco-Roman civilisation. You have traditions like. I don’t know how to pronounce it properly, but is it called “Gramps” something? There’s a German tradition where they dress up in spooky costumes and they kind of parade through the street. I think it’s a Gramps something, I can’t pronounce it. It’s probably Gramps Funk or something. And someone in the comment section will get it. But Europe is full of these kind of these larps, it’s full of these larps and these ceremonies. And once a year I think it’s important because we don’t have Halloween in Australia. That’s our Anzac Day. So that’s like our Hollows Eve where we pay tribute to fallen soldiers. Instead of like doing the stupid American thing!

 

We decided to do this on a significant date, both astrologically and it was the eighth of the eighth, so you can have a guess what that is*. And we decided let’s have a “spooky march”. We have our Waltzing Matilda, Happy Go Lucky marches. And that’s what Australia is about. It’s the lucky country. It’s Waltzing Matilda. You’re down on your luck and you get up on your luck and you know it’s a harsh country but we’re in the sun and it’s a sunny day and that’s what Australia Day is about. We get drunk basically. It’s also known as the First Harvest in traditional European culture.

 

[* In Right-wing contexts, “88” is a code that stands for “Heil Hitler,” as “H” is the eighth letter of the alphabet. It is commonly used by today’s National Socialists and pro-Whites as a symbol of their ideology.]

 

05 The Midnight March to Unite All White Australians in Step and in Breadth

top

 

And so for this one, this ceremony, this LARP [Live Action Role Play] that we did, this public demonstration, I lined it up so that it wasn’t just political or meta-political but also cultural and spiritual, and trying to turn Australian nationalism into a holistic force that unites all the European descended people in Australia, all the White Australians, it unites them all in step and in breadth. We’re singing the same songs, we’re having that cultural display, we’re having displays of fitness and strength and health. We’re having political displays like when we’ve got a very clear political message which is White man fight back.

 

And it was spooky, it was scary! It was at midnight in the middle of winter where it’s freezing cold and people were coming out of pubs to go home and you could hear from 10 blocks away you could hear the drums bouncing off the old stone buildings. And it had a specific aura to it that if you didn’t see it in person, I mean the videos do it justice. The videos are great. I mean I’ve watched all the videos, it’s fantastic!

 

But if you weren’t there in person you couldn’t feel that there was truly an aura bouncing off the old bluestone and sandstone buildings. And it did feel like we were marching with our ancestors on that night. Like:

 

“You haven’t killed us yet. We’re like a Phoenix. We’re returning and we’re being rebuilt, rebirthed in fire!”

 

And you know that this stress and this struggle and this heat that’s on us is only making us stronger. It hasn’t made us weaker. We’ve suffered a lot in the last six months, but here we are about two and a half, three times larger and we’re going to keep going and we’re going to go all the way!

 

So that’s my interpretation of what we did on the march, or just the whole weekend in general. It was a whole weekend of fun.

 

So we had a powerlifting event, we had a family friendly music event. We had some White rap, which I know not everyone’s a fan of, but actually all the boys enjoyed it. We had some Rock Against Communism, we had a Nazi rave. And mistakenly we did that the night before the political seminar. So everyone was a little bit hungover. But next year we’ll do it the other way around.

 

But then we had the political seminars as well. We had a few guest speakers from other organisations, which was really nice. A little bit of White unity across the board in Australia.

 

And then obviously we had some of our state leaders, myself, Joel Davis and Jacob Hersant speak at the political seminars as well. And they went very well. And yeah, you can see those, some of those features have already been posted online.

 

[11:49]

 

06 Mark’s Take On the March

top

 

Mark Collett: So I saw the march and I thought it was incredible! And it was obviously done in a way that Garnered the maximum amount of publicity. And you really did get a lot of publicity from this. Everybody was talking about it! And when I say everybody, I mean everybody! All the news outlets, all the newspapers, it was sort of, every time you saw a discussion show, you know whatever they usually discussed, they were discussing you guys. I mean, you couldn’t really pay for publicity like that. You’d need millions and millions of dollars to buy that much publicity.

 

And obviously you did all this with very little resources. You know, you’re not a hugely well funded organisation. You’re not like a mainstream political party that gets sort of mega donors giving you hundreds of thousands of dollars. But this publicity got everybody talking. And the way some people were sort of disparaging you, it was so over the top. I did see a lot of people who might not have beforehand been sympathetic to you actually saying:

 

“Well look, what are these guys actually Done wrong? What are they actually doing that’s against the law?”

 

People were pushing back against the media narrative and were sort of bemused to why the media was so hostile to you when, okay, you might not be the media’s cup of tea, but you clearly weren’t doing anything illegal.

 

07 Public Reaction to the March

top

 

Has this march led to sort of a lot of new sympathy for you? Have you signed up a lot of new recruits? You know, when you get that kind of wave of publicity, how do you manage that as a small organisation?

 

Thomas Sewell: Yes, I would say the comment sections have never been so positive across Facebook, TikTok, Instagram. Obviously, there’s limited comment sections on Telegram and then also Twitter. I saw just thousands of comments in support of our demonstration from across the world, but especially in Australia. The average Australian is really fed up with what’s happening! They’re really fed up with the grievance politics of the Left. Sorry, hold on. Sorry. I’m just in the middle of fathering at the same time. Yeah, so where was I?

 

08 Australians Are Sick of the Grievance Politics from the Left

top

 

Yeah, there’s a grievance politics on the Left and everyone’s just sick of it! Everyone’s sick of hearing about them. Everyone’s sick of them advocating for issues overseas or issues that are completely downstream of mass immigration. You know, they’re complaining about cost of living or they’re complaining about energy prices or their cost. You know, they’re complaining about these things. It’s like, but this is all downstream of the fact that we’re bringing in hundreds of thousands, if not millions of people a year. I mean, it’s close to a million a year here in Australia. So it’s getting absolutely ridiculous!

 

09 The Real Right is Growing Some Balls.

top

 

And, yeah, I think the Right is growing some balls. And this is the first time that I’ve been in politics that I’ve seen people that border on being Conservatives. Obviously not in the mainstream sense. I’m not talking about anyone that’s getting paid to be a conservative because they’re the “Containment Right”. They’re the grifters and they’re obviously against us because it inhibits them from selling Tshirts or getting paid by a jewish lobby to be a speaker. But the average Joe that identifies as a conservative, that used to be our biggest critic, saying:

 

“This is a bad look! Guys, this isn’t going to help. How’s this going to get responsible government?”

 

They’re starting to be like:

 

“You know hat? The more of these guys that march, the better. The Left have caused this is the Left’s fault. We need more guys like this!”

 

And yeah, we had about 400 people sign up to the supporter class for the party. We had about maybe 30 or 40 recruits straight away. I haven’t checked it for about a week. So we could have had more guys that are looking at actually joining to march with us.

 

But I think really what we’ve done is often measured immaterially. What we’ve done is given hope in a time where everyone’s so black pilled. And we’ve shown that, look, all the criticisms of us in the past is falling by the wayside. This idea that we’re this tiny fringe group of people that everyone thinks is silly:

 

“And it’s so stupid! Why are you doing that?”

 

It’s like people are starting to understand what the words “triumph of the will” actually mean. And that’s more important for me than the publicity. That’s more important for me than I don’t, the men don’t, get paid to be there. We’re a very small funded organisation in a lot of senses compared to the political parties. And the political parties are paying people to attend their meetings because their seats are empty. And our men, they struggle against pretty serious political persecution. Probably not as bad as the UK, but not far off, maybe only a couple years off. What you guys suffer in the UK, our guys suffer quite similarly. And for them to overcome that fear and to rise to the task and to be a nationalist and to demonstrate in public, it inspires everyone else!

 

[17:50]

 

And so I think we had about 143 guys and then plus support staff, I think it was about 150 guys there on the day on the march in public, we had about 250 people at our event. And yeah, I’m just hoping that we can keep growing at this rate. The organisation requires, you know, state leaders and region leaders to be really switched on and it is starting to become more and more from a part time job into a full-time job for a lot of these state leaders and region leaders just managing all the events, managing venues, managing training, managing activism, managing recruitment, vetting, you know, sometimes discipline. So it is a full-time job and it takes a lot of junior leaders, a lot of young guys that keen is mustard to rise through the ranks and perform their duties.

 

So yeah, I’m very happy, like I might not sound super excited right now it’s just that I’m kind of laid back and on holiday for a couple days and I didn’t sleep well last night, the mosquitoes destroyed me.

 

But yeah, it’s very exciting times.

 

10 NSN Has No Real Public Competitors in Australia

top

 

Mark Collett: Well, one thing I’ve noticed in Australia is you guys have done something quite remarkable in that you don’t have a number of competitor groups. So usually you see in countries like Germany, the UK, especially America that sort of far-Right groups are very divided. There are multiple different groups, they all sort of bicker amongst themselves. This is especially true of America more than any country, where at one point you had sort of the NJP, you have the National Alliance or what’s left of it. You have Thomas Russo’s Patriot Front, which I’m a big fan of, he’s a lovely guy. But you have all these different groups claiming that they’re kind of the group to join. But in Australia you seem to have united everyone behind the NSN and I don’t really see any sort of competitor group out there.

 

And obviously you’re trying to launch the White Australia Party, which I hope you do sooner rather than later because I’d hate to think that the powers that be would change the law or do something before you can launch this to kind of stop you doing it! You know, they’ll be watching you now with quite evil intent, I’m sure, to try and derail this before it gets started.

 

But how have you managed to keep everybody on board and prevent the sort of damaging nonsense that’s kind of afflicted multiple other groups? Because we’ve had this here in the UK, there’s been people that have broken away from Patriotic Alternative to try and go down this very cucked, pro-zionist, more multicultural route, saying that’s what you’ve got to do you know:

 

“The only way to win is by accepting more of the things that are destroying us!”

 

Well, that doesn’t really work, does it? You know drinking the poison as a means of trying to cure yourself is always [chuckling] a fatal flaw really. But you guys have managed to walk that line and hold things together without there being sort of multiple offshoots and sort of damaging or embarrassing splits.

 

11 Small Groups Exist That Support Us but Want to Keep a Low Profile from the Eye of Sauron

top

 

Thomas Sewell: Well, I’d answer that by saying there are quite a lot of small groups in this country that operate more or less in complete secrecy. So they might have a website and they might have symbolism that explains their group, but no one actually knows that they exist. They have about a thousand followers on social media and they have no public relations. They growing a lot slower than us.

 

But that is part of their strategy. Their strategy is for us to take the heat and for them to fill the space behind us. And most of their membership is very supportive of what we do and would join us if they had a more secure job.

 

For example, a lot of guys that work in white-collar industries where they need government approval, a lot of guys, even in defense, for example, they won’t join us because they’ll just get booted from defense straight away. So they join these other groups that are more they’re not necessarily covert. I don’t want to make it out like they’re a secret society, but they don’t have any sort of promotion of their organisation from the perspective that they’re promoting White Australia. They might border on it sometimes with their social media, but they’re very careful to not openly say it and draw the eye of Sauron.

 

And as I said, we’re quite friendly with these groups behind the scenes, but there’s no public unity with these groups because they’re so absolutely petrified of the system’s heat! They don’t want to get raided. They don’t want to have the goons come to their house and arrest them. And they certainly don’t want to do public demonstrations because of what happened at the most recent demonstration where that homeless lunatic giant ogre man came and attacked me!

 

And they don’t want to have to deal with that for two reasons. One, they don’t know how to fight back, most of them. And two, they’re worried that if they fight back, they’ll go to jail. And look, I might go to jail for fighting back. I might not. I might have a court case. I might have community service. The court case might get dropped. There’s infinite kind of options. But I, there’s an expression in the Bible, I believe it’s:

 

“Only the wicked flee!”

 

And if you stand and fight, if you “stand and bang”, as they call it sometimes here in Australia. Yeah, if someone comes to fight you and they’re punching you in the head and you just stand and bang and you just don’t give up. And if you win, the chances of you getting punished at court is very low and the punishment will be quite low.

 

[24:03]

 

So Australia. We’re quite fair with our legal system in that regard. The courts are not too corrupt, but the police are obviously evil. Absolutely evil! The police are evil. And we can get into that later.

 

12 Strong Leadership Sets Our Group Apart

top

 

But to get it back on topic about other groups and what sets our group apart, is we have really strong leadership. Our entire organisation is built, and I’ve done this on purpose because I know why groups fail, because I’ve had a lot of groups fail in the past and I’ve seen a lot of splits. I built the entire organisation off the “leadership principle”.

 

So the idea is that we’re trying to hyper select for leaders. And in doing that you create a really rigid and strong selection process.

 

So we have strong state leaders, we have strong region leaders. I have had a couple different coups over the years with this organisation, and fortunately the majority of the coups that I have had have been from people that are lazy psychopaths. And the thing about lazy psychopaths and lazy narcissists is that they’ll coup the organisation and they’ll try and take like 10 or 20 guys away, or a percentage of that state, or a percentage of that region and do their own thing. The problem is that they never sustain their efforts. They just want all the clout and all the fame, but they don’t want to have to put in any of the work!

 

And so they might subscribe a bunch of people that are naive or new to their plans, and then their plans never actually amount to anything. And 12 months go by and all of the people that were in the coup just kind of rejoin the organ, say:

 

“Oh, sorry, I was misled!”

 

And then, and the leader is never to be seen ever again! The leader of the couple.

 

So it’s quite an odd phenomenon. And I just let it happen. When I see it forming, I just let it happen. I just communicate with people and say:

 

“Hey, this is going to happen. Be prepared for this.”

 

And then I just let it happen. Because I know that anyone that understands the program, anyone that’s a team player, anyone that really wants us to win and has the right mentality and is a good leader, I want to keep them in the organisation. I would try to prevent them from couping, I would sit them down and say:

 

“Hey mate, I can see that you’ve got grievances, I can see that you’ve got issues with the way the organisations run or whatever it is. And let’s hear it out, let’s fix the problem. You know, I want you on the team.”

 

13 We Don’t Do Committees and We Don’t Do Votes!

top

 

So yeah, I guess it’s like you got to, you can’t be just total. And I mean this is different ratios for every organisation, every country and every people. But you know, we don’t do votes. I make that very clear. We don’t do votes! We never do votes! We don’t do committees and we don’t do votes. And I made those mistakes in the early years. But we’re still Democratic through an innate will. You know, people vote with their feet in this organisation. If people don’t like where it’s going, they leave. And you should never make concessions with people:

 

“Oh, we have to drop this or someone’s going to leave!”

 

You have to be careful in an organisation because there are people that will join your org, will try to change your org to something that it’s not and then they’ll threaten you:

 

“Well, if you don’t do it my way, I’m leaving.”

 

And a lot of time you just have to say:

 

“Look, the Liberal Party is that way! Like leave! You’re a retard! [chuckling] see you mate. We don’t do that here.”

 

But then there are other people that are high value, that are, it’s a shame to see them go.

 

But yeah, if you, I guess the last point. So there’s sneakies, and the sneakies don’t really belong in our organisation. So you know that nature balances itself out. There’s leadership, the leadership principle, the heavyweight principle. We have a good leadership doctrine. I’ve built a good core of guys and I have a leadership handbook.

 

14 Got to Have a Good Education Ideology Programme

top

 

And the last point is education. And I think if you’ve got a strong ideology and you’ve actually read Mein Kampf and you’ve actually studied movements across the world, whether it be George Lincoln Rockwell, or Mosley, or you know, even things outside of the fascist sphere, like what I said before, like understanding that the Schmittian “friend-enemy” concept. You know, some people are really studied on the Bible, some people are really studied on Nietzsche. You know, when you have this kind of background to your thought process instead of your mind being full of AI slot videos while you’re doom scrolling, your mind is filled with like Spengler or Evola or you know, these are like really strong repetitive messages, mantras, almost prayers that can enter your mind and it completely strengthens your worldview.

 

And when you look at what’s happening in society, there’s no opportunity to slip back into it because you’re not numbing yourself, you’re arming yourself!

 

And a lot of these books are like spiritual shields that arm you with the defense necessary to properly evaluate what’s going on in society. So education would be my last point. You got to have a good education ideology programme with your leadership and your membership.

 

[29:33]

 

 

15 Many on the Right Are Refusing to Punch Right When It Comes to the NSN

top

 

Mark Collett: Well, another thing that you guys seem to have survived quite well and there was a great article from Noticer News about this called Don’t Punch Right. And that’s a massive problem we’ve had in the UK where every time there’s a radical group, or a group that holds the line when it comes to something such as ethnicity.

 

So for example, Patriotic Alternative, we hold the line of ethnicity. We want to create an ethno-state for the English, the Scots, the Welsh. We want those indigenous people of Great Britain to remain a super majority within our ancestral homeland. But there’ll always be someone there:

 

“Oh, that’s going too far. You’re excluding this group. If only you do this!”

 

And then you get the punching Right, you get the disavowals. And you guys have also managed to break down that barrier where a lot of people now are refusing to disavow. And even sort of notable people on social networks, influencers etc., are refusing to punch Right when it comes to the NSN.

 

And this is quite interesting because you guys aren’t just ethno-nationalists. You openly identify as a National Socialist group. You openly wear sort of black, not political uniforms, because they’re not uniforms, but they, it is a uniformed look. And I’m making that distinction for legal reasons because I don’t know in your country, but in our country it’s actually illegal to wear political uniforms in public. But it isn’t illegal to have a “uniformed look”. You have the uniformed look. You are openly National Socialist, you have National Socialist symbols, yet you are escaping what is usually quite a destructive endeavour that’s engaged in by the Right in general of punching Right. You see, then the Left don’t do this! If there is a more extreme Left-wing group, the people to the centre will not attack the more extreme Left-wing groups. So more centrist Left-wing thinkers won’t attack people to the Left, they will only attack people to the right of them.

 

However, those on the Right usually spend more time attacking people to the right of them than they do people to the Left them to prove that they’re not racist, to prove that they’re not the fascists or the Nazis, etc. But you guys seem to be pushing back against that, genuinely taking a radical message to the people and escaping the kind of condemnation that other groups have faced.

 

For example, in the UK, we Patriotic Alternative regularly get brought up by more cucked groups. It’s sort of like:

 

“Oh, well, at least we’re not ethno-nationalists like PA!”

 

That’s the kind of message that we face. But you guys seem to have broken that down and you seem to be making a mockery of groups that do punch Right. Which is, it’s absolutely beautiful to see!

 

16 Stopping the Right from Using the Left’s Moral Framework, While Jews Have Overplayed Their Hand

top

 

Thomas Sewell: Yeah, absolutely! We’ve been very successful in, I guess you’d describe it as “moral framing”. We have managed to convince the Right-wing to start fighting back and to stop using the Left’s moral framework. And the Right-wing in Australia is completely burnt out by this “woke” fatigue. I mean, you talk to really anyone right of centre, and they absolutely hate the wokes. They’re absolutely fed up with the framing of:

 

“If you want your own country, if you’re patriotic, then therefore you’re a Nazi and you want to kill 6 million jews!”

 

And the jews have just so completely overplayed their hand here. And it’s really that framing, that moral framing where every time we’re on the news, I often feel like the news is working for us! Like that the people in the edit editorial team are all secret Nazis. I know this is not true, but it just feels like this whenever I watch us on the news. Because you turn on the news and it will say:

 

“Breaking story. Five African., …”

 

Well, it says:

 

“Five men run through the home of some old couple and stab the old man in the face 11 times.”

 

Also:

 

“NSN marching through the street at midnight. These people should be listed a terror group. White man fight back. Disgusting!”

 

And then next, breaking news, you know, another, like a machete attack. Like some guy lost his arm because he didn’t hand over, like a mobile phone to an African in a shopping centre.

 

17 Every Single Time We’re on the News, We Are Put in the Machete African Sandwich!

top

 

And it’s like every single time we’re on the news, we are put in the machete African sandwich!

 

So it’s like:

 

“Here are some evil Africans stabbing to death an old lady to steal their car. Then here are the evil Nazis! We need a ban as a terror group because they’re advocating for White men to organise together and fight back and take back their country. And they’re ultra super racist, ultra nationalists!”

 

And then it’s like more crime again. More crime, more crime! And this is not just at nighttime when people are having dinner. I don’t watch TV, I don’t have a TV. But we were staying at my mother-in-law’s for a little bit and they have the TV on all the time because they’re Boomers.

 

And even in the morning, the morning show that they had on and I walked out to make myself a coffee and the morning show was just an hour straight of crime. It was just crime, crime, crime, crime!

 

And so I think the public are in such a state of shock and fear that they’re starting, the conditioning’s been broken and the moral framework has basically done a complete 180, where the average White Australian is like:

 

“Crime is getting so out of control!”

 

Like there was an African that killed a White teenager at a party a couple years back and he didn’t go to jail even though he was guilty of the crime. He was found not guilty because he was too young. And then fast forward a couple of years, he’s now run through somebody’s house with a knife and stabbed them a dozen times. And the guy is on bail! The guy doesn’t, the guy hasn’t even done the jail time for the murder of the White teenager.

 

[36:06]

 

18 I Can Get Murdered by an African, and Then the African Doesn’t Even Go to Jail?

top

 

And so the average White teenager is watching this saying:

 

“Well, hang on a minute, I can get murdered by an African. And then the African doesn’t even go to jail?”

 

And then the media are making it like:

 

“The bad guys aren’t the courts and the bad guys aren’t the police and the bad guys aren’t the Africans. The bad guys are the White men marching that are upset about this, that are frustrated about this!”

 

And they’re just like:

 

“You know what, fuck the system! Fuck the moral framework!”

 

Sorry I can’t swear on your show.

 

But you know:

 

“Stuff the system, stuff the system, you know, stuff their framework!”

 

I shouldn’t swear anyway. My children are starting to wake up! But you know, let’s build our own sense of morality. And that comes from:

 

“Well, what is actually in our interest as a people?”

 

19 The Liberal Party is in Free Fall

top

 

So yeah, the Wokes, Wokeism is a dying breed at the moment. The Wokes, they’re not going much further here in Australia and our popularity is massively rising! And the Liberal Party, which is our version of the Conservative Party, I’m telling you, Mark, it is collapsing in freefall!

 

I mean, they have half their membership between elections. Their strongest seat was a 58% vote. Now it’s like a 43% vote. They are just in free fall! And there is this giant vacuum that’s built around mass immigration and cost of living that’s not being addressed by any of the major parties. And the minor parties are so ineffective, and they have just horrible leadership. So there’s this giant power vacuum within politics here in Australia.

 

And also, more importantly, there’s a giant vacuum culturally where White people don’t have a sense of community. And we’re trying to provide that on top of the politics, on top of the physical training, you know, similar to what you’re doing as well.

 

So, yeah, how have we kept out the cucks? I mean, they’ve just kept themselves out. I think when you put that Union Jack on your shoulder of your not uniformed uniform, it just keeps them out. It just, they’re just like:

 

“Well, hang on a minute.”

 

Yeah, we don’t have too many guys supporting us in the comment section with Filipino missus or Thai missus, or something like that they pick their side.

 

20 Two Tier Policing with Whites Being Punished for the Slightest Infraction Against Non-Whites

top

 

Mark Collett: Well, the next thing I was going to ask you about with Australia is you are a relatively small country in terms of population. Population. I think You’ve got about 27 million people in Australia. And you’ve currently got a net migration of around 500,000 a year, which is pretty high.

 

And you can see the problems are getting worse and worse! You’ve got record net migration, you’ve got the kind of violence we have here in the UK. You’ve got courts which are letting people walk, walk free when they’ve committed horrendous acts against White people. Same here in the UK. You know a Nigerian man can walk up to a White girl, put his hands down her pants, sexually assault her and a judge will take pity on him and allow him to walk free from court!

 

Whereas if you were to walk up to that Nigerian man and shout the N-word at him, you’d probably face two years in jail and every judge would be salivating at the idea of sending you down. But people are getting sick of it! And I’ve noticed this in the UK as well. You made a very good point that fundamentally people are saying:

 

“Well, look, I’d rather march with the guys in black than have my daughter raped!”

 

You know, it’s absurd that these guys are facing a year long prison sentence, putting their arm in the air* whereas people are out attacking White girls or assaulting White lads and getting a slap on the wrist, or the courts aren’t interested at all! And we’re facing that on a daily basis too.

 

[* Australia has implemented laws at both federal and state levels to ban the public display of Nazi salutes and symbols in response to a rise in anti-semitic incidents and far-Right extremism. In January 2024, the Australian government enacted the Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment (Prohibited Hate Symbols and Other Measures) Bill, criminalizing the public performance of the Nazi salute and the display or sale of Nazi symbols, such as the swastika and SS insignia. In February 2025, amendments introduced mandatory minimum jail terms of 12 months for performing the Nazi salute in public. GROK 3]

 

Do you think we finally hit that time where people are starting to say:

 

“I don’t care about public condemnation. I don’t care about being called a racist.”

 

And I recently gave a speech at a demo where I said:

 

“Look, you’ve got to ask yourself, what would you rather face the prospect of being called a racist, or the prospect of your daughter being raped by a migrant?”

 

Because I’d rather be called a racist than face the prospect of my daughter being raped.

 

And I think people are actually seeing this. For the first time in my lifetime. People are rejecting the shame that’s poured upon us because the situation is so bad. In Australia, how bad is it with immigration? I’ve given you sort of an overview of the figures which I’m sure you already know, but it’s a huge landmass, but it’s a very small country in terms of population. Sort of Britain, 70 million people. You know, how sick are people of immigration? Where does most of your immigration come from? You’re still muted, mate.

 

[41:11]

 

21 The Majority of Our Immigration Comes from Hostile India and China

top

 

Thomas Sewell: The majority of our immigration comes from India and China. And these are obviously two hostile superpowers. Well, India’s not really superpower, but they’re trying to be. But these are two hostile super states, I should say. They’re very large, you know, relatively ethnically homogeneous countries that are orderly and can force project. They’re trying to force project onto the oceanic area, which is primarily Australia. Australia has huge natural resources. We have huge heaps of farmland. There’s a lot of unusable arid land in Australia.

 

But look, with the right government we could even fix that situation as well. We are underpopulated to what we could be. I want to see a “big Australia”. I just want it to be White. I don’t want to keep it as a 20 million. Obviously with AI and tech and everything, we don’t need to get too crazy, but it would be good to see like a 50 million or 100 million White Australia if we had enough water for it. Some people say we don’t, but again, we’ll address that when we take power. But we need survival. We’re a fortress on the other side of the earth, and we’re a White fortress all the way over here. We’re starting to head towards South African tier demographics. And that’s happened very quickly.

 

22 Imported More Indians in the Last Five Years Than Greeks and Italians over the Last 100 Years

top

 

The Noticer have put out an article recently, I think that said that:

 

“We’ve imported more Indians in the last five years than Greeks and Italians over the last hundred years!”

 

And when we brought Greeks and Italians into the country starting in I guess the 40s, there was an Italian migration wave actually before the Second World War, and I think even a little bit before the First World War. And some of the orchards and stuff were set up by the Italians.

 

But you know, that that migration caused a bit of a stir because we had a very traditionally British or British Isles identity and there was only a very tiny amount of Dutch, German and Scandinavian, and not even really any Slavic or Mediterranean people migrated here. Very, very small numbers. And the people with Dutch last names and German last names and Scandinavian last names, they basically just integrated instantly within one generation. They were just an Aussie with a funny last name. Whereas the Greeks and Italians took a few more generations to integrate. And that caused a little bit of a social cohesion issue. But it eventually balanced out.

 

And before we could even really properly, you know, balance out that situation and integrate into a more pan-European culture and move from a almost purely British Isles culture into a bit more of a White Australian identity, they just started pumping just millions of non-Whites into the country before we could really sit down and have a think about it.

 

23 Speed and Aggression is a Principle I Learnt in the Army

top

 

So speed and aggression is a principle I learnt in the army. And the jews certainly know that principle, politically. They’ve moved hard and they’ve moved fast to completely demographically erase White people to the point now where I think we’re probably only about 60% of the population. And the core quality of the immigrants has massively decreased.

 

When you look at the Boomers, the Boomers loved multiculturalism 10, 15, 20 years ago. When you talk to the average White Boomer in Australia, they would tell you:

 

“How good’s the food?”

 

I mean, even up until about two or three years ago, some of them were still saying that nonsense! They would say:

 

“How good’s the food? Oh my God, in my local shopping centre, there’s a Thai restaurant now and an Indian restaurant and a Malaysian restaurant. How good’s the food?”

 

And they were selling their children’s inheritance for meat slop and rice. And it’s obviously the same situation in the UK. But that was because we were getting quite a small amount of immigration in the 90s and early 2000s. And it was primarily very highly vetted. The population coming here were very highly vetted. Almost all of them were Western educated.

 

24 The Sludge of India and China Being Brought Here!

top

 

So they basically came here already speaking English with a funny accent, but often with like an American or British accent and, or a New Zealand accent. A lot of our non-White migrants actually came through New Zealand because New Zealand had more relaxed laws. So they use that as a way of entering the country. They would get New Zealand’s New Zealand citizenship after three or four years and then, boom, straight away move to Australia because Australia was still holding on, but it had free migration with New Zealand.

 

And then the last five years, for example, I mean, they are just bringing the sludge of India and China over here. I mean, the absolute sludge! And a lot of Africans as well.

 

So that’s the kind of immigration that the Australian people, … Like there’s no way that they can justify it. There’s no way, you can’t say:

 

“Oh, how good’s the food?”

 

It’s like, we already had Indian food. We don’t need millions and millions of Uber Eats drivers! And they don’t speak English, they’re very rude, they’re smelly, they’re sexual perverts. These are all just objective facts. I know it’s kind of funny, but they’re really disgusting! And everyone is sick of seeing and hearing and smelling Indians! I have not met a White person in the last two years that has not within 30 seconds of talking to me, not agreed that it’s getting out of control, that there’s too many Indians. Like, specifically the Indian hate is massive!

 

And then the Africans are committing so much crime disproportionate to their population. I think they’re not even 1% of the population, and they’re committing like 40% of the home invasions. Like, it’s crazy! They’re a very small percent of the population. They’re mostly in Melbourne and Sydney.

 

25 Aussies Are Starting to Become Sympathetic to the Black Shirts

top

 

And so this is radicalising people’s politics to the point where there’s no militant Right, there’s no strong Right, hard Right, far-Right, whatever you want to call it. And they’re starting to become sympathetic to the Black Shirts. You know, we march down the street wearing Black Shirts. We make it very clear, we’re fascists. And that doesn’t mean that we’re going to upset the way of life and become authoritarian megalomaniacs over the way of life of the average White person. It means that we’re going to fix the fundamental issues in this country that are negatively affecting White people and this White nation.

 

[47:40]

 

 

[Remainder of Transcript in Progress]

 

 

[2:04:20]

 

END

top

 

 

 

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

 

Odysee Comments

top

(Comments as of 8/28/2025 = 474)

Mark Collett
4 hours ago
Pinned by @MarkCollett
If you would like to contribute to the stream, please use Entropy:
https://entropystream.live/app/markcollett

@Joesmith
1 hour ago
14

1
0
withey
54 minutes ago

@konstrukt
it’s an insight into our community, we will not pretend to be something we’re not, we can either exterminate non whites or deport them, we must explain why we choose what we choose, explain why it’s best for us, we need to move aborigines to a preservation and not interfere with them

1
0
withey
1 hour ago

@konstrukt
everyone gives to ethnics but we must put ourselves first and back up our desires with reasoned arguments

1
0

@atexian
1 hour ago
Hail Victory!

1
0
ToffeeL10
1 hour ago
Cheers Mark, cheers Tomo laa

1
0
withey
1 hour ago

@konstrukt
no you view them through binoculars through the fence as opposed to walking through a bizarre

1
0

@PureNomad
1 hour ago
hail victory o/

1
0
withey
1 hour ago
hail Thomas Sewell

1
0
withey
1 hour ago
we must have abbos in a preservation so that we can show the proof of racial/cultural differences without having to venture into foreign lands, it’s like zoo vs safari

1
0

@RightsforWhites
1 hour ago
hail victory o/

1
0

@BMC1488
1 hour ago
Blood & Honour o/

1
0

@PureNomad
1 hour ago
14 o/

1
0

@PureNomad
1 hour ago
great show, so sorry I couldn’t donate… having a bit of an online money issue

1
0

@BMC1488
1 hour ago
o/

1
0
JokerWaffen
1 hour ago
o/

1
0
JokerWaffen
1 hour ago
great show, great guest

1
0

@Joesmith
1 hour ago
ppl who prey on chrelden need to be permently removed from society at this point i dont care if its a full life tarriff or capatal punishment

1
0
ToffeeL10
1 hour ago
It’s permitted in the Talmud

1
0
ToffeeL10
1 hour ago
There’s a hilarious song they released encouraging each other to not drink petrol

1
0
Hide replies
danzimmons
6 minutes ago
Don’t be rama rama

@forthegloryofChrist
49 minutes ago
we nO by fruitz??

withey
50 minutes ago

@konstrukt
by all means make a smarter comment on this subject

withey
52 minutes ago
with them left alone, living well, being happy, we can reason why we must leave others alone too

Konstrukt
1 hour ago
Low IQ comments like that explain why the Government slings people like Sam Melia in jail and bar him from seeing his kids

withey
1 hour ago
goodnight all 14/88 28 wpww

Konstrukt
1 hour ago
This isnt a private chat.

Konstrukt
1 hour ago
Comments like that ensure you stay in a little ignored corner of the internet , which makes me question motives.

@withey

@Smidolf
1 hour ago
o/

@Joesmith
1 hour ago
whats on tomrow

withey
1 hour ago

@konstrukt
you either see it as a prison or as a sanctuary

Konstrukt
1 hour ago

@withey
You have to realise this is being watched by a lot of people who arent Nationalists …. t

Konstrukt
1 hour ago

@withey
that comment is why nationalism has failed for 100 years

@Joesmith
1 hour ago
i worked with a guy with a swasticka tattoo on his forearm

Konstrukt
1 hour ago

@withey
what you pickle them ? …what the f are you on about?

@BMC1488
1 hour ago

@withey
Good idea

Oldgods
1 hour ago
No other solution

Konstrukt
1 hour ago
Norther Euros have their own merits, and so do Abos I think we need to emphasise the value of difference , but also that it means we are often incompatible

charlesgerety1
1 hour ago

@PureNomad
Thanks for the shout out

Konstrukt
1 hour ago
LEarn a bit about their culture , its fascinating. They have around 200 languages which are each more distant from one another than English is from Greek

@PureNomad
1 hour ago

@charlesgerety1
%

Konstrukt
1 hour ago
They are different but they have their own value.

charlesgerety1
1 hour ago
Allow nature to take it’s course in Africa

Konstrukt
1 hour ago
They have their own merits. Equivalency

@Now-Beowulf-Spake
1 hour ago
Completely different race.

withey
1 hour ago
abbos can’t have access to the west

Konstrukt
1 hour ago
“Do Not Sleep On the Road”

Konstrukt
1 hour ago
Yeh but the Abos were never asked….

Konstrukt
1 hour ago
They have the Dogs Ear part of Australia

withey
1 hour ago
abbos must go to a reservation

ToffeeL10
1 hour ago
Move them to the middle of the country n give them a load of petrol to drink, they like petrol.

Konstrukt
1 hour ago
The Abo’s already have the Kimberlys !

Konstrukt
1 hour ago
Maoris have lived in New Zealand for less time (700 years) than the Normans and Anglos saxons have lived in England.

@Smidolf
1 hour ago
There is going to be a great lake again.

Konstrukt
1 hour ago
Asians dont do facial hair

Konstrukt
1 hour ago
not much of a likeness to be fair

@KeepAskingForTruth
1 hour ago
thinking deeply about your beard is white power, actually

charlesgerety1
1 hour ago
Mark is indeed a Handsome Man

ToffeeL10
1 hour ago
Haha bless her

@PureNomad
1 hour ago
lol

withey
1 hour ago
mark squeaked out “yes”

@PureNomad
1 hour ago
pretty much all UK govt is about containment of us, while ignoring gimmiegrants crimes

withey
1 hour ago

@ToffeeL10
you only get conditions if you’re a risk e g. theft, rape, violence, damage, Lucy poses no risk so there’s no justification

Konstrukt
1 hour ago
The St George Flag is an exclusive flag whereas the Union Jack is inclusive. Anyone can be British…. but only those with English Ancestry can be English… That’s why I’m suspicious of the way the St George Flag and Union jack are being raised alongside one another, conflating those two ideas.

ToffeeL10
1 hour ago
Masters of the Universe. “I haaave the poweeeer”

@PureNomad
1 hour ago

@withey

@withey
I could be totally wrong, and I hate the fact she was allegedly inside so long… but pushing that ppl can’t say their mind, is a form of containment

Konstrukt
1 hour ago
Saw a load of those union jack flags along my local high street the other day. And as I glanced up I saw a Billboard recruitment Ad for the British Army

@PureNomad
1 hour ago
let Fred Leuchter sort him out

@Smidolf
1 hour ago
That’s what you have to do, double down.

withey
1 hour ago

@PureNomad
Lucy could bring the middle class to white nationalism in bulk, whereas the bulk are and have always been working class

@Now-Beowulf-Spake
1 hour ago
Enjoy the Atter

Konstrukt
1 hour ago

@withey
That’s how you can know prominent “patriots” are Zio funded opposition

@EverybodywakeUp
1 hour ago
once it grows so much mark, wash it with beard wash.

ToffeeL10
1 hour ago
I stay clean shaven. I look homeless when i don’t shave.

@PureNomad
1 hour ago
mein kampf at growing a ful mustache

Konstrukt
1 hour ago

@withey
They dont even understand that Patriots were Americans who fought the Red Coats in the USA war for Independence …..

withey
1 hour ago
mark we like to scratch

@Joesmith
1 hour ago
i had a hilter mustash as a joke wore it to work and the tube lol

@Smidolf
1 hour ago
If you have capital punishment for pedos and homos, jews would just leave.

@fantastic_journey
1 hour ago
70s porn stache foreva

withey
1 hour ago

@konstrukt
you have to understand that patriots don’t understand the difference, they’re not even racist

@Smidolf
1 hour ago
based

@Now-Beowulf-Spake
1 hour ago
Snake Pit

Echo_Harp
1 hour ago
The first country to make this leap to normality would immediately receive the same treatment as Libya or Syria. We should be prepared for this, rather than focusing on types of milk for children.

ToffeeL10
1 hour ago

@withey
yeah but there’s seemingly no conditions placed on her. When you get released from jug you have some conditions. She was all over YouTube within 24 hours. I might be wrong, im just speculating of course.

Konstrukt
1 hour ago
ah the good old BBC , so predictable.

@forthegloryofChrist
1 hour ago
etymolgy that Word^

@forthegloryofChrist
1 hour ago
Liberty

withey
1 hour ago

@ToffeeL10
sam melia has white nationalist talking points, Lucy Connelly doesn’t, Lucy doesn’t want to be seen in a bad light so will probably cuck

@forthegloryofChrist
1 hour ago
nothinghid?

@forthegloryofChrist
1 hour ago
Jesus ripped the viel im informed?

@forthegloryofChrist
1 hour ago
Us we reproved thems enos ag9o?

@PureNomad
1 hour ago

@withey
I don’t disrepect that, but we all know they can’t lock us all up… lots of imprisonments are a pantomime to stop your descent

Eldergoduk
1 hour ago
Don’t forget to like/fire the stream

Konstrukt
1 hour ago
Who is doing all the flag raising ? I strongly suspect it’s not organic

Novgorods
1 hour ago
deporting people can be challenging. First thing to do is make sure all citizenship rights are revoked. That’s much easier

@forthegloryofChrist
1 hour ago
109 jESUS FOLLOWRS?

Konstrukt
1 hour ago
Sam Melia is how the Regime treats genuine threatts. Tommy Robinson is promoted opposition

@Odeon3008
1 hour ago

@konstrukt
BBC ‘Comedy’ Citizen Khan ‘Sparkhill Birmingham the capital of British Pakistan.’ first released in 2012.

Eldergoduk
1 hour ago

@konstrukt
I live in Wolverhampton Close to Birmingham

ToffeeL10
1 hour ago

@PureNomad
Sam Melia for example. He’s not allowed to do interviews with people like she is.

@forthegloryofChrist
1 hour ago
?

Konstrukt
1 hour ago
If you want an insight into the degree of daily hostility and aggression that you will face in small and large ways, as a white minority in UK, then go to Birmingham.

ToffeeL10
1 hour ago

@withey
yeah possibly so

@PureNomad
1 hour ago

@ToffeeL10
I genuinely feel sorry for her custodial sentence, but why just pick her out isn’t a person who didn’t say the same or worse online publically

Eldergoduk
1 hour ago

@konstrukt
55 soon

withey
1 hour ago

@ToffeeL10
Lucy Connelly is middle class, that’s what’s different

Tropical Jungle Will
1 hour ago
Send them all to Uganda

@forthegloryofChrist
1 hour ago

@Joy

Eldergoduk
1 hour ago
Vessels to Africa/India plain and simple

Konstrukt
1 hour ago
Getting past words and foregrounding Symbols ….., Semigogoue was going on about that wasnt he? (Millenyule)

@atexian
1 hour ago
I like this plan

withey
1 hour ago

@PureNomad
most prisoners gain weight, 23 hours in a cell means you can’t exercise and eat out of boredom, they can and do purchase snacks

@forthegloryofChrist
1 hour ago
Victoryround about?

ToffeeL10
1 hour ago
Lots of people were imprisoned but all of the attention was on this woman.

@forthegloryofChrist
1 hour ago
sweet q?

ToffeeL10
1 hour ago

@PureNomad
you may very well be right mate. Something about this whole Lucy Connolly thing has always made me suspicious.

Konstrukt
1 hour ago
Comprehensive

@EverybodywakeUp
1 hour ago
waltzing Matilda is Australian, Tom is a Australian nationalist.

@PureNomad
1 hour ago
you aunt sally

Konstrukt
1 hour ago

@Eldergoduk
How old are you, could I ask?

@forthegloryofChrist
1 hour ago
charity yum

@Odeon3008
1 hour ago

@nativistconcern
similar with Posie Parker ‘let women speak’ :nauseated_face: if you can’t defend yourself what you say is irrelevant sadly.

Eldergoduk
1 hour ago

@PureNomad
Looks like she got cake every single day!!

Konstrukt
1 hour ago
sorry I meant Waltzing Matilda. Next to some of the German Marching tunes … no comparison

Eldergoduk
1 hour ago

@Joesmith
I have my own toilet

@forthegloryofChrist
1 hour ago
its spiritualmore so on themz end?

@PureNomad
1 hour ago
Lucy Connolly is the only prisoner ever who has gained weight? she was a pawn to curb public dissent

@nativistconcern
1 hour ago
I could’ve told you how I knew Lucy Connolly would betray you: she’s a woman

Konstrukt
1 hour ago
Tom – ditch “Walking Matilda” it’s cringe AF

Eldergoduk
1 hour ago
Lucy was adjusted in prison like the manchurian candidate

@forthegloryofChrist
1 hour ago
?

@Odeon3008
1 hour ago

@PureNomad
I would like all of them Sewell. Cottrell, Hersant and Davis I think he ran out of time last year.

Konstrukt
1 hour ago
She’s an imbecile.

@PureNomad
1 hour ago

@Odeon3008
what about Sewell getting a Woes Milleniule slot?

Wibble
1 hour ago
1q2w3e4r

@Joesmith
1 hour ago

@Eldergoduk
1 tolit between 13 ppl is that legal

Konstrukt
1 hour ago
I noticed Muslim women are very based , in that they are ingroup biased / tribal and are hostile to outgroups…..

@EverybodywakeUp
1 hour ago
Nazi is a slur.

Eldergoduk
1 hour ago
I’m a Nationalist Nazi

@Odeon3008
1 hour ago

@PureNomad
I think Sewell might be too extreme for Dutton, on YouTube anyway.

Konstrukt
1 hour ago
Is your guest a fan of Tom Selleck?

Eldergoduk
1 hour ago

@withey
Mine was a former estate agent building… 3 floors with 13 flats

@PureNomad
1 hour ago

@ToffeeL10
I’d like a Dutton chat with Sewell, he hints at the same ideology and I love him… but I still feel he believes in establishment

@Odeon3008
1 hour ago

@konstrukt
I think it’s a type of altruism that only exist in Whites.

Konstrukt
1 hour ago
It’s too prevalent for it to be a case of “built wrong”

Eldergoduk
1 hour ago

@Joesmith
I have a small room with a kitchen and shower room off a common hallway with 13 other flats

@Odeon3008
1 hour ago
the ‘RACIST/RACISM’ insult wouldn’t work on any other group besides White Europeans.

Wibble
1 hour ago
indeed, lesson learned

ToffeeL10
1 hour ago
Ed Dutton explains it well. They’re just mutants who are wired up wrong.

Konstrukt
1 hour ago
Won’t be doing that again will she.

withey
1 hour ago

@Joesmith
hmo means house of multiple occupancy

Wibble
1 hour ago
Her last word was the N-word

Oldgods
1 hour ago

@Odeon3008
True

@Odeon3008
1 hour ago
I’ve never understood pathological altruism.

@Odeon3008
1 hour ago
Most of the population have become ‘red pilled’ naturally by the way society is going in the last 5 years in particular.

@katana17
1 hour ago
In this livestream episode Aussie nationalist activists and NSN members Joel Davis, Jacob Hersant and Tom Sewell discuss the recent events surrounding their 150 man midnight march through Melbourne on Aug 8

@Now-Beowulf-Spake
1 hour ago
Treasonous

@katana17
1 hour ago
[Joel Davis – The Fire Rises – Aug 22, 2025 – Transcript]

Joel Davis – The Fire Rises – Aug 22, 2025 – Transcript

ToffeeL10
1 hour ago
Just throw a cheeseburger at them n walk away.

Konstrukt
1 hour ago
Equivalent – different but equal value / complementary e.g men and women (equivalency) is contrasted with Equality which means “the same”

Louis Cachet
1 hour ago
there are no politics internal to the NSN?

Louis Cachet
1 hour ago
this is just silly

Louis Cachet
1 hour ago
chimps have politics

Eldergoduk
1 hour ago
The weak are meat, and the strong do eat!

Konstrukt
1 hour ago
Not EQUITY> EQUIVALENCY

Konstrukt
1 hour ago
Major L for Australia. Australia tends to have ducted floor heating.in its houses….

Eldergoduk
1 hour ago
Equality is against Natures law!

ToffeeL10
1 hour ago
paid*

@Smidolf
1 hour ago
It’s almost impossible to kick someone out, let alone a family.

ToffeeL10
1 hour ago
I’ve got a mortgage, but it’ll be payed off in the next decade. I’ve added value to my house building a bar in my garden.

Tropical Jungle Will
1 hour ago
Mark can now only travel legally to Tiajauna and the Europa moon of Jupiter

@Evola19
1 hour ago

@Joesmith
social housing is not for me, I rented for a time privately but no security of tenure

withey
1 hour ago

@Smidolf
families with 3 or more traitors must be exiled, kids with bad parents should not be punished

@Smidolf
1 hour ago
I friend of mine inherited a house with electric heating. Now he has to change the heating system because electric heating is forbidden.

Konstrukt
1 hour ago
Melbourne boasts the biggest Casino in the Southern hemisphere….

Eldergoduk
1 hour ago

@ToffeeL10
I agree, the movie was filled with historical inaccuracies and even a car!

@Joesmith
1 hour ago

@Evola19
unless your lucky enouth to have socal housing its the best way to go

@Evola19
1 hour ago

@Eldergoduk
yes, a golden age

Konstrukt
1 hour ago
Not the abo’s

Eldergoduk
1 hour ago

@Evola19
1290-1656 Jew free England

@Evola19
1 hour ago
I wonder why I bother sometimes

@Joesmith
1 hour ago

@Evola19
is a hmo a bedsit or a house share

Eldergoduk
1 hour ago

@Evola19
I have lived in a hmo for 10 years, I have never spoken with a single person

@Joesmith
1 hour ago

@Evola19
i live in a lovely socal housing flat its not on a estate its on a multi million pound street only thing i am missing is a balcony

@PureNomad
1 hour ago
14

Louis Cachet
1 hour ago
hortlor needed to purge certain elements within his own party

@Evola19
1 hour ago
HMO’s will be the social housing of the future, a room in a house with several other people will be all they can offer

@PureNomad
1 hour ago
110% Volk

Louis Cachet
1 hour ago
rhetorical twaddle

Eldergoduk
1 hour ago
Banana republic the social construct

@Evola19
1 hour ago
I have a mortgage

@Smidolf
1 hour ago
1

@Joesmith
1 hour ago
1

@Smidolf
1 hour ago
I want to exile the families of traitors, we have to bring back kin liability.

JokerWaffen
1 hour ago
1

Konstrukt
1 hour ago
Closing the bankers bank accounts? I could get behind that

@Evola19
1 hour ago
yes it is pure hollywood propaganda, its the reason the SNP got into power and Tony Blair was able to split the UK politically.

withey
1 hour ago
1

@Joesmith
1 hour ago
press 1 if ur debet free 1

@Smidolf
1 hour ago
We will see the punishments they dream of.

ToffeeL10
1 hour ago
Braveheart is anti English nonsense (my mother is Scottish aswel)

Wibble
1 hour ago

Obscure Truth
2 hours ago
Lol!

@Evola19
2 hours ago
Great speech though, gibson learned about his jewish masters later in his life

Konstrukt
2 hours ago
Any nationalist with 1 million followers on twitter or who gets retweeted by by a silicon valley Oligarch, … he’s signed the Faustian Pact

Eldergoduk
2 hours ago
FYI Its the 30th anniversary of Braveheart on 8th September

withey
2 hours ago
Australia has a duel economy

@Evola19
2 hours ago
Its a good speech, from jewish divide and rule propaganda. The reason they painted Edward I so poorly in that film is because he exiled the jews for centuries until Cromwell let them back in.

Eldergoduk
2 hours ago
My mother tried to get me to leave my nationalist ideology…. I gave her the Braveheart speech as shes Scottish… She understood immediately

JokerWaffen
2 hours ago
based, lol

Konstrukt
2 hours ago
Any nationalist still on YouTube has quit

@forthegloryofChrist
2 hours ago
?

@Evola19
2 hours ago
Thomas is high IQ most people are not able to even understand where he is coming from. The majority of normies hear this stuff and reply with “yeah but I did eat breakfast, what do you mean how hard it will be for our kids, our kids are fine”

Konstrukt
2 hours ago
Ahem Dr Dutton

withey
2 hours ago
no ethnics means we can get on building, living and being happy

Konstrukt
2 hours ago
Ahem Keith Woods

ToffeeL10
2 hours ago
Yep, Nationalists who moan about how depressed they are make me sick. Weak and pathetic.

Konstrukt
2 hours ago
Liberal democracy has resulted in white men not being allowed an political identity…. that’s the outcome of Liberal Democracies. The Majority is discriminated against. All groups are allowed to celebrate itself, except the indigenous Europeans

Tropical Jungle Will
2 hours ago
Our Bio-Spirit would be more comfortable in a Nationalist UK or Australia, and you can’t put a price on psychological comfort.

withey
2 hours ago
hello Luna

Eldergoduk
2 hours ago
HELLO Luman

Wibble
2 hours ago
Pretty certain she will go on to become the leader of the North tribes

withey
2 hours ago
let’s all say hello

Konstrukt
2 hours ago
I know a couple who had a child with a genetic mutation that resulted in him being incontinent, non verbal, not knowing his own name, tries to put anything in his environment in his mouth….. So what did they do? they had two more children who had the same disabilities….

Eldergoduk
2 hours ago
Shes a thinker!

Eldergoduk
2 hours ago
I hooe she can’t read this chat!

@PureNomad
2 hours ago
agree Mark beautiful daughter Thomas

Eldergoduk
2 hours ago
OMG a little princess!

Wibble
2 hours ago
I bet she has a silver sharpened boomerang and isn’t afraid to use it…

Eldergoduk
2 hours ago
I got it…. First Retard in Space!

Streicherwerk III
2 hours ago

@Diogenes
… a retard in every garage

@Evola19
2 hours ago
its definitely a luxury for people to raise a retard. Why should society help pay for a useless retard? What the f even is this?

@Joesmith
2 hours ago
with what the tax money gets spent on i am glad i get 2k pm benfits for bpd

@Diogenes
2 hours ago
no retard left behind

Konstrukt
2 hours ago
I would be very circumspect about giving more personal data than is needed to Rumble, given its association with Palentir

Tropical Jungle Will
2 hours ago
The Regime is at Mark’s Door. LOL

Eldergoduk
2 hours ago
Burn your retard day!

withey
2 hours ago
sorry not sorry retards

0KT0BER
2 hours ago
classic Tom

@PureNomad
2 hours ago
110% those deporting of commies

Remind.me
2 hours ago
Startship troopers

Eldergoduk
2 hours ago
Australian space 2099!

@Smidolf
2 hours ago
I was a child when they were talking about snow on Mars. One of the first question we had was if we will ever be skiing on Mars. It’s in us, even as a child.

@LarsVonButtman
2 hours ago
Fat Finns in space. Love it!

Eldergoduk
2 hours ago
Indian space program was hilarious

Tropical Jungle Will
2 hours ago
Is that the official name of that budget item? LOL

@Joesmith
2 hours ago
i am on disabilty for borderline personalty disorder

@Blueywaffen
2 hours ago
w

JokerWaffen
2 hours ago
lmao

JokerWaffen
2 hours ago
*the sun

@PureNomad
2 hours ago
lol

Eldergoduk
2 hours ago
We can’t break the speed of light until we can divide by 0

0KT0BER
2 hours ago
Madras III expedition will be a great success

JokerWaffen
2 hours ago
venus would be impossible, let alone thecsun

withey
2 hours ago
we would be on other planets

@Smidolf
2 hours ago
That’s what we would be talking about without non whites.

Eldergoduk
2 hours ago

@Joesmith
instant naan bread!

@LarsVonButtman
2 hours ago
Missä mä taas oon?

@fantastic_journey
2 hours ago
Hail Thomas! we’re watching and pulling for you in the states o/

@forthegloryofChrist
2 hours ago
share stream

@Joesmith
2 hours ago

@Eldergoduk
the ones ive been with dident have that issue if they did i would have fled

@forthegloryofChrist
2 hours ago
man power ?

Eldergoduk
2 hours ago

@Joesmith
Rule one, Know your enemy, find a weakness…. Exploit it!

@PureNomad
2 hours ago
looking foward seeing Thomas with his grey mustache declaring we have secured our country for his ppl o/

@forthegloryofChrist
2 hours ago
countenance(n.)
mid-13c., contenaunce, “behavior, bearing, conduct, manners;” early 14c., “outward appearance, looks,”

WayTruthLight
2 hours ago
Moral Rot is more risky than any so called spiral of purity.

Tropical Jungle Will
2 hours ago
Australia might end up being our last Redoubt for Westernkind. You might get your 100 Million White Europeans afterall.

@Joesmith
2 hours ago

@Eldergoduk
how would you know lol

@forthegloryofChrist
2 hours ago
you allshould smile more

Eldergoduk
2 hours ago

@Joesmith
So does their snatch!

WayTruthLight
2 hours ago
Only malnourished Lice were gassed. Sadly many survived.

@Joesmith
2 hours ago

@Eldergoduk
or rub bread doe on there arm pits before baking it

@forthegloryofChrist
2 hours ago
^

Eldergoduk
2 hours ago
This stream is FANTASTIC

Brosey
2 hours ago
parallel systems, a way of life

@forthegloryofChrist
2 hours ago
“race? skin color? dothey have discernmant ?

@forthegloryofChrist
2 hours ago
?

Eldergoduk
2 hours ago

@Joesmith
I meant from our point of view, some indians can be quite intelligent, but most poke sticks at a toilet

@forthegloryofChrist
2 hours ago
hopws that working out ?

@forthegloryofChrist
2 hours ago
haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

@forthegloryofChrist
2 hours ago

@Victory

Eldergoduk
2 hours ago
I disagree…. White heritage is based on Ealdormanries system under a monarchy

@forthegloryofChrist
2 hours ago
?

@Smidolf
2 hours ago
The book is gross, just thinking of it.

@Smidolf
2 hours ago
I always wondered how Raspail could not see the African mess.

@forthegloryofChrist
2 hours ago
haya

@thomas
Blessings

@PureNomad
2 hours ago
why does the Indian flag have a sphincter on? … then looking at our poop streets

Tropical Jungle Will
2 hours ago
Jean Raspail was prophetic with his book predicting mass East Indian Migration into the West. Westernkind is being White Erased by Indians from Canada to Australia

@forthegloryofChrist
2 hours ago
sweet streeam

@Joesmith
2 hours ago
ive smelt curry on a indian womans sweat

@filled_soda
2 hours ago
Sorry. My wife*

@forthegloryofChrist
2 hours ago
plenty of peversion and hurt round about more so ?

@filled_soda
2 hours ago
My says it didn’t annoy her, but I know it did.

Eldergoduk
2 hours ago
The March on Melbourne 2025!

@filled_soda
2 hours ago
My wife and I travelled to Venice this year. Our first experience on a Venetian canal was ruined by absolutely STINKING Indians

JokerWaffen
2 hours ago
Thank you, come again!

@Smidolf
2 hours ago
The British deported tens of thousand of French from Arcadia, changed every name into English, they wiped them off the map, long before there were engines, planes or trains.

@Joesmith
2 hours ago
this remands me of the bnp advert with the song it gose some like to prey on little girls from takeaways and taxis

Eldergoduk
2 hours ago
They make my EYES burn!

@PureNomad
2 hours ago
waifs and strays

@forthegloryofChrist
2 hours ago
?

Eldergoduk
2 hours ago
I Remember the 1990s very well, the memory of it is keeping me going!

@forthegloryofChrist
2 hours ago
share streamplease

@PureNomad
2 hours ago
agree Thomas

@Smidolf
2 hours ago
youtube is great for cooking

@filled_soda
2 hours ago
That being said, I am repulsed by Indian food now.

@filled_soda
2 hours ago
“We have the recipes”

Eldergoduk
2 hours ago
WW. WIR. KTO. AFFF

@forthegloryofChrist
2 hours ago
D ont mebtion Jesus followers have 109 ? why

@forthegloryofChrist
2 hours ago
AND?

@forthegloryofChrist
2 hours ago
Jesus followers? hAVE 109 ?

@Smidolf
2 hours ago
Not criminal

Eldergoduk
2 hours ago
Canada are really enjoying the Indian migration at the moment…. Like a giant piñata exploded in last few years

@Smidolf
2 hours ago
You never hear of little Germany in New York, guess why.

@Smidolf
2 hours ago
Catholics

@forthegloryofChrist
2 hours ago
PLEASE REESREACH?

@PureNomad
2 hours ago
India/China both ethnicities who each have billions

@forthegloryofChrist
2 hours ago
Ephesians
6:16
“Above all, taking the shield of faith, wherewith ye shall be able to quench all the fiery darts of the wicked.”

@Joesmith
2 hours ago
india orderly lol carnt get food with out arm pit juice in it lol

withey
2 hours ago
reservoirs for Australia

@forthegloryofChrist
2 hours ago
is it wicked ?\

withey
2 hours ago
I too am proud to be racist

Eldergoduk
2 hours ago
I want to be B1-66ER of the white revolution!

@forthegloryofChrist
2 hours ago
ha shhhhhhhhhhhhh]

@Joesmith
2 hours ago
24 million is not very small

@PureNomad
2 hours ago
110%

@forthegloryofChrist
2 hours ago
its the beast ayatem ? whoms about to challange ?

@filled_soda
2 hours ago

@filled_soda
2 hours ago
I’m not only not ashamed of being racist, I’m proud of it.

@Smidolf
2 hours ago
I was born racist, I didn’t even liked the guys from the next town.

@Joesmith
2 hours ago
i knew a mixed race guy who killed a guy with a fire extingusher in bristol

@forthegloryofChrist
2 hours ago
?

Eldergoduk
2 hours ago
An African attacks me, he wouldn’t be going home again

@forthegloryofChrist
2 hours ago
yes

@Joesmith
2 hours ago
ive been anti refugee sence i was 17 half my life when i use to say its better people lose there life in a far away land then to have them commiting crimes over hear and people use to say i am a monster

@forthegloryofChrist
2 hours ago
fear sells?

@PureNomad
2 hours ago
damn stream died 4 me

Eldergoduk
2 hours ago

@Smidolf
I was so impressed with her axe control

@forthegloryofChrist
2 hours ago
wisdom?

@PureNomad
2 hours ago
lol

charlesgerety1
2 hours ago
We are done playing nice with them

@forthegloryofChrist
2 hours ago
above all

@forthegloryofChrist
2 hours ago
brimstone a Shield?

@PureNomad
2 hours ago
Australia aren’t having their nationalism divided/questioned over countries like UK’s is… commies are now working on hitting Scottish/English/Welsh/Northern Irish unity… and I’ve nothing against our Irish cousins, we can fight amongst ourselves when we get our countries back

Eldergoduk
2 hours ago
I watched a video today on the best restaurants in Gaza, links to Instagram of Gazans enjoying Chocolate on everything, and some great fish dishes.

@GaelicNord
2 hours ago
White people have to be able to racialise our morality. We need a racially centred sense of morality. Thats been a massive problem were Whites have been told that doin whats good for Whites, that that’s somehow immoral. Nothing could be more moral than being racially selfish for our own interests.

@forthegloryofChrist
2 hours ago
haaa invest in brimstone friends?

WayTruthLight
2 hours ago
Logically Both male & female Queers should use the same Queers Only toilets. Why didn’t Republicans & Torries think of this

withey
2 hours ago
hail

@Chief_Moody

@Smidolf
2 hours ago
You gonna need quite a volcano.

withey
2 hours ago
the Scottish girl is the poster girl of white resistance

@Smidolf
2 hours ago
Ignore the weak.

@forthegloryofChrist
2 hours ago
Men smile ?\

@BritishGammon
2 hours ago
The narrative is crumbling and the anti White regimes are panicking

@forthegloryofChrist
2 hours ago
CHAT CUTE?

Eldergoduk
2 hours ago
Funking hall!!!

@Smidolf
2 hours ago
The Scottish girl hit home hard for many who where blind. To see a girl fearing for hear life.

@Joesmith
2 hours ago
i belive children should get the same sentince as adults and if the kid is under 15 the parents re fair game too

Eldergoduk
2 hours ago
I can’t swear on here!

@forthegloryofChrist
2 hours ago
share stream please

@forthegloryofChrist
2 hours ago
?

@nativistconcern
2 hours ago
LOL

Eldergoduk
2 hours ago
50 would be better

Eldergoduk
2 hours ago
I don’t wanna kill 6 million Jews…

Chief Moody
2 hours ago
Evening troops

@Joesmith
2 hours ago
6 trillion merchants

Eldergoduk
2 hours ago
Just like Fight Club…. – Got two black shirts?
Yes, sir. – Two pair of black pants?
Yes, sir. – One pair black boots? Black socks?
Yes, sir. – One blackjacket.
Yes, sir. – $300 personal burial money?
Yes, sir. All right.

@Joesmith
2 hours ago
i need to get a black boss cap shirt trousers and tranners

@forthegloryofChrist
2 hours ago
sooth(n.)
“truth, reality, fact,” Old English soð “truth, justice, righteousness, rectitude; reality, a true situation, certainty,”

@forthegloryofChrist
2 hours ago
my MO^

@forthegloryofChrist
2 hours ago
?

@Smidolf
2 hours ago
They will revolt, they will fight, bla bla. When a small brown guy in a uniform tells these savage haiti negroes to get on the truck, they get on the truck.

@forthegloryofChrist
2 hours ago
tri6a

@Smidolf
2 hours ago
The Dominican Republic is deporting 10k Haiti negroes a week, revoking citizenship, everything is possible.

WayTruthLight
2 hours ago
‘Vessels of Wrath’ are ‘Natural Brute Beasts’ on the wide lane, fitted for destruction.

@forthegloryofChrist
2 hours ago
my user name?ask about m3?

@forthegloryofChrist
2 hours ago
you all are very well yum

Eldergoduk
2 hours ago
Democracy is racist system against white people…. Republic empire should be our future!

@forthegloryofChrist
2 hours ago
falls^

@forthegloryofChrist
2 hours ago
the beast system ?

@filled_soda
2 hours ago
I’ll catch this in the morn’. Hail Thomas ○/

@forthegloryofChrist
2 hours ago
FIRE ^

@forthegloryofChrist
2 hours ago
babylon flls

@PureNomad
2 hours ago
accept Thomas’s concept here

Eldergoduk
2 hours ago

@Spectromancer
later

@forthegloryofChrist
2 hours ago
Europa

@Victory

WayTruthLight
2 hours ago
Immigration policies are premeditated and malicious..Our NeoBolshevik Oppressors are the most Evil creatures on the planet. Hard-line is the only remedy.

@Spectromancer
2 hours ago
OK I’m outta here. Later!

Eldergoduk
2 hours ago
Some called my name?

Eldergoduk
2 hours ago

Eldergoduk
2 hours ago

@Spectromancer
The proud boys would welcome you

@forthegloryofChrist
2 hours ago
everything question ?

@Joesmith
2 hours ago
the left attack you then call old bill because they are scared of rtalation

Eldergoduk
2 hours ago
Dropped for sure!

@Spectromancer
2 hours ago
I have zero interest in any nativist white groups in the US. If I were in the UK OR EU I would feel differently. Nothing worth fighting for in the US.

Eldergoduk
2 hours ago
I’m Ready for a Bane Quote

@forthegloryofChrist
2 hours ago
the demonic reALM FALSE DOCTRINE ?

@forthegloryofChrist
2 hours ago
?

Eldergoduk
2 hours ago

@Spectromancer
We honour your decision

@Spectromancer
2 hours ago
I work in optics. I’m about ready to retire spectro anyway.

@PureNomad
2 hours ago

@Spectromancer
you’ll get sh’tskin, white is a pure colour pigment

@forthegloryofChrist
2 hours ago
share streampplezzz

Eldergoduk
2 hours ago

Eldergoduk
2 hours ago

@Spectromancer
All i see is LG….. Etc

@Spectromancer
2 hours ago
Getting much needed rain.

@Spectromancer
2 hours ago
PNW. Early afternoon here.

Eldergoduk
2 hours ago
06:21
in Melbourne at the moment…. DRINK coffee

@Spectromancer
2 hours ago
If you add all those colors you get white dude.

withey
2 hours ago
hello all, 14/88 28

@forthegloryofChrist
2 hours ago
youe enemi uses spiritaul concepts ?

@Spectromancer
2 hours ago
I don’t see the US being close but it’s fun hearing people rant about whoos in the open.

Eldergoduk
2 hours ago

@Spectromancer
Also your profile picture has to many woke colours in it…. Please think about it

@PureNomad
2 hours ago
seems we are close political pressure wise

@forthegloryofChrist
2 hours ago
For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.

@Spectromancer
2 hours ago
Apple blocks anyone on the ADL list automatically so it is a just-in-time censorship.

@forthegloryofChrist
2 hours ago
my wrestle ?

@Spectromancer
2 hours ago
If they can’t name the wooos they are probably not worth listening to.

Eldergoduk
2 hours ago

@Spectromancer
IOS isn’t great for decentralised apps

@Spectromancer
2 hours ago
No advertisements either. Great for audio books or Zoomer historian.

WayTruthLight
2 hours ago
Politics is boring as hell and Subversive without the Tribal element.

@forthegloryofChrist
2 hours ago
is the say10 colred blind ?

@Spectromancer
2 hours ago
Odysee iOS app is shit but in a browser it works great.

@forthegloryofChrist
2 hours ago
?

@forthegloryofChrist
2 hours ago
Thanks for streamn an share it ?

Eldergoduk
2 hours ago
Odysee is the best!

@PureNomad
2 hours ago

@Spectromancer
can you go be gay elsewhere, nothing against another man having an opinion, but you clearly can’t be considered a man

@forthegloryofChrist
2 hours ago
Blessinhs friends

JokerWaffen
2 hours ago
o/

@forthegloryofChrist
2 hours ago
haaaaaa?

@forthegloryofChrist
2 hours ago
haya ?

Eldergoduk
2 hours ago
I’m W+

@Evola19
2 hours ago
buffering is too much time to go rumble

@Spectromancer
2 hours ago
Therefore December 5th is Dutch. Aussies should pay royalties.

@Spectromancer
2 hours ago
That’s Sinterklaas Day! Cultural appropriation.

Eldergoduk
3 hours ago
5th December…. I grew up with that event during Christmas

@Philip.Kollberg
3 hours ago
Hello fellow racists o/

WayTruthLight
3 hours ago
Fourteen

@PureNomad
3 hours ago
beautiful

@torzu
3 hours ago
Krampusnacht

@Þiudareiks
3 hours ago
Its not German but Austrian Alps Kultur

@Spectromancer
3 hours ago
Trick or Beer is awesome! Screw australia!

@Jagdtiger
3 hours ago
o/

@PureNomad
3 hours ago
would need more than a night to march the foreigners out now

Eldergoduk
3 hours ago
Long live Roman logic!!!

Eldergoduk
3 hours ago
:smile_1:

@Smidolf
3 hours ago
What a march, Hail Australia!

@Smidolf
3 hours ago
o/

Eldergoduk
3 hours ago
You should have wrecked the homeless man

@PureNomad
3 hours ago
ohh I remember that, about 1am or something

Eldergoduk
3 hours ago
Welcome Thomas

Louis Cachet
3 hours ago
DANG PAL NATIONALISM

@SerenaJB
3 hours ago
Good evening.

Eldergoduk
3 hours ago
Evening citizens

@PureNomad
3 hours ago
hail our people o/

Carnival Barker
3 hours ago
The Negrification of Timekeeping; buy it now at the Academic Agency!

Louis Cachet
3 hours ago
LATE

@Joesmith
3 hours ago
14

DerCherusker
3 hours ago
Hail!

@Evola19
3 hours ago
yes agree

Randy McDowell
3 hours ago
Can’t be many people tougher or more committed on the WW WN scene than this guy atm. what a legend.

@Evola19
3 hours ago
greetings

Carnival Barker
3 hours ago
Good evening Gentlemen.

@Loke
3 hours ago
Mion

@BlackwaterPark
4 hours ago

@0KT0BER
Yeah, Mark has had some bad luck with Aussies sleeping through interviews.

@PureNomad
5 hours ago
We must secure the existence of our people and a future for white children

0KT0BER
5 hours ago
its still 4 am in Sydney Joe

@Joesmith
5 hours ago
it says live in 2 hours why

ThinRedLine
5 hours ago
o/ Thomas Sewell

@Evola19
5 hours ago
Wow the legendary Thomas Sewell, an inspirational WN

Whiteflower
20 hours ago
the UK kicking off?

Reclaim
1 day ago
Hail Sewell o/

WP Combat
1 day ago
o/

@filled_soda
1 day ago
Hail Thomas \○

0
0

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

RUMBLE COMMENTS (15)

katana17
11 hours ago
[Joel Davis – The Fire Rises – Aug 22, 2025 – Transcript] https://katana17.com/2025/08/23/joel-davis-the-fire-rises-aug-22-2025-transcript/ [In this livestream episode Aussie nationalist activists and NSN members Joel Davis, Jacob Hersant and Tom Sewell discuss the recent events surrounding their 150 man midnight march through Melbourne on Aug 8; Tom’s arrest for defending himself from physical attack during the march; and much more.]
2 likes

Delete
AussiePermaculture
7 hours ago
(Pt.1) Thank God for Tom Sewell! Tom says he will be surprised if it takes less than 20 years. Here is my perspective. I think the situation is so dire, that we do not have twenty years. Surveillance, AI, quantum computing, and the demographic change, not to mention transhumanism (study Dr. Ana Mihalcea!). I think it is a do or die moment. But even more emphatically I am using an astrological perspective!!! (I have crossed over to the afterlife and talked to God and come back to this earth with a divine mission genuinely. With that as a foundation…) Check this out, in 2016 I forewarned constantly about the year 2020. I used to tell people the timeline, and the events that would transpire in public readings on the internet, with a sizeable audience of genuine listeners. My friends and other followers would say ‘no way, you are way off, it’s going to happen in ten years, probably in the next 20 years. Nothing ever happens.’ and I would say, that’s a very real take from the current astrology (energy/consciousness), but things are going to change drastically!!! 2020, Mars, Jupiter, Pluto and Saturn (and eclipses) directly alignning in the ONLY AREA of the sky that rules government and the structure of society. That’s once in 4000 years and I combed through the ephemeris mathematically to prove it – pre AI! Everything I said would happen happened!!! I was personally shocked at how much people were led astray by the government. I was one of literally only 2 astrologers in the world that predicted it so prophetically! It’s a small niche group where everyone knows each other, like nazis, u can tell what the general prediction is. And so, I just want to say in the year 2024 – 2028 there is a portal opening, okay. This is information you will not find anywhere else it is very unique. Pluto 0 degrees, Gemini 0 degrees, Neptune 0 degrees (at the zero point mind you, the centre of infinity). These are the outer planets, which require a telescopic lense (a new perspective)
2 likes

Report
‹ Hide 1 reply
SackOPossums
4 hours ago
You may be a schizo, but you’re OUR schizo. God Bless ya.
1 like

Report
AussiePermaculture
8 hours ago
There is plenty of water, and plenty of resources, man power, and an abundance of land, we just need to stop squandering it all and wasting our time and energy, and design for efficiency.
1 like

Report
AussiePermaculture
8 hours ago
machete african sandwich lol
0 likes

Report
AussiePermaculture
7 hours ago
(Pt.2) (require a telescopic lense) to even visibly see. These represent more spiritual dimensions. This is tied to evolution intrinsically. And so these are all changing signs simultaneously (approximately, for all intents and purposes) over the next 4 years, slowly. New signs = new energy. They move slow. This means the energies of the past 20, 15, 10 years roughly speaking, is all changing, in terms of generational energy, under current energy, superconscious energy. It’s a new world now! And this portal is so important for our growth, deciding the next 2 decades. The Nationals in Winter took place during an Aquarius Full Moon, and I was saying months before hand how perfect the energy was! I can provide my reports certainly upon request. The outer planets are holding this geometric formation (a bisextile) for 4 years. Planets have electromagnetic frequencies, and rotational orbits that are mathematical and predictable. They pulse and emit waves that travel through consciousness/infinity and hit us as receiver transmitters of Consciousness. I believe our solar system is a fractal for evolving biological life. So to say 10 or 20 years is so 2023 lol. Time is moving extremely quickly right now. I said Neptune was at the zero point. This is the most spiritual planet at the most spiritual point in the sky, a once in 165 year occurence, but to be communicating with Neptune and Pluto too (and saturn right now too), this is really really rare, once in many millenia. This is a new world. The disorder we have grown accustomed to has the power to become super organised and coherent, the same way helium can change from gas, to liquid, to superfluid (expressed thru chaos and turbluence, breaking way to harmony and supernatural abilities – moving through objects, climbing up walls etc (look it up as an analogy of critical mass from a quantum perspective). We are evolving to a new human form. It is connected to Natural Law, Consciousness, Permaculture, and Divine M and F.
0 likes

Report
AussiePermaculture
6 hours ago
Legend!
0 likes

Report
OGBaphomet
6 hours ago
Hail Sewell
0 likes

Report
AussiePermaculture
6 hours ago
(Pt.3) In conclusion: A huge transformation is cosmically potentiated, and it could manifest inexplicably, suddenly, spiritually, like divine intervention, or a tropism. The threat exists that if we do not act, we may lose Australia forever and have a dystopia imposed on us that is increasingly impossible to extricate ourselves from. The potential to steer us onto a beneficial path is heightened. Free Will is imperative. An Inspiring Vision, an Actional Strategy, and the right Incentives (not necessarily even financial, but spiritual) is how we can reach the critical threshold for unstoppable momentum towards victory.
0 likes

Report
pupli
5 hours ago
cute kid
0 likes

Report
EnemyisUs
5 hours ago
Manifestos are very Jewy
0 likes

Report
AussiePermaculture
4 hours ago
Hail Tom Sewell!
0 likes

Report
NateAus
4 hours ago
Heil sewell
0 likes

Report
TVR_
1 hour ago
Hail Sewell o/
0 likes

Report
loosifur
46 minutes ago
The funding NDIS system grooms parents into raising retards. It’s the easy path for the weak.
0 likes

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

See Also

top

 

 

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