Sam Bamford: Hi, guys. Welcome back to the Two Worlds Collide podcast. On today’s episode, we have James and Joanna Howe.

 

Now, for the first, 205 minutes, we talk about Joanna’s pro-life Bill that she’s getting through Parliament in South Australia. And after that, we had a healthy debate about immigration and what it truly means to be Australian.

 

Now, this debate did get pretty heavy. It did get a bit nasty. But at the end of the day, we had enough respect for each other to sit there and debate, sometimes listen, sometimes get angry. But at the end of it, we all seemed to come together.

 

Because at the end of the day, if we can’t have debates like this, then who are we really? What are your thoughts? And there we go.

 

I’m at, like, 100—I think I’m at 102 now—episodes.

 

Joanna Howe: That’s good. They say if you survive after 100, you are more likely to keep going.

 

James Howe: I think 98% of people quit by their 25th episode or something. Yeah, I’m gonna keep forgetting that.

 

Joanna Howe: Yeah, yeah.

 

Sam Bamford: Yeah. Someone said something—I think it was… Who’s that guy? Chris Williamson. Chris Williams—maybe him.

 

James Howe: Yeah, I know the guy.

 

Sam Bamford: Yeah, he said something like 85% of podcasts don’t get past their episode 30. So, yeah. Anyway, my last podcast has picked up a bit of a stink with Australia.

 

Joanna Howe: Yep.

 

Sam Bamford: Everyone seems to bloody hate me. Well, no, they don’t hate me. They either— I mean, I’ve sold a lot of T‑shirts. But Joanna and James, welcome to the Two Worlds Collide podcast. How you guys going?

 

 

James Howe: Good, mate. Thanks for having us.

 

Sam Bamford: You’re welcome. Now we’re gonna get to stuff after about what we want Australia to be, what we want Australia to potentially look like—does that matter? And the basis of the argument will—probably not. The argument—Jesus, what are you thinking? You guys are coming in to argue. The base of the debate would be: What truly is an Australian? How you guys see it; how I see it. And we’ll go from there.

 

But first there’s more important stuff to get to, which is the Bill that you’re going to push through Parliament. And now that One Nation have got the balance of power, looks like this is going to happen. So, Joanna—

 

Joanna Howe: Yeah. Thanks so much for having me back, Sam.

 

Sam Bamford: You’re welcome.

 

Joanna Howe: I remember you said that if I was doing something, I could come back and we could talk about it, which I’m grateful for.

 

So we have legislation in the Parliament at the moment that seeks to ban abortion in the third trimester, so 25 weeks upward.

 

So at the moment it’s legal up until birth for any reason in South Australia, except for sex selection. What we’re seeking to do is now ban abortion after 25 weeks, except if it’s necessary to save the life of the mother. Now, we’ve got that in there just as something so that people can see that the mother’s life is valued and prioritised, but the reality is in a late‑term abortion, it’s never necessary to save the life of the mother. If the mother’s got pre‑eclampsia or some kind of risk to her life, what they will do is bring that baby out alive via an emergency Caesarean. So they won’t waste time on a time‑consuming late‑term abortion; they’ll just get that baby out alive through a C‑section in less than an hour.

 

Now, the process for a late‑term abortion—do you know what it is, Sam?

 

Sam Bamford: Yeah, you explained it to me last time and it ripped my heart away.

 

Joanna Howe: So I think last time I talked to you about, actually, a dilation and evacuation, which is when they wrench the arms and legs off a child—

 

Sam Bamford: Literally, like, rip them out!

 

Joanna Howe: But after 22 weeks, the process in South Australia is different. That’s actually a second‑trimester abortion method. The third‑trimester abortion method is you’ve literally got a psychopath looking at a baby on an ultrasound. And they have to look at the ultrasound because this next bit has to be very precise.

 

So they’re looking at a baby on an ultrasound. The mum’s under anaesthetic—she can’t feel this—but they’re locating the Left ventricle of the baby’s heart.

 

So they’re looking at a baby that’s sucking their thumb, playing in the womb, just hiccuping—all the things that babies do in the womb.

 

And then they locate the Left ventricle of the baby’s heart. They fill a needle up—a 20‑gauge needle—with potassium chloride, which is a poisonous substance. They use it on death row to kill rapists and murderers. And here they fill that needle up with approximately 10 millilitres of potassium chloride, KCL, and inject that into the Left ventricle of the baby’s heart. The baby goes from being alive to suddenly being tortured to death! It’s intended to induce a cardiac arrest. It causes excruciating pain.

 

And we know that because sometimes prisoners on death row have not been sedated first, and so they’ve actually lived to tell the tale of how horrifying this is, and so they now do get properly sedated. This doesn’t happen for babies in South Australia, and it happened to 105 babies older than 23 weeks and up until birth since abortion up to birth was introduced and enacted in July 2022.

 

So they inject the baby’s heart with poison. If it doesn’t kill them shortly thereafter, they’ll see that on the ultrasound and they will do a second injection.

 

So they’re just torturing this child to death, who eventually dies in the womb. Now, how do they get that dead baby out? Well, they give the mum labour‑inducing drugs and she goes through the process of labour—just like your wife did, just like I’ve done five times. And she delivers that baby intentionally stillborn. So she delivers—she has the contractions, she has the pushing—and she delivers a dead baby who, under South Australian law, can just get placed in the medical waste bin at 30–35 weeks.

 

[05:17]

 

Sam Bamford: So she’s still going through the same process?

 

Joanna Howe: Yeah, just—

 

Sam Bamford: Just giving birth to a dead baby.

 

Joanna Howe: Yeah. Yep.

 

And so we’re saying: Ban this barbaric procedure! It has no place in our modern healthcare system. It’s not pro‑women. Actually the data shows that women are often very traumatised and scarred by this. But evidently it kills a baby that would be alive today because they’re viable, they’re healthy. Seventy‑five percent of late‑term abortions kill healthy babies in South Australia.

 

So this is a really exciting new bill, and Sarah’s introduced it straight away—so people are still doing their maiden speeches and she’s put that Bill forward—because there isn’t any time to lose, because babies are dying in this state right up until birth. This is the first attempt now, in this term of Parliament, to try and take that back.

 

Sam Bamford: What did you say—100 over the last year?

 

Joanna Howe: A hundred and five in the last two and a half years. That’s one every couple of weeks. That’s late‑term abortions. But it’s actually 5,000 abortions a year in South Australia, so it’s a lot.

 

Sam Bamford: Now, you had a very different idea on abortion when you were younger.

 

Joanna Howe: Yeah.

 

Sam Bamford: And the man to my right, your left, changed it. Talk me through that.

 

Joanna Howe: Yeah, well, I liked him. I had a bit of a crush on him [chuckling] at the time, but he didn’t know that. And we would argue about a lot of things because I was a Leftist arch‑feminist. We would have gotten great, Sam, back when I was 20!

 

And so we would argue about a lot of these things, and then the topic of abortion came up. Now, I’ve told the story a lot, but why don’t you say what it was like from your perspective?

 

James Howe: Oh, I mean, you were just like this—like, just rabidly woke Indian chick [chuckling] that I happened to sort of happen to encounter. And we got into an argument about women in sport and you were trying to tell me that it was disgusting prejudice that women’s sport didn’t do as well as men’s sport.

 

And I remember just thinking, like:

 

“What the fuck are you talking about!”

 

The reason why women’s sport doesn’t do as well is because they’re not as good at it. Like, people watch sport—well, they watch men in sport—because men are the pinnacle of excellence in whatever sport you haven’t been watching.

 

So we kind of had that debate. And I just said:

 

“Look, I don’t care if you like it or not—men’s sport is always going to do well because people want to watch the absolute peak of ability in any given kind of physical field.”

 

Joanna Howe: And I found those arguments really annoying! He just thought he was better than me because he was a man.

 

But then I think when you look into it and you point out the things like Serena Williams plays the 20th‑best male player in the world and she loses six–love, six–love.

 

And so I think there is, clearly in evidence, a difference between women’s performance in the same sport as men’s, and people prefer—and they pay—to watch the men’s sport.

 

Sam Bamford: Well, I’d also just suggest as well, you just gotta look at the numbers and where the money flows to—people speak with their viewership.

 

James Howe: Sure. Yeah, exactly! Yeah. And I don’t want to be rude—like, I’m not saying that women’s sport doesn’t matter—but it’s really just not even about that. It’s not that I thought I was better than you. It’s also just that you, like, had a—you were defending a stupid ideology. So, like credit where it’s due. Like, it must have been rough being you know, let’s be honest.

 

And then we got onto abortion and you started saying:

 

“Oh, women have a right to have an abortion.”

 

And I think I just said:

 

“Well, like, what even is an abortion?”

 

And you’re like— it was almost like you’re like:

 

“I never really thought about it.”

 

Joanna Howe: Well, because I hadn’t. Because when you’re brainwashed by feminism, you just swallow the party line. You don’t necessarily—you don’t think through all these things. You’re just told what to think! You’re told what to think. I was an economics–law student at Sydney University when we met.

 

Sam Bamford: You know, well, that happens with a lot of us, right? With society—everything. Like, you get brainwashed soldiers, you get brainwashed Parliament members, you get brainwashed Leftists.

 

Joanna Howe: Yeah.

 

Sam Bamford: You get brainwashed people from the Right.

 

James Howe: Yeah. 100%.

 

Sam Bamford: Happens with everyone.

 

James Howe: Yeah, it does. And you can’t help it to some degree because you have to just learn some stuff in life. There’s too much information to do your own investigation about everything.

 

But ultimately, I do think it’s incumbent upon people to, when they’re presented with the evidence on an issue, to have the moral courage to actually grapple with it and find out where the truth is and to be willing to go with the truth!

 

Because I think, like, you can’t blame people for being brainwashed, but you can blame people for deciding to stay brainwashed. You know? And to your credit, after I pointed out to you, like:

 

“Well, okay, so it’s a baby after it gets born. What is it five minutes before it gets born?”

 

And you had absolutely no answer for it. Jo went—she was working for Bill Shorten at the time, who used to be the Labor leader, but he was the head of the Australian Workers’ Union—and he’d headhunted Jo to work for him two days a week because he said:

 

“I’ve never met anyone who is more hated by Labor Left than you.”

 

And I asked around and—

 

Joanna Howe: Because he was Labor Right?

 

James Howe: He was Labor Right, yeah, exactly!

 

Sam Bamford: I don’t get this stuff.

 

James Howe: Yeah, neither do I but anyway. And so she snuck into her office and shut the door and just Googled “aborted fetuses.” And some academic articles came up which had some photographs of aborted babies. And she could see that these were little people who’d just been sliced to pieces and ripped apart.

 

Sam Bamford: It genuinely affected me—our conversation. When we sat down, I remember sitting there, like, changing the diaper of my baby, like, an hour later, and I was like:

 

“Yeah, what the fuck’s going on here?”

 

Yeah, I genuinely—like, I was genuinely sitting there. I remember it was one of the only times I got teary on a podcast. I genuinely sat there and I was listening to this. I’m like:

 

“This is too much! We’re really doing this to babies, and everyone’s just going about their normal life.”

 

Yeah, it genuinely tore me up.

 

James Howe: Yeah, it’s horrible!

 

And the only reason it still happens is because people don’t talk about it. And the Left tries to silence you if you even raise it.

 

But it’s insane, man! Like, even last night we were just watching this movie, Knocked Up—

 

Sam Bamford: The old‑school one from—

 

James Howe: Yeah, same one. We’ve seen it before, but somehow we just found ourselves watching it again. And there’s the birth scene, and I’ve—like, each time we’ve had a baby and that baby comes out and starts crying, it just—it makes me teary, just because I’m like:

 

“Just the miracle of life!”

 

You just see—holy shit! There’s a person here on the scene. And I even had that experience just watching this movie last night. And I’m just thinking, man, that baby—it’s the same baby that was in there five minutes ago. It’s no different! It’s the same baby, so it can’t cry because its lungs are full of fluid.

 

But it’s the same baby. It’s capable of having all of the same experiences. It’s capable of having the same kind of sensations of pain. Same sort of comfort at the sound of its mother’s voice. Same child, same human being. And just the thought of killing that baby—it’s just murder like any other form of murder. And we just can’t tolerate it in a sane and civilised society. It’s just disgusting!

 

So, yeah—long story short!

 

Joanna Howe: Yeah. So I had to admit to him, maybe a fortnight later, that I’d changed my mind and that he was right and I was wrong.

 

Sam Bamford: It’s good, though. It shows you’re adaptable.

 

James Howe: Yeah.

 

Joanna Howe: Yeah.

 

James Howe: And she’s just had to do that again and again!

 

Joanna Howe: That’s [chuckling] not true! He’s had to—

 

James Howe: No, it’s gone the other way pretty much ever since, …

 

Joanna Howe: No, it hasn’t. But we’ve just—I guess— Yeah, we fell in love!

 

James Howe: On every personal argument, it’s had to go the other way.

 

Joanna Howe: Yeah. But I was a brainwashed Leftist and I’ve had to—I guess I’ve had to unpack all of the things I believed and realise which ones I still believe and which ones I still don’t. And that’s a journey that I would encourage other people to go on as well.

 

And if you are in South Australia, or even if you’re not, I encourage you to fly in for our rally on June 17 outside the South Australian Parliament, because that’s when we will be rallying and protesting for this bill. And I do think for these babies—after 25 weeks—we’re up against it. All of the peak medical bodies are against us; all of the media establishment; the Labor and the Greens like it; some of the Liberal Party, even.

 

And so you’re really up against it. But if we pass this bill, that’ll be the first pro‑life Bill to pass a House of Parliament in Australian history. But it’ll also be the first socially conservative Bill to have passed the South Australian Parliament—in history. So it’s big. And we do need—like, the Left is so good at turning up for evil. And our side, we’re just useless a lot of the time!

 

Sam Bamford: Because we’re all busy working.

 

Joanna Howe: Yeah, [chuckling] but this is after work. It’s 5:30 PM in the city. And so—

 

Sam Bamford: Well, most people have kids. Conservative families have kids.

 

Joanna Howe: Well, bring your kids. We bring our kids. Like, sorry, Sam, there’s not an excuse you can throw to me other than if you’re in Labor. If you’re in Labor or you’re dead, you don’t get to come. But you don’t have to come—you getta leave pass. But everybody else—like, these babies have no voice other than us.

 

And so if we don’t turn up, then the politicians just know we don’t care.

 

Sam Bamford: Yep.

 

Okay, so when is it again?

 

Joanna Howe: 17th of June. Tuesday, 5:30 PM to 6:30 PM, outside the SA Parliament, the City—North Terrace. Yeah. Really hope you can come by. Hope other people can come, too. It is really important. We bring our—we’ve got a six‑year‑old—and we’ve been bringing the kids to these things since they were just out of the womb—like, a couple of months old, three years old, four years old. They have to know what they’re up against in this society, in this culture. I think it’s important to raise them educated and awake.

 

[15:18]

 

Sam Bamford: Yeah, definitely! Because the other side is doing it as well.

 

Joanna Howe: Yeah.

 

Sam Bamford: But the thing with the other side is they’ve got—they seem to have—kindergarten, schools and universities to do that. As well, that’s why you asked me on the way in:

 

“Are you gonna home‑school?”

 

Joanna Howe: Yeah.

 

Sam Bamford: Did you ask me that question because—you know—because you’re know, …

 

Joanna Howe: Yeah, you’re awake. And I guess in the public education system in South Australia, you’re being taught the gender bred person. You’re celebrating—you’re told to dress up in purple for IDAHOBIT Day. You know, so there’s all these trans ideologies, …

 

James Howe: It’s about trans—and yeah, I don’t know what it’s about.

 

Sam Bamford: Are you saying I’m short?

 

James Howe: No, I was just looking at your hairy feet.

 

Joanna Howe: If you send your kid to a public school, they’re gonna come out indoctrinated by this.

 

And so then, yeah, we had to try pretty hard to find a school where this sort of BS wasn’t happening.

 

Sam Bamford: Well, it’s also happening everywhere now because the government can’t even define a woman.

 

Joanna Howe: Yeah.

 

Sam Bamford: I did a post about this the other day, right? And I sat down before I did the post—I’m like:

 

“What am I going to talk about here?”

 

And there was a clear thing there that I came up with: If you can’t define something, you can’t defend it. It’s like the “what is a woman” argument, you know what I mean? Like, same with the baby thing.

 

Like, if you just think that a baby, like you were saying before, isn’t the same baby when it’s born five minutes after, then you can’t define what that is, so then you can’t defend what that is.

 

And, I mean, the government at the moment—they do not have the capability to be able to control your economy that’s over a trillion dollars, while sitting there and telling us they can’t define a woman. Like, how are we supposed to defend women? How are we supposed to defend their rights, their spaces and their sports? And it’s good to see, actually, that although the Liberal Party for over a decade were in power after Julia Gillard—that stupid lady—decided to change the legislation around the definition of a woman, that they’ve finally come out and spoken out against it.

 

Do you think this will ever happen mainstream with abortions—fully?

 

Joanna Howe: Yep. Yeah.

 

Sam Bamford: Truly believe that?

 

Joanna Howe: No, I truly believe it.

 

So I think if you look at anything, like how slavery was overcome or any kind of injustice, you’ll find that initially the people that are jumping up and down about it are seen as extremists and everything’s done to kind of attack them and marginalise them.

 

But eventually it becomes mainstream. So, 10 years ago—like Sal Grover—right now every conservative politician in the country is trying to get her for a photo shoot, and they’re tweeting about it.

 

Sam Bamford: I need to reach out to her to get her on the pod.

 

Joanna Howe: Yeah, but everyone’s doing it. But five years ago that wasn’t the case—10 years ago, you know, it was even more not the case—at the time when Julia Gillard changed the, …

 

Sam Bamford: I remember a couple of years ago they got her on—what’s that stupid show where that W‑lead dude was on, …

 

Joanna Howe: The Project. Channel 7. The Project.

 

Sam Bamford: Yeah. And they tried to grill her a year ago, but now it’s like:

 

“Whoa! We’ve changed! Yeah, we have. Changed!”

 

Joanna Howe: No, things have changed. People are awake. The One Nation vote is surging. So people can—even the mainstream media can see things are shifting. People aren’t listening to them anymore. They’re now trying to come along to the party. Like, we’ve even noticed—in the coverage of our abortion issue—they have changed somewhat from being openly hostile to now almost being fair in the coverage we had last week on the announcement of the bill.

 

So I believe that on abortion this will happen. It takes time. But if you just think about—like, two years ago, we were at the Olympics and you’ve got a male boxer punching on a female in the women’s division and then getting gold.

 

But then Trump gets elected, does an Executive Order, that biology is the basis of male and female. The Olympic Committee’s now changed its tune and said they’re going to be checking birth certificates and doing tests to make sure that female sport is for women—biological females—only. So things take time. And in Australia we are quite behind—like, behind whether you can—three to four years.

 

So I think on abortion the fundamentals are there. This is a child in the womb who’s a human being. If you’re on the side of abortion, you support killing human beings. We’ll eventually catch up. We’ll eventually get there. It just takes time.

 

Sam Bamford: And how many babies do we abort in Australia per year?

 

Joanna Howe: So, close to 100,000. The most recent data suggests 88,000. But that data is a bit old.

 

And so it’s a lot. We talk about a migration, a population crisis and a fertility crisis, but part of that crisis is that we’re killing so many babies and we’re not replacing our population.

 

Sam Bamford: Yes—which is where my main argument comes in, right? Where we’re importing two, three migrants per birth in this country. Our birth rate is at one point—if it goes below 1.4, that’s generally, like, an extinction‑level event. And I guess this is where my glaring argument has come out over the past few days about stuff. But I don’t want to get to that yet. I want to stay on your stuff.

 

So, what’s your next step after this Bill passes in the SA Parliament?

 

[20:02]

 

Joanna Howe: Okay, so to get it through to law, it has to pass in the Upper House and the Lower House. We think we’ve got the numbers for the first time to pass it in the Upper House.

 

Sam Bamford: Is that because of the One Nation—

 

Joanna Howe: Yep. And so that’s really significant!

 

But then to get it through the Lower House, which Labor runs, that’s going to be tough.

 

But having said that, their MPs are now going to be forced, for the first time, to put on the record their support for killing babies after 25 weeks. Literally, they’ll have to say:

 

“We’re on the side of injecting these babies with poison into their hearts.”

 

Now, many of those MPs live in electorates where the people would not be with them on such an extremist position.

 

And so I think it’s going to be interesting. I think we’ll have a mountain to climb to get it through the Lower House. But I think we could. When they sold abortion up to birth in South Australia, they stood on the steps with this sign that said “decriminalisation”.

 

And so the lie that they sold was that we need this new law because we need to stop women going to jail. But no women had been jailed for abortion in anyone’s memory—like, that just had not happened. It was a total lie! What they were really doing was removing all upper gestational limits on abortion so that it could be available up until birth and for any reason.

 

So the good thing about this campaign is, for the first time, we can now have this debate on our own terms and we can say:

 

“Are you on the side of killing babies older than 25 weeks, or are you not?”

 

And if you are on that side—of killing babies older than 25 weeks—then you’re really an extreme person! Like, you’re a murderer. There’s no other way to describe it, because you support injecting that baby with poison and then delivering them dead when you could just induce that baby early, deliver them alive and place them for adoption. Like, you could do those babies have to come out. They either come out dead or they come out alive. You guys are on the side of bringing them out dead! And so I think having that debate publicly is really significant!

 

But then beyond that, once you have that debate—and whether we pass that law or we don’t—we keep having those debates then. Because I think, as James said to me when we were debating this when I was 21, was:

 

“Well, what’s the difference between a baby five minutes before birth and five minutes after?”

 

I guess I would say to people:

 

“Well, what’s the difference between a 24‑week‑old baby and a 25‑week‑old baby, or a 20‑week and a 25‑week—and so on and so on—that they are human from conception. And at any point in human history when we’ve taken human rights away from a group of humans, it’s always ended in a pretty bad place.”

 

Sam Bamford: But what about the right of the baby in the womb?

 

Joanna Howe: Yeah—

 

Sam Bamford: Like, what about their right of living? I know you’re talking about taking away the rights of someone else, but the right of that baby when they’re conceived?

 

Joanna Howe: Yeah. I would argue they have human rights because they’re human beings.

 

Sam Bamford: 100%.

 

Joanna Howe: Yeah. And so, even from the moment of fertilisation, you have a new and distinct human person that is created and, if left alone, will develop and grow and contribute to our society.

 

Sam Bamford: Yeah. And this is where—this is where we’ll probably flow into the argument of immigration as well. Like, we—I always talk about importing the next generation when I’m sitting here and we’re aborting the next generation!

 

Joanna Howe: Yeah, yeah.

 

Sam Bamford: We wouldn’t need high levels of immigration if we didn’t abort the next generation*.

 

[* The promotion of abortion fits in with the anti-White agenda that is pushed throughout the West by (((those))) that hate Whites and want to get rid of us by all means possible.]

 

Joanna Howe: Twenty‑eight percent of Gen Z is aborted.

 

Sam Bamford: What?

 

Joanna Howe: Yeah, 28%! So we are—because it’s one, …

 

Sam Bamford: Over one in four!

 

Joanna Howe: Yeah, because it’s the most unsafe place for a child to be, it’s not like on the playground unsupervised and a paedophile might come and grab him. It’s actually just in the womb. Like, that’s— we just—we are killing babies for any reason in this country. And yeah, it has to stop! This is the West—the West is doing this.

 

And so they’re importing—we’re importing—people and we’re killing our own babies. And it is having massive cultural disruption.

 

Sam Bamford: It’s even having the most massive cultural disruption now that people are, for the first time in history—and this is where we spoke about the other night—we’re debating between what’s an “Australian.” Like, this is a cultural division now that immigration is causing. I wouldn’t be having this argument if I was—five years ago—and, like, immigration wasn’t so high, right? No one had these arguments.

 

So before we have a discussion about this, I just want to say that the people that are doing this to us is the Labor government—through high levels of immigration, through their unsafe practices of immigration, through their terrible laws of aborting babies.

 

Joanna Howe: Yeah.

 

Sam Bamford: And now they’re making people on the Right jump and fight and disagree with each other, which is healthy to have debate. But we’re at a point now where—what I’m trying to say is—everything’s been pushed down to us by this Leftist, communist government that are trying to replace us in our own country, and they’re actually allowing the abortion of the next generation coming through.

 

Joanna Howe: Yeah.

 

So I would say abortion up to birth, radical trans ideology in classrooms, the eSafety Commissioner, the erosion of freedom of speech, and the migration mess that we find ourselves in—I think it’s a both‑sides issue. So I recognise that Labor is far worse than the Libs! But the migration blowout that’s happened since 1996 until the present day—that is a both‑sides issue.

 

And it’s only now that we’ve seen Pauline Hanson kind of force it open and that—and she somehow managed to break through since Bondi in a way that she wasn’t able to beforehand. Australians are awake now, or they’re awakening.

 

And now you see Angus Taylor and the Libs talk about:

 

“Well, we need a values test; we need a clampdown on mass migration.”

 

But they weren’t saying this before. I’ve worked with both governments, in my position as a researcher at Adelaide Uni in migration research. They both have always been on the side of a “big Australia”. And it’s only Pauline Hanson who’s consistently said, from her maiden speech in the ’90s, that if we have immigration, we need to have integration and assimilation, and the programme needs to be managed in a coherent way. Yeah.

 

[25:39]

 

Sam Bamford: Yeah, I’m sort of going one step further than her and saying—and this is where my argument is— like, I think Australians—let’s say your Anglo‑Celtic and/or Indigenous Australians— where we’re being replaced at a rate that is glaringly obvious! Right? I’m walking around, I’m seeing different cultures everywhere, where five years ago we didn’t really see that.

 

And my sort of argument at the moment is that there are so many people coming in at such a rapid rate. And the government are telling us that all these people are “Australian”. And I’m sitting back and I’m being like:

 

“Well, no! They’ve been here since breakfast! They can’t just be Australian if they’ve been here such a short time.”

 

Someone like yourself—this is where the debate is, right? Like, are you Australian? When did you come here?

 

Joanna Howe: So it would have been 1988.

 

Sam Bamford: 1988. How old?

 

Joanna Howe: I was about four years old. And my dad, … So this was before we introduced temporary work visas. We only had permanent work visas. So we came as permanent residents.

 

There was an IT need. My dad was highly skilled. He was able to bring over his wife and his three children. We settled in suburban Sydney, bought a house, made it our home. He actually died six months after. We didn’t get booted back because he was no longer able to do that job. We stayed because we were all permanent residents by that point. And we’ve made Australia our home. You know, we’ve got five children.

 

I guess—in our last conversation—I asked you:

 

“Do you think I’m Australian?”

 

And recently I’ve been seeing on X that your position on that has changed somewhat. Yeah—why have you changed your position? And what would be your answer now to that question? Am I Australian?

 

Sam Bamford: No—not ethnically. Values, culturally wise—this is where the argument is because there’s so many people like you that have come in, and you’ve come in when Anglo‑Celtic and/or Indigenous Australians have been the overwhelming majority. So you’ve been able to come in and assimilate to our culture pretty easily, and you’ve sort of left your culture at the door.

 

Now, the reason I’ve changed recently is because I’ve sort of done a lot of inner thinking, I’ve done a lot of reading, reviewing, and I think that if we can’t define something, we can’t defend it! And I purely think that Australia isn’t Australia without the Australian people. Just like Japan: Japan’s not Japan because it sits on the island of Japan; Japan’s Japan because of the Japanese people.

 

And I think that the culture comes from the people. And that if we replace the people, we replace Australia. And Australia then is some, …

 

James Howe: True.

 

Sam Bamford: Fluid—or some non‑binary, whatever it is—and it can just be changed. And I don’t want that change.

 

James Howe: You have to define what Australia is. But at the same time, we’re talking about her—who has everything that a White Australian would have, except for the colour of her skin. Would you agree with that?

 

Sam Bamford: Like, 100%.

 

James Howe: Yeah.

 

Sam Bamford: Completely came into this culture, completely adapted, and would arguably probably be doing more for Australia than anyone else in the history of Australia, given the [anti-abortion] Bill that she’s about to pass.

 

James Howe: Yeah. So we’re talking about Whiteness then, at the end of the day—not culture per se—because culture—that would just cancel out the culture issue, because culture’s the same. So we can just tick that off the list. We share that—share the same culture. So the only thing that you and I would not share with her would be her skin colour*.

 

[* Skin colour is just an obvious sign of racial difference, which are extensive including personality, temperament, general intelligence, propensity for violence, etc. Racial differences are not just skin deep, they are to the bone. And different racial groups have different cultures because of these innate racial differences.]

 

Sam Bamford: Yeah. Okay. So what built this nation then, from 1901 all the way up until 2001?

 

James Howe: White people! Yeah. So—hang on. Just to understand, though—you would say your ability to call yourself Australian would be that you share the same skin colour as the people who built the country?

 

Sam Bamford: Same origins. Anglo‑Celtic.

 

James Howe: Anglo‑Celtic, though—but that’s specific to the British Isles.

 

Sam Bamford: So who were the people that formed government?

 

James Howe: The Brits. So—but what I’m saying is, what’s your heritage?

 

[30:06]

 

 

Sam Bamford: So both of my family originated from the UK.

 

James Howe: So you’re Anglo‑Celtic.

 

Sam Bamford: Yeah. I think Dad’s family came here very early 1900s.

 

James Howe: Yeah.

 

Sam Bamford: Mum’s was a little different—maybe around the war.

 

James Howe: Okay.

 

Sam Bamford: First or second? I don’t really know.

 

James Howe: Okay. But I find it hard to believe that—just tell me if I’m putting words in your mouth, I don’t want to misrepresent your position. But I find it hard to believe that you would qualify her Australianness based on her skin colour or her Indian heritage, but that you would look at a guy who is like me—say, for example. Now, it just so happens that I have Irish blood, so I am technically half Anglo‑Celtic, but my other half comes from Holland. Imagine if both of my ancestors were from Holland. But I’m still just sitting here in front of you talking with an Australian accent.

 

Sam Bamford: Yes. I like to always say as well, that the Anglo‑Celtic and/or European culture—because I think that’s what we’re built off. So Anglo‑Celtic, European culture.

 

A lot of people don’t think that. A lot of people just say Anglo‑Celtic. But I’ve been very upfront, in some of the stuff I put out on Twitter, saying Anglo‑Celtic, European, and Indigenous culture. Because I believe that’s what built us from 1901 all the way until—let’s say— When did mass, …

 

Joanna Howe: ’75. So ’75 was when the Racial Discrimination Act was passed. And then we officially developed a non‑discriminatory migration program. And then, in terms of mass immigration, it’s been growing since 1996 and it really took off in the 2000s.

 

Sam Bamford: Yeah, yeah.

 

Joanna Howe: And then post‑COVID, it’s been on steroids.

 

Sam Bamford: Yeah. And that’s where my sort of argument is, because, …

 

James Howe: But would you say that indigenous people built the country?

 

Sam Bamford: No! This is my argument with indigenous people. They had the land before we built all the shit! So they had the land; we built it; now we share it.

 

James Howe: Yeah, but Australia is about the people and the culture, not about the land. So just because they happen to be on the same geographical parcel of land, how does that mean that they’re Australian? Because she’s on the land too. But you would say she’s not.

 

Sam Bamford: No, she didn’t forge the land from 1901 all the way up until mass immigration.

 

James Howe: No, but neither did indigenous people. They just happened to be here, just like she happens to be here.

 

Sam Bamford: Yeah, but they were here. They definitely were here. And they did forge, …

 

James Howe: They were here but they didn’t do anything to build it. I mean, they did a little bit, but no more than, say, an Afghan camel herder might have done, and various other ethnicities.

 

Sam Bamford: I think they’re definitely a part of the people and the culture which has shaped this country.

 

Joanna Howe: But the Westminster, … James is not denying that. But if you’re thinking about the institutions that the Brits brought over the Westminster system of government, the courts, separation of powers—all of that’s come from a Judeo‑Christian foundation from the British Empire.

 

Sam Bamford: Christian foundation—not Judeo‑Christian! Christian foundation. I think we’ve got to be clear.

 

Joanna Howe: We can acknowledge that.

 

James Howe: Yeah, but, like, I would say that Aboriginal people had a small—a very small—role to play in building modern Australia, but so did some other races as well. Like, Afghan people helped to open up the interior. Chinese people helped to build the railways and whatever. So, yes, they had a small role, but by that same token you would also extend that to other cultures.

 

Sam Bamford: So do you think anyone can be Australian then?

 

James Howe: No, I feel like in order to be consistent in your position, you should also say that Aboriginal people are not Australian—and that wouldn’t be new. Like, that was the position up until recently.

 

Sam Bamford: Yeah, so they’re indigenous Australians.

 

James Howe: Yeah, but they weren’t considered to be full Australians until the ’60s. Now, I believe that they are, but I’m the guy who doesn’t base things on race.

 

Sam Bamford: So would Joanna be Indian‑Australian then?

 

James Howe: You don’t have to say Indian‑Australian anymore than, …

 

Sam Bamford: We’re calling indigenous people “indigenous-Australians”.

 

James Howe: I would just call them Australians. And they can call themselves indigenous if they want to. She can call herself Indian if she wants to. It’s up to her. Like, I’m half Dutch—I don’t call myself a Dutch-Australian. I think that’s just on the individual; they can choose what—

 

Joanna Howe: But I also think if you come here, you actually should identify as this country.

 

So if you come here and you become a citizen of this country—you’re lucky enough to get that—we’re Australian! Like, people have been asking me on Twitter:

 

“Who do you support in the cricket? Who would you support in a war, if India—?”

 

Sam Bamford: I literally saw one and someone was like:

 

“This will end the argument. Who do you follow in cricket, India or Australia?”

 

And they’re like:

 

“If she says whoever, then she’s that!”

 

James Howe: Well, she doesn’t even know what cricket is—

 

Joanna Howe: Yeah, I don’t [chuckling] watch the cricket, but if I were to follow a team, it would be the Australian team. Like, in the Olympics or whatever. And if we’re at war, it would be Australia. I’ve only been to India once. And at home, the only language that was ever spoken other than English was Portuguese, because my mum and my grandmother, maternal side, speak it. I don’t—because I never spoke it. So we learnt English from day dot. Because I was born in England.

 

I think I do have a problem with the “ethnically Australian” thing that you’re banging on about now.

 

Sam Bamford: So what is it?

 

Joanna Howe: Well, because I don’t think it’s intellectually rigorous as a concept. Like, what is an “ethnic Australian”?

 

Sam Bamford: Anglo‑Celtic and or European, indigenous Australian. Because there’s a difference between “ethnic Australian” and then “Australian citizen.” The problem is now, if we cannot define what this is, then we cannot defend the massive flood coming in. Because Anthony Albanese [Aussie Labor PM] just keeps telling us that:

 

“Oh, these are people, are all Australian because their boots hit our shores.”

 

Joanna Howe: Okay, so we all agree, …

 

James Howe: We all agree that that’s bullshit, though. That’s not the question that’s under debate.

 

Joanna Howe: Yeah, we all agree that that’s bullshit!

 

Sam Bamford: So would you agree that if you can’t define that, then you can’t defend that.

 

James Howe: I agree but, …

 

Sam Bamford: Because by everyone’s logic, everyone should just be able to be put into Australia.

 

James Howe: We are not arguing on whether we should define it. We all agree that we should define it. What we’re arguing about is your definition of it.

 

Sam Bamford: Okay, so what is your definition?

 

James Howe: Well, first, let me ask you a question.

 

Sam Bamford: No, no, no—you give me your definition. What’s your definition of an Australian?

 

James Howe: Well, I don’t necessarily have a coherent one. I’ve been thinking about it ever since this first came up. It’s not something I’ve given that much thought to. I think I don’t need to provide a perfect definition of what I think an Australian is in order to try and prove that yours is wrong. Do you understand? Like, I can, …

 

Sam Bamford: Should we both have a base‑level argument of what an Australian is to be able to prove what it isn’t?

 

James Howe: No—because we should, …

 

Sam Bamford: No, no—that’s how you start a debate. You can’t just come out and be like:

 

“Okay, this is your argument. I’m going to pick it to pieces.”

 

But you don’t even give me your definition of “Australian,”. So you have to give me a definition of “Australian”.

 

James Howe: No—don’t— Let me explain.

 

Sam Bamford: Well, then what are we doing here then, dude? If you’re not going to define what an Australian is—what are we doing here?

 

James Howe: Just let me finish.

 

Joanna Howe: Yeah.

 

James Howe: Okay. If we find—say, like, we’re out digging a hole, right? We both dig a hole and we come across a large bone, okay? Now, if you say this bone came from, say a giant flying fairy, I can actually say:

 

“That’s not the case.”

 

And then you say:

 

“Well, what do you think it came from?”

 

And I go:

 

“I don’t fucking know! I just know it’s not from a giant flying fairy, because that’s a dumb theory.”

 

So—just me not having a coherent theory of my own—I try to be intellectually honest. I’m not going to sit here and go:

 

“Oh, well, here’s what I think.”

 

When I don’t know what I think yet. It’s hard to come up with this stuff. Okay. I agree with you that when people’s boots first land on the land, they’re not Australian straight away. I also don’t know if I think citizenship is the moment that that happens—although it could be, or maybe it happens sometime afterwards. It’s a vague line. I don’t know. It’s complicated!

 

It’s a little bit like when you start work at a new workplace. Right? At first, it’s a little bit awkward and you’ve got to, kind of, like—you’ve got to be a little bit submissive to the other people who’ve been there for 20 years, you know what I mean? But at some point you do become a true, like, fully fledged member of that company, you know what I mean? There is a point there and it’s a bit vague—like, it’s not necessarily super‑easy to nail down when that happens.

 

But I’m telling you this—I’m telling you this: If there’s one guy there who goes, you’ve both been there for 20 years, but this guy keeps on telling you that his grandfather started the company and therefore he has rights that you don’t have—you’re going to tell him to go get fucked, because it’s annoying, you know what I mean? Like, you’re like:

 

“We’ve both been here—we’ve both contributed—so shut the fuck up about your grandfather! I actually couldn’t give a shit!”

 

Sam Bamford: You’re getting angry that I’m calling your wife a non‑Australia.

 

James Howe: Oh, well, I’m not getting angry about that. I’m angry about—yeah, like, I’m angry at the theory because it’s stupid! Sorry—no offence. I think it’s dumb!

 

Look, let me ask you this question. Would you accept responsibility for White treatment of Aboriginal people in Australia if someone said:

 

“You’re a White guy, you should feel ashamed of yourself for the treatment of Aboriginal people!”

 

Sam Bamford: Not at all!

 

James Howe: Why? Explain.

 

Sam Bamford: Because it’s got nothing to do with me.

 

James Howe: Why?

 

Sam Bamford: Personally, I’ve done nothing to them.

 

James Howe: So then how come— all right, so you want to—as a White guy—you want to take the credit for building this country, but you want to reject all of the responsibility for anything negative that happened.

 

Sam Bamford: No, I’ve never said that.

 

James Howe: You want all of the rights but none of the responsibility! No, no, no—but do you understand the point that I’m getting at?

 

Sam Bamford: Okay, like—so do you think that I can just go to Japan, get a Japanese citizenship and then become Japanese? Is that what we’re saying?

 

James Howe: No, because—

 

Sam Bamford: Because there are definitions around this that we need to have a really tough stance on, and be like:

 

“Well, this is an Australian, and if we can’t define it, we can’t defend it.”

 

The same thing with the “what is a woman” argument. If we can’t define a woman, we can’t defend women. So if we can’t define Australian, …

 

James Howe: Dude, the way you’re defining an Australian is pretty much, bloody, the same as the Left’s definition of a woman!

 

Sam Bamford: How! How?

 

James Howe: Because you’re going all on superficial appearance*. The Left will define a woman as anything that looks kind of like a woman. You define an Australian as someone that you think looks kind of like an Australian. It’s the same shit!

 

[* Again racial differences are both superficial and deep.]

 

Sam Bamford: What, and demographics don’t matter? What, demographics don’t matter?

 

James Howe: I’m not saying, …

 

Sam Bamford: So you are literally saying that if we got 30 million Arabs here tomorrow—brought them all—and then just said they just adapted to our way of life for the next 15 years, that they’re all just Australian?

 

[40:04]

 

 

James Howe: Could be. You don’t know what that looks like.

 

Sam Bamford: You just said 30 million Arabs could be Australian if they came here tomorrow and adapted to our way of life over fifteen years!

 

Joanna Howe: Adapting to our way of life.

 

Sam Bamford: They could be. And then we just demographically change Australia, and we’re all just sitting here going:

 

“Yeah, that’s all right!”

 

Joanna Howe: Well, Italy might be an interesting case study for that.

 

James Howe: Well, hang on—you just brought up Japan. Okay. I think that Japan is a case that people always bring up because it’s, like demographically it’s just one race of people.

 

Sam Bamford: Or we could bring up India or whatever, if you want.

 

James Howe: Well, why don’t you bring up Russia?

 

Sam Bamford: We could bring up Africa.

 

James Howe: Why don’t you bring up Russia, right? Because you’ve got Sámi reindeer herders in the north; you’ve got, like, White people in the middle; you’ve got people that look Chinese down the bottom. You’ve got a whole range of different people.

 

But the other thing is, people always bring up Japan and say:

 

“Well, they don’t let people move into their country.”

 

It’s like the Japanese are pretty fucking bigoted! Like, they’re pretty racist and they’re a bunch of psychos! Like—no offence if there’s any Japanese listening—but I don’t have that much respect for Japanese culture. If you read about what happened in World War II, it was absolutely freaking horrific, man! They marched into China—into Nanjing—and they slaughtered 300,000 people*; they put 200,000 women into prostitution. No, but seriously-we don’t take cues from Japan!

 

[* This is highly disputed regarding the number and what actually happened. The Chinese themselves had no issue with killing millions of fellow Chinese during the early communist years.]

 

Sam Bamford: Like, yeah, but I’m not saying that. Yeah. So, like, you’re happily just sitting here saying:

 

“Yeah, you would gladly just watch Australians be demographically replaced in our own country because we’re not willing to sit here and define it.”

 

Like, this is the problem!

 

James Howe: I don’t think you’re defining it any more than I am. You just said it’s a White person.

 

Sam Bamford: Okay, you haven’t even—I have not said it’s just a white person. Stop trying to put words into my mouth! This is what you’re trying to do. You’re trying to sit here and just say:

 

“He wants a white only Australia!”

 

Like they all try and sit out there and do—they all try and sit there and say that:

 

“You just want a White Australia!”

 

So you can pin me up as some type of Nazi. It’s pissing me off! And you’ve been sitting here doing it for the last 10 minutes, mate!

 

James Howe: Well, that’s because I think that you are, …

 

Sam Bamford: Do you think I’m a Nazi?

 

James Howe: I think you’ve got an ideology that’s on the Nazi spectrum.

 

Sam Bamford: Yeah—for protecting Australia. For saying that Anglo‑Celtic, European and/or Indigenous Australians are, in my opinion, Australian. You think that is a Nazi? You think that ideology is being a Nazi?

 

James Howe: No, I don’t think you’re being a Nazi, but, …

 

Sam Bamford: No, no—you think that ideology is being a Nazi?

 

James Howe: Are you gonna let me talk?

 

Sam Bamford: No, you, …

 

James Howe: You’re asking me questions—every time I try and answer, …

 

Sam Bamford: Yeah, well, you sit over there, sitting over me, trying to talk over me, weren’t you?

 

Joanna Howe: Okay, guys, …

 

James Howe: Don’t say:

 

“Okay, guys.”

 

I’m trying to answer your questions, but you’re not letting me answer.

 

Sam Bamford: You can’t even define an Australian, bro. What is an Australian? What is an Australian?

 

Joanna Howe: You’re changing, …

 

James Howe: Okay—no, shut up! You need to define what an Australian is.

 

Sam Bamford: How many times have I done it? I’ve done it four times now! An Australian is an Anglo‑Celtic, European and/or indigenous‑descent person. That’s what I think—demographically, …

 

James Howe: So, a white person! So then you say—

 

Sam Bamford: I literally said European. “European” covers, like, Italy, Greek—the majority of Europe—because a lot of people migrated from Europe.

 

James Howe: Okay.

 

Sam Bamford: And then indigenous Australians. Indigenous Australians are brown!

 

James Howe: Okay. White people and indigenous Australians.

 

Sam Bamford: Indigenous Australians are brown! *

 

[* Unless there are freebies being handed out, then they can be blue-eyed Whites, with hundreds of thousands popping up!]

 

James Howe: Okay. So if someone comes—she’s been here for 20 years— If someone comes over from Europe 20 years ago and speaks with a broad Australian accent, then they just—purely because of their race—they’re an Australian, in your view. So, you asked me:

 

“Do I think that’s Nazi?”

 

Well, it’s not Nazi because you’re not talking about gassing jews* or whatever.

 

But it’s like a racist ideology!

 

[* As revisionists have conclusively proven there was zero gassing of jews by the Germans. It’s diabolical black “racist” propaganda against Germans and Whites in general. See the many links to this issue below.]

 

Sam Bamford: Okay, I’m happy to be called “racist” then.

 

James Howe: I’m not calling you racist—it’s the definition of the word!

 

Sam Bamford: Okay, well, I am happy to have a racist ideology then. That’s fine.

 

James Howe: Fine. It’s up to you. I don’t really care. But if you’re asking my opinion, that’s my opinion.

 

Sam Bamford: Okay, so what is an Australian?

 

James Howe: I already explained. I don’t, …

 

Sam Bamford: Can’t answer it!

 

James Howe: No—don’t do this podcasty thing. It’s annoying!

 

Joanna Howe: Yeah.

 

Sam Bamford: What is an Australian?

 

Joanna Howe: In my view, an Australian is someone who comes here—because everybody came here. Right?

 

Sam Bamford: Yep.

 

Sam Bamford: So—even the Brits that came here—they’re ethnically British. Like, your parents are ethnically British, right? Like—you talking about “ethnically Australian” — I’m not sure that there is such a concept, Scot.

 

Sam Bamford: Sam.

 

Joanna Howe: Sorry, Sam. [chuckling] I think I’m talking to Scot.

 

Sam Bamford: Yeah, yeah.

 

Joanna Howe: But I think that—because I’ve had a lot of these arguments with him, too.

 

But I think one of the issues is—like, and this might be why James is positing that this is a racist position for you to take—is because you’re happy to include all the people—like, you’ve got indigenous Australians in there—but it doesn’t actually make sense with your— If your definition is “the people that build the institutions that make the country what it is” —that wasn’t indigenous Australians. That was, …

 

Sam Bamford: Oh, no, no, no—it wasn’t. But we sort of took the land off them.

 

Joanna Howe: So I feel—yeah—so I feel like you’re including them in because you sort of feel like you have to.

 

But at the end of the day, your position says that if you have brown skin like me—because you came from India—it doesn’t matter that you’ve never been to India, you never lived there. It doesn’t matter that, …

 

Sam Bamford: Are you proud of your Indian heritage?

 

Joanna Howe: Well, I’ll be honest, Sam—I don’t even really know anything about it. Like, I don’t! The curries [chuckling] that I’ve learnt to cook have been from a cookbook. Right? And I’m a Catholic, a Christian, so it just feels to me that what your definition comes down to is essentially—it’s people with White skin, because, …

 

Sam Bamford: Indigenous people don’t have white skin!

 

Joanna Howe: Yeah, but I feel like you’re including them.

 

James Howe: Why would you include Indigenous people? It just makes no sense. Because they happen to be on the land.

 

Sam Bamford: Yeah, we had the land—sorry, they had the land. We took it off them and we built all the shit! And now they use all the shit that we built. I think they’re Australian.

 

[45:35]

 

 

James Howe: We [shouting] built all the shit! And she uses the shit that we built! But you don’t call her Australian!

 

Sam Bamford: Yeah, but she came here in the ’90s, …

 

James Howe: That’s just arbitrary! Making an arbitrary rule, …

 

Sam Bamford: With her family from India. Originated from India. I know they came from Britain or from England, but they originated from India. We are denying basic origin and biology here for saying someone isn’t what they are! Like, we are literally being like:

 

“That person didn’t originate from India. That person didn’t originate from Japan. That person didn’t originate, …”

 

James Howe: But you said Europeans count. So if a person did originate from Germany, then they’re just as Australian as a guy who came from England, even though it was British people who founded this country!

 

Sam Bamford: But where did they originate?

 

James Howe: You’re denying basic biology, too!

 

Sam Bamford: Where did they originate from?

 

James Howe: They originated from Germany, bro! It’s a different country. It’s literally not even the same island.

 

Sam Bamford: No, no.

 

James Howe: Britain over here, island, Germany over here. Mainland!

 

Sam Bamford: Yeah, yeah.

 

James Howe: Not the same country.

 

Sam Bamford: Anglo‑Celtic people actually started in Europe. You know that.

 

James Howe: Look, dude, we all started in Africa*, mate!

 

[* So the implied argument is that we are all the same, that racial differences are only superficial, etc., and therefore it doesn’t really matter who we bring into Australia as they can all become “Australian”. How would that work if Australia imported millions of pygmies from the Congo? Would they eventually act and behave as White Aussies now? It’s a ridiculous argument.]

 

Sam Bamford: I know. We all walked up, didn’t we?

 

James Howe: Yeah, we walked up and we, like, bred with fucking Neanderthals! You know what I mean? Literal fact—that happened. We had sex with Neanderthals. And so we all have a bit of that in us. So, but—like—

 

Sam Bamford: So this is—sorry, sorry— to jump in.

 

So this is my thing, right. And this is one of my arguments. I heard you say the other day, and I liked it. And I really thought about it:

 

“We’re all equal in the eyes of God.”

 

And I was like:

 

“I think he has a point.”

 

But from my point of view—let’s say Sudanese kids—they equate for maybe, what, 90% of machete crime? But they’re under 1% of the population. I would not want to live around a street full of Sudanese people, given the data.

 

James Howe: Yeah.

 

Joanna Howe: No shit! [chuckling]

 

James Howe: We are all on the same page.

 

Sam Bamford: So, like, for me, I’m not going to be like, … But with something coming out and saying:

 

“We’re all equal in the eyes of God.”

 

Well, I don’t know that all cultures are equal in this, …

 

James Howe: I couldn’t agree more.

 

Sam Bamford: In the same way.

 

James Howe: We’re all on the same page bro.

 

Sam Bamford: So how do we, …

 

James Howe: There’s a lot of White fuckwits as well!

 

Sam Bamford: 100%

 

James Howe: I would totally deport someone dickhead with pink hair and a septum piercing from Gertrude Street over a good Christian, nice person.

 

Sam Bamford: Where are you going to deport them to?

 

James Howe: Back to fucking England where they came from, mate!

 

Sam Bamford: Back to England.

 

James Howe: Because that’s the thing—you say:

 

“Oh, I’m ethnically Australian.”

 

No, bro, you’re ethnically British! Okay?

 

[James is showing an underlying animosity towards Whites here, i.e., a self-hating programming by mass media.]

 

Sam Bamford: No, no, no, no! I’m ethnically Australian because we formed the government in 1901.

 

James Howe: Okay, sure. So, but then, once again, you said that people who are ethnically Australian—then you wouldn’t give them that— But you would say people who are ethnically Japanese are fully Japanese, …

 

Sam Bamford: So you’re saying anyone now can be deported back to England?

 

Joanna Howe: No, no!

 

James Howe: If you gave me two people to deport, I would probably pick that one.

 

Joanna Howe: Yeah.

 

James Howe: So—

 

Joanna Howe: But I think there’s some fundamentals that we all agree on. Immigration system’s out of control! We should deport the, …

 

Sam Bamford: This is why we’re having this argument in the first place.

 

Joanna Howe: We should deport the criminals. Right? Like, anyone that’s breaking the law who’s a permanent visa holder and does have dual citizenship—send them home!

 

But then I think—I guess my issue, Sam—is the argument that you and Scott Challen are prosecuting. To me, it’s really, like, it is problematic. And I want to work with you because I like you and I feel like there’s so much that we can agree on, but I do think this is going down the wrong path because James can’t properly define yet what is Australian. But I think what he can do is say that your definition excludes someone like me from being Australian.

 

Sam Bamford: Okay, so if we, …

 

Joanna Howe: Should we talk about that? I’m not Australian in your eyes anymore?

 

Sam Bamford: Okay, but if we, yeah, you’re an Australian citizen.

 

So, if we move away from demographically what we are, do you think that moves into insecurity in Australia? Insecurity in our future?

 

Joanna Howe: Well, I think one of the problems we’ve had is that we’ve introduced immigrants at such a great scale that it’s been incredibly disruptive. There’s been no obligation to assimilate or integrate. No English‑language requirement. So there are so many, …

 

Sam Bamford: And why is that? Because we were the overwhelming majority in our own country. That’s why!

 

Joanna Howe: If you look at, …

 

Sam Bamford: So if we are the overwhelming majority in our own country when you came in, that’s fine. Integrated—fine. Now we’ve been slipping away from being the overwhelming majority in our own country. And I mean by overwhelming majority Anglo‑Celtic and—can I just say “Australian” when I, …

 

James Howe: Just say “White,” bro!

 

Sam Bamford: No! Anglo‑Celtic and or European, …

 

James Howe: Where the fuck are White people in the world? England, …

 

Sam Bamford: Stop trying to lure me in to be like:

 

“Can you just say White!”

 

Like, every single time, dude! Every single time! Anglo‑Celtic and or European Australians, indigenous Australians. How many times!

 

James Howe: You get annoyed at me for calling you on making euphemisms like the Left does. Just use the words, bro. I know you mean White. Okay?

 

Sam Bamford: Anglo‑Celtic and or Europe, … Anglo‑Celtic, … Anglo‑Celtic, … Angelo‑Celtic, … Anglo‑Celtic, … Anglo‑Celtic and or European, …

 

Thank you for letting me finish. Anglo, … I don’t even know where we’re at! Anglo‑Celtic and or European Australians. When we don’t become the overwhelming majority in our own country, then how are people meant to integrate? Because right now they’re just coming in. Anthony Albanese came out this morning, he’s like:

 

“I just want to say thanks to the Indian community for helping build modern Australia.”

 

Why isn’t he saying, “I just want to thank the Australian community”? Why is he referring to them as the Indian community?

 

Joanna Howe: Look, both of us, …

 

Sam Bamford: Because they originated from India?

 

Joanna Howe: Both of us don’t like Albo, so I don’t think we need— I would ask you—the Irish that came in the Global Financial Crisis. So in the mid‑ to late‑2000s, we had an influx of Irish people because their economy was tanking and they wanted to come here. They came as backpackers and then they switched to 457 visa holders. Then they became permanent residents.

 

So the same thing that Indians are doing now, the Irish were doing in huge numbers in the mid‑2000s. Should we send them home?

 

Sam Bamford: When were they coming?

 

Joanna Howe: Global Financial Crisis—between 2008–2016. We had a lot of White people from Ireland coming.

 

Sam Bamford: No, no, no, no, no! Well, what I’m saying—and what I’ve always been saying, true to my word—is these people aren’t assimilating. And we were the overwhelming majority in our own country. I think back then, in 2016, Anglo‑Celtic and/or European Australians were 76% of Australians.

 

Joanna Howe: What’s the policy prescription here, Sam? Is it, …

 

Sam Bamford: I don’t have a policy prescription*—why do I need a policy prescription?

 

[The policy prescription is to return to the original White Australia Policy and re-establish Australia as a super majority White country. Place the multi-culti, multi-racial destructive policy in the trash, where it should have always remained.]

 

Joanna Howe: Well, because I think language— I think that what you’re doing is really— It really concerns me as someone with brown skin.

 

Sam Bamford: I’m moving on and off this argument. After I’m having you on today, I’m literally moving on from it.

 

James Howe: You’re not going to be able to though!

 

Sam Bamford: Yeah, well, that’s fine. People can say what they’ve been saying for years now, about it.

 

James Howe: I don’t think you realise just how big a thing this is.

 

Sam Bamford: Okay.

 

James Howe: I don’t think it is something that you can move on from. I

 

Joanna Howe: Yeah! Because I think it’s a mess.

 

Sam Bamford: Oh, no! Oh no! I can move on. You can say that an Australian is this, and I can define that. And I can say:

 

“These people are great Australian citizens.”

 

James Howe: You can’t define what an Australian is!

 

Sam Bamford: Dude, you can’t define what it is! I’ve literally—I don’t know how many times you have come out and said, …

 

James Howe: But you can’t even acknowledge that you can’t!

 

Joanna Howe: Your definition doesn’t work!

 

James Howe: Okay, let me ask you some questions.

 

Sam Bamford: You can’t tell me my definition doesn’t work. I just defined it—it is defining something.

 

James Howe: Let’s see if you can.

 

Sam Bamford: I’ve just defined it.

 

James Howe: Let’s see if you can.

 

Sam Bamford: Let’s see if you can! You first. What’s an Australian? What’s an Australian? What’s an Australian?

 

James Howe: I don’t know!

 

Sam Bamford: There you go! So don’t come at me!

 

James Howe: He won’t let me answer my, …

 

Sam Bamford: Don’t come at me!

 

James Howe: He thinks he knows what an Australian is.

 

Joanna Howe: Let, …

 

Sam Bamford: I just told you what an Australian is, dude!

 

James Howe: No, I’m asking—

 

Sam Bamford: This is getting ridiculous!

 

James Howe: He won’t let me ask him questions!

 

Sam Bamford: This is getting ridiculous!

 

James Howe: You won’t let me test your thesis!

 

Joanna Howe: Can we please, …

 

Sam Bamford: Yeah go, test my thesis!

 

James Howe: Okay—but you’re going to shut up and let me actually ask the question?

 

Sam Bamford: Pot calling the kettle black, mate!

 

Joanna Howe: All right, let James, ask some questions.

 

Sam Bamford: No. Well—no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no! If you’re going to sit here and sit there and insult me in my own fucking house, mate! This is getting bullshit! Actual bullshit! You can’t just sit there and have a crack at me and tell me my thesis is bullshit, when you can’t even define it yourself, mate! You can’t even sit here and define an Australian! Yeah—well, this is ridiculous! Get out of my fucking house then, mate!

 

Joanna Howe: Come down!

 

Sam Bamford: You think this is ridiculous?

 

Joanna Howe: Hey! Hey! Hey!

 

Sam Bamford: You want to sit there and have a crack at me in, …

 

James Howe: Your:

 

“This is ridiculous!”

 

Is it? Okay, what’s an Australian?

 

Joanna Howe: Let’s ask him.

 

James Howe: You are making fun of me for not being able to define what an Australian is!

 

Sam Bamford: Because you keep going, …

 

James Howe: Because you’re too scared for me to even ask you a question!

 

Sam Bamford: Just ask it then! Ask it then!

 

James Howe: But you won’t shut up, so I can’t.

 

Sam Bamford: Go!

 

Joanna Howe: Ask the question!

 

James Howe: You’re being ridiculous!

 

Sam Bamford: You’re being ridiculous!

 

Joanna Howe: Shut up! Stop calling each other names! Oh my goodness!

 

Sam Bamford: You are being ridiculous!

 

Joanna Howe: I should [chuckling] be sitting in the middle. Ask him some fucking questions! He will answer them!

 

James Howe: All right.

 

Joanna Howe: Deep breaths.

 

James Howe: A German person who arrived 20 years ago and has Australian citizenship. Are they Australian?

 

Sam Bamford: They are from Germany?

 

Joanna Howe: Yeah.

 

Sam Bamford: Okay.

 

James Howe: Yes or no?

 

Sam Bamford: What?

 

James Howe: Are they Australian?

 

Joanna Howe: Have they come from Germany?

 

James Howe: Yeah, they’re from Germany.

 

Sam Bamford: Yes. Anglo‑Celtic and or Europeans. Have they assimilated into our society?

 

James Howe: Yes.

 

Sam Bamford: Yeah—well, then I’ll probably class them as a German‑Australian.

 

James Howe: Are they Australian?

 

Sam Bamford: German‑Australian.

 

James Howe: Is she, what’s she?

 

Sam Bamford: Indian‑Australian! Okay, she’s of Indian descent with Australian citizenship.

 

James Howe: Right—so they’re the same amount Australian. Fine.

 

Okay, so an English person who arrived 30 years ago, …

 

Sam Bamford: I can’t believe, … Like debating basic biology here.

 

James Howe: It’s not biology. It’s your definition of what an Australian is! Because you were just mocking me for not knowing. And I’m testing if you know. So let’s go.

 

All right—a British person who arrived 30 years ago and has fully assimilated—has an Australian accent. What are they?

 

Sam Bamford: British‑Australian.

 

[55:07]

 

 

James Howe: They’re not Australian.

 

Sam Bamford: Sorry?

 

James Howe: They’re not “full‑blown Australian.” Are they as Australian as you?

 

Sam Bamford: Well—no, because I was born here.

 

James Howe: So you have to be born here to be Australian?

 

Sam Bamford: No, no, no—I didn’t say that.

 

James Howe: Okay—so what is it? At which point do you become an Australian?

 

Sam Bamford: Well, let’s say your kids, right? Your kids are half Indian, half Australian. That guy that came over—explain him again.

 

James Howe: Say—like—someone from 30 years ago arrived in the country from England. Are they Australian?

 

Sam Bamford: I would probably say that is an English‑Australian. And their kids would be Australian.

 

James Howe: Okay—what if they came over when they were two? They’re 50 years old, they speak with a broad Aussie accent, they work on a cattle station. Are they Australian?

 

Sam Bamford: From where?

 

Joanna Howe: England.

 

Sam Bamford: Well, he was probably born in England.

 

James Howe: Yeah.

 

Sam Bamford: English‑Australian.

 

James Howe: So he’s not—so that’s what it is, just birth?

 

Sam Bamford: No, no—it’s not birth. It’s also origin.

 

James Howe: Okay, sure. So—all right—what about if she was born in Australia? Would she be Australian?

 

Sam Bamford: No, because she is from India!

 

Joanna Howe: What about my kids?

 

Sam Bamford: Your kids are Indian-Australian. What was our government built off? What was our government built off?

 

Joanna Howe: The Westminster tradition.

 

Sam Bamford: British law.

 

Joanna Howe: Yeah.

 

Sam Bamford: European law. Is India European? No.

 

James Howe: Okay—so what are my kids then? What are they?

 

Sam Bamford: They are half Indian, half Australian!

 

James Howe: So, half Indian, half Australian, Australian.

 

Sam Bamford: Half Indian, half Australian!

 

James Howe: Are they Australian?

 

Sam Bamford: They are Australian kids born here, but they are of half‑Indian descent; half‑Australian descent. How are you not getting this?

 

Joanna Howe: Because, …

 

James Howe: Because we’re just asking about what it is an Australian!

 

Sam Bamford: Like, honestly, honestly. When we have to use, …

 

James Howe: Everyone has their own category.

 

Sam Bamford: When we sit there, …

 

James Howe: Instead of just one category, now we’ve got a million!

 

Sam Bamford: When we sit there, …

 

James Howe: I don’t think your system’s any better than mine.

 

Sam Bamford: Ha?

 

James Howe: I don’t think your system’s any better than mine. You mocked me for not knowing what an Australian is. But it’s like, …

 

Sam Bamford: You would, … You literally came out and said:

 

“If there are 30 million Arabs, and they all just came here and adopted our way of life, then they’re just Australian.”

 

James Howe: No—if they adopted our way of life. I don’t think it’s likely that they would adopt our way.

 

Sam Bamford: And they had Sharia law!

 

James Howe: But I’m just going with your hypothesis.

 

Joanna Howe: No, because Sharia law is incompatible!

 

Sam Bamford: No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no! Australia is free from religious law. But you can practise your religious law! That’s in our, …

 

Joanna Howe: We’re built on Christian traditions. We acknowledged that at the start.

 

Sam Bamford: Yeah, I know, but that’s called freedom! If someone wants to come here and just practise their, … They do it all the time. Are you saying that we need to deport all Muslims?

 

James Howe: I don’t think that Islam is compatible with Australian values! I think it’s a fucking up religion! I think it’s barbaric and primitive and wicked. But we’re not talking about that—we’re talking about race!

 

Joanna Howe: And I think the thing is—can I say something now about this? So, I feel like—

 

So, first of all, Sam, I feel like this is— I feel like for the first time, people on our side of politics have an opportunity to take on the Left. And I feel—and I feel—like we’re winning. And—no, please, just let me finish for a second.

 

You boys have talked a lot. But I feel like we could do this—like, we could actually defeat them—and we need to! I work in a university system that is controlled by Leftists. The media is controlled by Leftists; the government’s controlled by Leftists. This is the first time in my lifetime that we’ve had this opportunity. And I feel like if we go down this path that you and Scotty are potentially trying to take us down—saying we need to be like the Japanese—when the Japanese are racist! *

 

I feel like that’s a dangerous path. Like, I don’t want, … My kids aren’t Indian, …

 

[* The Japanese are racist because being “racist” is the commonsense and healthy attitude that you look after your own kind first. Every organism on earth does this naturally, except (((brainwashed))) Whites.]

 

Sam Bamford: We’ve never said that, though.

 

Joanna Howe: My kids aren’t Indian‑Australian.

 

James Howe: Scott says that!

 

Joanna Howe: Yes—Scott said it to me in my interview.

 

Sam Bamford: Like what?

 

Joanna Howe: Like:

 

“The Japanese is a beautiful thing.”

 

Yeah—he said that.

 

James Howe: That we should do what the Japanese do.

 

Sam Bamford: Yeah, but—like—do you guys disagree that Australians should be the overwhelming majority in their own country? And then, by definition—not using—because you don’t want to do it, but by my definition?

 

James Howe: No. Look, bro—can I just say something? I understand your instinct. Just let me finish on this.

 

Sam Bamford: Yeah, I’m over the yelling.

 

James Howe: Okay, sweet—me too. I understand your instinct, okay? Sometimes I feel also fond of White people and—whatever you want to call it, …

 

Sam Bamford: Anglo culture.

 

James Howe: Yep, fine. And I don’t necessarily like seeing my own race disappear either.*

 

[* The (((agenda))) is to “disappear” the White race, yet he is really not concerned about this? He is acting as a race traitor unwittingly.]

 

But can I just make a point here? I don’t think that that part of me is the best part of me. Now—I don’t want to be a fucking Leftist, okay, and be like:

 

“Well, everybody’s an Australian.”

 

That’s not the answer either, okay?

 

But I don’t think that racist part* of myself is my best part, okay?

 

[* The (((brainwashing))) has created a contradiction here, He would be all for defending his “multiracial” family to the end, but doesn’t want to defend his actual racial heritage of being White. He’s been guilt tripped into hating being White by anti-Whites.]

 

It’s a little bit like—I have temptations to all sorts of bad ways of thinking and behaving—what I believe at heart. Now, the reason why we have a great country is not because of Whiteness or Anglo‑Celticness or Europeanness or anything like that.

 

The reason why we have a great country is because of Christianity! Christianity! It just is, okay? You won’t see freedom having arisen anywhere else in the world except for in the West, okay? European countries—you’re right—White countries—were Christian, okay? And they created the best legal system in the world, the greatest freedoms for people, the greatest conditions to live, the most prosperous, richest, scientifically advanced countries, okay? But not because they’re White—because they’re Christian! *

 

[* This is nonsense! Africans can become Christian and they won’t create Western civilisation in ten thousand years.]

 

Now, if we turn our back on those fundamental Christian ideas of all men being created equal* in the image and likeness of God, we don’t end up with what we had.

 

[* All men are not created “equal”. In every aspect of being human we all have different abilities as individuals and as races. Are Pygmies as good as Zulus in the high jump? This is just the physical realm, but it applies to all other realms as well.]

 

We end up with something more similar to the rest of the barbaric world, okay? The barbaric non‑Christian world: Genital mutilation, human sacrifice, cousin marriage, …

 

Joanna Howe: Widow burning, …

 

James Howe: Honour killings, slavery. This disgusting shit! All of these things that we have gradually taken out of our culture over many, many, many thousands of years. These things existed in Ireland, too. It’s not just isolated to the brown world or black world either. You know, we have transcended that because of Christianity! But the fundamental idea of Christianity is that all human beings are equally created in the image and likeness of God! You can’t turn your back on that and still hope to get back to what we had here in Australia. You end up in a dark place. That’s my fundamental problem with it.*

 

[* His fundamental problem is his religious beliefs have blinded him to hard racial differences that science observes. Christianity can be interpreted every which way to Sunday and he is promoting the “hate your own people” kind.]

 

[1:01:34]

 

 

Sam Bamford: So—but this is my counter-argument to it. Like, sometimes that gets weaponised against you literally just said again, like:

 

“We’re all equal in the eyes of God.”

 

But you wouldn’t want to live around a street of Sudanese people because they’re so, …

 

Joanna Howe: Of course not! Like—not everybody has a right—like, borders matter.

 

Sam Bamford: So—yeah. So the right to be here—what’s—

 

James Howe: But I wouldn’t like to live near a work fuckwit, who is White and is sending her death threats either—

 

Joanna Howe: Yeah—because I get that a lot of the time—and that’s—

 

Sam Bamford: I get the same thing—yeah. I get the exact same thing. And I don’t want to live around these people as well.

 

Joanna Howe: But see—I think between 1901 and 1975, Whiteness was like a proxy for Christianity, because the people that were coming from White parts of the world were Christian people—because those countries were Christian. They brought those ethics and morality—that system of morals—here. We built our value system on that.

 

Now, if you were to just say:

 

“Let’s open the world up to the White people, like to the Europeans.”

 

Like you saw at the opening ceremony of the Olympics—we’re gonna get total Leftists if we make it like a White thing again. This is more about values—like Muslims are incompatible with the Australian way of life because they believe that men and women aren’t equal. They believe in Sharia law.

 

Sam Bamford: Do you think we should deport them all then?

 

Joanna Howe: I think that what happens when someone’s a citizen it’s harder to get rid of them, right?

 

Sam Bamford: But do you think we should deport all Muslims?

 

Joanna Howe: But I don’t think we should be having—

 

Sam Bamford: In the perfect world, do you think we should deport them?

 

Joanna Howe: Because it’s incompatible—now, if they’re a bad Muslim but a good person—like a good Aussie—because they don’t actually subscribe to the teachings of Islam— And remember, Muhammad was a paedophile!

 

So if they don’t subscribe to that—so they’re a bad Muslim—then we probably could keep them because they’re not really Muslim after all. Right?

 

Sam Bamford: Yeah, but where do you draw the line?

 

Joanna Howe: I think, at the end of the day, one thing we could do straight away is to say we’re not going to have immigration from Islam—like, people that are Islamic. We’ll have a values‑based test. There should be an English‑language test. You should have to speak English if you live in this country.

 

Sam Bamford: Yeah—100%. I think we all agree on that. But what about, …

 

Joanna Howe: I think the point is—like—we can’t go back to the White Australia Policy, because, I know that’s not what you’re saying, Sam—sorry, please listen.

 

Sam Bamford: Like —no, no—I’m not saying to debate a White Australia Policy. I’m not saying that! I’m not saying the White Australia Policy, …

 

James Howe: You get so mad when people say:

 

“Oh, they’re misrepresenting me!”

 

But it’s like, what do you expect us to take? Like, what do you expect to take from it? Like, you say, “In order to be an Australian, you have to be White.” Now you use the word “Anglo-Celtic”.

 

Once again, you get so offended by that—

 

Sam Bamford: No, because I haven’t said that!

 

James Howe: Yes you have!

 

Sam Bamford: You’re putting words in my mouth. Anglo‑Celtic and/or European descent with indigenous brothers and sisters!

 

James Howe: White! It’s euphemism, bro!

 

Sam Bamford: Oh dude, don’t, …

 

James Howe: I never respected the Left’s euphemisms either!

 

Sam Bamford: Don’t worry about it bro! Don’t fucking worry!

 

Joanna Howe: How com we are back here again!

 

Sam Bamford: You can’t even define it! You can’t even define it, bro!

 

James Howe: Neither can you!

 

Sam Bamford: I just did—30 fucking times mate! 30 times! What’s the point? No, no, no, no! You’re trying to just sit here and get me to admit a word of being “White”! It’s like, …

 

Joanna Howe: No, Sam—are you, …

 

Sam Bamford: No, you are, … You come in here—you come in here with a fucking plan!

 

Joanna Howe: No, no, no, no, no!

 

Sam Bamford: And to try and set me up!

 

Joanna Howe: No!

 

Sam Bamford: You have! You fucking have!

 

James Howe: Okay—if that’s what you think—

 

Sam Bamford: I fucking think that, mate! That’s 100% what I think!

 

Joanna Howe: Sam!

 

And I think you can’t define shit! Just like you couldn’t even define what a woman is! If you can’t define something—you can’t defend it!

 

James Howe: You think I can’t define what a woman is?

 

Sam Bamford: Yeah! Go tell me!

 

“XXY chromosome. Adult human female.”

 

James Howe: Adult human female!

 

Sam Bamford: Well done!

 

James Howe: Silly sausage. Why are you being so aggressive?

 

Sam Bamford: What is an Australian! What is an Australian?

 

[1:05:05]

 

 

Joanna Howe: Could we agree? Could we agree? No! No. Hey! Let’s try and work, … Can we try and work this out now? Can we try and work this out? Okay—shut up, you two! Okay, so, Sam, …

 

Sam Bamford: Yes.

 

Joanna Howe: Let’s just answer this: Am I an Australian?

 

Sam Bamford: No! You are an Australian citizen!

 

Joanna Howe: I think that this is a problem—that you’re creating a demarcation between—

 

Sam Bamford: It’s not!

 

Joanna Howe: It is!

 

James Howe: Just have the moral courage to just admit it, bro! Like, what you’re talking about is racial discrimination.

 

Sam Bamford: No, it’s not!

 

James Howe: Yes it is! Like, your definition of an Australian is broken down on skin colour. All right— Is Denzel Washington an American?

 

Sam Bamford: Huh?

 

James Howe: Is Denzel Washington an American?

 

Sam Bamford: He’s an African‑American. I’m pretty sure he calls himself an African‑American, bro.

 

James Howe: So is he an American?

 

Okay—if you had only a yes or no answer—you’re only allowed to say “yes” or “no” and I asked you the question, is DenzelWashington, …

 

Sam Bamford: No, no, no, no! You can’t just throw that onto me. You can’t.

 

James Howe: Yes, you can—because you keep on throwing things onto me and saying:

 

“What’s an Australian? What’s an Australian?”

 

Sam Bamford: There’s no point going, … We’re just going to keep going around in circles. If you can’t define it, I can’t defend it!

 

James Howe: I reject that! But anyway, I don’t think you can—

 

Sam Bamford: You didn’t even define it.

 

James Howe: Neither did you.

 

Joanna Howe: It seems like there’s a hierarchy here.

 

Sam Bamford: Can we just get some common ground here? Do we want Australians to be the overwhelming majority in their own country? And when you came in here, you found it easier to assimilate— If there were so many people in here that were just of different demographics—from the age of, let’s say, from 2016 to now—they are struggling to integrate into our society because they are coming in their groups.

 

James Howe: No, I agree. So I agree on all of that. The problem is we keep on crossing lines because we’re not allowed to use words like “race”.

 

Sam Bamford: Because if you can’t define something, you can’t defend it.

 

Now, I have defined an Australian multiple times on this podcast.

 

James Howe: You’ve done a shitty job on it!

 

Joanna Howe: If you’ve got like, …

 

Sam Bamford: Cool! That’s your opinion!

 

James Howe: You haven’t provided a clear definition of what and Australian is!

 

Sam Bamford: That is your opinion! I have written this so many times on the internet, and I’ve said it so many times here. And, like if, …

 

James Howe: Yeah, but your definition doesn’t make sense! * It is low resolution!

 

[Sam has defined it multiple times as people of “Anglo‑Celtic and or European descent” and as a special category “indigenous (aka, abos) peoples”. Now this can only mean “Whites” and abos, as James understands it, but for his own reasons Sam doesn’t want to say “Whites”!]

 

Sam Bamford: No, but it does to me! It makes sense to me. I don’t have to tell you any further than my definition. I’ve told you that, bro, so many times!

 

And it’s like you’re just trying to lure me, …

 

James Howe: One more time, …

 

Sam Bamford: No, no, no!

 

Joanna Howe: If there’s 200 people, …

 

Sam Bamford: No. Like, what’s the point in going forward? That is my clear definition. And I am moving on from it after this. It’s fine—I can move on from it. People clip it up everywhere and I’ll just do what I normally do. I’ll sit there this afternoon and I’ll talk about how Phil Thompson—one of my good mates is in the army. They’re getting all the veteran budget ripped away from us and giving it all to immigrants. I’ll go back to talking about that!

 

And then this issue will just move on. Like, I’m done with this issue after today. I came out and said something a couple of weeks ago. We’ve debated it. It’s had good debate. And okay, now we’re just gonna go back to attacking the Left. That’s what I’m gonna do. And you’re gonna sit there saying, “It’s gonna stay with me.” All right. I don’t care!

 

Joanna Howe: I actually think that there is a moral imperative on us to find the areas of agreement and to also try and find the truth, right? Like, I don’t think any of us could be so arrogant as to say that we are the 100% holders of all the truth on this.

 

Sam Bamford: Of course not. Everyone is wrong all the time.

 

Joanna Howe: I think the problem I have with your position is that it allows anyone who’s come from Europe or Britain or who is indigenous to get the full word “Australian.” Like, on their Instagram bio, they can write, “I am Australian,” but someone like me—I write, “I am Indian‑Australian.” Or my five children that were born here “we are Indian‑Australian.” You know—I feel like this is carving things out.

 

Sam Bamford: That’s basically what I’m saying.

 

Joanna Howe: I know that’s what you’re saying, and, …

 

Sam Bamford: I’m not going to change that!

 

Joanna Howe: And I think it creates a hierarchy and it also, …

 

Sam Bamford: I don’t think it creates a hierarchy.

 

Joanna Howe: Well, it does!

 

Sam Bamford: How does it create a hierarchy*?

 

[* It identifies two types of “Australians”, the Anglo-Celtic/White type and the hyphenated “Australian”. A “hierarchy” implies a higher and lower ranking which for those on the lower ranking could be disagreeable, but reality is full of hierarchies, just like humans are not all equal in abilities, etc.]

 

Joanna Howe: Like, as a little girl growing up—and I have to turn around to my daughter and say:

 

“Look, you were born here. This is the only country you’ve ever known. You’ve never been to India. You’ve never been to any other country. You only ever speak English with an Australian accent. And if you go to the Olympics—which my older little daughter, that’s her dream—you are representing Australia. But actually, when it comes down to it, your mum has brown skin and was born in India, so you are an Indian‑Australian*.”

 

[* And what is wrong with that? The reality is the girl is half White and half Indian. A simple racial fact, along with all its implications. Joanna wants to have her curry and eat it too!]

 

Sam Bamford: Are you not proud of that?

 

Joanna Howe: I have no national pride in India! *

 

[* I could imagine some Indians calling Joanna a “self-hating Indian”, whilst James has aspects of being a “self-hating White”! Maybe that’s why they are a pair?]

 

James Howe: I wouldn’t be proud of that at all! If our kids started calling themselves Indian‑Australians, I swear they’d be grounded!

 

Joanna Howe: Yeah!

 

James Howe: That’s bullshit! Because they’re not, …

 

Sam Bamford: So they’ve originated from there.

 

Joanna Howe: It’s like, I think that’s—

 

James Howe: They’ve originated from here, mate! Like, this is where they were born! *

 

[* That old saying, “Being born in a stable doesn’t necessarily make you a horse”.]

 

Sam Bamford: But their mum originated from there. Her parents are Indian.

 

James Howe: Her mum was born in England!

 

Sam Bamford: Yeah. Dude, we’re just going to keep going around in circles like this because I’m gonna have my opinions and you’re gonna have your opinion.

 

Joanna Howe: Sam!

 

Sam Bamford: At the end of the day, that’s all we’re gonna have. Dude, I’m not changing that.

 

James Howe: But I don’t mind you challenging my opinions. Why do you get so tense when I challenge yours? Like, I’m just trying to debate this. You don’t have to get so, like angry about it

 

Joanna Howe: Because we like you Sam. I think there are things we can usefully do together as well, Sam.

 

[1:10:05]

 

 

Sam Bamford: Like, of course there is. But I’m gonna have my opinions and you’re going to have yours.

 

Joanna Howe: But—okay, well, let me tell you—

 

Sam Bamford: And that’s where we’re going to sit.

 

James Howe: Sometimes you change those opinions—like, you might change my opinion on something. Like, you would totally be successful in that, I imagine, in many fields. Okay? And I would like to think that you could be open to having your opinion challenged on something, too—because isn’t that how we grow and move forward as people?

 

Sam Bamford: Yeah, it has been. And after this conversation, my opinion still is that Joanna is a great Australian citizen, but she’s not what I define as an ethnic Australian.

 

James Howe: Okay, fine, sure! But I think it’s an incoherent position.

 

Sam Bamford: Okay, cool. Yeah, I respect your position to have that position on my position.

 

James Howe: Okay, sweet.

 

Joanna Howe: And so when we say—like, I know you’re not Scotty—but he’s put up recently:

 

“Millions must go—deport them!”

 

Sam Bamford: Oh, yeah!

 

Joanna Howe: Who are you guys talking about?

 

Sam Bamford: So—anyone that hasn’t assimilated into our, … So I challenged you, Jullian Hill, to a debate the other day, and I said that anyone that hasn’t assimilated into our society.

 

So, people that haven’t assimilated into our society would be a whole bunch of Indians living in one house together, right? Sometimes there are 20 of them living in one house. It’s literally happening around the street of mine—I drive past every single day. Islamic extremists don’t assimilate into our society. Postcode machete wars—kids running around with machetes—that’s not assimilating to our society. And there’s probably a whole bunch of other—what’s the Iraqi dudes having the wars with the smoking shops over in Melbourne—that’s not assimilating. So we could literally get millions of people out of this country that have not assimilated. If you’re talking about deporting Muslims, there’s 3 million people there. So that means millions, …

 

Joanna Howe: To me that sounds like you’re deporting based on values. But they all happen to be … [chuckling] As in [brown?] like, that’s sort of what it sounds like.

 

Sam Bamford: Well—yes, so that’s, … Then it’s like—yeah!

 

Joanna Howe: Yeah, but you’re deporting based on values. I agree, there should be a values test to come into the country.

 

Sam Bamford: So you’re saying that, then, there are different values with White people to brown people.

 

Joanna Howe: No, I’m not—but I’m just saying that I think it’s interesting because, … Okay, so one side of the argument is:

 

“Deport all the people that don’t support our values. They all happen to be brown. Let’s get rid of them.”

 

Sam Bamford: I would deport a whole bunch of people, …

 

Joanna Howe: In terms of bringing people in, …

 

Sam Bamford: If they were bikies—like, they’ve been deported. They can be deported back to New Zealand.

 

Joanna Howe: So then, in terms of bringing people in, where are we pulling from?

 

Sam Bamford: Well, going forward?

 

Joanna Howe: Yeah.

 

Sam Bamford: Back to our Anglo‑Celtic and/or European origins.

 

Joanna Howe: So you’re just bringing in White liberals?

 

Sam Bamford: Europeans.

 

Joanna Howe: Leftists. But, yeah [chuckling] think about France’s opening ceremony. Think about Europe. Like, it’s really messed up!

 

Sam Bamford: Okay. Would you rather deport from, let’s say, the Middle East, where there’s, …

 

Joanna Howe: Well, I’d rather have a Christian from Fiji than—I would like a Leftist from France.

 

Sam Bamford: I would rather just shut the gate on immigration completely and work on our birth rate.

 

James Howe: No, but we’re not going to do that. We’re talking about, if you did., …

 

Sam Bamford: Why not?

 

James Howe: Okay, so you want to have just zero immigration?

 

Sam Bamford: Yeah. Yep!

 

James Howe: Okay, fine. So—well—and then we—like—

 

Sam Bamford: And if it—

 

James Howe: So then why are we even having a conversation about who you bring in?

 

Sam Bamford: Exactly right.

 

James Howe: Because you said you would bring people in from Europe. So we can only really refer to what you said.

 

Joanna Howe: Yeah, but I think, …

 

James Howe: So we’re saying if there were a choice between a Leftist from France, or a Christian from Fiji or whatever.

 

Sam Bamford: If Australians are the overwhelming majority in their country, I would take either.

 

Joanna Howe: But I think what I would define as an Australian, …

 

Sam Bamford: Do you sort of understand what I’m saying? Like, when we’re the overwhelming majority, we can be very picky on who we want to come in this country. We can get the absolute best! And I’ve said before—you know, Ronald, the guy from SBS?

 

Joanna Howe: Yes.

 

Sam Bamford: The perfect immigrant. That has come here, assimilated to our society. And he speaks Australian. He is Australian, but he still originated from India, and he comes here—assimilates perfectly. But I said the fantastic thing about Ronald was he came in under the right circumstances, with Australia, when Australians were the overwhelming majority. The problem is, with people coming in at the moment—we aren’t the overwhelming majority in our own country. We’re being, …

 

Joanna Howe: We don’t even have an expectation that you assimilate. We don’t even have an expectation that you learn the language.

 

Sam Bamford: Exactly right!

 

Joanna Howe: We don’t have an expectation that you move beyond your little ghetto of the people that are from the country that you’re originally from.

 

Sam Bamford: And that’s the problem!

 

Joanna Howe: We can agree with all of that, …

 

Sam Bamford: Because we were the overwhelming majority a long time ago. But we are not that anymore.

 

Joanna Howe: I think we can agree with all of that. I think the point where we depart is when you label me as not really an “Australian” because I’m an Australian citizen, but I’m not Australian like you.

 

Sam Bamford: Correct.

 

Joanna Howe: I’m gonna be honest with you, Sam. As a little girl growing up, like, that’s what my daughter hears. And little girls in the country hear. That’s really fkd! Like, really! That is, I, …

 

Sam Bamford: I’m sorrys But my position ain’t gonna change on that.

 

Joanna Howe: No, but it’s just like, …

 

Sam Bamford: But you’re just denying basically, …

 

Joanna Howe: So I can have the same accent as you. I can contribute more than you fucking do! I can, all of it!

 

Sam Bamford: 100 percent.

 

Joanna Howe: I can have more children than you do! So I’m helping the country grow and you’re not! You’ve got one, I’ve got five. [chuckling]

 

Sam Bamford: I’m hoping to have more.

 

Joanna Howe: Yeah. All of that, I can even marry a White guy. But I’m never gonna be “Australian-Australian” like you! I’m always gonna be “Indian‑Australian,” which is something less than “Australian-Australian”.

 

Sam Bamford: It’s not something “less”.*

 

Joanna Howe: Well, what is it then!

 

[* Joanna won’t let the issue go because she is resentful that despite being a model Indian-Australian, a poster-child for assimilation, she’s not accepted as an ethnic Australian. Also what does that imply about Indians who haven’t really assimilated? She’s trying to brow-beat Sam into accepting an untruth to promote her own ethnic group interests.]

 

[1:15:00]

 

 

Sam Bamford: We just said that “we’re all equal in the eyes of God”. There’s nothing “less”. You’re just from a different background than mine! But my background were the ones that built the nation!

 

Joanna Howe: Okay. So I can acknowledge that—like, I know that. I know that’s the difference!

 

Sam Bamford: And then that’s the part where we look at each other—where it’s like:

 

“Okay, well, then maybe I am Australian, you’re Australian too.”

 

That’s not the part that I’m talking about though.

 

James Howe: Sam, what you’re saying is not even true. Because White people didn’t build Australia, British people built Australia! Germans didn’t do shit!

 

Sam Bamford: Anglo‑Celtics! People from Europe.

 

James Howe: You said that.

 

Sam Bamford: Yeah.

 

James Howe: You’re just, … It’s White, man! What you’re talking about is White! She’s brown. And it’s really that simple. It’s just, like—it’s so skin deep. It’s no different to the Leftist definition of “woman”:

 

“Oh, does she look like a woman? Has she got a dick cut off? Like, does she have long hair? Maybe she’s had a surgery to get rid of the Adam’s apple, so she [it] just looks like a woman.”

 

Sam Bamford: Do you think I’m a racist?

 

James Howe: Yes—but I’m not judging you for it.

 

Sam Bamford: Yeah, okay.

 

James Howe: Like, you can be a racist. Like, I’ve got lots of flaws, too!

 

Sam Bamford: Okay, so do you—

 

So do you think, …

 

James Howe: Dude, discriminating* against people on account of their race is the definition of racism!

 

[* Discrimination is a positive and essential quality to help you succeed, prosper and live a long life as it protects you from making bad choices. You discriminate against individuals and also the group that individuals belong to. Unfortunately generations of propaganda and brainwashing has turned Whites to lose their commonsense about these matters, especially with race differences. James and Joanne have both drank the Kool-Aid and need to deprogram themselves from these really stupid ideas.]

 

Sam Bamford: Then I would say, sit down with her one‑on‑one and actually change my, … You actually changed my opinion on abortion.

 

James Howe: I think you would So, like—I’m not saying you’re a bad person.

 

Yes, but I’m not saying you’re a bad* person!

 

[* Well of course he is saying he is a bad person, unless he changes his views and becomes anti-racist, which in practice means being anti-White, as “racism” is always bad and evil except when it applies to Whites!]

 

Sam Bamford: Okay—then if people think I’m a racist because I’ve got that opinion, then that’s fine! People have been calling me a racist for a long time! I don’t care!

 

James Howe: Racism these days is seen as the capital crime. I don’t see it that way. I just think everyone’s a little bit racist, …

 

Sam Bamford: The Left have been using “racism and bigotry” from, like, for the last decade—on us.

 

James Howe: Exactly! But not everything that the Left says is wrong, okay? There is such a thing as racism. It does exist! What’s your definition of racism?

 

Sam Bamford: Judging someone upon the difference of their skin.

 

Joanna Howe: Yeah.

 

Sam Bamford: But I’m not judging you upon the difference of your skin.

 

James Howe: You are judging her as being not Australian because of her skin colour.

 

Sam Bamford: I’m judging you upon where you came from. That’s not judging you upon your colour of your skin! It’s judging you from your origin.

 

Joanna Howe: But it just so happens that the people that you allow to be Australian are the people from the White parts of the world.

 

Sam Bamford: So—who are the people that built this country? Anglo‑Celtic—British!

 

Joanna Howe: But, you know, …

 

James Howe: British people.

 

Sam Bamford: Okay, so the British people came here, they settled in 1901. They formed Australia—the Australian government. And they gave us our identity of who we are and what we look like. It’s like—guys—how we are moving away from that?

 

James Howe: Because it looks like that is irrelevant. That’s the same as the “what is a woman” question. If it looks like a woman, then it’s a woman. But that’s bullshit, mate! Like, if I present to you a guy from the Czech Republic—both of his parents are from the Czech Republic—he’s, like, third generation living here in Australia—hasn’t got any British blood in him at all—you’ll say that’s an Australian based on what he looks like.

 

But it’s skin deep, mate! It’s the same as the Leftist definition of a woman! *

 

[* Race is a scientific biological reality that is to the bone genetically, while the Leftist definition of a woman is non-biological nonsense, so they should not be compared.]

 

Sam Bamford: Okay, like I said before, if we had a whole bunch of people come here from India, and then they were just living here and assimilating, then they’re all just Australian, like that.

 

James Howe: But why do you have to go with “a whole bunch”? Why don’t we just go one person?

 

Sam Bamford: Because that means we were the overwhelming majority in our own country. If they come here, that’s fine.

 

But we need to ensure that we are defining what that massive bunch is—what that overall majority is if we can’t define that overall majority, then what are we? Are we Australia? Are we not?

 

James Howe: Well, look, …

 

Sam Bamford: Like, sorry, jumping in. This is the argument.

 

James Howe: Look, let me just, … Can I just say something just briefly? So “a whole bunch”, kind of confuses the matter.

 

Sam Bamford: Overwhelming majority!

 

James Howe: Yeah. But we’re not talking about that. We’re talking purely, … You could just say “one person.” Because, really, when we’re talking about her, it’s just one person. She’s not like your massive influx of Indians. She speaks with an Australian accent. She’s got an Australian name, …

 

Sam Bamford: Yeah, okay, whatever.

 

James Howe: She’s married to an Australian. But in the Northern Territory, there’s a lot of people who are Chinese. They’ve been there for many generations. A lot of them are half‑Aboriginal, but a lot of them are still just Chinese‑looking people. But they speak with broad Aussie accents. They all work on cattle stations.

 

Sam Bamford: So they’re half Aboriginal, half Chinese.

 

James Howe: Not all. But some are half, …

 

Sam Bamford: But let’s say they descend from, let’s just say Chinese, half Aboriginal.

 

James Howe: Well, let’s just say there are also a few who have no Aboriginal because they’re just …

 

Sam Bamford: You’ve literally just said they have, …

 

Joanna Howe: Some are.

 

Sam Bamford: You literally said Chinese people, …

 

James Howe: Just let me finish. Okay—so a bunch of— Yeah, exactly! So a bunch of what you would refer to as Chinese people—but I would call them Australians. Would you call them Australians?

 

Sam Bamford: I would call them half‑Chinese, half‑indigenous Australians! [getting exasperated by James’ persistence]

 

James Howe: No. Okay, but would you, like because, …

 

Sam Bamford: That’s where they came from, bro!

 

James Howe: But they’ve been living up there for generations, right? And I’m going to ask you now. You’re the expert on how to define an Australian. You give me a yes or no answer. Are they Australian?

 

Sam Bamford: Half Australian, half Chinese!

 

James Howe: No. If you have a really good definition—which you claim to have—you should be able to answer yes or no.

 

Sam Bamford: They fall into that “half Australian” category. Because I say Australian, …

 

James Howe: A man who transitions into a woman, is he a woman?

 

Sam Bamford: Of course not!

 

James Howe: See, there’s a clear “no.” Okay—is this person an Australian?

 

Sam Bamford: Half Australian, half Chinese!

 

[1:20:00]

 

 

James Howe: No—you don’t have a good definition. You think you’ve got a great definition, …

 

Sam Bamford: Half, … Oh, no, no, no! Because, a little bit different, …

 

James Howe: Yeah, it’s no different.

 

Sam Bamford: Yes, it is.

 

James Howe: Same fucking thing! It’s just as woke as the Left. I’m sorry.

 

Sam Bamford: Okay—that’s cool! Because that’s fine. And you can have your opinion.

 

James Howe: You insist on euphemisms. You can’t give clear answers. You’ve got a garbled definition and you say that I’ve got no idea.

 

Sam Bamford: Dude, you can’t even define an Australian. So!

 

James Howe: Neither can you! [chuckling] I mean—that’s why I ask you a yes or no question. You’ve got no answer!

 

Sam Bamford: So many times I have defined “Australian” and I’m just not, … Okay, whatever, dude! That’s your opinion! Like, so many times, … And you just keep having these low shots. It’s like, all right—whatever!

 

James Howe: I don’t think it’s low shots.

 

Sam Bamford: Yes, it is.

 

James Howe: No—just because it makes you feel uncomfortable, it doesn’t make it a low shot.

 

Sam Bamford: Oh, no, no! 100%. So many times you’ve done that.

 

James Howe: No—disagree.

 

Sam Bamford: Okay, well, then I disagree that you can’t even define what an is a woman, what an Australian is.

 

Joanna Howe: I [chuckling] wonder what people are going to make of this in the comments!

 

Sam Bamford: Well—yeah, but that’s the thing, though, right? I’m sure James is such a fantastic man—I’m sure he is! Yeah, you told me!

 

Joanna Howe: I like both of you, but I think I just, …

 

James Howe: I don’t think you’re a bad person in any way, shape or form. I just think you’re wrong on this issue. That’s all!

 

Sam Bamford: Yeah, that’s fine! And I think you’re wrong on this issue.

 

James Howe: And that’s fine—you’re entitled to your opinion. But I’m not going to just sit here and not argue about it—like, we’re going to debate it.

 

Sam Bamford: Of course we are. That’s what we’ve been doing.

 

James Howe: Try and get to the truth!

 

Sam Bamford: Yeah, well, and my truth is my truth!

 

Joanna Howe: No! Don’t say that. Because there’s objective truth. There’s objective truth!

 

Sam Bamford: No, no, no, no, no! Yeah, okay— There might be objective truth, but you’re not going to change me on this is my position.

 

Joanna Howe: Were you against The Voice to Parliament?

 

Sam Bamford: What’s that?

 

Joanna Howe: Were you against The Voice to Parliament?

 

Sam Bamford: No. So during this whole time, I didn’t even care about it. I wasn’t even really, …

 

Joanna Howe: But the concept of having an indigenous body that speaks into the Parliament—are you against that?

 

Sam Bamford: Yeah. No, they can’t have that! And the reason we can’t have that is because we are Australian. We’re all one people. We are Anglo‑Celtic and or Europe‑descent Indigenous Australians. There shouldn’t be one of that—just representing a voice of Parliament—if what I categorise, an Australian, or Australian—so why should there be one of that category?

 

Joanna Howe: So I think that your definition—just like The Voice—divided Australians based on race. I think your definition divides Australians based on race and excludes people like me.

 

And so I think that’s the problem we have. We have a disagreement around this, but I think we can still work together. I think we can still, …

 

Sam Bamford: Of course we can. We need to defeat the Left.

 

Joanna Howe: I agree. And I think we have to model to the Left because we’re not able to do this in Australia anymore. We’re not able to fight and disagree and yell at each other and then still work together to defeat evil. Okay?

 

And so I think my problem with your position is—it is essentially the same problem of The Voice. It divides Australians based on race.*

 

[Joanna is desperate to be included in the “full Australian” club, and uses the argument that it “divides”. But even if she was admitted as an honorary full Aussie there would still be spectrum of newer and less assimilated arrivals who she herself wouldn’t call full Australians! So her “divided” argument only applies when she is excluded! So she’s only against the hierarchy when it doesn’t put her at the top.]

 

Sam Bamford: But it doesn’t! No, because I don’t want you deported. You’re about to bring in more Australian kids into this country than anyone else.

 

Joanna Howe: I know that, Sam, but I think that by calling me, … I can acknowledge that my heritage is from India and Portugal. I can acknowledge that my skin colour is brown.

 

But in my book, I’m just as Australian as you! And I think your failure to say that I am, to me it’s problematic*. But we can still be friends and work together.

 

[Yeah, it’s a problem for her, but it isn’t one for Sam!]

 

Sam Bamford: Yeah. And this is my point—coming from a military background—if we cannot clearly define, if we don’t have the clear rules of engagement before I go out and kill some Taliban dudes—about who we can shoot, who we can’t shoot, and what we need to do if we get ambushed, what we need to do if someone tries to come and kill us, what are our orders of opening fire, what are our rules of engagement. If we don’t understand and clearly define what we can defend, then what’s the point?

 

Joanna Howe: Yeah.

 

Sam Bamford: If I can’t define anything to do with Australia or an Australian, then we can’t defend that. And that’s my position!

 

Joanna Howe: And I get it! I get it! Like, I get that’s important. I think my definition of Australian would be—again, I haven’t thought about it to the extent that perhaps other people have. But it’d be broader than yours. So it’d be something to do with being, potentially being, born here, plus citizenship, plus integration.

 

Sam Bamford: Well, this is something that can work with joanna Howe: Those are three attributes that as in, I wasn’t born here, but I immigrated here, but I am integrated and assimilated. I think there have to be some sort of three circles, and they coalesce onto that. And my children—born here; committed to here; represent here; assimilated to here. You know—I think we have to allow space and place for people like me in this definition. Otherwise, I think we end down a murky pathway that doesn’t quite work.

 

Sam Bamford: Because you could admit your heritage is coming from there. So maybe there’s a thing where we can say “heritage”.

 

Joanna Howe: Yeah—I think I prefer that to the hyphenated “Indian‑Australian.” [chuckling] I would prefer to say, “I am Australian,” because, … I would prefer to just say:

 

“I am Australian!”

 

Sam Bamford: But this is where, like, I guess we’ve been, … I believe it’s been weaponised against us over the last, … And would everyone agree, like even you and me, would agree that anyone coming into the country they are just calling them “Australian”!

 

James Howe: Definitely!

 

Sam Bamford: And so, right now, that’s being weaponised against us right now!

 

[1:25:18]

 

 

Joanna Howe: Yeah.

 

James Howe: So there’s White people—that’s the other thing—White people have been fucking demonised in this country. And people might be watching this and sitting there going:

 

“Well, that guy’s really, like, woke or something.”

 

Like, nothing could be further from the truth! I fucking hate the Left! I hate the demonisation of White people! I think it’s absolutely disgusting! It’s demonic! It’s despicable! I have absolutely no part with it, okay? And it’s false—it’s a false narrative.

 

Sam Bamford: Anglo‑Celtic, mate.

 

James Howe: [chuckling] Anglo‑Celtic! No, [chuckling] I wasn’t— No, I wasn’t gonna— No, no, I wasn’t gonna— I wasn’t gonna start on that again! I was gonna say—Anglo‑Celtic people have done more for the world, I would say, than any other fucking race! They ended slavery, they created democracy. They brought science into the world.

 

Sam Bamford: I think the further we move away from that as Australia, the worse we’ve become as a country?

 

James Howe: Potentially. But not because of race! Because of values*, man! I think that it just so happens, …

 

Sam Bamford: So would you agree with me that we need to be the, … The Anglo‑Celtics need to be the overwhelming majority in our country?

 

James Howe: Absolutely not! Because you don’t have to be fucking Anglo‑Celtic to be a good—like, to be a Christian person and to embrace those values that came from the West.*

 

[* Values come race. Different races have different values and cultures as result of their evolution in particular environments. Cannibalism and slavery was (which still exists) completely normal in Africa because it was part of a survival strategy for Africans and became hard-wired.]

 

Sam Bamford: Do you think that as Anglo‑Celtics get phased out in Australia, that we will lose our values that built this country?

 

James Howe: No! Because I don’t think that values attach to race! Because, you see, it’s not about race*, man! Like, this is the thing!

 

[It is all about race! Just as dog breeds have certain characteristics, or values, the same with humans. James has accepted the blank-slate nonsense about humans that says it is all about nurture rather than nature.]

 

Sam Bamford: But if we bring in too many people from outside Australia, then we completely change, right?

 

James Howe: Yeah—but if you bring in idiots from European countries, you completely change, too! It’s not about race! Like, look at her*! She’s the best freaking person I know! And she’s doing, like, so much good stuff!

 

[* Joanna is the exceptional Indian who has done her best to assimilate. It is all about averages and group behaviour. Millions of Indians or Africans, etc., have no need or desire to be like White Aussies as they will feel best and natural acting out their own genetic tendencies.]

 

Sam Bamford: 100%.

 

James Howe: And it’s got nothing to do with her fucking skin colour!

 

Joanna Howe: Because I’m Christian.

 

James Howe: Yeah—she’s brown! But ultimately because she has good values!

 

Sam Bamford: Yeah. But—yeah, but like I said before, and I’ll go back—you came in when Australians were the overwhelming majority. And I’m not saying that you have, …

 

James Howe: No! But—no, no, no—stop with the “overwhelming majority,” because we are breaking things down on, whatever you want to call it, race!

 

Sam Bamford: Well, then how are we supposed to, …

 

Joanna Howe: How do we save the country?

 

James Howe: Stop talking about mass immigration. Because we agree with that! We agree on all of that.

 

Joanna Howe: I think that’s really kind of, … How do we save the country?

 

Sam Bamford: I would not be in a position where, like, I wouldn’t be saying anything if we had a birth rate that we weren’t importing two to three migrants per birth in this country.

 

James Howe: Yeah.

 

Sam Bamford: And where are we mostly importing people from? It’s not really that European and that, …

 

James Howe: We’re bringing people in from the third world. They’re bringing their third world bullshit into this country. I couldn’t fucking agree with you more!

 

Sam Bamford: This is where the basic argument is!

 

James Howe: Couldn’t agree with you more!

 

Sam Bamford: And my point, …

 

Joanna Howe: You guys are so funny, because there are all these love–hate moments where you’re “I hate, each other!”.

 

James Howe: I think we are on the same page, …

 

Sam Bamford: We 100% are on the same page. There’s this one small definition. And the point of this, …

 

Joanna Howe: The thing is the country, Sam, I think that we need to get back to, …

 

Sam Bamford: Shut the gate! Remigrate! Deport the illegals, and then get our birth rate up!

 

Joanna Howe: It was Christians that built this country.

 

Sam Bamford: Sure!

 

Joanna Howe: It was Christians that built this country, and it’s Christians that will save this country!

 

Because ultimately, our belief in equal dignity, equality, human rights in current human beings, where does it come from? It comes from God. It comes from the Christian view of God. It doesn’t come from Muhammad, who didn’t think, … You know, who said that women can be, like, sex slaves! All that disgusting shit that’s in there! It doesn’t come from any other worldview other than the Christian worldview.

 

And so I know you want to save the country; I know James does; I know I do. But the answer isn’t trying to get back to what we once had*, because the world has changed!

 

[* The White Australia Policy was a founding principle at Federation. That policy was subverted by the jewish lobby (and its paid off Whites) in the sixties who across the West are the biggest promoters of destroying White societies through demographic change.]

 

Sam Bamford: Oh, we can get back there!

 

Joanna Howe: No. But unfortunately, like if you were to go to Europe now, …

 

Sam Bamford: We could deport a few million people, …

 

Joanna Howe: We could deport people without the, …

 

James Howe: Yeah, but in order to get back to, …

 

Sam Bamford: I mean, there’s four million Muslims, that you could, …

 

James Howe: In order to get back to what she’s describing, though, we’re talking about Whiteness. Okay? So, in order to get back to that, you’d have to deport every brown person.*

 

[* You would stop all mass non-White immigration and find good reasons to deport as many non-Whites that could be justifiably and humanely be done.]

 

Sam Bamford: No, I’m not saying that.

 

James Howe: Yeah—no, I know you’re not saying that, but I’m just saying—like—if we want to have a conversation about this, how do we save this country? It can’t be about race, because race and culture don’t always attach.

 

Now, what you’re noticing is a correlation—and that is true. Okay, so—like—a lot of people from the third world who have brown skin also don’t bring a Christian culture. Okay, but that’s not, … But I think that’s coincidental, okay? That those two things are not intrinsically tied. Okay?

 

Now, it just so happens that Christianity developed in the West, in Europe, but a lot of Europe now is actually really moving away from that. And what you’re seeing is a rise in that barbaric culture again—so, like, people killing their babies right up until birth; euthanising—first starting with the elderly who have terminal illnesses, but now moving into—like—teenagers who are struggling with depression. You know what I mean? You’re seeing that barbaric culture starting to re‑emerge*.

 

[* And those things are being promoted by jewish groups because they weaken White societies.]

 

And some brown countries are actually becoming very Christian and are actually showing values that are much more consistent with what we saw in early Australia. So I’m saying values and culture are not intrinsically connected*. Now, they are coincidental—they do coincide with each other.

 

[* This doesn’t make any sense. A culture has particular values otherwise it is not a culture.]

 

Joanna Howe: You are saying that races are intrinsically, …

 

James Howe: Sorry, values and race, right? So, now—my belief is that race is skin deep, just like a “transitioned woman” is skin deep—quote, unquote, “woman.” Okay? It’s not a real woman.

 

I think that culture and race are not connected. I think that race is just skin deep! At heart, we’re all human beings made in the image and likeness of God. You know what I mean? I don’t think race* has anything to do with it.

 

[* Completely wrong! Race determines culture and its values. He has a particular interpretation of Christianity that drives his distorted world view that we are all the same, and that racial differences are just superficial.]

 

[1:31:05]

 

 

 

[Remainder of Transcript in Progress]

 

 

[1:54:23]

 

 

END

top

 

 

 

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

 

Youtube Comments

top

(Comments as of 5/29/2026 = 348)

@SonicBoom12345
5 hours ago
That was unreal guys. Thanks for trying to nut it out. To hear the passion in each other’s voices mean that you are all real and you aren’t paid for bureaucrats.
18

@aussiegypsywarrior
6 hours ago
Just gave 2worldscollide a whole new meaning.
15

@davidcole4229
5 hours ago
I appreciated the way the discourse was allowed to flow and the respect shown to each other even though there was differing perspectives.
Certainly not easy to define what an Australian is definitely.
I found this discussion useful to help me define what an Aussie is in my own mind.
Excellent job guys!
17

@jirvin623
5 hours ago
I absolutely loved listening to the passion you all have. It was intelligent and sincere, from all 3 of you.
I am a Scottish /Australian who came here as a 2 1/2 year old in 1965. I consider myself as being as much of an Australian as the next person. Australian is my home but I am proud of my heritage..
Thanks for having such an open, raw and honest discussion
21

@gpumn1
5 hours ago
Yeah it was a great one. Very passionate.
4

Hide replies

@jasontudehope5518
9 hours ago
You’re right Sam, we Aussies need an identity to protect, defend and fight for.
51

7 replies

@aussiegypsywarrior
8 hours ago
36 minutes in and this is getting awesome. We definitely need more of these types of conversations
11

@BrodieJamesBuchal
7 hours ago
Refreshing to see that on the right side of politics you can get heated without threatening to kill someone.
Take note lefties.
26

@tanztrueblue
5 hours ago
Love this firey debate this is the conversations we all need to hear. Brave of you all!!!!!
7

@aussiegypsywarrior
7 hours ago (edited)
Holy moly. This was brilliant. I can see where both sides are coming from.
9

@DrJoannaHowe
10 hours ago
Thanks Sam for having us on. It was an intense discussion but an important one. For context, it was me (not James) who asked Sam to remove 2 short 5 second clips because of some legal challenges I’m facing in my workplace. Sam graciously agreed, for which I’m grateful. Although James & I and Sam don’t see eye to eye on everything, I hope people can see from this conversation the importance of talking even when we robustly disagree. As Charlie said, when people stop talking that’s when violence begins.
78

@Stankyfrtz
9 hours ago
Scripture has the answer, Deuteronomy says that yes we should take in those vulnerable (immigration) but we should beware of being dependent on transient people as when they outnumber us they will subdue us (mass immigration).
Hopefully this helps with the immigration debate.
8

@suitathletics9074
4 hours ago
You are Australian , but Sams point is there is also founding Australians which are European and Aboriginal. Bu im sick of seeing Aust getting invaded .
8

@BLESSED2XS
9 hours ago
Please don’t let any of this upset Your Marriage, Dr. Jo
6

@domburton
6 hours ago
You’re an aussie to me mate.
6

@jasonwolfe5787
3 hours ago
Poor argument about irish immigration from 2008 to 2016. It was about 15k to 25k net migration from Ireland then compared to 150k to 250k from India
5

@micphoenix8200
2 hours ago
There’s a delicious irony in the fact that our ‘adopted’ sister Joanna is a leading advocate against abortion in Australia and that her tireless advocacy will hopefully result in an uptick in Australians having lots of future Australians.
5

@JessicaWright-t6b
6 hours ago (edited)
There were parts in this discussion where scripture jumps out and both sides should read Ezekial 18 and take it in. NONE of us who are alive today can take one ounce of guilt or one ounce of righteousness from the actions of our forefathers.
If Christians could all wholeheartedly and with unity agree with these teachings clearly spelled out in Ezekial 18 (which we all should if we are being logically coherent) then we could all in one accord say babies are INNOCENT and no baby is deserving of death and we are all created in the womb, of equal value in Gods eyes – then we would be able to rightly and consistently address the issue of abortion and also would give us a clearer/consistent starting place for the immigration discussion.
This is the only consistent basis on which to discuss these topics but the majority of the “Christian” world Catholic and Protestant alike reject Ezekial 18 and cling to doctrines of man invented thousands of years after Christ.
1

@Toastmalone6192
8 hours ago
53:08 that’s so cute

@LD2022-g7t
6 hours ago
Part of the problem with Angelo Celtic is they are slowly turning Muslim and they are no longer examples of great societies… Spain is automatically giving illegal immigrants citizenship. Christian based values under the west minister system is much better definition.
10

@nunoza
10 hours ago (edited)
As a South African, Portuguese, Australian citizen, I want to thank both Sam and Dr Jo for all the work they do. I love freedom of speech, this is a great example.
8

@351SVO
9 hours ago
Joanna, you think and sound like an Aussie, you are an Aussie!
8

@BLESSED2XS
8 hours ago
​ @351SVO If I move to India and earn their Cultural Respect, gain an authentic accent, think like them, talk like them, walk like them, Marry an Indian, and have Children, I am an Australian-Indian and my hypothetical Children would be half-Indian, half-Australian, that DOES NOT make me less than the Indians and DOES NOT make an Indian “racist” for clearly seeing that I am not Indian. Australia is not an NWO experiment, Australia is just as much a Nation as Germany, as Samoa, as Tonga, as all of the other young Nations that got formed in the 1800s & 1900s, no different. We are ethnically Australian and to say that We are no different to British is “racist” to Us just as it is to say that there is no difference between Samoans, Maoris & Hawaiians even though they are all Polynesians, they are DIFFERENT, just like English, Welsh, Scottish & Northern Irish are all British yet they are DIFFERENT, so are Aussies, Kiwis & Canadians, We are of the root race of White/Caucasian but DIFFERENT, just like Indians, Pakis, Nepalese, Sri Lankan & Bengals are all South Asian but DIFFERENT. Respect Heritage Australians!!!
16

@andyrew127
31 minutes ago (edited)
I don’t understand how people can confuse what Sam’s saying? He’s not being racist one bit in the beliefs and comments of his. He’s not saying she’s not Australian. She is an Indian Australian citizen. And an amazing Indian Australian mind you. Probably better than a lot of traditional Australians.
Her husband even started his reply when asked how they met? He said i met this Indian chick?
Isn’t that exactly the opposite of the argument they were fighting? She is an Indian Australian. It was her traditional race from India which naturally defines her skin colour and her families born nationality of their proud culture. So any immigration from different races and cultures are changing our demographical traditional people of these founded lands of our. The traditional Australian race is being outbred by other races and new Australian citizens, originating from other country races. That’s not racist it’s fact.
1

@treewhisperer07
3 hours ago
Can we please start using the word naturalisation instead of assimilation.
3

@deewilson3208
1 hour ago
​ @treewhisperer07 different words with different meanings

@Toastmalone6192
9 hours ago
34:53 you don’t have problem with it, you just don’t want to accept it
1

@Toastmalone6192
9 hours ago
Why doesn’t your husband debate Sam’s alone ?
1

@jacoblowe4247
5 hours ago (edited)
Hi Jo, just adding this to your comment because it’s another comment I posted directed at Sam but thought you might find it interesting because I think it was an angle your husband was trying to explore when Sam kept interrupting his questions
By your own reasoning mate you have to call yourself English Australian and not just Australian because you originated from there. It’s so absurd, your arguments and definition fall apart with even the slightest stress test. What so if someone migrates from India to Germany, then has a child there and then that child grows up and migrates to Australia are they then indian-German-Australian and do they then fit into your classification of being “Anglo-Saxon, European” or whatever? Or would you not want that person to come to Australia because they are somehow not European because their heritage originates elsewhere. Then it becomes just a weird dive back in heritages and if we all go back far enough it’s Africa so I guess I’m an African-English-German-French-natural born Australian.
How about we just say that if you’re a citizen and you love our way of life and culture you’re an Australian and we should drastically reduce immigration so that no matter the colour of your skin or where you come from you can adapt to our way of life, which will of course evolve because we don’t want to live in a bloody stagnate culture. Gosh many other cultures have food culture far superior than ours and we should totally import some of that… Man acts like he hates a curry.
I think the words of Martin Luther King apply that a man should be judged not by the colour of his skin (or where their bloody heritage is from), but upon their character. Being Australian is a matter of character, not heritage. I know plenty of Australians hailing from other countries like South Africa for example who display a level of patriotism for this country that far exceeds that of basically any leftist activist who consistently whine about our Australian heritage and values. Despite many of these activists being however many generation Australians I’d argue they are demonstrably less Australian then our proud Australians who have come from South Africa.
Do South Africans fit in your “Anglo European” categories? What about indigenous South Africans? Be careful how you answer to not make it about the colour of one’s skin hey…
Sorry “bro” but your views
fall apart with even the slightest pressure test.
And like bro how many generations in your mind does one no longer be say Indian Australian and just become Australian? You said Joanna’s kids are half Indian half Australian…. So after 10 generations that’s like 10% Indian and 90% Australian right? So you reckon you can define Australian, so what is a 90% Australian, how are they different than 100% Australian? Are you not 100% Australian because of your British heritage, so like 90% yourself? Genuinely curious…
6

Hide replies

@WinstonRugman
1 hour ago
Am an 85 year old born in England, have been an Australian citizen for 40 years and am proud to be an English Australian.

@davidataturk4357
9 hours ago (edited)
Australian culture is historically majority European/Anglo/Celtic and Aboriginal stock.
It should remain majority that way
But that doesn’t mean mixed blood Aussies who were born in Australia are less Aussie because one of their parents chose to marry outside of euro Anglo aboriginal or Celt.
10

@jacobeldridge5038
5 hours ago
Great job Sam. You’re correct, stick to your guns
7

@Cappuccino-ph7rp
1 hour ago
Fair call. You can’t criticise one person’s answer while being unable to answer the same question.

@HeatherClark-f5b
8 hours ago (edited)
I really admire Sam’s ability to stick to his guns.
12

@HeatherClark-f5b
3 hours ago
I am amazed at the way some people can get very angry with each other but kiss and make up.
2

@fpenman
7 hours ago
Podcast episode of the year
8

@JohnSmith-z4s
7 hours ago
An “ethnic Australian” typically refers to a person of primarily Anglo-Celtic (British and Irish) descent whose family has deep roots in Australia, often tracing back to the colonial period (late 18th century onward). This is distinct from Australian nationality (citizenship) or broader “Australian” identity.
13

@micphoenix8200
6 hours ago

@grannyannie2948
5 hours ago
I differentiate by how you or your ancestors arrived here. Sailing ship, ocean liner, or plane?

@jaydenMRPF
5 hours ago
The issue with that is in said 17-1800s we also had Dutch, German and Chinese all out here carving their own place in the country. SA had a very large amount of free settlers in this time period, a lot of which were German, not English. They also refer to Irish, but there were plenty of Scots too in this time period. Go look at old graves, street names, road names, even town names. There were a few large ethnic groups set up Australia, not just the British.

@JohnSmith-z4s
4 hours ago
​ @jaydenMRPF Germans are extremely close in genetics to the British and the Anglo-Saxons came from northern Germany. Scots are British btw. The Australian ethnicity is unique, forming in the 19th century and is around 50% 󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿English, 28% Irish, 14% Scottish and 5% German in origin. Australia will change drastically unless it only accepts immigrants who are ethnically British, Irish, Dutch, German, Danish, Norwegian, Swedish, Austrian, Belgian, Swiss or French!
2

@micphoenix8200
4 hours ago
​ @JohnSmith-z4s Exactly. If Australia was given a couple of thousand years applied with similar historical and technology development & circumstances then we’d have similar differences in language and culture etc between each state. Victorians would speak Victorianese, Tasmanians would have similar rates of first cousin marriage as Pakistan..
1

@micphoenix8200
4 hours ago
​ @jaydenMRPF All first world Western nations (Australia, Canada, USA etc) share a common ethnic and cultural heritage. Ethnically European and culturally Christian.

@jaydenMRPF
3 hours ago

@m @micphoenix8200 is is true. But the ethnicity is broad across a bunch of European countries. If you take a Scottish person and drop them in Holland, they’re very different, just like if you drop an English person northern island, the English person disappears lol The colonies, free settlers and freed convicts were made up of a lot of these different European ethnicities. The values, laws and cultures though are what the main common ground is. It was a culmination of all those people coming together and mixing to create what we today call Australian, or the Australian culture. But we can’t ignore the fact that there was also a large Chinese cohort here in the 1800s laying roots as well, you see this places like central Victoria. So I suppose I do agree with premise of at what point did these people tick over to be pure “Australian” and “English Australian” or “Dutch Australian” or “Irish Australian” as it was described. Because in the early 1900s and late 1800s every had come from somewhere and those born here were only 1-2 generations removed from somewhere else. Which means everyone is technically some sort of prefix Australian. No one other than native indigenous Australians have pure Australian Heritage. We are no different to America in that regard. Defining a pure Australian demographic isn’t that easy.

Hide replies

@RajNaidoo-b4e
8 hours ago
All of this doesn’t matter.
If you’re born in Britain, you’re British.
If you migrate to Australia, you’re a brit living in Australia.
Once you get citizenship, you’re still a Brit with an Australian Citizenship.
I think what we need to to define is what and who we give citizenship to… people who are contributing to and assimilating to Australia & hold our values.
If you’re born here you’re Australian. If you’re not, you are what / where you were born. That’s not the argument.
17

@gpumn1
5 hours ago
Totally agree
2

@moniquebeer-korver1107
5 hours ago
I think the problem there is if a person from another country comes here 8 months pregnant and gives birth here, their child is automatically an “Australian”. Now the parents of that child are bound to Australia because of that child, that’s why birth right citizenship probably needs to be looked at
2

@MSummaz
47 minutes ago
So basically, no one is Australian Australian because we all have heritage from all over the world! This make no freaking sense Sam

Hide replies

@MattGray-c9v
2 hours ago
To me Jo is an Australian. But Sam is right about being an Australian
3

@Kateeheel7
8 hours ago
I nearly broke my leg running to the comments
8

@aussiegypsywarrior
7 hours ago

Hide replies

@aussiegypsywarrior
6 hours ago
Sam has a hard time looking at it from a Christian perspective due to not really understanding Christianity. Culture comes from a belief system. Imo.
7

@Numptee86
3 hours ago
Hot debate. Thank you for working through it. I agree with Dr Jo (and as a PROUD Anglo-Celtic Aussie, i think she is an Aussie too) that we are at a GREAT moment in turning the tide…..DONT get lost in the weeds. Her husband is correct….its the Christian aspect that has made Australia what it is….and Christians come in all colours. But i can be fairly certain a Christian moving to Australia is likely to assimilate.
6

@bryce222nice
8 hours ago (edited)
Sam is NOT discriminating or making the argument that different ethnicities have less value. Just because Sam isn’t as articulate as a lifetime academic, it doesn’t mean his position is racist or discriminatory. James is emotionally reactive & can’t understand what the meat and potatoes of the argument is. Sam is trying to protect Australia. He wouldn’t move to India, get a citizenship, assimilate to Indian culture & call himself Indian? He’s now an Australian-Indian
7

@amandapinker2659
54 minutes ago
Guys I have become recent fans of all 3 of you. but I’ve never been comfortable with confrontation, that was hectic!

@justintarczon3347
1 hour ago
That was very well done and I sympathise with both sides but the main enemy is the labour government. Don’t forget that!
2

@jaydenMRPF
1 hour ago (edited)
As always, a great podcast having the conversations that need to be had. This was a good example of how to agree, disagree and agree to disagree without becoming mortal enemies.
On the topic itself, this is a prickly one. But ultimately trying to define an “Australian ethnicity” demographic is rather difficult given that during the 17-1800s, the penal colonies, settlers and freed convicts that banded together to create what we know today all came from different backgrounds themselves. Yes, a lot were of Anglo-Celtic and Western European descent, but there’s different ethnic groups within that bracket, English, Scottish, Irish, Dutch and German. All of these were prominent groups who laid the foundations of what we have today. All very different to one another. You only have to look at the names in old cemeteries, town names, street names, road names, a lot aren’t what you’d call typical “Anglo” names. South Australia being a prime example with Hahndorf or Klemzig. These names didn’t appear from nowhere. But the elephant in the room during that time period is the Chinese. This is another ethnic group that also laid foundations in Australia during that time before federation. So that does hinder the purely European demographic as being the people building Australia before federation. Then you get to the Australia as we know it today, which was ultimately built off the backs of post war migrants from both Western and eastern Europe. Melbourne being a good example with the cities cultural identity for food and coffee basically being forged by what we now fondly call (I mean this respectfully) as Wogs, Italians, Greeks etc. These people laid down roots, had families and their children became Australian. Ultimately it comes down to the values, laws, culture and traditions that these people all shared. Because as an Australian, we aren’t British, our culture and outlook on life is vastly different, drop an Aussie in a room with 3 Brits and the differences become apparent very quickly. As Australians we formed our own culture. Yes this is based of our European ancestry, but is uniquely our own, which is because we had all of these above mentioned ethic groups come together and intermingled to create the ”Australian” we all recognise today. We are the same as the USA and Canada in the fact that we’re all came from somewhere else at some point in our history or ancestry, with exception to the indigenous people. The attempt to define an Australian is important, but the definition that’s been presented is problematic. A clear definition and enforcement of our Values, Laws, Culture and traditions is what’s needed. Immigration frozen like Canada did and then when immigration is started up again, a slow, controlled system that allows for integration is needed. Linage also matters. If you come here from somewhere else and you on to have kids here, grandkids here and great grandkids here and so on, then just like our ancestors who all also came here from somewhere, they are Australian. No prefix added.
Also for Japanese argument, it’s stupid. We are like the USA and Canada in the sense that we were founded by people who came to those lands from elsewhere, we were not native to the land. The Japanese people are native to the land, they are the people of that land and have been there for thousands of years and such, you would expect it to be a homogeneous society demographically. To compare a society like that Australia is just uninformed or disingenuous.
In a modern Australia, the definitions of what an Australian is should be simple. 2 categories, A naturalised Australian citizen, someone who has immigrated here from somewhere else and has qualified to become an Australian citizen. OR a Native born Australian citizen, someone who was born in Australia to parents who are both Australian citizens either naturalised or native born. Dual citizenship shouldn’t be allowed for those immigrating here to Aquire citizenship. Nor should it be allowed in Parliament. Provided our immigration policy and society adequately promotes, protects and enforces the Australian laws, cultures, values and traditions, and we make sure those immigrating here are from places that share our values, then Australia will remain “Aussie” for many years to come regardless of original ethnicity. Unfortunately or governments are failing at this part miserably, which is why this whole conversation is being had in the first place.

@metgirl5429
6 hours ago
My parents came from holland
Here 50 years Dutch Australian never a prob
They saw themselves as that
Assimilated no Dutch club always spoke Australian
I have never seen myself as a Dutch Australian
Please make this make sense
Well we donot mention the elephant in the room
The cult / political ideology
That’s the issue
They are here to overtake not assimilate
And we are paying them to do that
The gov wants votes
Are we awake now
6

@jessiejordan2853
6 minutes ago
The Dutch are Germanic, so are Anglos.
We share common geography, ancestry and cultural heritage going back thousands of years.

Hide replies

@seikochako
6 hours ago
I feel there is only one real answer. If Western countries are built on Christian values, then immigration policy should also reflect those values.
People coming here should respect the foundations of the country, including its Christian heritage, laws, culture, and way of life.
I also believe schools and public institutions should stop pushing every religious belief and festival as if they are all part of Australia’s national identity. People are free to celebrate their own faith and culture, but that can be done in their own homes, churches, temples, community halls, or private spaces.
No one should feel the need to hide Christmas, avoid saying “Merry Christmas,” or remove the nativity just to avoid offending other religions.
5

@FrogBlasters
5 hours ago (edited)
We are one, but we are many, and from all the lands of earth we come, we share a dream and sing with one voice. I am you are we are Australian.
We need everyone who shares our values in the same tribe and we need to also follow the example of those who built Australia. Start there and build together. Dont strangle populism in the cradle.
1

@KathyRan
8 hours ago
Even the Australian Aboriginal came from somewhere else initially. They’ve just been here a bit longer. Australia has a definite culture but the absolute flood of recent immigration is diluting the prevailing Australian culture. The current policy is quantity over quality leading to silos. This needs to stop. Immigrants are visitors & it’s a privilege to become Australian. Treat citizenship like the valuable prize it is.
3

@h.epeterjohnmanthey6295
1 hour ago
The strongest armour a Christian can wear is our faith. Go to church, pray to Jesus for guidance and we’ll do what is right cause Jesus can perform miracles. As a Christian nation and people we love everyone & welcome all those who wish to live with us in peace. But it’s not wise to offer ones house to a stranger & put our own children out into the cold. Love & prudence. Practical judgment & dicipline through the use of reason.
3

@Eravide
4 hours ago
“I think this might be the start of a friendship,” great way to end it! It was intense at times, but that’s what you need- heated conversations with strong people who genuinely care to make positive change. SO glad to see you guys didn’t shy away from a difficult chat.
Ultimately, I found James and Jo very compelling. At first I was open to Sam’s definition of an Australian, but honestly James hit the nail on the head when he said, ‘there is a difference between race and culture.’ I also appreciated Jame’s transparency that it can be tempting to be tribalistic and prioritise your own race, but ultimately at the end of the day all people are equal in the eyes of God. This is a nuanced conversation, but James and Jo are right that the immigration problem can’t be solved on the basis of race, but rather on the basis of culture and values. Well done guys, love this podcast.
3

@martincoyle-o3b
24 minutes ago
Jo is all Aussie the type we need

@Numptee86
57 minutes ago
Duke it out, then find common ground and UNITE. We can’t risk fracturing and giving the labor/green side of politics any more chances

@raelaris
9 hours ago (edited)
the thing that turned me on abortion was when i watched a documentary on babies and they cited a study that found that newborn babies can recognise their father’s voice.
4

@triciamears7338
2 hours ago
Fantastic debate.
Keep them coming Sam.
I don’t have all the answers, but, listening to this type of debate only helps me to “define” what my opinions are and it helps all of us (the ones who are interested and care about where our country is heading) to appreciate the complexities of what we “Australians” are truly facing. Keep talking, we’re listening

@user-uu2ty6xs8l
7 hours ago
Sam much respect.
4

@yogibighouse1
9 hours ago
Yeah me and my wife tried ivf $15000 on procedures and nothing. Me and wife would of jumped on the opportunity to have a baby
6

@mic4788
6 hours ago
Sam, on that point I think you’re incorrect. Their children are Australian. They were born here
7

@batesmate5510
3 hours ago
I think it’s more about potential religious upbringing, European religion for the most part aligns with ours where as somewhere like India worships different gods. Even if Dr Joanna Dosnt practice Indian type religion it’s still that exposure.

@Samsy22
2 hours ago (edited)
Sam is wrong on this, too much ego built into the opinion, needs to rethink in the cold light of day after letting heat cool out of it. Sam is intellectually out of his depth with this debate and just on repeat like a broken record without ever actually listening or absorbing the logic or reason.
How do I know, cause I used to do the same thing, fall back on the stubborn/proud thing and die on that hill just because I had strong opinions held with white knuckles.
1

Hide replies

@GoranRadovanovic-m4b
7 hours ago
Oh my goodness what an episode? Definitely love listening to it. There’s a few points I’d love to have a pick at. but all in all it was good listening to all three of them.
2

@leonmiller4774
10 hours ago
How can any sane human poison and torture a living human baby and call themselves a medical proffesional because all abortion is murder anytime from conception onwards i say BAN ALL ABORTION
11

@grannyannie2948
10 hours ago
When a third of the population is born overseas, who are the Australian women choosing this procedure? It is often done in cultures that don’t value girls.
1

Hide replies

@Thecarnivorecoachkymbullen
4 hours ago
Such an important conversation. 3 strong personalities, you all did well.
2

@MaySpecials
7 hours ago
She’s good
7

@jimini_crikit322
3 hours ago
It’s clearly a complex and emotive issue; I think you have all made incredibly valid points. I meet the “definition” of what Sam deems to be Australian. However, I don’t agree that excluding people from being Australian based on their ethnic background is the answer here.
In my opinion, being Australian is that you were 1) Born here 2) Share our Christian values and culture 3) Denounce all other cultures
It’s not a perfect list, but I think it makes the most sense
2

@tonypalmer9575
7 hours ago
It is so important to have these debates. Most of us do not yet have the cultural vocabulary for these arguments. So many cultural and political terms in use at the moment are coded with meanings and histories derived from post war liberalism. I hope in time conservatives will formulate their own meanings on their own terms. Well done, Sam.
2

@kimeccleston5586
7 hours ago
Well said

Hide replies

@TrishOwen
1 hour ago
My definition of an aussie is someone who was born here or came here when they were small children, grew up celebrating Australia day with back yard cricket, beach, bbqs and beers and would fight for Australia.
I wouldn’t move to the middle east and refer to myself as middle eastern. I was call myself an aussie. And if war broke out, i wouod be back here in Australia fighting with Australia.

@kimeccleston5586
10 hours ago
It’s heavy going but probably necessary. Kind of like argueing on the deck of the Titanic if a Violin is Viola as the ship sinks beneath the waves.
4

@mic4788
7 hours ago (edited)
Sam you can use the annology of “rabbits & cane toads with regard to immigration” if we import the wrong immigrants they don’t assimilate. I can understand your point.
3

@treewhisperer07
2 hours ago
Great debate
2

@RajNaidoo-b4e
9 hours ago
James & Sam sound like long lost mates! Love it. (saying this 18 mins in, we’ll see how it goes)
3

@hamish2884
5 hours ago
Cant wait to watch this!
2

@Steve-HIMSELF
6 hours ago
Sam, your debating training pays for itself. This bloke definitely came in with an agenda and you clapped him with logic. This shows that he has the labour party mentality if he can’t even define what an Australian is.
10

@wildstallionbby6369
8 hours ago
Enjoyed this see it is possible to debate opposing ideas .. without (imagining )violence .. mostly
3

@greeningfam8359
2 hours ago
You’re right, that did get a little heated
1

@johnrogers5825
7 hours ago
Love the fiery arguments. So much better to have it out in the open as opposed to sleazy politicians who talk politely and deceptively. Stop the PC bullshit and say it how it is ffs.
3

@MaySpecials
7 hours ago
Fair debate
3

@leonmiller4774
9 hours ago
The 4 parts of my forebares came here as follows 1832 English whalers 1841 German in Klemzig Adelaide 1854 Ehglish 1904 Scottish Kiwi so what am i now i consider myself a true blue Aussie yes my ancestors help build this country we went to jail for this country (1st world war because of our German heritage even though we were 2nd and 3rd generation Aussie) i am white all my family is white and I’m proud to be a white Australian, i do believe in the white Australia policy and that it should be bought back for the fact people had to speak english and assimilate to our culture by denouncing where they come from and accept our way of life
5

@colin76545
4 hours ago
This debate has to happen and keep happening and every where this debate it always ends up the same way which is (I’m a civic national vs I’m an ethnic national) and no matter what happens it’s never going to stop

@darrenparsons5299
8 hours ago
Christianity is the key fundamental
3

@APP1E5
4 hours ago (edited)
By Sam’s definition, I would be Australian.
My parents were Australian. Three of my grandparents were Australian. The other was British and fought for Australia in the First World War 977 DCM.
So I am not objecting because his definition excludes me. I am objecting because it points nationality in the wrong direction.
Australia should not be reduced to Indian Australian, English Australian, Scottish Australian, German Australian, or any other divided label. There should be Australians.
A person’s ancestry may explain where their family came from, but it should not become their permanent political identity.
The real question is loyalty, assimilation, culture, language, law, and shared values.
If someone comes here, makes Australia their home, accepts Australia’s inherited institutions, speaks our common language, raises Australian children, and gives their loyalty to this country, then they should become Australian.
Not partly Australian. Not hyphenated Australian. Australian.
That is why Joanna matters in this conversation. She is of Indian descent, born in the UK, speaks with an Australian accent, holds Australian values, and the most important point is that she is Christian.
That places her much closer to the old civilisational inheritance of Australia than many people who may have the right ancestry but reject everything Australia was built upon.
Australia must control immigration. Australia must demand assimilation. Australia should not allow divided loyalty. Australian or nothing.
But the answer is not to turn nationality into race.
The answer is one people, one country, one loyalty.
Australians.
5

@blakewaugh2536
4 hours ago
could not sum it up better

@MSummaz
14 minutes ago

Hide replies

@Butcherbirdsarecool
9 hours ago (edited)
Geez this was a frustrating video. Sam did a great job to sit there and listen to that. Being yelled at by Dr Jo’s husband. I know he’s defending Jo but geez mate I felt like I needed to block my ears. I agree with Sam on this one.
Rude asf dude!! Jo’s husband was in full attack mode. He wouldn’t listen and didn’t want to listen. What a dick! Sorry but wtf!
16

@slash1989
1 hour ago
Give Gov A cut And a pay cut No big Australia get there heads out of the clouds

@MagicManintheSky-j9q
3 hours ago
Sam is right. These people don’t understand the difference between ethnicity and citizenship. It’s not rocket science.
1

@benkhosh
6 hours ago
An Australian is someone who comes here and completely adopts Australian values and heritage and does not congregate in there Enclave of ethnicities. And by my definitions you can become Australian before you get citizenship or by the same token you are not Australian even if you have citizenship but do not integrate fully
3

@aphaseelec
5 hours ago
Sam you are the man. I 100% agree with you. He was fine and I liked his points but that part where he kept going to skin color was frustrating as hell. One thing I disagree with you on is you invited him to your house that didnt need to come up.
1

@ColdPatterns
9 hours ago
Well hopefully I can go over to India as a white woman and be considered an Indian
4

@grannyannie2948
10 hours ago
Ban abortion And ban immigration. Problem solved.
4

@gpumn1
5 hours ago
Not enough of the conversation is being had around completely shutting down immigration for 4-5 years. It will buy us much needed time to fix our nation and help determine the right path moving forward.
1

@Guska95
8 hours ago (edited)
James came across far more thought out and intellectually honest. His family is Australian ditch the sub class catagories we can only unite on Christian values and culture
3

@blakewaugh2536
5 hours ago
Anglo Celtic is different to Anglo saxon (which is what you are referring to in Germanic). Which one are we using here…?
1

@akingsroad
7 hours ago (edited)
That would have been really good without all the name calling.
It was actually really interesting to listen when you guys were teasing out some of the ideas around what is an Australian.
Don’t stop talking about this guys. I hope you catchup again, and remove the personal attacks because there were some really interesting ideas being discussed.
1

@Kingxr6t
5 hours ago
I liked Sams argument and i admire hes attempt at defining what (Australians) are, but i also understand old mates view and the flaw hes seeing, it might sound bad and theres probably most definitely flaws here! But myself= a cut off point? When did the people living here become Australians? Land was Mostly made up of brittish “subjects” and indigenous in 1949 no longer subjects or (just indigenous) we become our own individual people i.e Australians and there is a difference we mingled with indigenous and weve mixed together to make something different no longer just! a brittish subject or just! Indigenous, Put an Australian and a brit in a room together? Are they the same? Can you tell them Apart? Who’s who? 1 word gets spoken & BANG! You know exactly who is who hes an Aussie hes an brit, different lingo or accent, we are different how? Still working on it! the only thing we have in common is religion/ Christian values, drop an Aussies in Britain or ANY! white country he wont instantly adapt because theres different social norms behaviours, celebrations ect brits tea and crumpets Aussies bacon and eggs we are different the way we interact theres so many differences ,and yea it can be hard to pin down thats only because the conversations haven’t happened, that doesnt mean we haven’t shaped into our own individual people (Australians) and this country was shaped into what it is today due to a mixture of indigenous/ white Christian based subjects (similar) to other Christian nations, a white American isnt now Australian because hes white and was born here, the population of 8 million that lived here in 1949 and the millions born over the decades are what Australians are! In my opinion if you decent from that 8 million then you define what Australians are
2

@Alessandro-b4k
1 hour ago
Hey guys, good to debate these things. I want to share that this was directly addressed during the Eureka rebellion, as the government accussed ‘foreigners’, basically non-english, as causing the rebellion. The Ballarat Times Jan 01 1855 has a letter where the author refer to new arrivals as being the newest Australians etc. Give it a read, I don’t have the link with me now and cbf typing it up. But it reflects a very early perspective on the matter, granted they are talking mainly about other Europeans, like Italians etc. that were a part of the rebellion, such as Carboni. I think it is a convenient definition the host has for Australian, when I was at school the anglos couldn’t work out if Euro wogs were Australian or not…thanks to the arrival of muslims and indians we are now conveniently Australian, well I won’t complain, but we are certainly NOT the same ethnicity as the anglos, and culturely massively different thanks be to God. Happy for Australia to stay British though says I. Cheers

@Shallowchal
10 hours ago
What did I just watch -holy heck.
7

@williamguile1788
6 hours ago
That was a tough listen.
1

@kimeccleston5586
10 hours ago
Do you have a definition around the 42 min mark?

@domburton
5 hours ago
Crazy aye

Hide replies

@DB-in3jy
4 hours ago
Brilliant episode!
1

@APP1E5
4 hours ago
Sam’s argument falls apart on “Anglo Celtic” Look up John Christian Watson reputedly born in Valparaiso, Chile. King OMalley, Evidence points to USA. Two of the first Parliament.
1

@JustJoshofficial89
3 hours ago
Good work pushing through guys, hashed it out in the end.
Want to hear more on the mass immigration part you all agreed on a thoughts on what could be done.
Perhaps a new rule for the pod, 15 mins stuck on the same argument move on.
1

@breban18
4 hours ago
I think Sam doesn’t really believe people from a non-European background aren’t Australian. Audience capture is a problem and clicks are a powerful driver of opinion.
1

@CoenKR
4 hours ago
While both parties have things I do and don’t agree with my opinion is that you can’t say someone has Nazi and racial ideology about what they believe is an Australian while saying they don’t know how to define what an Aussie is in saying that I’m pleased that these discussions and debates are being had the way it should be even if it gets heated

@ausbushman2347
2 hours ago
The key word that seems to be getting dropped too often is Ethnic. To be an ethnic Australian you have to have descent from here and Anglo-Celtic descent. If you come from an Anglo-Celtic heritage but aren’t born here, you are not an ethnic Australian, but you can be an Australian citizen. Everyone else can only be a citizen. Jo is a great Australian… citizen. She can never be an ethnic Australian because she wasnt born here. Her kids could be seen as ethnic Australians because they have an Australian father, even if they do have a mixed heritage. I dont think we can avoid having mixed heritage these days.
1

@leonmiller4774
9 hours ago (edited)
Sam in Joes case to me shes a pom not an Indian also as a Christian you should believe in creation not that crappy evolution in that case we all came out of Mesopotamia not Africa
On another level didn’t you say your forebares came here after 1901?
Jo there is only a few million Irish there is 1.5 billion Indians and we didn’t import 100,000 of thousands of them like we have Indians and Jo being born in England was a pom before becoming
Jo is an english Australian not Indian Australian
Actually Sam India was part of the British commonwealth up until just after WW2
According to our constitution we do not have freedom of religion but freedom of association and there is a difference and Jo’s kids are Aussie not Indian Australian
Sorry my comments are slightly incoherent but I’m following along your conversation
3

@reubensrichardson
3 hours ago (edited)
Great interview. Defining something is the first step in protecting it.

@NicholasWitham
2 hours ago
Sam, I hope you have watched this back by yourself.
James was trying to show that when you differentiate someone as Indian-Australian or just Australian you do actually create a hierarchy of Australian.
I am Australian born on Australia. My father is from England in the 70s and my Mother is from Malaysia. With your definition my “Australian” label is somewhat grey….and to James’ point, this is similar to how the left define woman…it’s grey when it shouldn’t be.
I’m glad you had this debate, and I’m glad there were no fists thrown lol.
I hope your debate skills can grow in the future, and that you do become open to other ideas, your ideas and opinions are great and well rooted in yourself, but being open to other ideas makes a much better debater as you can see things from the opposite side….which I don’t think you can do very well right now. You seem to be very staunch with your argument and not willing to hear the arguments against them…although James didn’t do a great job at explaining the argument.
Keep up the good work, I’m looking forward to more.
1

@SueMurphy-l2n
6 hours ago (edited)
James referred to the people in the NT as Chinese people. He actually identified them based on their looks, which is just what Sam is trying to establish
1

@jimhaggerty2741
4 hours ago
Question for Sam Bamford:
If Australia became a full republic tomorrow, cut constitutional ties to Britain, changed the flag, and built a completely independent Australian identity separate from the Crown — where would you stand on that?
Would you support a fully sovereign Australian nationalism with an Australian flag, independent identity, and recognition that Aboriginal Australians were the original people of the continent?
Or is your idea of Australia still ultimately tied to British heritage and the Anglo world?

@ShaneCooper-b2u
3 hours ago
thank you very much

@DanAttewell-y5b
45 minutes ago
So it’s a mentality.

@jacoblowe4247
5 hours ago (edited)
India was part of the British Commonwealth the same British empire that founded Australia. So I guess because of their British heritage they can call themselves Australians and not just Australian citizens right? They technically have British heritage too… Just like you pal… I really don’t think you thought about this deeper than skin deep!
In fact their country was colonised before ours so I guess you could say that they have a longer British heritage than you do man. So can we lump India into Anglo and European because of their British heritage?
2

@Citraz62
9 minutes ago
NO.

Hide replies

@Cappuccino-ph7rp
1 hour ago
He shouldn’t be able to ask questions he can’t answer himself.
1

@southern-samurai
6 hours ago
Join the Australian Natives Association. Sounds like they are in sync with your position.
1

@nomoremaybes
6 minutes ago
She did the meme lol

@johnrogers5825
7 hours ago
James has wiggled his way into the Dr Jo podcast and I have been unsure about him, but now, watching him here, I don’t like what I see. He has agendas, and his potty mouth is one of the worst I have ever heard.
4

@aussiegypsywarrior
6 hours ago
His potty mouth is one of the worst you’ve ever heard? Really? I don’t agree with foul language in any way however, I’ve heard much worse.
2

Hide replies

@slash1989
13 minutes ago
Not hard men we need strong men

@kjing8109
5 hours ago
So what’s an Australian according to each side? Someone save me watching this entire episode

@victorgomes7585
2 hours ago
Dr Jo is simply gorgeous. You guys are a wonderful compatible couple. And I had no idea Dr Jo has Portuguese heritage. Well… hugs from a proud Portuguese born Australian citizen. PS … to be in positions of power, politics etc… no dual citizenship should be allowed for such person. Our biggest enemy is within.
5

@brontepetropoulos4755
9 hours ago
Great video
2

@scooter183
6 hours ago
South Africa and Rhodesia, Take a look at the 70s and take a look Now.. Australia is Next . Case Closed.
1

@danielpearce7585
8 hours ago (edited)
Yeah. That’s the stuff. I can see me in you Sammy. It’s that logic that kicks in and its hard to talk to these folks. Your a good man and I hear your argument’s and your personality shining through. I love it. Ex navy myself of 11 years and I wonder how much of this logic come from subservience to your country and a cause.

@becomng
2 hours ago
Pausing immigration isn’t such a crazy idea. Pausing immigration gave Canadian renters their first nationwide rent relief in five years, pushing vacancy rates above their 10-year average and driving 12 straight months of falling asking prices.

@raphaelbotelho91
3 hours ago
What a fcking great episode, guys

@uebergangster
3 hours ago
An ‘Australian’ is a legal citizen of the country who adopts the cultural and religious norms (which are inter-related). Skin colour and prior national background aren’t relevant in that equation. However, the argument against mass immigration and exclusion of majority immigration of certain nationalities is that both may threaten to either overwhelm the cultural norm, or that there is a heightened risk that immigrants under such cirumstances will not endeavour to adapt.
1

@uebergangster
3 hours ago
So the definition of what we are protecting is the cultural norm, not a biological race (which is not a real thing anyway). The cultural norm of Australian is then defined as: Christian (you don’t have to be practising, but be at least sympathetic), family oriented, capitalist (not socialist), generally politically conservative, accepting Westminster style democratic parliamentary rule and equality under the law.
1

Hide replies

@wotslife
6 hours ago

@marleymeathook1975
9 hours ago
On 23 December 1901 the Immigration Restriction Act came into law. White australia policy. We would be a lot better off if it was still law. Do you think we would have a lot of these problems today? i dare say we wouldnt even be talking bout this. love this podcast bro!
3

@grannyannie2948
8 hours ago
Exactly. Our forefathers federated to achieve two objectives. To implement the WAP, and to build a navy capable of defending the country. I would argue that the federal government has been a complete failure and should be suspended.
I can’t understand why all three of them ran away from the term the White Australia Policy, which was very popular and should come back.
2

Hide replies

@BLESSED2XS
9 hours ago
Dr. Jo, I Love You soooo much, You are an AUSTRALIAN, Nationality & Culturally, and brilliant one at that!!! But You ethnically an Indian.
The British aren’t from Britain naturally, they are from mainland Europe and before that Israel and before that the Caucus Mountain Range hence “Caucasians.”
To say that there is no such thing as Ethnically Australian just because We’ve only been here since 1788 (yes, my Ancestors came over on the First Fleet) HAS to be matched with “there’s no such thing as Ethnically British, or any National-Ethnic Identity other than the 3 root races of old social science: Whites/Caucasians, Blacks/Negroids & Asians/Mongoloids, and everyone is just one of those or a mix of those.” But that is not true, Samoans are Samoans (not just Polynesians), Irish are Irish (not just Whites), Fijians are Fijians (not just Melanesians), Ethiopians are Ethiopians (not just Africans), etc.
I am all for a multi-racial Australia as long as everyone lives the Australian monoculture and Ethnically Australian Australians are put first and that ONLY Australians can be in Parliament/Federal Government, and in State & Local Governments.
I Love You just as much as any Australian and I would fight for You to be protected and secure in Australia.
GOD Bless
5

@BLESSED2XS
8 hours ago
If I move to India and earn their Cultural Respect, gain an authentic accent, think like them, talk like them, walk like them, Marry an Indian, and have Children, I am an Australian-Indian and my hypothetical Children would be half-Indian, half-Australian, that DOES NOT make me less than the Indians and DOES NOT make an Indian “racist” for clearly seeing that I am not Indian. Australia is not an NWO experiment, Australia is just as much a Nation as Germany, as Samoa, as Tonga, as all of the other young Nations that got formed in the 1800s & 1900s, no different. We are ethnically Australian and to say that We are no different to British is “racist” to Us just as it is to say that there is no difference between Samoans, Maoris & Hawaiians even though they are all Polynesians, they are DIFFERENT, just like English, Welsh, Scottish & Northern Irish are all British yet they are DIFFERENT, so are Aussies, Kiwis & Canadians, We are of the root race of White/Caucasian but DIFFERENT, just like Indians, Pakis, Nepalese, Sri Lankan & Bengals are all South Asian but DIFFERENT. Respect Heritage Australians!!!
1

Hide replies

@gregsags3364
2 hours ago
F-ing good podcast.

@Howdnz
8 hours ago
That escalated quickly

@trishwilson8141
5 hours ago
I agree values are Australian

@Toastmalone6192
7 hours ago
Aussie Logan Paul being triggered for 2 hours
3

@ItsMe-vy1wt
3 hours ago
I’d absolutely LUV to see that “Fuck the ABC” sign done up all nice & professional…..& LARGE!

@Itsmevgc
5 hours ago
My mum has been here since 77, she’s still British
1

@MSummaz
11 minutes ago
Is she a citizen? If she is, she’s an Aussie with an English background! This whole hyphenated thing is a load of nonsense and I refuse to play that game. I’m Australian first and foremost who happens to have English ancestry. Sam’s argument is asinine!

@Itsmevgc
7 minutes ago

@MSummazher words not mine. And she’s a hell of a lot wiser than you. You’re wrong, listen and learn. Sam is %100 correct.

Hide replies

@jittmet7766
1 hour ago
James – the GREEKS created democracy.

@broke3008
3 hours ago

@unipartywonagainstthepeople
9 hours ago
Great stuff
1

@Pauly-v9j
1 hour ago (edited)
As a Aboriginal descent and European descent. A Australian is a person been here from birth or been here 6 years plus when they received their citizenship AND speaking English AND Christian beliefs AND leaving any other cultures war’s at our Australian door before they come in. My thoughts. Probably not agreed by some people. But it’s okay everyone has a different opinion.
Problem not speaking English is my wife is a nurse and some nurses can’t speak English properly and my wife finds it hard to understand them.
So Dr Joanna Howe you would fit into my definition as a Australian. Been here more than 6 years with citizenship papers, speak amazing English AND Christian beliefs.
4

@KathyRan
7 hours ago
There are some Chinese families that have been here since before Federation, so many, many generations. They are Australian in my opinion. Not Chinese Australian.
2

@domburton
5 hours ago
You’re absolutely right.
1

Hide replies

@slash1989
1 hour ago
No foul Langauge

@domburton
5 hours ago
I like Sam, but his definition is very problematic. To say Joe’s kids are not fully Australian cause they have brown skin is unjust and ridiculous. They share our religion and values and culture. They have no connection to India, as i have no connection to Ireland or Britain, except parts of their culture.
3

@RajNaidoo-b4e
10 hours ago
Abortion is murder!
4

@h.epeterjohnmanthey6295
7 hours ago
Yeah those who get angry know they are wrong.
1

@blakewaugh2536
4 hours ago
for looking out for others who aren’t ethnically from here, but put much more heart, effort, meaning, emphasis on integration and following the very values the place was built on? You would be disregarding the work that many non Europeans have done. Should we have the arguments about immigration? Yes, but not based on ethnicity, becasue that is the basis of prejudice. It will be, and it must be, VALUES first.

Hide replies

@redfinfisho
3 seconds ago
Imagine comparing Ireland with a population of 5 Million people to India with a population of 1.4 BILLION!! Also Irish people integrate perfectly into Australian culture and were never taking large proportions of welfare. Whilst Indians are not integrating, costing a fortune whilst disrespecting our country through littering, illegal dumping, polluting rivers just to scrape the surface.

@sarahs2764
8 hours ago
“Why are you saying a bunch?” – uhhh because thats actually whats happening

@Coke_Addiction
2 hours ago
The debate is between nature vs nurture. Is culture down stream of biology or is culture down stream of theology? It would be very difficult to argue that it is solely one sided. The people that do, cannot answer the generalisation once it gets broken down to the individual level.

@PixieTinsel
8 hours ago
If one of Sam’s kids breeds with an Anglo Indian Australian born kid then his grandchild will be a citizen but technically an Anglo Indian but if his other child breeds with the Aussie born child of Pommy immigrants then it’s Australian through and through tru blue….
1

@Howdnz
7 hours ago
We just need Jesus
2

@aussiegypsywarrior
6 hours ago
I totally agree. Sam especially needs Jesus. He has good values and would make such a good Christian. He’s not understanding where these 2 are coming from.

Hide replies

@lukemagro6060
7 hours ago
I see both sides and both seem completely valid in my mind. Yes I get called racist all the time. If we stop citizenship for a year, kick out all non citizens and replace abortion with truely anonymous adoption, financialy encourage big families and restart immigration limited to .1% of the population per year. Thats 10% over 100 years we can integrate that many to be just like us without loosing who we are (that’s still replacement in 1,000 years but a preserved culture. That’s 28,000 “heavily vetted skilled migrants” at 28 million population) do this and the difference in these opinions will be a moot point.

@matthewleonardi247
3 hours ago
Sam’s argument is flawed for example a lot of Bosnians are Muslim but are also from Europe so how would he seperate the two? Say they’re Aussie because they’re European? Or say they’re not because they’re Muslim?
It should purely be cultural, does your culture follow the western Christian modal? If not, would you become a Christian or at least follow our cultural norms to assimilate into Australia? If no , you can visit but you can’t live here.
1

@leonmiller4774
9 hours ago (edited)
SAM ANGLO CELTIC EUROPEAN IS WHITE don’t be so defetist as to not use the word white Jo is an Aussie she wasn’t born in India she was born in our mother country England so Jo is an Aussie i don’t care her skin colour and i am a WHITE AUSTRALIAN and my family has been here for a bloody lot longer than yours so who is Australian we are matey all 4 of us. I’m 7th generation Aussie so therefoe Aussie NOT German Australian ol’mate and you’re only 2nd generation so who is an Aussie i am. I speak Strine so do you that makes an Aussie anyway i hope you read all of my comments oh to Jo’s hubby the Greeks invented democracy our forebares created the Westminster system
If i want to go back far enough I’m a Viking on one side and a Germanic barbarian on the other side how far do you want to go back we all came from one family Adam and Eve
I have to disagree Christianity is not a white mans religion original Christians were from the Middle East (out of Israel), and Greece(olive skin colour) not white anglo-celtic European
4

@grannyannie2948
8 hours ago
I’m also seventh generation Australian on all my lines. Funnily this includes a German family escaping the wars of German unification in the mid 1800s.
1

@Snappernose
4 hours ago
She’s Indian/austalian
If I mirrored her life in China would they say I’m Chinese?
Didn’t think so
1

Hide replies

@blakewaugh2536
5 hours ago
How does federation being the coming together of all 5 states and territories, be the essence of who ethnically built this country? The Anglo’s started building the colonies but lets just say its ‘federation’ when it happened. History speaks for itself, so you obviously don’t understand history…
1

@batesmate5510
3 hours ago
53ish mins bro, bloke would’ve been on the ground for telling me to shut up in my own house

@DanAttewell-y5b
49 minutes ago
Who would you consider Australian, albo= no Sam thaiday=yes

@jasonwolfe5787
3 hours ago
51:13 Poor argument about irish immigration from 2008 to 2016. It was about 15k to 25k net migration from Ireland then compared to 150k to 250k from India. Still x more back then. Dr Jo is great but that was weak.

@southern-samurai
6 hours ago (edited)
What is an Australian? An Australian is one born here and descended from the host and founding ethnic group. It defines us as a Nation. What is happening now is pure replacement of people and culture, of Country itself. It is as bad as military invasion and takeover, only this is supported and promoted by our seditious government.

@flexo-c
3 hours ago (edited)
32:19 Completely disagree, indigenous people helped build this country, they have thousands of years of connection with it, they’ve made big strides in politics and art, helped shape our laws and culture, as much as I like Joanna she doesn’t have that ancestry connection, apart from a few notable figures Indian people and culture wasn’t really a part of what built this nation, but I’d say she’s become Australian, she’s spent her life here, built a family, she has an Aussie accent lmao, and from what I’ve seen she puts Australia first, that’s what it means. Like those old videos of Greek and Italian people, they moved here and assimilated, they saw Australia as the new country, they respected the culture, they built lives within it, became a part of it and are always so grateful to have had the opportunity to live in one of the best, safest places in the world

@maxyorke2453
3 hours ago
First of all, culture is inextricably linked to race. So Australian “culture” is race made manifest. I’ve never been so embarrassed as listening to James use leftist ideology to explain away what it means to be Australian. What a train wreck. Really tough listen.
This debate has been settled; now it’s time to fix the problem.
2

@Alessandro-b4k
33 minutes ago
Bro he is nailing you on the point that you can’t define an Australian, you need to work through that . An Australian is anyone who votes for ON, all you others fall short.

@darrenparsons5299
8 hours ago
And im not religious

@boags9098
8 hours ago
This is wicked

@jessiejordan2853
40 minutes ago
Sam, 100% agree with you but I don’t know why you’re using Federation in 1901 as the beginning of our foundation as people when we’ve been here for 240years.

@aussiegypsywarrior
7 hours ago
53 minutes

@scooter183
7 hours ago
Woman’s Sport.. I love Woman’s Beach Volleyball..

@RichardJohnson-nq9ys
8 hours ago
Calm down James or you will have a coronary.
1

@mannus7776
7 hours ago (edited)
Something to consider on the ethnicity versus culture discussion. The reason peoples from our ethnic background Sam built all this was because of the culture that they were immersed in, that being the Judeo-Christian belief system. And yes those two are inextricably linked, there can be no Christianity without there first being Judaism. The New testament relies on the Old and Jesus and the apostles were all jews. You cut Christianity off from Judaism and it’s a cut flower. In short it’s culture that determines destiny not ethnicity.
Ps Really enjoy your podcast, keep up the good work and keep thinking

@blakewaugh2536
4 hours ago
I’m absolutely pissed off that he took the Judeo bit out. If he wants to turn his back on a community that has not only integrated but done more for this country than many Anglo saxon or whatever he refers them to be, he can get fked and we must CALL this OUT for what it is. All we look for is to be regarded as Australian’s especially after Bondi. If he is putting all his eggs in the ‘lobby basket’ he can F OFF with that ideology. That is sincerely Anti Australia to a tee.

Hide replies

@slash1989
8 minutes ago
You dont need churches or Priests You can talk to god he will answer you if your serios

@saqaleka
9 hours ago
1:02:58 why did her response about deporting muslims get cut out?
2

@Trunka34
8 hours ago
Why do you think haha
1

@grannyannie2948
8 hours ago
She explains it in the comments
1

Hide replies

@MaryAnzac
7 hours ago
My family I married into are German/Polish they embraced the Australian culture and had children here.
They still classed themselves as Europeans that live Australia, their children are Australian as they are born here.
Anyone who comes to Australia and embraces Australian culture are Australian.
These new people who come here are not embracing Australian culture !
But I personally know people who come from Iran and are Christian and live in Australia with an Australian passport but they still see themselves as Persian!
This race debate and who is Australian is silly as we are Multi cultural country?

@johnryan1386
9 hours ago (edited)
This is the argument in the Uk, Everyone can be British but you cannot be English,Irish or Welsh etc.
James is confusing ethnicity and nationality, sounds like a leftist frankly!
My wife is Chinese and my daughter is half Australian and half Chinese, it’s pretty simple
9

@gogeorgia707
10 hours ago
Go Jo . Any fool knows abortion is murder. Admitting it – another story. Yes pregnancy can be sad, complicated when young, or risk. ‘ a psychopath looking down an ultrasound..” Hilarious but horrifying. Adopted children are loved . Needed like the air we breathe.
I was on the left too, then realised this is too important.
3

@grannyannie2948
10 hours ago
I can’t understand how any mother chooses this instead of placing the baby for adoption. Pure evil.
2

@gogeorgia707
8 hours ago
@grannyannie2948 life is so precious. We’ve clearly been misled. It’s a tragedy if someone is young and can’t afford the baby. But the joy they create can come either for themselves, or a family who will love them forever .
1

@grannyannie2948
8 hours ago
​ @gogeorgia707 Instead of paying migrants Centrelink, we should be ensuring that young couple have the resources they need if they decide to keep the baby. If not I’m sure there are 100,000 Aussies who would love to adopt a newborn.

Hide replies

@nam55A
9 hours ago
There’s a reason for these terminations. The choice isn’t easy.
1

@grannyannie2948
8 hours ago (edited)
Yes they do it because the government gives them taxpayers money for having a “stillbirth.” To engage in such a depraved level of evil a nd greed might be difficult for some. Though I doubt it.
1

@Kateeheel7
8 hours ago
Elaborate on these reasons?

Hide replies

@NicholasWitham
2 hours ago
James’ argument on 10,000 Christians from India or 10,000 randoms from France is great. Sam, it sounded like you were going to say you’d prefer the randoms from France.
Well I believe those randoms from France will have ideologies that go against the Australian way of life than the Christian Indians. I wonder that if you did go ahead and say you prefer the French 10,000….I’d like to hear your argument for that preference….because it does seem you’d prefer them because they are white.
I’m not calling you a racist or a nazi, just trying to point out that it seems there’s a gap there.
I do disagree with your definition being based on geography over ideals/morals/ethics etc, but will still continue to support you, keep it going Sam…cheers

@peterscudds7299
8 hours ago
I have a mate in the NT whose heritage is Afghan Aboriginal Chinese, he grew up in the bush and had no choice about his heritage. So according to Sam he’s 1/3 Australian. It’s not about race it’s about values. Oh and by the way do some research Sam and find out how many races of people make up Anglo-Celtic European origins. They’re not all white caucasian.
1

@domburton
5 hours ago
100 percent mate. He’s aussie as.

Hide replies

@blakewaugh2536
5 hours ago
So someone who comes here at the age of 4, doesn’t hold their traditional ethnic culture, grows up in Australia, is still classed as an Australian Indian because of her heritage? Well then clearly your definition is ethnically based because you want to separate someone’s ancestry that they left at the door but have done everything asked of them and integrated? Christ almighty!
1

@slash1989
59 minutes ago
Two against one not fair and there waxing

@marleymeathook1975
8 hours ago
i think lock the gates perid become a self sufficiant country we build grow make everything we need in this country. zero imigration until this happens. lets see how that goes.

@slash1989
47 minutes ago (edited)
I cant beleive Australian Government had a whites only Policy I am a white ozzy bourne here We will nut this out plan in progress God is KING

@julianshalders6047
6 hours ago
We broke from england in1901 and identified our selves as australians under parlimentary law. Its called federation. The immigrants do not reconise this.

@blakewaugh2536
4 hours ago
The Anglo’s helped found and build the colonies. So why is the definition then in federation, not when the same race that has been identifed, come here to commence work to make this a country? If he was consistent in definition, it would be that date, but i can see why he would say federation as a nation forming event. If we are to define it as that, we would have to look further back from that in defining that term. Just doesnt make sense to me…

Hide replies

@JohnClark-l5p
6 hours ago
At some point in the future Australia will be renamed

@4litrespoolyboi206
6 hours ago
42:41, bro just literally told his wife to shut up because she tried to speak…

@DrJoannaHowe
5 hours ago
If you listen to the whole thing, you’ll see that I also tell James to shut up. We have a very robust marriage. It’s not everyone’s cup of tea but it is our dynamic, and I’m fortunate to be married to an incredible man.
1

Hide replies

@sinaimbriano8317
7 hours ago
His trans argument is going against him, I think there’s a middle ground

@adensticher6842
13 minutes ago
You killed it Sam, the amount of times you repeated yourself was painful mate
1

@77Coddie
24 seconds ago
You’re all trying to define what is an Aussie on both an international and national view at the same time, the chick would be considered Aussie by a foreigner but an Indian-Australian to someone like Sam. Can we get this straight?

@darrenparsons5299
7 hours ago
WELL SAID JO
5

@victorgomes7585
2 hours ago
An Australian is anyone who’s been born here. They follow they respect and uphold culture and history. If their parents were born overseas the children are still Australian. Some Australians like to show great pride to the nationality of their foreign born parents. And this is because there’s not much pride in celebrating Australia anymore. We are shamed by government, bureaucrats, education system… there’s a globalist communist agenda. You guys were debating it at a superficial level. Anyone causing trouble and destruction over foreign issues in australia should go to jail!

@peterrichards1058
40 minutes ago (edited)
Multiculturalism policies and their definitions is the issue Sam .Australian identifies are defined by our Christian based values which define our Australian culture skin colour has nothing to do with.

@leonmiller4774
9 hours ago
Sam I’m sorry to say the one who loses their temper first has lost the argument and you did exactly that so sorry matey go take 10 stop lossing it then you may win your debate point
1

@jasonwolfe5787
8 hours ago
I thought James went 1st. I don’t think these things wouldn’t have really been as big an issue but across the west demographics are under attack. I don’t have an issue with organic immigration, but the horse has bolted and drastic action is needed.
1

Hide replies

@nunyaconsern5590
6 hours ago
This guy’s history sucks Christianity started in the west lol democracy start in England lol what’s he rambling about he should learn these things because it’s embarrassing if your going to talk about these things on a public forum
1

@APP1E5
4 hours ago
James has a good point. Half man half woman.

@neilrwatts
7 hours ago
It’s quite simple Sam, your birth certificate defines your country of origin, what you are debating is something totally different and I hope that one day you can step back and fully comprehend that.
I’m an English immigrant from 1966 and was 6 years old when we arrived in Australia. I’m a permanent resident who has grown up in Australia so rest assured that posses Australian values. I have been educated, worked here and paid my taxes on my taxes like every other Australian, I consider myself as an Aussie and would gladly die for this country. However unlike my mother and sister I am still yet to take out citizenship. I refuse to pay to accept citizenship as a piece of paper and a little tree doesn’t change the fact that I have already contributed and paid my way for this country.
I have two children and by your analogy they are British Australian just like your daughter.
I originally started listening to your podcasts as like many other Aussies (see what I did there, just joking) I am totally disgusted with what is happening to our retuned soldiers. I realise and accept that we all have different opinions in life and hope that we all accept the need to respect that but I do fear that your position on this his matter is playing into the he White Supremisisme debate.
Let’s be clear, not labelling you as one though.
Stay safe.
An old British Aussie.

@marleymeathook1975
8 hours ago
Idont think the immigration restriction act had nothing about WHITE in there

@Coke_Addiction
4 hours ago
Did the Chinese who came here gold rush build this country, Sam ?

@chrisdavis6436
1 hour ago
Love your stuff Sam but you are way off here .
What you are talking about is being born in Australian makes you indigenous to this country no matter who your parents are .
Joanne is Australian .
My family some come out on second fleet , I have welsh , English , Jewish blood in my line .
So I’m am white and that Anglo as they come .
Just a thought I live in country our family moved here from Sydney when I was 3 growing up we were accepted by locals . It took 20 years for us to be seen as a local and I accept that get used to living in area and fit in . Now we are the locals being here for almost 50 years .
Now I used this as to being Australian . I’ve been to India love many of people I met . But in Singapore at universal studios on holiday just chatting to people in the line of a ride because they looked Indian got chatting enjoying time . I asked where they were from thinking maybe India they said Sydney I went wow ok cool no problems there . But yes they are Indian I said how long lived in Australia they said 20 years . Aww your Australians
They were so happy a white man said they were Australians and proud and we kept chatting . Mate you need to adopt this view . Because you are not going prove what an Australian is by race .
I’ll tell you what Australian is defined .
And Australian is someone who lives in this Australia and loves this country for all its best and its worst but want to work towards making the flag , the anthem , our history and respect for it , you assimilate to the Australia law and way of life .
You can’t make it ethnic Australia doesn’t work like that . I agree with Joanne’s husband many people have built this country .
I’m still watching Sam you taking this way to far brother . And I think you are talking to wrong people and you do owe Joanne an apology she is Australian mate .
Still love your stuff and I’m sure you are one who would accept truth if it was put to you the right way . This maybe not the best conversation in this video because it’s not only heated but personal on all sides. I’m up for the debate if ya want bro

@overpotato4133
10 hours ago
This guy is clueless lmao
2

@JohnClark-l5p
6 hours ago
The only Australian is an Australian with an Australian accent

@suitathletics9074
4 hours ago
Australian born of European heritage and indigenous are “founding ethnic Australians” , thats the facts….just call it
“”founding Australians “ Sam…, the rest are Australian born Australians or Australian citizens…..time to freeze all Citizenships. James is right about christians but he just does not get it about founding Australians..which should be the majority ….but he seems like a decent guy… Joanna is culturally and spiritually Australian……. It is time re migration. Deportations. This is all the Govt’s fault. Bring back the 1980s demographic.

@maxyorke2453
3 hours ago
Notice how these ‘conservatives’ (Jo and James) actually keep using liberal/leftist arguments and also argue within the leftist moral framework? This is so important for people to understand. Even Sam occasionally argues within this leftist moral framework.
That’s what needs to be dismantled. Also the “what is an Australian?” debate shouldn’t be a debate any longer — it’s White Anglo-Celtic peoples, with additional broader European ancestry. Shut and closed discussion. Now the problems need to be fixed.
2

@samg8313
6 hours ago
Ok god squad, Christians will not just save this country because half the country are non religeous.

@jacoblowe4247
5 hours ago
By your own reasoning mate you have to call yourself English Australian and not just Australian because you originated from there. It’s so absurd, your arguments and definition fall apart with even the slightest stress test. What so if someone migrates from India to Germany, then has a child there and then that child grows up and migrates to Australia are they then indian-German-Australian and do they then fit into your classification of being “Anglo-Saxon, European” or whatever? Or would you not want that person to come to Australia because they are somehow not European because their heritage originates elsewhere. Then it becomes just a weird dive back in heritages and if we all go back far enough it’s Africa so I guess I’m an African-English-German-French-natural born Australian.
How about we just say that if you’re a citizen and you love our way of life and culture you’re an Australian and we should drastically reduce immigration so that no matter the colour of your skin or where you come from you can adapt to our way of life, which will of course evolve because we don’t want to live in a bloody stagnate culture. Gosh many other cultures have food culture far superior than ours and we should totally import some of that… Man acts like he hates a curry.
I think the words of Martin Luther King apply that a man should be judged not by the colour of his skin (or where their bloody heritage is from), but upon their character. Being Australian is a matter of character, not heritage. I know plenty of Australians hailing from other countries like South Africa for example who display a level of patriotism for this country that far exceeds that of basically any leftist activist who consistently whine about our Australian heritage and values. Despite many of these activists being however many generation Australians I’d argue they are demonstrably less Australian then our proud Australians who have come from South Africa.
Do South Africans fit in your “Anglo European” categories? What about indigenous South Africans? Be careful how you answer to not make it about the colour of one’s skin hey…
Sorry “bro” but your views
fall apart with even the slightest pressure test.
1

@jacoblowe4247
5 hours ago
And like bro how many generations in your mind does one no longer be say Indian Australian and just become Australian? You said Joanna’s kids are half Indian half Australian…. So after 10 generations that’s like 10% Indian and 90% Australian right? So you reckon you can define Australian, so what is a 90% Australian, how are they different than 100% Australian? Are you not 100% Australian because of your British heritage, so like 90% yourself? Genuinely curious…
1

@grannyannie2948
5 hours ago
Australia federated in 1901 to implement the White Australia Policy. In the 1970s this was changed without a referendum. It can be argued Australia as a nation nolonger exists as the federal government nolonger serves its purpose.
1

@jacoblowe4247
4 hours ago
​ @grannyannie2948 so you’re saying the Australian government should exist to keep Australia white? That if you aren’t white you shouldn’t be Australian? Holy smokes that’s racist. I think most people these days subscribe to the superior ideology that things should be determined based upon the content of one’s character and not the colour of their skin. I’m sorry you’re stuck in the past pre Martin Luther King era.
1

@grannyannie2948
3 hours ago (edited)
​​​​ @jacoblowe4247 To be fair the federal government did have another purpose. It was to build a navy capable of defending the country. This has also been a failure.
I am saying no more than what was taught in history classes in the 80s. I have since read extensively on the subject and on constitutional law and facts don’t care about your feelings. This immigration policy was extremely popular. Their were pop songs written about it in the 1890s and early 1900s.
The reasons were not what you imagine. One was that sugar cane farmers in Queensland indentured servants from Pacific islands. These were virtual slaves. Australians hated this.
At this period Australia was the wealthiest country in the world. We also had the highest wages. History had taught Australians that Asians in particular, undercut wages. (Yes the WAP was left winged, unions etc. ). We were also an early democracy. All the states were self governing democracies, where even the working class could vote. To put this in proportion, the working class could not vote in Britain until after WW1. It was feared that collectivist cultures could corrupt our democracy.
My father collected antiques. Australian antique furniture is often marked with a stamp, saying, made with European labour. This was to show the workers were paid high wages. This continued into the 1950s.

@jacoblowe4247
2 hours ago
​ @grannyannie2948 a very long winded way of saying you are racist and a fan of parts of our history that were racist. Are you also a fan of the murder of indigenous Australians and them having less human rights that is also a sordid part of our history? Just because Australia had a prosperous time during its white Australia policy does not make it the morally correct approach for the future… America was pretty prosperous during slavery, doesn’t mean we should pull that ol’ one back out, jeez. Once again it should be about the content of one’s character not the colour of their skin or their heritage, otherwise it would be racist. It’s not that hard.

Hide replies

@slash1989
1 hour ago
If you leave islam you could be assasinated by shari law

@jessiejordan2853
24 minutes ago
Joanna, I like you but you’re not understanding what you’re asking of Australians like me.
My great great great great grandparents were BORN in Australia.
My most recent ancestor to migrate here arrived before Federation.
You’re not “just as Australian” as me, and it absolutely diminishes and trivialises everything that my family and our people endured and overcame over generations when you claim you are.

@adzshez
3 hours ago
Identity politics are lame. Dont break up the right with this crap.

@crankin77
2 minutes ago
Aboriginals were born in Australia so they’re Australian. It’s not that hard.

@clintanthony1779
1 hour ago
Sorry James, I really like you and Jo mate but you’re wrong in regards to what an Australian is. Totally wrong. And the nazi/racist name tag is nothing but a silencing tactic for when you’ve got no argument.
1

@MSummaz
54 minutes ago
Bullshit! Is Sam an Australian/Australian? Just asking questions….

Hide replies

@darrenparsons5299
7 hours ago
Jo n james overwelming win sorry sam
2

@simdavis4830
5 hours ago
Sam was an atheist until 5 minutes ago, changes his views
like he changes his jox. I’m a Christian and the old testament is Jewish, the new testament is Christian hence the terminology Judeo Christian not all that difficult. Sam isn’t a Nazi but he is seriously brushing up against it with his crappy non thought out positions.
1

@MSummaz
14 minutes ago
I couldn’t agree more…

Hide replies
Top is selected, so you’ll see featured comments

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

See Also

top

 

 

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

Anne Twomey: Welcome back to the Constitutional Clarion!

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

For example, by:

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

So it’s actually a self fulfilling condition!

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Articles 20 and, 26 require:

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

[19:30]

 

 

END

top

 

 

 

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

 

Youtube Comments

top

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hide replies

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

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

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

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

Hide replies

@Lucid-AUS
9 hours ago
Very informative thank you

@constitutionalclarion1901
2 hours ago
You’re welcome.

Hide replies

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hide replies

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

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

Hide replies

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

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

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

Hide replies

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

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

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

@constitutionalclarion1901
2 hours ago

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

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

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

Hide replies

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

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

@constitutionalclarion1901
12 hours ago
Thanks.
8

Hide replies

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

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

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

Hide replies

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hide replies

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

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

Hide replies

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

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

Hide replies

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

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

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

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

Hide replies

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

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

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

@constitutionalclarion1901
12 hours ago
Much appreciated.
2

Hide replies

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

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

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

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

Hide replies

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

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

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

Hide replies

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hide replies

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

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

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

@MrTiddalik
13 hours ago
Never a dull moment
1

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hide replies

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

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

Hide replies

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

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

Hide replies

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

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

Hide replies

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

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

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

Hide replies

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

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

Hide replies

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hide replies

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

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

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

Hide replies

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hide replies

@nicholassteel5529
14 hours ago

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

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

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

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

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

Hide replies

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

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

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

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

Hide replies

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hide replies

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

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

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

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

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

Hide replies

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

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

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

Hide replies

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

@constitutionalclarion1901
15 hours ago
You are most welcome.
2

Hide replies

@paulx3733
15 hours ago
Sometimes in this ” modern world” the best motives are easily undermined by those who try to hard to appease the people who are to easily offended…
Just cause your feelings are hurt, don’t make you right.
5

@hs9067
15 hours ago (edited)
I’m continually suprised by Labors attempt at overreach. Restrictive protest, speech laws etc Should we be worried are they trying to lay the foundations for Authoritarianism?
11

@constitutionalclarion1901
15 hours ago
It was supported by the Coalition too.
9

@hs9067
14 hours ago (edited)
@constitutionalclarion1901 Thats worrying two mainstream partys and than One Nation who is outright oligarchical. Thank you for all the work you do!
2

@AustralianGrandmasForDemocracy
14 hours ago
@constitutionalclarion1901 that isn’t at all surprising!
1

@JayGuitars1
15 hours ago
And trying to eliminate legal firearm possession at the same time…gee you could draw a conclusion.
2

@constitutionalclarion1901
14 hours ago
The law did not seek to ‘eliminate’ legal firearm possession. It imposed some restrictions – eg on the number of firearms that could be owned.
4

Hide replies

@robertwalker7924
15 hours ago
the largest ” hate group ” in Australia is the Australian population towards Australias indigenous peoples…its all very one sided
8

@justheretowatchatrashfire
14 hours ago
Yep
1

@AustralianGrandmasForDemocracy
14 hours ago
It’s shameful that antisemitism gets far more attention than the disrespect and violence that our First Nations people are subject to.
5

Hide replies

@aarondemiri486
15 hours ago (edited)
Will be excited to read what the High Court decides in their judgement.
They will likely discuss Latham’s dissent in the communist party case. Fullagar and Dixon’s separate judgements still stand the test of time.
2

@lylegc01
15 hours ago
Thanks again for your vids
1

@Robert-xs2mv
15 hours ago
Hate in it self is never a crime.
To state otherwise is an injustice!
And when injustice becomes law, the law becomes irrelevant!
11

@RSA_Liberty
14 hours ago
Which human emotion are they going to regulate and ban next?
4

@constitutionalclarion1901
15 hours ago (edited)
No one has suggested that hate itself is a crime. It is the public expression of that hate in particular ways (eg inciting violence, intimidating, humiliating others, etc) that is the crime.
1

@Robert-xs2mv
15 hours ago
@constitutionalclarion1901 . So being condemned and accused to be a sinner is a hate crime inciting violence? And you clearly accentuated the relevant minister has the ability to declare whether an expression of hate indeed is inciting ? Sounds like an extremely fine line.
8

@worker-wf2em
10 hours ago

@constitutionalclarion1901 There are already laws against inciting violence in this country. All I see here is overreach from government equating words with violence. Terms like ‘humiliating’ is a ridiculously broad and objective feelings based standard that will be abused by those in power to target dissenters, and anyone the Israel lobby doesn’t like if we’re being honest.
3

Hide replies

@StephenSkinner-k4w
15 hours ago
Who decides if the minister actually did have “reasonable Grounds” to prohibit a “hate group”?
Why, the minister of course!
What could possibly go wrong?
6

@constitutionalclarion1901
15 hours ago
It could be challenged in a court in an administrative law challenge.
1

Hide replies

@JOSEPHDANCE75
15 hours ago
Nothing to be ashamed about for being white. Same can be said for Black or Asian , what ever else is out their like us hybrids. For those that did bad in the pastis on them . Cannot blame so many today for the actions of some.
6

@tedknight2608
15 hours ago
Quick Question: If it is a criminal offence to direct the actions of a prohibited group, then isn’t someone committing a crime by directing the group’s legal challenge against the prohibition?
2

@constitutionalclarion1901
15 hours ago
Possibly. It depends on whether the law is valid, for a start. I think there are also exceptions which allow funds to be provided to lawyers for such a legal challenge – but I haven’t delved into all those provisions.
2

@yubnuts
14 hours ago
This is similar to the question that arose in Deripaska (2026) where the sanctioned person (Deripaska) argued that the sanction laws were invalid because to engage legal representation to contest the listing would have itself been a breach of the sanction laws. The High Court saved the sanction laws by reading them down so that they would not extend to prohibiting a person from engaging legal advice for the purpose of contesting the listing.

Hide replies

@michellefranklin3182
15 hours ago
Thanks for this.
4

@constitutionalclarion1901
15 hours ago
Much appreciated.
2

Hide replies

@DS91284
15 hours ago
Insecurities are so vague and should never be handled by double digits.
1

@Know_It_All
16 hours ago
Thanks
3

@constitutionalclarion1901
15 hours ago
You’re welcome.

Hide replies

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

See Also

top

 

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

And then Jacob was like:

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

[07:42]

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

“But she’s saved by Christ!”

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

[16:04]

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

[22:11]

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Like there will be a treaty that will say:

 

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

 

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

 

[28:08]

 

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

 

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

 

So when people say to me:

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

And this idea of:

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

“Why are you locking us up?”

 

[35:04]

 

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

 

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

 

“Do I make my own toothpaste?”

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

“Oh, my God, you can’t do that!”

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Now someone says:

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

[41:09]

 

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

 

“Hey Tom or hey Sewell.”

 

Everyone calls you by your last name in the army:

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

So I was like:

 

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

 

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

 

But anyway, he says, he’s like:

 

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

 

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

 

“What are we doing?”

 

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

 

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

 

“5 RAR, 5th Battalion.”

 

And I was like:

 

“What did you say to them?”

 

And he said:

 

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

 

And I was like:

 

“Oh.”

 

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

 

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

 

And I was like:

 

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

 

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

 

And I was like:

 

“Is this what acid feels like?”

 

That’s what I was thinking in my head.

 

And I was like:

 

“What is going on?”

 

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

 

“All right, we’re gonna go.”

 

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

 

[46:02]

 

And then this was the first time I was like:

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

And so they’re like:

 

“Hey, let’s trade.”

 

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

 

“Hey, let’s, …”

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

[53:19]

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

[1:00:19]

 

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

“Ban women!”

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

So it’s like everyone’s saying:

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

[1:07:14]

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

[1:13:57]

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

And I remember asking my dad:

 

“Why weren’t you in the army?”

 

And he was just like:

 

“Oh, look.”

 

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

 

“Oh, I got lucky!”

 

That was his answer. I think he said something:

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

“Oh, he got lucky. He avoided it.”

 

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

 

[1:20:20]

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

I was like:

 

“Huh, I don’t know if that’s luck.”

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

To get back onto, someone just says:

 

“Fuck employment!”

 

[chuckling] Modern world does a Superchat:

 

“Thoughts on the employee question.”

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

[1:26:10]

 

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

[1:33:41]

 

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

 

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

 

Anyway. This is now:

 

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

 

Genesis 3:16:

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

And I was like:

 

“Wow, okay!”

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

And they were like:

 

“You read the wrong translation.”

 

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

 

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

 

And I was like:

 

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

 

And they’re like:

 

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

 

And I’m like:

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

And so he was like. I asked him:

 

“Why are you Christian?”

 

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

 

[1:40:02]

 

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

 

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

 

And he says:

 

“Why do you ask?”

 

And I was like:

 

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

 

And he was just like:

 

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

 

I was like:

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

And he said to me, he said:

 

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

 

And I was like:

 

“You do that every morning?”

 

And he’s like:

 

“Yep, that’s what I do.”

 

And I was like:

 

“Wow! That is fascinating!”

 

And he’s like:

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

I said:

 

“Absolutely! I really enjoyed this conversation.”

 

“Are you sure?”

 

I said:

 

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

 

And he said:

 

“Okay, well, what about next week?”

 

And I was like:

 

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

 

He said:

 

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

 

I’m like:

 

“Excellent!”

 

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

 

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

 

And I was like:

 

“Oh! Why is that?”

 

And he said:

 

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

 

I was like:

 

“Oh, okay, all right.”

 

And then I said to him:

 

“You ever spoken to a paedophile?”

 

I said:

 

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

 

And he was like:

 

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

 

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

 

And [chuckling] he said:

 

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

 

And I was like:

 

“Okay, you want to show me your God?”

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

[1:46:16]

 

And I said to him:

 

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

 

And he was like:

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

He goes:

 

“You don’t know about my past?”

 

I was like:

 

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

 

And he said:

 

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

 

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

 

“There’s a lot of, …”

 

Like a feminist. He’s like:

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Or some shit! And he goes:

 

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

 

And then he said:

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

“This is my God! How do you feel?”

 

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

 

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

 

He’s like:

 

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

 

And I was like:

 

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

 

He’s like:

 

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

 

And I was like:

 

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

 

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

 

[1:52:11]

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

And I said to him:

 

“Are you a vegetarian now?”

 

When he talked about the magpies, I said:

 

“Are you a vegetarian?”

 

He’s like:

 

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

 

And I’m like:

 

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

 

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

 

“All right, that was unnecessary.”

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

[1:58:41]

 

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Like this is their God, this is their God!

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

[2:05:06]

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

“Jesus was Italian.”

 

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

 

“No need for acknowledgment.”

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

[2:11:12]

 

 

All right, I’m back. I’m not sure who, because there’s a couple wives here, but someone made these little steak mushroom pies. Homemade everything from scratch. And there was a little pot on the stove with like a mushroom sauce in it on top of that. And I just absolutely demolished these absolutely incredible, like 10 out of 10, homemade steak and mushroom pie! And I was dipping the mushroom pie in the mushroom sauce and the steak was like, just perfect! And I got myself a glass of Jersey milk. Raw, organic, biodynamic Jersey milk from my mate’s farm. His family’s got a hobby farm. They’ve got 12 Jersey cows. Incredible! Incredible! I feel like food like that is near medicinal. It’s that good for you. I feel alive!

 

People say we don’t have a culture. And it’s like, whatever these people have as a culture, I don’t care! [chuckling] Like, whatever they think culture is, I don’t care! Like, I’m actually happy with meat pies and footy. I think we got to make it better. We could do better footy and we could do better meat pies. But I am genuinely like a meat pie and footy nationalist. All my kids are going to play footy. All of them. All of them! I don’t care! What I hate about sportsball is what I hate about consumers. It’s the consumption of the fake cult that’s the problem. It’s the cult around football that are the issue. It’s not football. Playing the sport is great. I mean, depends on the football. I think AFL is probably one of the best sports in the world. But I’m biased. I’m Victorian. I didn’t play enough footy growing up. I think that’s why I’m short. [chuckling] People say:

 

“No, it’s the other way around.”

 

No, no, no! Just give me a minute, give me a minute. My dad’s English though, so I played a lot of soccer. I played high level soccer which I know a lot of I know in Europe you call that football, but yeah, we call it soccer in Australia. And footy is either rugby or AFL, depending on which state you’re in. I talked about this with Mason, I think. But anyway, this milk is so good! Are we back? Is the stream back up and running? Stone Mountain says:

 

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

 

That’s what we’re going to get on. And I’ve got like, there’s like 200 and something comments underneath that. So that’s how far behind I am, guys. I don’t apologise.

 

[2:15:04]

 

So Louis Theroux is the same exact individual as that Anglican priest I was telling you a story about just then. He’s a passive-aggressive lesbian. Louis Theroux, he wasn’t raised by a man, he was raised by a single mom. Now there’s a lot of people that were raised by single moms that turn out as men. I’m not attacking men that have had to go through that unfortunate situation. I’ve got a lot of friends. Almost all my mates in the army interestingly were products of single moms. They didn’t have dads. Almost all of my friends in the army. Which is really interesting and that actually ties in with the Roman understanding of creating a full-time army, was that it was a brotherhood cult of men that didn’t have proper, they weren’t in a proper gens, so they didn’t have a cult of a family. They weren’t in a proper family Patriarchy, so they had to join an institution of Patriarchy. I think you got to do both.

 

Most men I know that turn out, every man I know that’s turned out well, that has been born of a single mom, has had really good male role models. They’ve joined the army or they’ve gotten into MMA or they’ve gone into footy or whatever it is. And they’ve got this like brotherhood. They’ve got this Patriarchy. They’ve got men, they’ve got unc [“uncle”], they’ve got uncs. They might not have dad, but they’ve got uncs. And you got to have uncs. Even if you’ve got a dad, you gotta have uncs. I actually didn’t have any uncs. Well, I had some soccer coaches and stuff, but it’s not quite the same.

 

And then when I joined the army, obviously I was telling you about some uncs. But I didn’t have uncs until I joined the army, basically. You got to have uncs. It’s a big part of young guys developing. Got to have uncs! And the system hates uncs! The system hates uncs! They absolutely hate uncs! This gynocracy, this feminised Kali Yuga, disgusting freak stuff. They hate uncs because they want you to have lesbian, passive-aggressive lesbians explaining to you how life is. And they’re trying to reprogram you from your dad. And if you don’t have a dad, then you’re double fucked!

 

And so that’s why they went after the manosphere, because the manosphere is basically a bunch of guys trying to be uncs. It’s a bunch of guys trying to make money off being an unc. And most of them are not good people. Some of them are the middle somewhere. They’re a bit Beyond Good and Evil. But most of them are pimps, unfortunately. And they feed off the worst energy of the Kali Yuga.

 

But in doing so, they expose it! So it’s a double edged sword. They attract the energy that they put out and vice versa. They go after these OnlyFans hoes and they, you know what I mean? They associate in those circles. Even if it’s from a juxtaposition, it doesn’t matter, you’re associating with it, so you’re going to attract that energy.

 

But Louis Theroux is a passive-aggressive lesbian. And the system is really intimidated by the return of Patriarchy. And what the manosphere represents is these little warlords. It represents these little Patriarchs building their little Patriarchies. And they’re an influencer. And young teenage boys and even older guys in their 20s are looking up to these people. They’re looking up to Andrew Tate, and they’re looking up to, I’ve never heard of who HS Tiki Toki is. I mean, it’s just ridiculous! [chuckling] But that’s obviously absurd!

 

But the same kind of demographic that are looking up to these guys are also looking up to us. I have young guys in their late teens almost every day come up to me and try and take a photo with me almost every day. Some days, five, six young guys will come up to me and they’ll say:

 

“You’re a legend, blah, blah, blah.”

 

Quuk And they tell me a story about what’s happening at their school, and they’ll say:

 

“Like they do a Welcome to Country every Monday morning, and everyone just kind of like, mumbles and they don’t boo, but we haven’t built up to that yet. But then when the Aussie anthem comes out, we all stamp our feet and chant it loud. And all the woke teachers are seething! You can see all the fat bitches seething! And we just smash out the national anthem! Every Monday morning we make a point of it!”

 

They didn’t say that. I said:

 

“You make a point of it?”

 

They say:

 

“Yeah, exactly!”

 

I’m like:

 

“Yeah, good!”

 

But these young guys, they’re looking for unc. Where’s unc? Because dad’s a pushover. Or maybe dad is not a pushover, but you still need uncs. And Louis Theroux is a very insecure dude. He’s really messed up because he didn’t have the opportunities that he should have. But he grew up in a world where you could still, if you’d got your foot in the door you could establish yourself, and if you were good at your job, you would be promoted. And that’s the world that he grew up in. He’s like an older millennial. Actually, he’s probably a Gen-Xer. He’s probably like a young Gen-Xer. He’s somewhere around the Millennial. You know what I mean? Like a Gen-Xer Millennial. And he did a little bit of work for, who’s that other lesbian? Michael Moore. He did a little bit of work for Michael Moore. And it’s that Left-wing agitating expose journalism. Now I’ve watched a few Michael Moore documentaries and I think he does a good job.

 

[2:21:05]

 

Same thing as I’ve watched a lot of Louis Theroux documentaries and he does a good job. Louis Theroux is almost more annoying than in some ways because his whole shtick is trying to get the person to be pissed off! Which again, that’s kind of how my brother behaved. And it was weird! No matter how much my dad told my brother like:

 

“Michael, you can’t talk to people like this. You’re gonna get punched in the head.”

 

And no matter how many times my brother got punched in the head, he still kept behaving this way.

 

Now I don’t think Louis Theroux has ever been punched in the head, but he behaves in a way and he talks to people in a manner where he relies on the passive-aggressive and gynocratic system to enforce his moral structure on society. Now he’s got a lot of idiots and midwits convinced because of the way they’ve done very clever editing. Like they’ll ask a question, whether it’s a silly question, or a good question. And then he kind of feeds off this pause moment the person’s pause paused and reflected on the question and they’re like:

 

“Ha! Gotcha!”

 

And then all the midwits that like Louis Theroux that are watching and they’re like:

 

“Gotcha!”

 

Now, I haven’t even watched this manosphere doco, I’ve just watched the shorts, but I’ve watched a lot of Louis Theroux doccos. So I know exactly his tricks, I know exactly what he does. And it’s a shtick, it’s a grift! And the grift is:

 

“I’m going to try to piss this person off. I’m going to try to make this person seem unreasonable.”

 

And he found a group of people that it was quite clear they couldn’t articulate their value systems. And in a lot of cases their value systems were inherently, not just broken, but misaligned and not very White and Aryan.

 

I’ve done lots of streams on monogamy and polygamy and I’ve talked about how polygamy is a weapon of war. Polygamy is a weapon of war! It’s a weapon. Polygamy is a demographic weapon. It’s a form of jihad. Polygamy is a form of jihad. And there are Christian groups that do polygamy as well the Mormons. And polygamy is not sustainable. It creates, … You want to talk about lack of social cohesion. What it creates is a society where it creates an incel society that check out! There’s a lot of layers to this. When you have polygamy, especially in a capitalist society, you’re now hyper selecting for genes that are capitalist pieces of shit!

 

So I’m not a communist, but I’m definitely not a capitalist. I’m the Third Position. All right? People that think the purpose in life is to make lots of money, and there’s nothing wrong with being good at making money. It’s good to be good at your trade, it’s good to make money, but it’s not, … The love of money is the root of evil! And that’s a fact! Your purpose in life isn’t to make lots of money. If it happens for you and you’ve got a utilitarian or industrial drive to do better, then there’s Aryan qualities in that, as long as you are fairly and honestly and you’re a community minded person, there’s nothing wrong with being rich.

 

I’m not anti-rich. And I want to make that very clear. I’ve never ever been anti-rich. I’ve never seen a rich person and been like:

 

“Why is he rich?”

 

Like the way Marxists feel like they’ve got a jealousy component to it. I’m not jealous of rich people, I just don’t like pieces of shit, and there’s a lot of people unfortunately that are rich because of really immoral means. And there is obviously huge wealth inequality. And it’s very unlikely, except in the cases of religious structures that you could have polygamy in this society that wouldn’t be entirely associated with wealth. It is not going to come down to good genes, it’s going to come down to wealth. And in our broken society, wealth is correlated with being immoral. Wealth is correlated with having bad genes. People with bad genes are doing really well in the society and good honest people are being punished because we’re controlled by these dishonest bad people that have created a structure and a framework to keep them in power and to keep them wealthy and to keep their competition down.

 

And the weakness of our fairness and our altruism is we’ve allowed this to happen. That’s our major weakness. And that’s because we’re living in the collapse of our aristocracy. We used to have an aristocracy, we don’t have an aristocracy. We need an aristocracy! We can’t survive without statesmen. We can’t survive without massive! Well, not massive! Massive is probably not the right word but concrete intergenerational power structures. Democracy is the last. Well, this is late stage democracy. And democracy in of itself is towards the end. And we’re in the end of the end. We’re in the worst form of democracy where everyone gets a vote. That’s not actually how democracy was intended to be.

 

So yeah, I’m not a fan of polygamy. I think that whatever goal you’re trying to achieve with polygamy can be achieved without it over more generations. And polygamy is a thinning of the male population, and we have to be very careful to not thin out the male population. There are a lot of dorks and there are a lot of losers, sure!

 

[2:27:01]

 

 

[Remainder of Transcript in Progress]

 

 

[3:41:59]

 

 

END

top