https://redice.tv/red-ice-radio/the-history-of-jewish-influence

 

(NOTE: This link will take you to PART 1 ONLY.

You need to be a Red Ice MEMBER to listen to Part 2. BTW, I would encourage readers to become subscribers to Red Ice!)

 

 

 

 

Red Ice Radio

 

Dr Andrew Joyce

 

 

The History of Jewish Influence

 

Part 2/2

 

 

Published on Jun 1, 2016

 

 

Red Ice Preface

top

 

 

Andrew Joyce PhD is a scholar, speaker and writer with academic expertise in immigration, ethnic and religious conflict, and philosophy. Andrew sits on the Editorial Advisory Board of The Occidental Quarterly and is a regular contributor to The Occidental Observer. He also serves the British Renaissance Policy Institute in an advisory capacity and will be producing and editing a new journal for BRPI. He is in the final stages of preparing for publication Talmud and Taboo: Essays on The Jewish Question.

 

Dr. Joyce joins us for another critical look inside the history and events that continually lead us back to the immense Jewish question. To begin, Andrew highlights his academic journey and how he arrived at tackling the vast obstacles embedded within our propagandized Western history to get to the truth of Jewish influence. We discuss their role during the Middle Ages as middleman merchants in close alliance with the elite powers that be, when the practice of usury transformed the means by which Europe was expanded and consolidated. Andrew explains some misconceptions about Jewish emancipations during the medieval period, many of which were influenced by the weakening of monarchal power and the rise of parliamentary democracy in host nations. Then, we consider how the Jewish proclivity of exploiting weaknesses within the flawed democratic system, their fierce ethnocentricity, and deep fear of being racially and genetically disseminated has compelled them to intensely strategize against gentiles. Andrew talks about the cycle of greed within the monarchy system that led to numerous Jewish expulsions and the clever maneuvers that repeatedly brought them and their money back into the untouchable ruling elite fold. We also look at the current calamity of governmental errors driving Europeans to extinction and how Jews have contributed in shaping the demographic suicide of the West.

 

In the members’ half, we address the concern that there tends to be an unhealthy obsession with the JQ and how we can study our own weaknesses in terms of damaged ethnic cohesion in balancing this weighty issue. Dr. Joyce stresses that we must find rational ways to communicate to the average citizen how our deprived sense of historical peoplehood coupled with the barrage of guilt inducing MSM and academic programming is leading us to the slaughter. We talk about the great power of face to face persuasion and leading by example, along with using humorous memes and trolling in encouraging our folk to adopt a sense of nationalistic pride.

 

Then, Andrew illuminates how Jews have used a backdoor trial and error approach to slowly infiltrate special interest groups aiming to clamp down on freedoms to criticize detractors, and we look at what a massive cultural shift might look like if Whites can employ that same diligence in reversing the pathologically blind response to their destruction. Further, we discuss the immense responsibility that lies in safeguarding the inheritance of our future generations, which ultimately requires a strong ethnic brotherhood standing in radical resistance to the invading cultures that have no place within our own. At the end, we get into the idea that everything happening now with the push for multiculturalism in the West is just history repeating itself, and if we are to reverse this creeping genocide we must bring more awareness, raise the stakes, and adapt an attitude of total success.

 

 

CONTENTS

 

 

PART 1

[Separate post]

Red Ice Preface

Introduction

How Joyce Came to Be Writing About Jews

Schindler’s List

Migration and Ethnic Conflict

Our History About Jews is Written by Jews

Discovering Kevin MacDonald’s Work

Contacting MacDonald and Writing for the Occidental Observer

Official View of Jews as Victims

Jews as Tax Farmers, Money Merchants in the Middle Ages

Wipe Your Mind of Any Preconceptions of Jews in History

How Jews Gained a Foothold in Europe

The “Emancipation” of the Jews

Frederick the Great of Prussia Made the Jewish Community Liable for Fraud

Jewish Emancipation and the Rise of Parliamentary Democracy

Why We Should View Jews as a Group?

Jews Are The, “Groupiest Group That Ever Grouped!”

Jews Fear Mixing and And Vanishing Genetically

Jews Are All Times Strategisers, at All Times Tacticians

Jewish Expulsions Throughout History

Jewish exploitation and Exclusivity

Opposition from Nobility, Clergy and Peasants

The Cycle of Expulsion of Jews and Their Return

Jews Thrive Under Very Strong Government and a Weak Population

Why Should We Concern Ourselves with Jewish Ethnic Interests and Power?

People of European Descent Face Demographic Catastrophe

Poisonous Jewish Intellectualism and SJWs

The “Refugee” Invasion

Our Land is Not Ours Anymore

British Renaissance and TOO

Sudden Enthusiasm for New Groups and Movements, Trump

Hubris vs 2,000 Year Problem

Trump Not in Jewish Play Book

“Talmud and Taboo” Book

See Also

PDF Download

Version History

 

 PART 2

 

Red Ice Preface

Introduction to Part 2

A Need for a More Objective View About Jews

Avoiding the Obsessive Paranoid Approach to the JQ

Jews as Demonic, or as Supernatural Beings?

Jews Work Very Hard at Gaming the System

Jewish Exaggerations and Propaganda

Pseudo-Science from Jewish Academics

The Teaching of History is Dying Particularly the Nationalistic Element

Television and World War Two History

Although People Are Poor on Facts, They Are Rich in Indignation!

The Nature of “Reading” Has Changed

Jewish Atrocity Propaganda Dominates

We Need to Really “Evangelize” for Our Cause and for the Truth

Adopting an Unsentimental and Hard Perspective is Sometimes Needed

Communicating Our Message

Younger Generation’s Use of Humour with Things Like the “Holocaust”

It’s Time to Adopt Many Different Tactics

The Jewish Introduction of Hate Speech Laws in Britain

Jews Are Persistent about Getting Their Way

Jews Behind Race Relations Legislation

The Jewish Dominated National Committee for Commonwealth Immigrants

Brittan and Rifkind’s Public Order Act That Banned Racial Harassment

Sidiq Khan, the Muslim Mayor of London

London, a Multicultural Hellhole

Many More Kahns to Come

The Personal Individual World of the Average Citizen Has Shrunk

As the Situation Gets Worse It May Not Get Better for Our Cause

Be Prepared to Be Surprised

We Must Act If Our Children and Grandchildren Are to Be Spared a Horrific Future!

Every White Country in the World is Being Flooded

You Wear the Uniform of Your Race, in Your Skin

Why This Has Been Done to Us?

Jewish Security was the Primary Motivation in Early Twentieth Century

Post World War Two Jewish Drive Towards Genocide of Whites

“The Last Whites of the East End”

Wrapping Up

I Do Think That We Will Win

See Also

PDF Download

Version History

 

 

TRANSCRIPT

(72:00)

[00:00]

 

 

Introduction to Part 2

top

 

Henrik: Welcome back ladies and gentlemen. We’re talking with Dr Andrew Joyce about his work on jewish history, jewish influence and, of course, of why we should take an interest in the subject, if we care about our own survival, our genetic survival, and the survival of our culture, our civilization. We’ve tried to really just kind of give an overview picture of some of the history of the relationship here between the jews in Europe and, of course, our relationship to that and how this is playing out in the modern age. I hope we can speak some more about this later, about what is happening right now and how we are being, you know, uniquely targeted in this way.

 

 

A Need for a More Objective View About Jews

top

 

But one of the thing I wanted to ask you about, Andrew, before we kind of proceed, if you will. And I don’t mean to take things off topic here, but, do you think that there is a, how do I put it, a kind of paranoia to a certain extent that seems to comfort some that are highly focused on this issue alone. I mean, you seem very well balanced, you have an ability to be objective, rational, scientific when you look at this subject.

 

And I know there is that is a concern here too, as people are usually not even willing to look at the subject, so I hate to criticize those who do look at the subject, but if I would have any critique, it would be that I feel that some people, it’s almost like they see an omnipotence, almost a metaphysical nature to the power and the influence that Jews hold as a group, and with that there seems to be almost kind of a paranoia over the issue. I’m not sure if you agree with that, or not, but do you think that, you know, that approach, or attitude to the subject is something that serves us good at the end, or not? I would propose that people adopt a more of an attitude that you hold, which is more objective, more cold, it’s not so emotional, if you will. I don’t know if you have any comments on that Andrew?

 

Andrew: The first thing that I would say Henrik, is that I agree with you that there seems to be, if you want to call it, an obsessive quality to a lot of what has been produced by our people in relation to the jews. Not just recently only the last fifty years, you know, under the kind of conspiracy theory umbrella, or metaphysical sense, but really going going back centuries.

 

As I mentioned before, when I when I first got into the subject and I was reviewing large amounts of literature, I encountered large amounts of literature that was shoddy, that was full of hyperbolic argument, right the way through to, you know, extreme fantasy along the lines of saying, you know, jews were demonic. That they were almost supernatural beings. That they had this kind of omnipotent power and, you know. All these different ways of interpreting what was happening.

 

As you go back further in time, you go into Europe, it held different mentalities and existed in a different concept of the world that we don’t have. It was more religious, people then lived closer to death., you know, they didn’t live so long, so the entire perception of the world of life, and of the life beyond was different and much more immediate. And it tended to shape how people viewed their day to day interactions.

 

Now over time some of the older superstitions and traditions and more fanciful ways of seeing the world have slowly dissipated. But, I agree with you that there is an esoteric element to the Jewish Question, only to the extent that esoteric may mean, “hidden knowledge”.

 

Henrik: Yep.

 

Andrew: Or the occult might mean hidden knowledge. And knowledge is hidden from the public, but not in a supernatural manner. I believe that every aspect of the Jewish Problem is explainable, measurable, quantifiable and studiable in terms of human nature and the variety of human nature, the nature of human interaction, the nature of ethnic conflict and genetics. And then how we are born as human beings and the traits that we have developed over historical time and through evolutionary processes and even through our own individual sociological histories. How we are raised by our parents, the values that we hold, the life priorities that we possess.

 

[05:00]

 

 

Avoiding the Obsessive Paranoid Approach to the JQ

top

 

But yes, there are definitely people who, I would say, have a kind of obsessive, paranoid, hobbyist, kind of approach to the subject, where they see, you know, jews under their bed, or something like that. Everything that goes wrong, you know, it would be this knee jerk reaction to say:

 

“Oh, it’s the Jews!”

 

And, you know, to offer a different picture to that, as we got into earlier, and as I explained, even with one of the bigger catastrophes that we face right now, in terms of this demographic displacement, I hesitate in saying, you know, “It’s all the jews”, you know, they’re brainwashing all of us and that is the only reason. No. I think we can reach to the fact that we are in a post-industrial society, that there are economic transitions that we view what is ours, differently. That our sense of community and ethnic cohesion has been damaged by a multitude of factors.

 

 

Jews as Demonic, or as Supernatural Beings?

top

 

And that some of, a lot of the weaknesses that we have had as a people over historical time, have been native to us, and we have provided more than ample opportunities for those weaknesses to be exploited by a people that there is, you know, more self interested than us on average, more cohesive than us, and seem to work much better as a team, than we do. I don’t see jews as demonic, or as supernatural beings and, you know, one of the offshoots of that is that I don’t see jewish influence, or jewish power, control on our society as insurmountable, or unbeatable.

 

Henrik: Right.

 

Andrew: I think that it’s really is simply a matter of studying what our weaknesses are and to develop strategies that are calm and sane and well thought out, and really long term. And if we do that, and if we can build upon such simple foundations, then I think that we will find that and in the next century, or two, things will look much, much different than there have in the past.

 

 

Jews Work Very Hard at Gaming the System

top

 

But, it will take constant effort and dedication, because that’s what jews apply to, on their side in fence. They apply a constant effort and dedication to what they’re doing. You know, they aren’t just lazily floating into these positions of influence that they occupy. When you look at the, you know, the issue of ethnic networking, whether it’s getting seats on the Supreme Court, or, whether it’s occupying key financial positions in the world of business. It’s just, it’s hard work. It’s not fair work. They’re not playing the game fairly, but they’re working very, very hard at gaming the system.

 

Henrik: Yep. That’s true.

 

Andrew: And there’s nothing supernatural about that. We can we can look at, … I do all the time in each of my articles for the Occidental Observer, cite the sources and the facts, you know, this is how they’re doing it.

 

Just to wrap that up, you asked me if I think, whether a paranoid, or an esoteric view of the Jewish Question is helpful to our movement. No it isn’t. It’s extremely counter-productive, because, you know, all the organized jewish community, or the Anti-Defamation League need to do, is to point to one quack coming out with something, … I read a statement like, you know, “The jews trying to blow up the moon”, or something, and that’s it, you know. That will resonate so deeply in the mind of a neutral individual that it will taint forever any sane, or rational attempt to get them to come to terms with this most important question.

 

Henrik: Yeah, and again, as I said, I hate to critic criticize those who are willing to look at this area, but I guess my main overview point would be, that there can be an unhealthy obsession, I think with the subject. I’ve seen many good people, utterly lose themselves and, you know, their own quality of life, …

 

I mean, I understand this is for real, this is a battle, this is not a joke. We have to we have to fight, we have to work to get ourselves out of this, but I think to be a healthy human being, to be able to address these subjects in a rational way, I think it’s important that we remain a level of mental health here and stay sane [chuckling], to be able to be efficient fighters, if you will, in this. And I think disconnecting from the subject, or breaking out from you getting a bit of a pause, now and then, is something that would be beneficial to some people.

 

[10:00]

 

 

Jewish Exaggerations and Propaganda

top

 

It’s a friendly critique, if anything, you know. But one of the things I want to get into here is basically, any kind of, it dovetails with what we just spoke about and that is, that there is a frustration, I think that comes with this topic for obvious reasons, because there are exaggerations on the opposite side of this, that are so outrageous. That those who study any of this to at any length, seem almost incapable of communicating to these absurd claims, if you will, to quote, “normal” people, who don’t look at any of this, you know, they, … Most people are just recipients of the normal propaganda out of the mainstream media and education, and all the rest.

 

But then, on on our side, if you will. We who look into this, deeper into history and science and these kinds of issues, see, for example, their claims of, you know, shrunken heads and electrified floors, you know, during the Second World War, or are making soap right out of the fat of the people, or that somehow, the German women during the Second World War wanted to make pillows out of the hair of jewish women, or that they made lampshades out of their skin. [laughing] Anyone who rationally looks at this, will quickly realize how absurd many of these claims are.

 

 

Pseudo-Science from Jewish Academics

top

 

Another example, of course, that was spoken about in the break, is the pseudo-science that exists behind many jewish academics, from Spinoza, I know you’ve written a great length about him. We have Stephen Jay Gould, we have, we also spoke a bit about Donald Yates, who wrote, “When Scotland was Jewish”. And it’s almost this aspect of going too far. It’s another level of pseudo-history, pseudo-science. But, when we try to communicate this, still to this day, it seems like, we are the kooks for pointing these, you know, obvious things out to people.

 

So, my point is, to make a long winded point somewhat short, is there is a disconnection in the communication between those who study the subject and those who are not well versed in this at all. And I think both sides look at this as like, the other side it seems are utterly kooks and there’s no interface between them. What do you suggest in terms of being able to explain this to people rationally and to be able to bring up some of these exaggerations without being sounding outlandish, or even the aspect that we dare to question, you know, World War Two history. It’s a huge subject I know, but what would you say to all of this?

 

Andrew: One of the first important points that I think needs to be made when we’re talking about how to communicate truth to someone about any of these topics, is the fact that the nature of communication has itself changed significantly in the last ten, or fifteen years and the nature also of our education in all of our nations has changed significantly, as well. And what do I mean by that? Well, I interact with a lot of young people and, you know, I am always keen to engage new people that I meet in conversation, both about current events and also when I touch a little bit about, you know, various historical subjects. It’s a passion of mine.

 

 

The Teaching of History is Dying, Particularly the Nationalistic Element

top

 

One of the things I’ve discovered is that, first of all, history is dying. The teaching of history, certainly is dying, and the great popular understanding of history is also dying. This isn’t surprising in a society which is beings sort of slowly led to slaughter. One of the best ways to encourage a people to go silently into that good night, is to deprive it of it’s sense of historical people-hood, and so you slowly withdraw significant aspects of the teaching of it’s history, particularly the nationalistic elements.

 

So, the first thing that I would say, you’re painting with broad strokes here, would be that the average member of the public doesn’t have a good understanding of any of their history, let alone any aspect of jewish history. What passes for history today, is much closer to tabloid journalism. And when you turn on the TV, whether it’s the History Channel, or some other kind of historical documentary that they put on a mainstream TV channel. It’s full of sound bytes and catch phrases and punch lines, designed to convey a very simplistic and very targeted message about what happened, why it happened and what you’re supposed to think about what happened.

 

[15:00]

 

The sense of history, as something which is malleable, debatable, that’s subject to an intellectual tug of war, and in particular, something that should provoke investigation rather than result in some kind of self-satisfied, “I know what happened”. That sense of history, as far as I can see, it is almost, it exists in corners of the Internet, in some intellectual movements, this kind of questioning attitude. Red Ice Radio itself is an example of one of the last enclaves in our culture, in our society, where free debate and the spirit of investigation persists. But, Henrik as I said, history as we understand it, is a dying art in our society.

 

Henrik: Right.

 

 

Television and World War Two History

top

 

Andrew: So, what I have come to expect when engaging any member of the public in discussion about any particular sort of subject, and in particular, I suppose World War Two and the alleged atrocities which occurred during it, and I mention those specifically, because that is one of the most common things that appears on TV is, you know, this is what happened during World War Two. This is who said, this is what happened during World War Two. And this is how you should feel about it. You should feel horrified that this happened in Europe. You should feel some sense of guilt, because your country was either complicit in it, or stood by and watched it happen.

 

And, you know, normally that’s followed up with an advertisement for Christian Aid to Africa during the ad break, [laughter] or something that, you know, some woman coming on TV and explaining why refugees are welcome!

 

 

Although People are Poor on Facts, They are Rich in Indignation!

top

 

So it all feeds into a pattern. But, the average person on the street, really doesn’t know a great deal about World War Two at all. And most will admit that, as well. But, more crucial than than what they know, or do not know, is the sense that they are, they don’t possess a lot of facts, but somehow an instinct gets woven in there, through their cultural and educational experience. This instinct I talked about earlier, where, you know, that something bad happened and, you know, that to adopt an antagonistic position to this bad thing that happened, it will make you a bad person! So, although they are poor on facts, they are rich in indignation!

 

Henrik: Yes.

 

Andrew: Should you decide to press on that point, and I’ve discovered that when you present some facts in conversation, I’ve discovered, almost immediate enlightenment! Whenever you come out with, you know, just bare facts with the idea, you know:

 

“Oh, well, you know, the number of jewish casualties in World War Two, during World War Two was nowhere near as high as was what you think it is.” or, “You know, the number of Germans who died and the number of Europeans across the Continent, far dwarf the number of jewish dead.”

 

Whereas, when is a Steven Spielberg’s Dream Works going to make a film about their suffering, you know? When can we expect a movie on Dresden:

 

“Oh! You’ve never heard of Dresden? Why haven’t you heard of Dresden?”

 

 

Henrik: Yeah

 

Andrew: And slowly, slowly, the scales begin to fall from their eyes, so to speak., but that is a very direct form of communication. And again we come back to this idea, as I said, about how communication has changed.

 

 

The Nature of “Reading” Has Changed

top

 

It used to be, that we lived in a much more literate culture and this might seem strange in an era that I’m saying this, when we have the internet and we have Twitter and Facebook, and it seems like people are constantly reading, but that really depends on your definition of, “reading”. When, you know, when someone fifty, or sixty years ago went to a library, or picked up a newspaper, they read. And when they read, they read something that was quite long. And they read with a sense that this was something they needed to really get a good grasp on, understand and remember.

 

Whereas, what is reading today involve? Well, it might involve having a quick look at a one sentence status update on Twitter. It might be consist most of reading, perhaps a two thousand word op-ed in The Huffington Post, but the nature of reading has changed. That’s why I argue that we live in a much less literate society.

 

[20:00]

 

And communication, the emphasis of communication are shifted much more to the personal and the interpersonal, in the sense that, you know, one of my friends is a professor in business. And one of the things he teaches his students about is this how marketers in industry are shifting all of their attention away from, kind of billboards and different things, into getting people to talk to each other, or buy products., because they have discovered that’s how we communicate best and that’s the best way to sell an idea is to spread socially through conversation., because we’re communicating less and less with ideas on paper. I say that with some sense of despondency, being a writer predominately, myself. Perhaps that’s one of the reasons why am I taking to the airwaves as well, you know, it’s a natural evolution.

 

Henrik: Yeah.

 

 

Jewish Atrocity Propaganda Dominates

top

 

Andrew: And perhaps I’m moving with the times. But, yes, communication has changed, but how to do we communicate an alternative narrative to World War Two, you know? However, it’s getting out there, the popular narrative of World War Two and the the alleged atrocities that took place during it is predominate and it is dominated and shaped by jewish organizations, on all levels of our culture. Not only in terms of history books that are put out there.

 

Some of which, I recently read a book on the so-called czars pogroms in which, you know, long discredited tales about babies having their heads smashed against walls and thrown on fires, being burnt alive. Women having their breasts hacked off. It’s really, really pornographic, brutal imagery. These stories have long since been discredited, but you still find jewish historians repeating them.

 

Henrik: Yes.

 

Andrew: How do we compete with this kind of brutal, emotive, audacious propaganda?

 

It can be an uphill struggle to combat an article like that you need to rely on a lot of facts, and you also require, …

 

Henrik: Let me ask you Andrew, because, I mean, you read my mind there, because I want to mention, you know, that despite everything you’ve mentioned, there is a narrative driven here, there’s a consensus that forms itself. By the mass message of the mass media, right? To do something here is driving the influence and I like the word you used, “instinct” right. It’s creating an instinct in people, they can’t really pinpoint it, or maybe justified intellectually it was explained why they feel a certain way. They just kind of know on an instinctual level.

 

What I’m wondering is if this change that’s taking place in the ideas of history and how we learn things. If that’s something that we can actually use in our favor, right. Is there something we can do strategically to exploit that at this time? Because obviously the one to one communication is, as you say, probably the best and the most ideal, but it’s also the one that takes the longest to do right. We need to still mass communicate, but we need to do it in such a way that it appeals to people. And very difficult, maybe, I don’t know how much you’ve been thinking about these things. I know your work is primarily in history and so forth and on media strategies, but what’s your thought on it?

 

 

We Need to Really “Evangelize” for Our Cause and for the Truth

top

 

Andrew: Is it is something that I’ve given considerable thought to. And actually for several years now. I’ve thought that one of the things that we need to be doing more of is, almost copying the Christians church, in that we act as missionaries and we seek to go out and interact with people, and really evangelize for our cause and for the truth.

 

Evangelism as a word, really is, I think extremely appropriate and very apt for what we are doing, because we are seeking not necessarily to save someone’s soul, but we are seeking to save them from themselves, almost.

 

The existing narrative and all of those instincts that they currently possess, if left to their own devices without our intervention, are very, very harmful and damaging to the rest of us, also, but really  let’s not beat around the bush here, it’s a suicidal instinct and it’s own path to damnation! And if people are going to respond best to, kind of, face to face persuasion and seeing their friends and their family members, you know, adopting a different worldview, and not being evil Nazis that want to use electrified floors on people and everything else, [laughter] then that is a way forward.

 

[25:10]

 

It has to be all encompassing. It always saddens me sometimes when I when I see images online of a so-called far right protest and the people there are holding beer cans and just in their overall presentation, everything about them is, you know, there’s not much there that I can sympathize with, or admire. Other than the fact that they know, that the current narrative is designed to, the destruction of their people, basically.

 

But, beyond that, some of these people are rather unfortunate personalities. It’s a confusing one for me in some respects. Just like you said about those whose kind of succumb to a kind of paranoia. We want to give them all a friendly critique and we hesitate to completely push them away, even if what they’re doing is harmful.

 

When I see, you know, for want of a better word, some thugs on the street, you know, half drunk accosting members of the public and presenting really what should be a very decent and very productive message, in a quite vulgar way, to I myself feeling very frustrated, because, …

 

Henrik: And the media loves to focus on those personages too, of course, It’s like, right for the picking for, you know, the papers and the mass media.

 

Andrew: Absolutely! And it’s frustrating, because I look often and I see so many good people in our movement, and I feel overall a desire to push us up, to raise us up as a people, and we we should be in a sense, elitist and always looking for self improvement within ourselves personally, and within ourselves as a movement and ultimately as a people. And it’s frustrates me somehow, sometimes that people who don’t live up to that ideal, or, and live it out, because, you know, for every, … There just seems to be too many people out there, who are, you know, chanting that they are Aryan superman and yet lives of debauchery and drunkenness and low achievement.

 

 

Adopting an Unsentimental and Hard Perspective is Sometimes Needed

top

 

Perhaps that’s a little bit elitist of me, but again, as I said, at the outset of this interview, I’m unsentimental about the problem that we face. And I may be more hard-line than most, and less egalitarian and welcoming everyone into the fold, as others, but, you know, these are hard times. As for me personally, I think that adopting a hard perspective is sometimes needed.

 

Henrik: Yep.

 

 

Communicating Our Message

top

 

Andrew: And when it comes to communicating our message, on a one to one basis, that to me is the antithesis of what we should be aiming for. It needs to be presented in a very acceptable, if I can put it like that way to the members of the general public. It’s difficult enough, the obstacles we face are difficult enough, without shooting ourselves in the foot.

 

Henrik: So, I’m a believer that, you know, there’s many different tactics that does work, that there’s many different approaches, different things will appeal to different people, different people come to the truth, and they come to a deeper, you know, interest in history from many different walks of life and whatnot. So, I am in favor of a broad kind of, you know, approach and not trimming it down too much, maybe.

 

On the other hand, I do understand what you’re saying, that there needs to be a conscious effort of what you’re doing. But, look at things of like how trolling and the of just running exaggerations of some of the claims have done, to kind of well, really destabilize the mainstream to certain extent, right? What I’m talking about is making fun, making jokes of all of this. Making it very light hearted, everything from the Daily Stormer, or to the Twitter trolls out there. There has been a certain level of success with that, I would say. Especially to young people who are, maybe just tired about the seriousness around it. I’m not saying that this appeals to academics that are, you know, fifty and over, but, my point there is that, who knew that something like this would like work on young people?

 

[30:00]

 

 

And they would be like, you know, attracted to, you know, Alt Right ideas and they kind of love just the light heartedness of it. That somehow, it’s a tremendously serious time for us as a people and what we’re facing, and yet, it seems that the light heartedness around it is what has attracted many people to it, if you think I’m saying?

 

 

Younger Generation’s Use of Humour with Things Like the “Holocaust”

top

 

Andrew: Yes, and I agree. At the outset of my review of David Cesarani’s book “The Final Solution” [“Final Solution: The Fate of the Jews, 1933–49”], I actually wrote a few paragraphs on the attitude of the younger generation, the millennial generation, if you want to give them that label, to situation that we’re in. More specifically the “Holocaust” and, you know, I wrote that, here, you know, here was a situation where we had decades of incredibly serious studious scholarly “Holocaust” revisionism, which resulted in people being imprisoned and lawsuits against people like David Irving.

 

And everything was very serious and involved lots of legalities and everything and then up pops the millennial generation with writers, with names like, “Grandpa Lampshade”! [laughter] And, you know, and with images of, like a little frog, you know, that accompanies Donald Trump, in putting Jews in striped pajamas behind wire fences! [laughter] Its taken to really ridiculous levels, and one of the things that does, to come back this idea of an instinct is, it’s so jarring to the system, to someone in the mainstream that it almost breaks that instinct.

 

Henrik: Yep.

 

Andrew: In a very different way to presenting them with some nice factual information, or playing on their curiosity. What it actually does is it plays on their sense of shock and their sense of humor. So it pulls on something very, very different and certainly no less effective to a younger millennial generation. As I said, that doesn’t want to read a great deal, and increasingly this method of communication of the meme works. This image with a funny caption designed to get a few giggles and, you know, it could be something just ridiculous, or just so outlandish that even the most earnest and, you know, self righteous, social justice warrior, might even crack a smile with them. And get them thinking about how ridiculous some aspects of the narrative that they have been taught really are.

 

 

It’s Time to Adopt Many Different Tactics

top

 

So I, you know, I actually have a lot of time for people like Andrew Anglin. I agree with you that there are so many different strategies that we should take. One of the analogies I used earlier was that, Jewish influence and this whole Jewish question is an anvil that has worn out thousands of hammers and maybe it’s time we stopped trying to just use the one hammer, …

 

Henrik: Yeah.

 

Andrew: … It’s time to adopt many different tactics and rule nothing out.

 

Henrik: No, unexpected, think outside of the box, do different things, right? You have to try whatever works here. Isn’t that what they did to penetrate into European society? They tried many different avenues, in many different paths, even getting to a position where they, for example, could exploit our sense of morality and altruism, right? That they took a long time to wear us down, if I’m correct.

 

 

The Jewish Introduction of Hate Speech Laws in Britain

top

 

Andrew: Of course! jews do not arrive at their positions through coming up with one solution and then just, you know, it was so smart and so intelligent a solution on how to penetrate our society, that it just worked first time, every time, and that was it.

 

No, actually it’s that whole, you know, “one percent inspiration ninety nine percent perspiration“, in which jews have succeeded so well, because they don’t give up. It’s the principle of trial and error. One of the great examples, of course, is the introduction of hate speech laws and the restriction of free speech in Britain. That whole process started in 1946.

 

Henrik: Yeah.

 

Andrew: In the aftermath of the bombing of the King David Hotel and then a couple of years later with the “Sergeant’s Affair” where Irgun terrorists hanged a couple of British sergeants in a Europe eucalyptus grove in Palestine, and booby trapped their bodies so that they blew up when their comrades came to retrieve them!

 

[35:00]

 

And just this, there was a wave of revulsion against jews in Britain and people were painting slogans on walls saying, “Hitler was right!” and there were attacks on jewish stores and everything.

 

 

Jews Are Persistent About Getting Their Way

top

 

So all of the jewish communists in the Labor Party floated this legislation that would outlaw anti-semitism. That was the original goal, let’s outlaw anti-semitism, let’s nip it in the bud. But it didn’t work. You know, this idea that jews are omnipotent and always get their way, is just, it’s ridiculous! It didn’t work. They tried again two years later, it didn’t work again. It was defeated at the next Labour party conference. Then it was floated in Parliament, nine times in nine years, during the 1950s. And was defeated, every single time!

 

Henrik: Wow!

 

Andrew: It was only in the 1960s did the jews attempted changing tack, and this time they decided on a different approach. It would come through the front door and the back door. So the front door was, jewish politicians and the members of parliament would continue to introduce legislation that would ultimately have the desired goal, but with one crucial difference. Instead, broadening it’s application, so it was no longer outlawing anti-semitism, it was a law outlawing group libel.

 

So, you know, you’re not allowed to disparage groups. So jews get protection from that. Well there weren’t many other groups there, and so the black population that had originated in Britain the 1950s, start to multiply and then the Indian and Pakistani communities also.

 

 

Jews Behind Race Relations Legislation

top

 

But they started, it was in 1965, Frank Soskice the Home Office minister, who was the son of Russian Jewish revolutionary migrants into Britain, he floated this Race Relations legislation. And it got passed and inside this legislation, it was like pork barreling, inside this legislation was the provision for creating a Race Relations Board. And it was supposed to be an independent board that would forever, kind of, set the guidelines for how race would be discussed in Britain. And all these think tanks would be attached to it, and it would be independent and everything else.

 

 

The Jewish Dominated National Committee for Commonwealth Immigrants

top

 

But it wasn’t remotely independent! It was staffed by jews, predominately, by jews. We know this, because we can look at the internal evidence and it was jewish dominated. One of the think tanks that it produced and referred to, was the Political and Economic Planning Institute which was dominated by jewish lawyers and which itself spawned yet another think tank, the National Committee for Commonwealth Immigrants, NCCI.

 

Now the National Committee for Commonwealth Immigrants was supposed to represent the interests of Afro-Caribbeans in Britain and also the new Pakistani and Indian population. It was supposed to give them a voice., but just like the NAACP [National Association for the Advancement of Colored People — an American organisation set up by jews for US blacks] this organization that was intended to be the spokesman and voice to all these colored immigrants. It wasn’t led by colored immigrants. None of it’s research was produced by colored immigrants. No, it was led and it was directed by a man called Anthony Lester who just so happened to be jewish, and it’s main offshoot the Runnymead Trust was another Lester brainchild and it was co-run with Jim Rose who was also, you guessed it, jewish!

 

Henrik: Yep!

 

 

Brittan and Rifkind’s Public Order Act That Banned Racial Harassment

top

 

Andrew: So it was a backdoor, trial and error kind of approach. But, you know, I could go on and on, but they kept at this until eventually, in 1985, they finally got what they wanted through pure luck.

 

There was a miner’s strike in 1985 in Wales. There was a lot of public disorder and Parliament was very, very keen to pass a Public Order Act, giving the police in the area, powers to basically to deal with this. Now the Home Office minister at the time was a jew, called Leon Brittan, and one of his close associates was another jew, named Malcolm Rifkind.

 

Well, what did Brittan and Rifkind do? Well, they snuck in a little tiny clause into that Public Order Act, that banned and made illegal racial harassment. And it is really, in 1985, that was the culmination of, you know, forty, forty four, or more, forty five or forty six years of jewish trial and error in trying to clamp down on the ability of the British people to form a critique, based around race. So it was a long time in the making and it with a huge number of nuanced approaches taken in order to achieve that goal.

 

And that’s what we need to understand. It’s not some magic trick that they’re pulling here. It’s taken over time and we need to be much more astute in terms of how this operates and on how we form our counter strategies.

 

[40:15]

 

 

Sidiq Khan, the Muslim Mayor of London

top

 

Henrik: Yeah. Yeah, well put. Well, I mean we need to fight! We need to run for office! Rise to positions of influence, whether that’s business, or politics. I think what’s happening right now is that, most of us are giving up, we’re surrendering, we’re handing over territory, White flight, we’re, you know, bowing out! It’s incredible! Well, look at what’s happening in London with Sidiq Khan and even his co-operation, of course, with the jews, in London. He could never have pulled it off, I think, without them. And yeah. Here we stand now, a major, major capital of a European city [country], you know, handed over to Muslims with the co-operation of jews. Incredible isn’t?

 

Andrew: Yeah, I was thinking about about this Sidiq Khan case, this just last night.

 

But, again, one of the things that I thought about was, yeah, we can look into all the jewish support for Khan. He certainly has it. Jonathan Freedland, the Jewish editor of The Guardian newspaper, has been singing Sidiq Khan’s praises for a long time.

 

And the aftermath of Kahn’s election, he called Kahn something like an international phenomenon and everyone wants a piece of Kahn! No one wants a piece of Kahn! [chuckles] Most of the world don’t even know who it is., but it is, just this is jewish, … It should come as no surprise that Freedland was also singing the praises of the ultra diverse London Olympic Ceremony a few years back, you know, he’s a cheerleader for anything that the signals the demographic demise of the British people in their own country!

 

Henrik: Yeah

 

 

London, a Multicultural Hellhole

top

 

Andrew: But, let’s not forget that there are all these immediate factors contributing to Kahn’s success. But, Kahn would never even enjoyed the success of London if it wasn’t for the multicultural hellhole that it is today. And it is, the multicultural hellhole, that it is today, because of decades of immigration and steady tweaking of policy and lots of behind the scenes shuffling that came about, because this is modern parliamentary democratic system that we have, leaks like a sieve and has so many black holes in it, that it can be manipulated and played like a puppet by any puppet master that wants to play the game. So, there are long term, … Kahn could not happen overnight, if I can put it in a nutshell.

 

Henrik: Yep

 

 

Many More Kahns to Come

top

 

Andrew: This has been a long time in the making. And those among us who have sense will have the foresight to see that, you know, already today, bit by bit, the bricks are being laid and the path is being laid for many, many more Kahns to come. And our effort should be on trying to figure out where those strategies are, how they are being slowly put together and do our best to stop them.

 

Henrik: What does this mean for us to think in the future, and will this lead to more people coming over to our side and realizing slowly, but surely:

 

“Yes, we are being displaced. Yes there’s no room for consideration, for us in the picture and anything that basically means everyone else is good and if there’s too many of us in any position, or in any board, or any influence whatsoever then this is going to be continually fought and we’re going to be pushed out!”

 

What does it mean for us, do you think?

 

 

The Personal Individual World of the Average Citizen Has Shrunk

top

 

Andrew: Well, here is one of our problems Henrik, in terms of, you know, people coming to our side and as things change, as they get worse, will they come over to our side? Here’s one of the problems. The world, the personal individual world of the average citizen has shrunk over time, you know, we all hear this phrase as the world is a smaller place, because of travel and ever thing else. I believe the personal world of the individual has shrunk in the last century.

 

Although we might be able to go places that our ancestors were never able to see and everything else, as I explained earlier, our sense of what is ours has shrunk down to the minute level, and what we perceive as ours and value as ours and what we have the opportunity of feeling is threatened has retracted to an astonishing degree.

 

And I think that for too many people of in our culture in our society today, they won’t be prompted to feel threatened enough, until it’s on their doorstep, until their home is being invaded, you know, until their car is being stolen, until their daughter is being attacked, or their son is being murdered.

 

[45:09]

 

And even then, as we’ve seen with so many attacks in Germany, sometimes the parents, or the relatives involved, have this sick pathological response! Where somehow they see themselves as being to blame! It is a very, very difficult and disheartening situation and there are a number of sick and countering productive and maladaptive instincts that we need to figure out how to overcome.

 

 

As the Situation Gets Worse It May Not Get Better for Our Cause

top

 

Unfortunately, I’m not one of those that believe, you know, as the situation gets worse it’s somewhat automatically going to get better, because people will be forced to wake up. I think that is, unfortunately, is a bit of wishful thinking.

 

I think the solutions are going to become, have to become ever more radical, unfortunately, to shift societal thinking. I think that, you know, within any given population of any species not even of humans are there a variety of traits and I think that these will be selected for in our population. I think that those that remain blind until the end, will go the way that every other species, member of a species that has failed to adapt as well, and that is into oblivion. And I think that those who have somewhere in them the potential and the necessary traits to find that instinct within themselves of survival and kin survival and national, and ethnic survival. If they can find out within themselves, then they will group together with us and that will be the core of what we have to fight with going into the future.

 

 

Be Prepared to Be Surprised

top

 

But it’s, I don’t claim, I don’t possess the hubris to profess to be able to predict what’s going to happen. As I said, before I think we are on a very, very dynamic situation. Things are going to be constantly changing. I’m prepared to be surprised, and I think everyone else should should be too.

 

If history tells us anything, it’s that sometimes massive cultural shifts can can can just take off from nowhere like the lighting of a fuse. And, you know, the French Revolution, and it didn’t happen overnight and there was some planning and everything, in place before it all, but once it started, it was very difficult to put that genie back in the bottle. And, I say that, you know, don’t underestimate the momentum of history and the momentum of human action. And also group thinks in crisis, you know, I think there’s still something to be said for the fact that humans are herd creatures and I think that all we need is a kind of tipping point, a percentage of the population and so many others will follow, unthinkingly if necessary.

 

Henrik: Yeah, exactly! I mean, you’re right when you say that this is kind of a, well in a roundabout way, you’re saying this is a eugenic aspect here that’s occurring. Only those that are strong enough and intelligent enough are going to make it out through this alive, to a certain extent. And then, OK, certainly it’s, you know, happening to other people too, but much less so, I mean this is largely this is a phenomenon that’s only occurring in Western nations where Europeans dwell.

 

And it’s also in a strange way, it’s got, almost like our own diaspora, right? I mean we’re being pushed out of certain areas. It’s of course, reminiscent of what happened in Spain when the Muslims were pouring in there and, jeez, who knows what direction this is going to go in the future and what kind of hardships and battles and bloodshed, that’s going to come out of this! Of trying to both regain territory, but also, you know, gain back power and influence again over the lands that are ours, that are our homelands! Andrew?

 

 

We Must Act If Our Children and Grandchildren Are to Be Spared a Horrific Future!

top

 

Andrew: Yes. I don’t, I do not envy the experience that our children and grandchildren will have, Henrik. I have two children and a third on the way, …

 

Henrik: Congratulations!

 

Andrew: Yeah! I have, you know, I fear for them. It’s something that preoccupies me and at times disturbs me. In many ways how lucky we are to be in the position we are in. It may be that we are in the more fortunate position than that, that will be experienced by our children and grandchildren.

 

[50:11]

 

I gave a speech, actually, to a group back in October and at the end of the speech, I got quite emotional and, you know, I was almost trembling when I said it, but I urged everyone present to give everything they had, not for any kind of sense of glory, or ego, or, because of the here and now, but so that their children and grandchildren are spared a horrific future! And so that they never ever, ever have to go through even what we are experiencing right now, where they are alienated within their own culture, where the tools of their culture have been completely stolen from them and in which, that they are so thoroughly oppressed and denied the most basic right of self assertion and pride in their history. It is such an undignified and horrendous matter and I just urged everyone that was there, to give it everything that they have got, for their future. I mean, I’m not a religious person and I said to more than a few people that I know:

 

“You know, I do I believe in one afterlife and that is the afterlife that I will experience through my children. They will carry on my genes. Through them I will live on.”

 

And in that sense, they are everything to me. And the ideas that I will pass on a world to them, that I can see faintly over the horizon, as you said, looks like there will be bloodshed and strife and war and hunger. That’s not a legacy that I want to pass on to them. Our parents, … I know Henrik, the generation came before us did not do a good job of safeguarding the inheritance that was to be passed on to us. Nor did their parents. And, you know, it’s left us to try and pick up the pieces for that and adopt a rightful sense of responsibility, because we are responsible to the future generations.

 

 

Every White Country in the World is Being Flooded

top

 

Henrik: Absolutely! Yeah, well said! Well said. You know, I mean it’s incredible! I think of it all the time. I have woken up many times literally in cold sweats, having nightmares about this, of displacement, of the fact that we are being slowly and in some cases violently attacked and genocided. We are being pushed out, we don’t have any country of our own anymore. Every White country in the world is being flooded in the same way and it’s a horrible prospect, it’s a horrible thought. Especially when you see the way that this is turning out, right? I mean this connection, if you will, between the view and the image that we were, to certain extent, promised, or what they’re promoting to us, how wonderful this was going to be and what it meant, right?

 

And now we’re seeing the reality of it. Which is rape rates skyrocketing, violent crime, we’re seeing terrorism, you know, bombs going off, gangs, it’s just everything that’s antithetical to the high trust society that we’ve been accustomed to, for such a long time. And I think that in itself is catching us off guard, right? It’s so shocking, it’s so foreign, and it’s so bizarre that we quite don’t know how to deal with it, almost. Not at this stage, not yet.

 

 

You Wear the Uniform of Your Race, in Your Skin

top

 

Andrew: No. As you say, it is far from the image that we were fed and this view of the future that we were led to believe, we would all go walking hand in hand into it., but it was always based on a conceit, it was always based on this idea that we could somehow make the world in our image and if we, ourselves, deny our ethnic heritage and the society that we create will be a society without ethnicity, or race. It is so conceited and it is so illogical, because, you know, I said this before, I’ve said it in speeches.

 

[55:00]

 

It does not matter, I’ve addressed audiences some of which included neutral people there, if you’re sitting on the fence, if you’re not sure about what nationalism is, or what it means to you. If you just don’t think it’s quite for you, or you don’t feel a part of your race, or ethnicity. It doesn’t matter. It really doesn’t matter! It doesn’t matter, if you hate your own race, it doesn’t matter if you think all White people deserve this, that, or the other. That all of the colored people who have come in, will view you as some kind other, it does not matter! You wear the uniform of your race, in your skin, …

 

Henrik: Yeah!

 

Andrew: ... And you wear it every single day. And no matter what you think of yourself, or your fellow Whites, the guy on the other side of the fence is going to see you as just another White!

 

Henrik: Absolutely!

 

Andrew: It’s what in his head and his perception, and to him you’re just another kaffer, just another unbeliever, just another infidel, you’re just another honky, you’re just not a cracker! Whatever it might be, drop the conceit! You’re nothing special! Your little moral system, it will take you right to the grave. You know, you need to drop the act, stop with the self conceit and join your gang! I mean, when you look at prisons, they are a microcosm of what the future is going to look like.

 

Henrik: Right.

 

Andrew: About how people group together when resources get scarce and when the level of danger in a society increases. And you will find so many White men who didn’t have any kind of racial conception of themselves before. They might be going in for shoplifting, or whatever. They might have been shoplifting with a black fellow criminal. But once they passed the prison gates, the black guy must go and join the black gang and the White guy will be forced to go and join the White gang, because, other than the prison uniform that they wear, they wear another set of uniforms, and that is skin color and everything that, that entails. It’s about, … It says so much, about where you came from and who’s going to look out for you and who can protect you. And when it comes down to it, that’s your ethnic brothers.

 

Henrik: Yeah, absolutely! Well, I mean, we’re kind of approaching the end here, I mean we could talk probably for several more hours. Very interesting discussion and so many important things. But, one of the things I want to just get to here, at the end, is kind of, this idea that everything that is happening now, has been done to us, right? I want to try to get that point across. There’s been Putnam and others have done studies on multiculturalism, I believe it’s Putnam. That shows, … What I’m saying is, I think that there has been a knowledge already, within our elites, the establishment, that this is the kind of society that would be created. I think those at least were, who have been smart, who have been pushing it, have been to a certain extent aware of the fact that, it would create chaos and disorder to a certain extent,

 

 

Why This Has Been Done to Us?

top

 

But, what would you say about why this has been done to us? What is the objective here? Is it to genocide us, is it to displace us, is it revenge? Because, obviously there is no secret that many who have been promoting the multicultural society have been jewish. They’ve been pushing diversity, they have been, you know, all the way from an academic sense of trying to deconstruct race and, you know, affiliation on that level and biology, have been jewish. From Gould to Diamond that I mentioned earlier, “The Mismeasure of Man” and these kinds of works, have all aided in this overall view that we have today that has formulated, I think, the picture that we find ourselves in, of a multicultural hellhole. But, what would you say to that question of why this has been done to us?

 

 

Jewish Security was the Primary Motivation in Early Twentieth Century

top

 

Andrew: I think there has been a confluence of factors and there have been countless and subtle changes and direction as history has progressed., but I think, going back to the late nineteenth century, early twentieth century, when you look at lots of Jewish writings like Israel Zangwill’s, “The Melting Pot” and some of the earliest jewish advocates for multiculturalism.

 

[60:00]

 

I tend to agree very strongly with Kevin MacDonald’s argument that Jews became very aware of the fact that they would enjoy more anonymity and more safety and more power and more agency in a multicultural society, because the host population with the less likely to focus on them if they are no longer the sole minority, or the most major minority within the population. So, there was definitely a kind of idea that if a homogeneously White society was diluted and it’s percentage of population decreased, somewhat, then it would result in greater jewish security and would facilitate the achievement of jewish interests much more easily and without as much trouble. And I think that idea of jewish security was the primary motivation for some time, or at least the dominant motivation for some time.

 

But, I think that things changed during World War Two. I think that in a lot of respects World War Two changed the world and it changed the character of jewish European relations, if I can put it in those terms. Right after the war, or actually, just before the end of the war, you had the publication, I can’t remember the name of the author, but title the book was, “Germany Must Perish”.

 

Henrik: Kaufman wrote something, …

 

Andrew: Yes, I think it was Kaufman. And it was this argument for the genocide — there were other arguments as well, just not quite as the notorious as Kaufman’s — for sterilization., but really it’s an argument for the genocide of the German people. And I say, I think some seeds really were planted at that time, in terms of realizing that, you know, it raised the stakes of the game. There were other Jews at the time, I referenced in my review of David Cesarini’s book, “Final Solution” that after the war there were attempts by jewish terrorist groups to poison German [water] reservoirs with the aim of just killing tens, hundreds of thousands of people.

 

 

Post World War Two Jewish Drive Towards Genocide of Whites

top

 

A hunger for incredibly wide ranging and brutal revenge was sparked during World War Two. I think before that the game was played much more subtly, but I think the pace all of everything in this European-jewish tussle, it endured a catalyst effect. And I think that ever since then what we have been seeing is not so much a search for jewish security, as, I think a very, very conscious awareness of the fact that the multicultural policies have taken a life of their own and really had a snowball effect, that really, is resulting in displacement and, if you want to give it the word “genocide”, I don’t see reason why we shouldn’t apply that to what is happening right now.

 

Henrik: Yep.

 

Andrew: Our birthrates are plummeting, the culture is anti-natalist, you know, there’s demographic displacement on a mass scale, London is no longer a British city. This is a creeping death, there is no, “ifs“, “ands”, or “buts” about it. And for me personally, I see multiculturalism practiced on this industrial scale as nothing less than part of a planned scheme for wholesale dispossession and, yes, genocide!

 

I view every advocate of multiculturalism as party to this treason to our people. And I think that radical measures are all that remain in order to roll back the tide, because the situation has just gone through so terribly out of control. And, what legislative action can be taken right now? Even this Brexit debate that’s going on in Britain, or the rise of Donald Trump — I haven’t heard one policy proposed that would reverse any of the damage that’s been done. And even if things were to remain static, the level of disparity in birth rates would still see us eclipsed in our own lands within fifty years. It’s a disaster!

 

[65:00]

 

Henrik: Yeah. My God! It’s incredible that it’s happening and that we have so many of our own that are fighting people like us! Who are trying to bring awareness to this and trying to reverse it. Trying to, you know, save people, of trying to give our own people an opportunity that these people would would grant to any other people! They would fight for them to have their lands for them, not to be invaded the way we are. It’s just, it’s unbelievable! It is truly remarkable!

 

 

“The Last Whites of the East End”

top

 

Andrew: There was a show that was, I didn’t see it, but I was sent a link to a story covering it, there was a show recently aired on the BBC. It surprised me, given the nature of the BBC. A show aired on the BBC, called, “The Last Whites of the East End”, …

 

Henrik: Yes! Lana brought it to my attention, yesterday. Very interesting.

 

Andrew: Yes, this documentary about the last White people in this district of London. And, you know, I haven’t seen and I want to watch it, because, …

 

Henrik: It’s extremely sad, very, very sad. It’s scary, very scary! Frightening watching it!

 

Andrew: But,even more interesting than the content of that show, probably was the reaction on Twitter and social media by social justice warriors, and leftists and jews afterwards. Who said, it was the most racist program that has ever been shown on TV! [laughter] this was actually what it was called. It was the most racist program that has ever been shown on TV!

 

Henrik: Why? Because it gives sympathy to Whites, or something?

 

Andrew: Yeah! They can’t even mention that Whites are being displaced. That is enough, it is racist! It reminded me of a case, not so long ago with Steven McGowan who is, I think he’s the director of the, “Ask the Truth Folk Alliance”. He’s in a religious organization in the United States. And for a long time Steven McGowan has been protesting Chinese interference in Tibet, and even the rights of Sri Lankans and all these oppressed peoples. No one even batted an eye at him saying this stuff., but one day he wrote a post on Facebook saying that he sympathized with the German people on the actions of Angola Merkel who had flooded the country with thousands of, tens of thousands of immigrants, of hundreds of thousands of immigrants! That would eventually displace the German people their in own homeland.

 

And my goodness, did the social media world erupt at this racist Stephen McGowan! For daring to draw attention to their plight. And Steven McGowan responses was very, very astute. He said:

 

“Look, no one said I was racist when I said this about Tibetans. No one said I was racist when I said the same thing about the Sri Lankans. Everybody is jumping on the bandwagon and calling me a racist, because I spoke up for the Germans!”

 

Henrik: Yeah. That’s right. Oh, man, Andrew! Yep, it’s a dire situation for sure, but we have to we have to fight. There’s nothing else about it. I’m still positive, in the sense that I think we’ll be able to turn this around. I mean, we have to! There’s no other way about it. I mean, I would fight even if I thought it was futile! I would open still do it, there’s just no other way about it.

 

 

Wrapping Up

top

 

But, you know, we have to keep our spirits up high, we have to kind of adapt that attitude of success to certain extent of, you know, kind of almost, you know, mentally placing ourselves in that state of like, being successful in what we do, and fighting this off, and holding our own ground to a certain extent. Otherwise, if we, you know, hang our head in shame, or if we, you know, get too depressed by this, I don’t think we’re going to win it. I think we have to change our attitudes towards it and adopt a different attitude.

 

But, anyway Andrew, we could go on for hours, as I said. I think this is a good place to start wrapping things up. There’s much more, of course, we can have talked about, both when it comes to Trump and what else. And if there is something else you want to squeeze in here right at the end, any closing thoughts, or anything like that, please please go ahead., but I just want to bring attention to the two web sites that we’ve been referencing today. The Occidental Observer dot net. Look out for articles by Dr Andrew Joyce. Also British Renaissance dot org. We’ll have the links up to this, and then further ahead., look out for later this year, look out for [the book], “Talmud and Taboo”. A collection of essays by Andrew Joyce as well.

 

But, I want to say, thank you so much for your time today, Andrew, for talking with us for sharing some of your work and opinions with us. It’s been very interesting. So please, you know, keep up the good work and you’re welcome back any time, by the way.

 

[70:00]

 

 

I Do Think That We Will Win

top

 

Andrew: Thank you very much Henrik. If I could make one final statement, would just be that, like you I’m optimistic about the future. I do think that we will win. I think that as difficult as the situation is right now, it will only make the glory all the sweeter when we achieve that final victory! And I believe that we will.

 

Another thing I want to say, just to wrap things up as well. Each and every one of us who is writing an article, or producing a podcast, or leading a radio show like yourself, or convening a conference, each one of those little things is the pulse of the heart of this movement. A movement that, although persecuted and down trodden and maybe pushed a little bit out of the mainstream, is still in existence and I believe getting stronger. And I think if we all keep doing this and keep working the way we, we will only go from strength to strength. And yes, our enemies are still there working away, doing what they’re doing, but so are we!

 

Henrick: Absolutely! Well put Andrew. We’ll close with that. Thank you so much again.

 

Andrew: OK thanks.

 

Henrick: That’s our show for today, folks. Thank you for listening. We have more coming, with Andrew Fraser, Julian Langness and also Evalion on 3fourteen, A video version of that, available for members. We also have a live show this Saturday, as I mentioned. Only on Red Ice Members dot com. This is going to begin our weekly wrap up show, so definitely stay tuned for that. More information soon on the Web sites. Thank you again, so much for listening. Always good to have you with us. Join us again on Friday and Saturday for more Red Ice.

 

Have a nice day, or evening wherever you are. Take care and we’ll see you soon.

 

[72:00]

 

END of Part 2/2

 

 

 

Version History

top

 

Version 18: Mar 21, 2021 — Added See Also Part 3 image and links.

 

Version 17: Sep 20/Nov 15, 2020 — Updated See Also links and images.

 

Version 16: Aug 5, 2020 — Updated See Also image (7) and links.

 

Version 14: Jul 31, 2020 — Added Table of Contents with links.

 

Version 13: Jul 28, 2020 — Added new See Also image and links.

 

Version 12: Jul 27, 2020 — Added new See Also image and links.

 

Version 11: Feb 18, 2020 — Re-uploaded images and PDF for katana17.com/wp/ version.

 

Version 10: May 9, 2018 — Improved formatting.

 

Version 9: Sep 18, 2016 — Formatting. Added PDF for download.

 

Version 8: Jun 11, 2016 — Fixed some typos. Changed uppercase “Jew…” to lowercase “jew…”.

 

 As Andrew puts it:

 

“The anvil that has worn out many hammers!”

 

But I urge you to check out our, “New to Red Ice” section on the website. And search in our archives if you want to get a better understanding, both why this is an important question, and also we can put judaism, jewish influence and their ethnic interests in context and in relation to our own interests. There really isn’t any reason why this should be an untouchable topic, as some people propose. We would to do same, and we do, with any other group that has clashing interests with our own. So stick around. I hope you learn something new.

 

Welcome Dr. Andrew Joyce. It’s a pleasure to have you here. Thank you so much for coming on Red Ice Radio today!

 

Andrew: Henrik, it’s an absolute pleasure to be here. I’m a big fan of the show.

 

Henrik: Well, thank you so much. I appreciate that. You have a Ph D. in history and you told me here, before we started, that you really take a hard and an unsentimental lens, specifically at jewish history. You have written tremendous amounts for Occidental Observer. I believe you’re involved in British Renaissance right now, Britren as well. You have just a tremendous amount of essays, if you will, in your past that you’ve written about. And I’m looking forward to talking more about your work and specifically some of the history that you’ve written about. But, what do you think our audience should know about you, Andrew, and your background, before we kind of dive into the meat of your work here?

 

 

How Joyce Came to Be Writing About Jews

top

 

Andrew: Well, and I think the audience might want to hear first and foremost how I came to be writing so much and so extensively on the subject of jewish culture. My teenage years, actually, is when I started getting into this particular subject matter. I always had a very intense interest in history and what I would describe as a real thirst for knowledge, an endless and insatiable curiosity. But it wasn’t always directed towards jewish subjects.

 

I went through phases of my childhood, where I was fascinated by ancient Egypt for a while. Also I was very, very interested in the Viking period of the Norse. But when I was about fifteen, or sixteen, I came to discover, through the education system, as so many of our young people now do, something called the “Holocaust”. And as part of my particular school curriculum we had to study a film that I’m sure all of your listeners have heard of, by the name of “Schindler’s List”.

 

 

Henrik: Yes.

 

Andrew: And we had to write an essay on Schindler’s List, after having watched it. And while most of my classmates were, you know, watched it and had, what I would call, the “expected emotional trigger response” to the images that they were seeing on film, of young children being arbitrarily shot, and what have you, I looked at it through a much more critical lens.

 

 

Schindler’s List

top

 

I looked at Schindler’s List for what I perceived to be, and that it was a masterwork of propaganda. Whether that was the filming style chosen by Spielberg, himself, who chose to always have the camera pointing down at jews, emphasizing their lowly humble and innocent, doe-eyed expressions, while always pointing the camera upwards at Germans, who were dominant, domineering, and violent lords and masters.

 

[05:18] 

 

I started to pull apart the techniques used by Spielberg, and actually in the resultant essay that I wrote for my school teacher, I argued this Spielberg really was no different from what I was being told about Joseph Goebbels. [laughter] Another master propagandist who was quite fond of being innovative in his filming techniques. We only have to look at the movie, “The Eternal Jew” and look at how he spliced his own themes, and his use of imagery there, to see that he too was a propagandist.

 

 

But it was an unorthodox essay, I should say. And actually, the reason that I was able to take things further was because, I was particularly blessed to have a rather open minded History teacher. The essay was taken in along with everyone else’s. it was reviewed and it was marked. And actually, got quite a high mark. My history teacher then pulled me aside one day and he said to me:

 

“Look, this what you’ve written here it is not a acceptable piece of work. This is not something that I should be seen to encourage. But, the reason I’ve given you such a high mark, is that in terms of history writing it is a good piece of work, and what you have displayed is a certain degree of open mindedness, and more to the point, you’ve shown a talent for argument. You’ve marshaled your sources well and produced a convincing piece of persuasive writing.”

 

So, that was unusual. I benefited from that, I’m sure that does not happen every day in schools across the West.

 

Henrik: Unfortunately not.

 

 

Migration and Ethnic Conflict

top

 

Andrew: Yes. But actually, the next few years, I kind of put the jewish history thing aside again. It interested me really for a brief period then, and as I said, as an aside. But, as I went into the age of nineteen, or twenty, I started to just reading more generally into Western history. I started a degree in history. I looked in the twentieth century, international history. I looked into the history of the United States and I became particularly interested in the history of migration, ethnic conflict going back centuries, if not millennia.

 

And I think that anyone who looks into that range of topics seriously and critically and with an open mind, can’t help, but be struck by the presence of the jews in those themes, in terms of ethnic conflict, in terms of patterns of the political contest if you want to put it like that, between the native peoples of Europe and the really, what was the only significant minority in Europe at the time. It really struck me as a crucial story in the history of Europe. But one that had been written, as far as I could tell, in quite a distorted way, in a biased way and in a manner in which it just left me completely unsatisfied.

 

And it was that dissatisfaction with those histories that drove me on to read more, and more, and more! And the dissatisfaction actually grew more, and more, and more! Until, I started really conducting independent research into some of these things. Not all of which was related to my university course, or really any way to my academic career that would follow. But it became, I described to someone else recently, it became in a strange way, it sounds like a strange term to used, but, a labour of love. The love was not for jewish history, but for truth, …

 

Henrik: Right.

 

 

Our History About Jews is Written by Jews

top

 

Andrew: … and the desire to get to the bottom of these sources. When one wants to find truth in this sphere of jewish history, one is confronted with innumerable obstacles.

 

[10:00]

 

When you walk into any university library, or public library, and you go to the section they have on jewish history, you will find hundreds of books, hundreds, and hundreds, and hundreds! And all of them will have been published by elite publishing houses. We’re not talking about some back-street publisher, we’re talking about Princeton University Press, Harvard University Press, Yale University Press, Cambridge, and Oxford University Press. We’re talking about really the most highly regarded publishing houses in the world. And all of them are publishing these books on jewish history and each and every one of them is published by a jewish author and a jewish academic.

 

And each one of these books, when you open them up, all have the same kind of themes. You know, jews have been victims since they entered on the world stage, jews have done no wrong, Western society is sick, it is evil, and from day one it has concocted, what they call, “canards” about jews. And they have used these canards to spread hate and to perform acts of violence and destruction against this harmless and innocent jewish community.

 

To anyone who thinks independently, to anyone who has enough brain cells to understand what a primary source is, a primary document, and really take on board what the truth of the matter may be, these narratives don’t sit well and will create, as it did in me, a great sense of dissatisfaction.

 

By the time I was twenty three, twenty four, I had started to formulate some of my own theories, but I was pretty much still adrift, and I was definitely not part of any kind of movement. I was still unsure of what my conclusions meant, in that sense that most young people today, if you were to approach them and say to them:

 

“Look, you are the victim of excessive jewish influence in your society”.

 

Right? Their first reaction won’t be to say:

 

“Oh, that’s crazy!”

 

Because, I think deep down everyone knows that there is more than substantial amount of plausibility to a statement like that. But their first reaction rather will be one of, I would say, fear mixed with a sense that, what you have just said, is somehow not quite right, and somewhat not quite good.

 

So, when I started at the age of twenty two, or twenty three, to start to question serious aspects of jewish history and really have the seed of a much more realistic, much more aware, conception of what this history amounted to, I was struck by that same feeling of:

 

“But wait a minute, where does that leave me? What does that make me?”

 

Because we are all led to believe that to question certain things about jewish history, or to feel certain things towards jews, or to perceive in jewish group behavior, or actually, to perceive jews as behaving as part of a group, even that, that means that you are somehow a Nazi, racist, anti-semite!

 

We have all of these labels that immediately come to mind, and they immediately come to mind, because they’ve been put there! And they’ve been put there at a very young age through our education system and our culture.

 

So I went through this phase of wrestling with what this meant. But, I persisted, because to me it didn’t matter so much, as I said, as you mentioned of the start, I’ve adopted a very unsentimental attitude to these things. Truth takes priority!

 

Henrik: Yeah.

 

 

Discovering Kevin MacDonald’s Work

top

 

Andrew: So, I soldiered on. And then I would say, when I was probably twenty seven, twenty six, twenty seven, I had the great fortune of discovering the magnificent trilogy of books on jews and jewish culture, by Kevin MacDonald. And it was like a light just shone on me! And one of the reasons for that was, because a lot of the material that I had read, written by people in centuries past, who didn’t, let’s be honest, who didn’t quite like jews very much at all, it was written, as far as I could tell, in a very sloppy way, or a very emotive way that I couldn’t quite get in touch with. I couldn’t quite connect with that.

 

 

I needed something that had a bit more rigor to it, a bit more intellectual heft. And I think that Kevin MacDonald’s books were the first that I really just devoured and found satisfying on a level that I have needed, probably since I was eighteen or nineteen, since that journey really began in earnest.

 

I remember at the time after I had finished, Culture of Critique, the last of the trilogy, I emailed Kevin MacDonald. I had dug out his email. When one Googles, Kevin MacDonald, one of the first things that you’re confronted with, is this, obviously the ADL hit piece.

 

[Image] ADL Defames Pro. Kevin MacDonald (click image to enlarge).

 

[15:28]

 

Henrik: Yep!

 

 

Contacting MacDonald and Writing for the Occidental Observer

top

 

Andrew: Which I had a quick read and nothing on it surprised me, whatsoever. But I persisted in scrolling down the results and I got his email address and I made contact with him.

 

And we exchanged emails and I told him a little bit about myself and some of my own research and he was very positive about that. And one day I just, I decided, just send him a piece of writing. I was very impressed with the content of the Occidental Observer and I hoped that I had something I could contribute to what they were trying to achieve there, in terms of disseminating what I would call real history, and also honest discussion of contemporary politics and culture. And it was well received, and really it hasn’t stopped since then.

 

I think the pace of my work has increased. I write also for the Occidental Quarterly. I sit on the editorial board for the Occidental Quarterly and I’ve been doing speaking engagements and really just trying to get the truth out there. And coming on Red Ice this evening is another part of that. So I thank you Henrik for giving me the opportunity.

 

Henrik: Well thank you! Yeah, definitely we were very glad to have you. As I said I think you do great work. I don’t know if you’ve been counting, but I’m attempted to do so today. I think we have multiple pages on the Occidental Observer under your author’s page, if you will, you’ve probably written, what, forty, fifty pieces, I think, for the Occidental Observer over a few years?

 

Andrew: Yeah, it is probably, definitely, yes definitely around fifty right now.

 

Henrik: Yep.

 

Andrew: In addition to, you know, pieces for Occidental Quarterly that didn’t appear in the Occidental Observer. There are one, or two there. And on top of that, you know, I’m working actually on a book right now. It’s a collection of what I would regard anyway as my best articles for the Occidental Observer, but also some new content. And I also have expanded some of the articles that I wrote for the Occidental Observer, because when you write for the Occidental Observer there’s a limit to how detailed you can be on some subjects, but when you’ve got a whole chapter to play with, you know, that you can really get to the meat and bones of each and every subject. And it’s very important to me as a writer.

 

One of the things I pride myself on is that each of the claims that I make, and each of the statements, I try to back it up with as much factual and, you know, material with a lot of integrity, as possible, because we are in an uphill struggle. Those on the opposing side will try and call what we do “pseudo intellectualism“, or “pseudo science“. And we need to really be on top of our game, each and every time, in the hope that any right thinking person who eventually does come across our work, as isolated and pushed to the corner of the Internet as it is, we have to hope that when an intelligent, decent, person does read that work, that they are thoroughly convinced. And that we take that small, but minute opportunity to win them over and show them a new perception of the world. So yes, it’s very, very important to me.

 

Henrik: Of course! Yeah, exactly. I mean your work is academic, well referenced, and I appreciate that so much. We definitely, you know, need to do that, because it’s not that our opinions stand on unfounded principles — it’s quite the opposite. And in that regard we definitely share the quest for truth, you know, we have that in common and we’re also, of course, on the same page when it comes to the fact that we’re in desperate need for real history and an objective history and fair history.

 

Well now, you know, many in our audience, I think, are more, or less well seasoned on the topic of the JQ [Jewish Question]. However, we do get newcomers all the time. We have to keep them in mind. We also have, of course, both detractors and enemies listening and I would invite them also to keep an open mind and listen to a perspective that they usually do not consider.

 

 

Official View of Jews as Victims

top

 

So, with that in mind, you kind of briefly touched on this of course, but what would you say to those that have, more, or less, an official view on the history of the jews? Specifically, maybe as it pertains to Europe, right, of them being a suppressed group, especially targeted throughout history. They are victims. What should they know in terms of this relationship between jews and Europeans, or jews in Europe? And what would you say to them as a kind of an overview to give them a different perspective, maybe, than the official one that they have been given?

 

[20:22]

 

Andrew: I think the first thing that I would say to anyone adopting a neutral, or as you say, oppositional position to what we might have to say, first I would have a say to them is, open your mind! You may right now think that you have an open mind, you may think that you’re the most liberal, loving and caring person walking the earth, but I ask you to set down any, I ask you to set down your conceits. And I don’t mean that in an insulting way. We all have our conceits and our preconceptions and our prejudices. And I would ask each and every one of those people to set those down completely, wipe the slate clean!

 

Then, I ask you to take the arguments that we’re making. For example, one of the arguments that I would make, is that you may have this conception of jews as being victims in the historical past. To which I would reply, that if you were to look at the history of mediaeval Europe, Poland actually would be an excellent example. And if you were to look at the position of your ancestors and compare it to the position of the jewish ancestors of jews living today, you would find that the jewish ancestors would be in a position far superior, far more comfortable, and far more powerful than your own.

 

 

Jews as Tax Farmers, Money Merchants in the Middle Ages

top

 

And the reason for that is quite simple. In the Middle Ages, jews occupied a middle man role. That middle man role normally was finance driven, they were tax farmers, money merchants. And one of the main methods of operation that they followed was that they would be in close alliance with the elite. So, I don’t know about you, but there aren’t many oppressed victims in the world who are in close alliance with the elite!

 

Henrik: Right.

 

Andrew: In actual fact, if you were to look for the oppressed in that society, it would have been your own ancestors, those people who were paying heightened rates of tax, because the new guy in town, the jewish population had just put a down payment on the right to collect taxes and hike them. Not only hike them, but had the backing of the royal militia with which to enforce the heightened raise in taxes.

 

 

Wipe Your Mind of Any Preconceptions of Jews in History

top

 

So, you know, that there are innumerable examples, like that, but it’s just a small one. You need to completely wipe your mind of any preconceptions you might have about the position of the jews in history. Because, much of what you have been led to believe, simply didn’t happen and you will not be able to progress to a more enlightened view of your current situation, until you abandon those preconceptions.

 

Henrik: Right. Tell us a bit about how they gained this position, as middlemen, as merchants and money lenders in our society.

 

Andrew: Well, Henrik, as with many of our modern contemporary problems the issue kind of starts in a way, with us, rather than the jews. Jews have been involved in commerce and lending money at interest for centuries, at least two thousand years. So, it wasn’t anything new that they did, but in the Middle Ages, European society was changing. There were a switch from tribes into principalities and then a slow drift from principalities into nation states and the end of the feudal system.

 

Now, all of this expansion and consolidation of our people required things like, armies. It required things like administration and it required also a certain amount of increasing trade and increased complexity in trade. We were able to cover all of these necessities ourselves, but for some princes and kings, not at the pace that they would have liked. We’ve met many a medieval king that was greedy and hungry for power. It’s part of the human condition.

 

[25:04]

 

 

How Jews Gained a Foothold in Europe

top

 

And what they wanted they wanted right now. Now for the person that is impatient for financial progress — since from time immemorial until the present — one of the things that they will lust after, is a quick loan, easy cash. We still have it today. When a housewife can’t wait to get the newest appliance, or the newest clothes, she’ll use her credit card to get it.

 

Well, these kings and princes weren’t much different, they wanted fast, easy, cash. And they had, in their midst, a semi-nomadic group of wanderers who didn’t have much to offer the surrounding culture. In fact, they were quite self isolating, but one thing that they did have that they were willing to share with that surrounding culture, was cash, was money, at a price. Their interest rates were not to be taken lightly. But, you know, when you are the prince, when you’re a king, nothing is beyond your consideration. And, of course, why care when you can pass the cost on to the lowly peasants?

 

So, this was the means by which the jews gained a foothold in Europe. It was the greed and the selfishness of our elites, and unfortunately, we still have so many contemporary examples, where our elites are greedy, selfish, and they will be happily in partnership with jews to achieve those goals.

 

But, yes, that in a nutshell is how those [jewish] communities gained a foothold, whether it’s in the far east of Poland or, whether it’s with the arrival of the Normans in 1066 in England. The jew travelled with the Normans, and just with the Anglo Saxons, their money loaning and whatnot. And, you know, the problem grows from there. But that in a nutshell is it’s origin.

 

 

The “Emancipation” of the Jews

top

 

Henrik: Yeah. It’s kind of a strange relationship, because the, what’s called the emancipation of the jews didn’t really occur. It happened at different date, of course, throughout various countries. I think, all the way from 1791 in France, all the way up to, what, 1923 in Romania and trickled throughout in different countries. That’s when the jews were granted, I guess, legal equality, but it seems the relationship before that, Andrew, was still kind of one at arm’s length, if you will. That they had a relationship working together, but they were still kind of separate within society, right? They were still their own group and they still largely kept to their own, so it wasn’t as clear-cut as that, am I right?

 

Andrew: Yes, that’s correct. One of them the misconceptions of this business of jewish emancipation, is that, it is like any other emancipation, we might consider emancipation of slaves, or what have you. But it really wasn’t. Jewish emancipation was a tactical measure.

 

There was an essay written in the nineteenth century by a man named McCauley, I can’t remember his first name., but it was an argument, actually for jewish emancipation., but in the essay McCauley to was quite honest in his interpretation of what this meant and why jews wanted it. jews didn’t want to be seen on a par with every other citizen during the period of absolute monarchs. Definitely not! Why? Well, because the average citizen was in a very lowly position indeed. It was much better to be in the middle man position, cozied up to the elite and have all the privileges that entailed.

 

Now, that didn’t always produce good results for jews, for example, a monarch that you were very close to may die and his successor might not be very keen on you at all. Either, because he’s more of an adherent to his religious principles, or whether, because he had an intense loathing for jewish characteristics, mannerisms, group behavior.

 

 

Frederick the Great of Prussia Made the Jewish Community Liable for Fraud

top

 

An excellent example would be Frederick the Great, Fredrick the Second of Prussia. He found jews to be very, very distasteful and he was also particularly concerned with their tendency towards money lending, but really, bankruptcy, financial fraud, things like coin shaving that they’ve been involved in, going back centuries. And one of the things that he actually did was that he introduced a law making the jewish community, as a whole, liable for any instance of financial fraud by any particular jew.

 

[30:04]

 

It was conclusively effective in eliminating financial fraud in that community and actually, when I was recently re-reading some research that I did on the Mark Rich case, you know, Mark Rich in the 1980s, along with Pincus Green, these two jewish businessmen who basically defrauded the United States out of a hundred, at least one hundred million dollars in hidden tax money, that you know, that they gained a lot of profits from illegally trading with Iran.

 

Henrik: Yes.

 

Andrew: But a lot of this ill-gotten cash, … They’d pumped like a quarter of a million dollars into the ADL, five million dollars to Birthright Israel. A lot of this money went into Jewish causes, which all contributed to the fact that all these Jewish groups wrote petitions for a pardon from Bill Clinton, which was subsequently granted.

 

And I read that and I thought to myself, you know, jews benefit as a group from financial fraud carried out by members of the group. So why shouldn’t they be punished as a group? That actually, that measure by Frederick the Second, seemed to me supremely logical and I admire it’s effectiveness.

 

And actually, I think that something similar today wouldn’t be — certainly to my mind — it wouldn’t be monstrous and it would probably do a great deal to deter this very harmful — at least to the non-jewish community — practice.

 

 

Jewish Emancipation and the Rise of Parliamentary Democracy

top

 

But to come back to the mediaeval period and the issue of jewish Enlightenment, or jewish emancipation. The drive for jewish emancipation only only came about with the rise of parliamentary democracy, with the slow creeping march of democracy. Because when you have no monarch anymore, or when the power of the monarch is weakened and the power of the people begins to rise, it places the middleman in a very, very difficult position. So the cut and thrust, the goal behind jewish emancipation is not simply to achieve equality with everyone else, because that’s what you always wanted, it is a response to events within the host population.

 

Henrik: Right.

 

Andrew: The nature of government has changed. Therefore we are now going to tactically readjust and reposition ourselves into new avenues of power and one of the ways that we can achieve this is by trying to get this thing, this new thing called the vote. We need to be, we need to have the vote, we need to be electable, we need to be appointable to government office, we need to be appointable to any advisory positions, which may be available, we need to be part of this process. Simply, you know, standing by and occupying some kind of null and void status is unconscionable. So that’s the essence, I would argue Henrik, for the drive for jewish emancipation.

 

And McAuley? ? Himself referenced, I can’t remember the exact words. But as I recall it, it was a very realistic piece of writing. He argued that it should be granted nonetheless, because the democratic system, we can hold jews accountable, we can see how they vote, we can observe them more closely than if they kind of go rogue. But actually, I think that was a very serious miscalculation by McAuley? ? I think that he overestimated the effectiveness of the democratic system. He didn’t quite grasp the many weaknesses that permeate the parliamentary democracy in practice. Because, of course, it’s a wonderful idea in theory, but it is so dangerously and fatefully flawed in practice. And I think that many of our contemporary problems are due not only to the inherent weaknesses of parliamentary democracy in practice, but also the sheer talent of Jews in spotting and exploiting those weaknesses.

 

 

Why We Should View Jews as a Group?

top

 

Henrik: Right, exactly. Now tell us a bit about why we should view them as a group, as opposed to just individuals, you know, where people say, “Well, you know, there are good ones and there’s bad ones”, right. But of course we know that specifically we, as Europeans, are treated as a group, as a whole, and the claim is that our power and privilege as a group is somehow equally distributed among us. But what speaks in favour of this idea that they do in most respects operate as a group and that they have fierce ethnic interests?

 

[35:05]

 

Andrew: Well the first thing that I would say to someone who would approach me and say:

 

“Hey, come on Andrew, they aren’t a group, we can’t hold them all accountable for the individuals of one of them. They’re each wonderful, loving individuals in their own way”.

 

 

Jews Are The, “Groupiest Group That Ever Grouped!”

top

 

The first thing that I would say to that is simply, well, why do they organise as a group? Why do they self-describe as a group? Why do they cling so ferociously to their group status? Is the World Jewish Congress a figment of my imagination? Is the ADL a figment of my imagination? Have we been making up this idea of a religion called Judaism which is ferociously ethnocentric? Of course not. The jews are the most — if I can make up some words here — the, “Groupiest group that ever grouped!”

 

Henrik: Right. [laughing]

 

Andrew: You know, it’s comical. I don’t understand how anyone who looks at jewish history, and I’ve been looking at it for about fifteen years, or more, now. I don’t understand how anyone can even spend one hour, or one day looking at this history and deny that here is a collection of people that has ferociously sought it’s interests and intensively looked out for one another. And that’s one of the things that jews do, that I find difficult in some ways to condemn, partly because I would like to see more of it within our own people.

 

Henrik: Right.

 

Andrew: They look out for each other.

 

Henrik: Well, I think Andrew, sorry to interrupt, but the problem is that most people don’t look, well not even a day, many don’t even look an hour, because they already have all the answers, right? They know how they position themselves as a group, and they are a suppressed group and I would imagine that somehow they would explain this:

 

“That well, you know, they need to organise on this level, because they have been targeted throughout history uniquely”.

 

So this is just kind of a safety mechanism — is a security for them to be able to organise like this otherwise, you know, there would be concentration camps and gas chambers built tomorrow, you know. [laughing]

 

 

Jews Fear Mixing and Vanishing Genetically

top

 

Andrew: Well, that might be a cozy little theory that satisfies some some smug little social justice warrior, but the reality is quite different. When you look at the history, when you look at the nitty-gritty of Jewish history, what you will find — and it’s almost perverse — is that during those periods in history in which the host population, or the monarch, or the government attempted to wrap it’s arms around the jews and welcome them in. And I’m thinking of the government of Alexander the First in Russia, you know, in terms of having a policy which is that of the carrot, or that of the stick, you couldn’t have had a bigger carrot.

 

Jews were welcomed with open arms. There were policies allowing them into education, you know, a lot of the more coercive measures that had been employed in the past were really abandoned. And how did jews respond to this? Well, actually they became even more defensive, they herded together even more intensively, because what jews feel most threatened by is not violence, is not anti-semitism, what jews fear most is dispersal, and dissemination, and vanishing genetically, racially, into the gentile, the great gentile mass that they imagine to exist. It’s been in their religious writings for millennia, this idea that they shall not mix, that they shall stand apart from the nations and be forever a people that shall dwell alone, as the title of Kevin MacDonald’s first book, goes.

 

 

Jews Are All Times Strategisers, at All Times Tacticians

top

 

So the idea that they group together, because of fear of violence and of oppression. It shifts all of the agency onto the host population, which is to blame for jewish actions. And I think that that is a very facile and naive interpretation of jewish history. I think anyone with any amount of intelligence and grounding in the subject can see that, the only agency in Jewish history rests with the jews.

 

Jews are all times strategisers, at all times tacticians, and at all times perfectly capable of getting themselves out of just about any scrape you can imagine.

 

[40:00]

 

It’s why after three thousand or more years they are still here, while the Egyptians and the Babylonians have vanished. jews and judaism and jewish influence are an anvil that have worn out a thousand hammers or more! And the sooner that more of our people realise that and adjust their tactics and level of awareness accordingly, the better.

 

 

Jewish Expulsions Throughout History

top

 

Henrik: Yeah. I definitely want to talk about what you just mentioned, more, later on. But, let’s kind of continue to unfold this scenario and talk a bit more about the history here. What can you say about the issues or issue of expulsions, right? How many, I don’t know if you’ve counted, perchance, I’ve attempted a couple of times, but how many places have they been expelled from throughout the last millennium and what is this indicative of what, what should we learn from this history?

 

Andrew: Well, I couldn’t even begin to count. I’m sure actually that not even all of them have been recorded, Henrik. I think jews have been expelled from different locations and host populations from pre-history, probably. They themselves, in the story of the Exodus, you know, going out of Egypt, I think that it’s possibly allegorical, it possibly refers to one, or several expulsions in prehistory.

 

Henrik: Right.

 

Andrew: And I think that it’s a, you know, it’s a self-congratulatory interpretation, a self-righteous interpretation of those expulsions. But I would hesitate to put any limit on the number of expulsions, or areas of location. I think that there’s been a constant and prevalent phenomenon of Jewish history.

 

As far as the significance of it in history, as far as the reasons behind it, I think these are more straightforward to explain. In his book, “The Jews” Hilaire Belloc describes a kind of process by which friction develops between a jewish population and it’s non-jewish host. It’s an excellent book explaining this in very mechanical and matter-of-fact ways, but essentially, jews originated in our societies along with an idea that they have some kind of usefulness. The usefulness may have been for a short period to a particular monarch, if they financed a war, if they financed the expansion of a kingdom, the creation of a militia. Some loans provided by jews also built some of Europe’s cathedrals.

 

 

Jewish Exploitation and Exclusivity

top

 

So there was an idea for a time there of usefulness. But attending that, was also a number of other characteristics of the jewish community that weren’t even remotely perceived as being positive. One was exclusiveness. Over time, exclusiveness, or exclusivity, contributes to friction. And it contributes to friction, because exclusivity with jews carried echoes also of superiority. And, you know, people in mediaeval Europe were aware of the fact that when the jewish butcher, or whatever, sold them meat it was the lower quality cuts. They were aware the jews wouldn’t sit at the same table as them. They were aware slowly, but surely, of what was written in the Talmud about them, for example.

 

So, exclusivity was one of the factors contributing to friction. The other was exploitation. The financial usefulness of the jews gradually morphed into a sense of being exploited. And, you know, if it was the monarch who started to feel that it was getting a little bit tight in terms of making the repayments, he would simply pass that on to the wider population, by raising the taxes, which would then be collected by the jews.

 

So the tension always rose from, really from below, that’s where the pressure built up. Now, a monarch who enjoys absolute power, feels quite comfortable. He can do really what he wants, and if the nobles immediately below him are divided and squabbling, and what have you, the old divide and conquer strategy, then he feels even more comfortable. But gradually, because of this position of the Jews, who not only were charging exorbitant interest rates on their loans, but were also a heathen, different and separate people, it added a different flavour altogether to what was occurring.

 

[45:14]

 

 

Opposition from Nobility, Clergy and Peasants

top

 

And it was also an opportunity, the differences of the Jews, for these different groups within the European population to come together. So the nobles start coming together. The people start coming together. If they’re lucky, they manage to get a bishop or the local priest on board as well, so you have a unification of the peasantry, of the clergy and of the nobility. And when that happens, the power of the monarch starts to become weaker, in terms of the overall balance.

 

There are a number of things that can then happen. The monarch can attempt to clamp down on all these people and we have instances in history where, examples may have been made of a particular noble who was violent to a jew, because jews were protected by being the King’s property. So if a noble didn’t want to repay his loan and he struck a jew, or if he killed a jew, he would be severely punished, because that was viewed as an assault on the Monarch himself.

 

But, the balance of power was crucial. But, if it was tipped, just that little bit too much against the monarch, if you looked at the nobles that were arranged against him and the people behind them and also the clergy, and he thought for a second, “I might not come out too well from a conflict on this” then expulsion was a good way to release that pressure. It was, it would be a good way to deflect attention from his own personal greed and his own personal exploitation of the lower orders. It could all be, you know, dispensed with by the getting rid of this this troublesome middleman population.

 

 

The Cycle of Expulsion of Jews and Their Return

top

 

And I think that as we look back at history, we shouldn’t be too sentimental about this in terms of believing that our kings and monarchs were perfectly good in doing this, or whatever. It was selfish, ultimately. It would benefit us for a time that the jews where were expelled, but inevitably they would be re-invited by another monarch with similar motives of greed and self-interest and the cycle with would be forced to repeat itself, in some European principalities at least.

 

But, also on the subject of expulsions, another period of weakness would be the period of the interregnum, for example, between one King dying and their successor coming to the throne. Lots of nobles took that opportunity to carry out actions against jews and try and push them out. It wouldn’t be a formal royal edict of expulsion, but it was an all out effort by the nobility to get rid of this troublesome and exploitative population of jews in the interregnum period.

 

And we see a lot of that, particularly in England in the Middle Ages. Really the idea behind it was:

 

“Okay, while there is no King in position right now, we need to act quickly, because as soon as the new King takes the throne the Jews are his property once again and effectively become untouchable and are backed by the Royal Militia”.

 

So when you strip away a lot of the superstition behind things like this idea of the blood libel and everything, I actually don’t view them really as instances of crude superstition at all. I actually think they were very, very intelligent manoeuvres by a people that were very, very hamstrung in terms of what they could do and how they could voice their displeasure at being exploited. And if you could claim some kind of allegiance with the Church or claim that what you were doing was somehow part of God’s wishes and there were miracles and everything going on. Very, very clever. Very clever, indeed. And I think there was an excellent bit of logic going on there.

 

 

Jews Thrive Under Very Strong Government and a Weak Population

top

 

But, jews thrive under very, very powerful elites that they are allied to and this is something — it’s a crucial factor in jewish, … I cannot stress that enough, it is a crucial factor that jews thrive under very, very strong government and a weak population. And that’s why, in the past I’ve written about this issue of gun control, …

 

Henrik: Yes.

 

Andrew: … about jewish efforts to disarm the population of the United States and, at all turns, pushing for big government.

 

[50:00]

 

 

Why Should We Concern Ourselves with Jewish Ethnic Interests and Power?

top

 

Henrik: Yeah, very many important factors there that you talked about that I want to get into later, but I know this will be jumping ahead maybe a little bit, but I want to address this before we break here in five minutes or so and then I want to speak a little more about your writings and the upcoming book that you have.

 

But can you explain the concerns, if you will, an overview of the concerns that you have right now, when it comes to what we’re facing as Europeans. I mean, you can extend this to North America too, I guess, as our situations are similar, but different circumstances perhaps, but in consideration of what you just talked about, why should we concern ourselves with jewish ethnic interests and power and how does that kind of converge with our interests as European? What’s, describe that for someone who just has no clue whatsoever, in terms of the situation that we are in and how that is juxtaposed by jewish interests.

 

 

People of European Descent Face Demographic Catastrophe

top

 

Andrew: I think the best place to start would be simply to say that we are living in a period in time that is completely unprecedented in the history of our people. Or in human history. I think that the current demographic changes that are occurring across Europe and in those lands in which Europeans have been predominant in the last two or three centuries, that these changes are a catastrophe of immense significance, and the danger that we face as a people is tragically immense.

 

The, as far as the jewish position, and all that is currently happening is concerned, that the jewish role is very, very significant. I don’t think it’s, right now, as direct as some people think it is, or seem to need to think it is. I think a lot of the groundwork for our current situation was laid in fact at the start of the twentieth century and it really snowballed up through the 50’s, 60’s and 70’s and I think, actually, what we’re seeing now is not so much that the planting of this rotten tree, but the fact that this rotten tree is now bearing fruit.

 

Henrik: Yes.

 

 

Poisonous Jewish Intellectualism and SJWs

top

 

Andrew: I think that generations of our young people have grown up in an atmosphere, a cultural, intellectual educational atmosphere, saturated by a truly poisonous jewish intellectualism. They have absorbed it, it is in their blood stream, it is in their thought processes. And in many respects it dominates and distorts their entire personality.

 

I recently called this phenomenon of social justice warrior, the “Frankenstein’s creation of jewish intellectualism”. These young people who believe, or have been led to believe, that they are supernaturally good, or supernaturally moral and capable of transforming the world. I mean, I simply look at it and I feel like asking them, you know, what are these changes that you think you are bringing about? What power do you think you have, other than the power to completely wipe your entire genetic heritage from the face of the earth?

 

Henrik: Yes.

 

Andrew: Because most of these people are intellectual mediocrities, they aren’t particularly intelligent, nor do they have anything even entertaining to say. You turn on your screen and you look at the average far-left protest and you see a bunch of normally upper-middle class zombies with their heads full of Marx and Steinem, and then any other number of jewish brainwashers. And they’re creating havoc and destroying every chance that their people has of some kind of resurgence, and regaining some kind of sane position within their own nations.

 

But, look. I just look around and I’ll be honest, I confess to tremendous feelings of despair at times, sitting some evenings watching the news broadcast as it tells us of thousands of more migrants.

 

Henrik: Yes.

 

 

The “Refugee” Invasion

top

 

Andrew: You know, I don’t call them refugees — they aren’t refugees from anything. They aren’t fleeing anything but a mediocre existence created by their own culture.

 

Henrik: Right.

 

Andrew: We can’t help them with that. All we can offer them is a suicidal, symbiotic relationship in which they attach themselves to our welfare systems, in which they, you know, commit crimes on an appalling scale and completely and utterly take us for granted, and take us to the cleaners!

 

[55:05] 

 

And there is no benefit! There is no benefit to us for letting in these people! There is no utility, there is no way of skewing any of the facts, because there is not, …

 

Henrik: But it feels so good Andrew, it feels so good to help other people. Right? [sarcastic laughter]

 

Andrew: I’m sure it does, I’m sure it does to some very, very dysfunctional people who live very, very empty lives.

 

Henrik: Right.

 

Andrew: I spent a good amount of time earlier actually. I was driving in the car and sometimes these themes and these thoughts come into my head and I ponder, and I just reflect back on any kind of historical pretext there may be, for why we are the way we are, right now. And when I say “we” I mean lots of these dysfunctional moral do-gooder types. And as you say, well why do they feel that this is so good? One of the ideas, actually, that I came up with earlier, was that we have a very much declined sense of what is ours in the modern age, and part of that is economic.

 

 

Our Land is Not Ours Anymore

top

 

If you were to rewind and turn back the clock two centuries you and I Henrik, would have been born into a family homestead. We would have had land that our fathers and their fathers would have owned, and such would have been the case going back generations. But, you know, industrialisation came in, people drifted from the countryside into the city. They sold what little land they had to some, you know, capitalists, who probably gave them a few coins and off they skipped merrily to the city where they took a job in a factory. And they felt so free and they didn’t have the concern of the land and everything, anymore.

 

But fast forward even further to our generation, and that the most that we can hope to own or feel attached to, is perhaps our own home, our house, if we’re lucky it might have a garden. If we live in the city we won’t have that. And all of the things that we feel attached to are our possessions.

 

Henrik: Yes.

 

Andrew: That’s what modern culture and society is. Our cars are ours. Our televisions is ours. The fancy new kitchen suite is ours, but the land is not ours, And so when we hear about thousands of invaders streaming through the borders and they’re settling here and settling there, that sense of loss that would have been there, if we were still in the position of our ancestors and the land itself was ours, it’s gone. That feeling is gone! And it is a complex situation and, you know, it’s not purely psychological. It’s economic, you know. Our world has changed.

 

There is a famous book by the English historian, Peter Laslett, called, “The World We Have Lost”, and it’s full of recollections about times when we all, you know, that we lived near our extended family. We lived on the land. We had guests and apprentices living in our home, and he talks about breaking up of social bonds and cultures that came with industrialisation.

 

I think part of the problem — by no means all of it — is that Whites have a tendency to be our worst enemy sometimes. Some of our talents in creating machines and industrialisation contained the kernels of our weaknesses, but these weaknesses need to be exploited, of course, and I think that’s where jewish intellectualism comes in. Because if there’s one thing that, you know, the organised jewish community is very good, and has been very good at doing over historical time, it is finding and then exploiting ruthlessly any weaknesses that we may have.

 

Henrik: Yeah, yeah. So it’s just incredibly important, I mean there’s so much we can say about this and I have much more that I want to ask you about, and much more I want to discuss in the next segment. I want to ask you, well obviously, we can’t talk about this subject while avoiding something as central to this as as the “Holocaust”.

 

I want to ask you more about that later. And how, what position that has, or how important that is in the question of jewish identity, and also, of course, how that has been exploited in terms of everything that’s happening right now. So, we’ve tons more to discuss here.

 

 

British Renaissance and TOO

top

 

But tell us, you work a bit with British Renaissance. You obviously, as we said, write for theoccidentalobserver.net and you are part of also publishing articles for the Occidental Quarterly. Feel free to give us the website addresses to those so people know where to go, where they can find your writings. And also tell a bit about the upcoming book you have and if you have any release date as of yet, on that.

 

Andrew: Yeah, well what you said, occidentalobserver.net is where you’ll find the vast majority of my writings. I don’t really write for any other websites, and I enjoy a very, very close and fruitful relationship with Kevin MacDonald.

 

[60:16]

 

He’s a scholar that I admire tremendously and I think he’s done some absolutely groundbreaking work that will forge a path and has forged a path for younger scholars and people in our movement, like myself, …

 

Henrik: Yes.

 

Andrew: … to follow, really for decades to come. I view his writings as no less significant and historical as some of the things written by Richard Wagner, or Heinrich von Treitschke. Or many others in the past, who have taken on this subject and have attempted to come to a reasoned, scholarly, but at the same time, eloquent response to it.

 

Yes, I’m also involved to some extent in Jack Sen’s British Renaissance group. It’s constantly evolving, you know. I’m not in the thick of it, but as an idea, the British Renaissance is evolving. I mentioned earlier that, you know, jewish influence is a an anvil that has worn out thousands of hammers, and I think that one of the good things at least about a British renaissance is that it’s not fixing itself to one shape too much.

 

 

Sudden Enthusiasm for New Groups and Movements, Trump

top

 

I think that one of the things that our movement suffers from is this rash enthusiasm that seems to attend every new group or movement, you know:

 

“This is how we are going to win; this is how we’re going to get the votes of the people; this is how we are going to roll back Jewish influence; this is how we are going to end the migration crisis.”

 

I see the same thing with the phenomenon of Donald Trump in the United States:

 

“This is heart. This is the turning point.”

 

And I think that longer-term, more flexible strategies would be far more useful to our cause, and really, to view the whole thing as the “long game”.

 

Henrik: Yes.

 

 

Hubris vs 2,000 Year Problem

top

 

Andrew: What we’re looking at here is a problem that has been with us for about two thousand years. And many, many more intelligent men, than myself, have taken it on and failed. That’s not a reason for me to walk away with my head down and say, “Well, you know, I’m not up to it.” But, it is a reason for me to want to avoid any kind of hubris. And unfortunately I’ve seen hubris now and again in our movement, and unfortunately some egos as well.

 

But, one of the things that I would say about Jack Sen is that he has adopted a flexible approach to the question of bringing Britain to it’s senses, and I think he’s being quite ably assisted by others, at the minute. And certainly the group has been slowly evolving into a think tank — it’s now the British Renaissance Policy Institute. And I think that, over time, some good ideas may well come out of it, or it may undergo a further transition as the situation requires. We need to keep in mind that this is a dynamic, as I said earlier, it’s an incredibly important period in our history, but it’s also very, very dynamic.

 

 

Trump Not in Jewish Play Book

top

 

The situation is changing constantly, and things are being thrown up that not even our enemies have anticipated. I don’t think, for one second, that the Donald Trump phenomenon is something that was on the jewish play book. I think that they’ve been placed in a very, very uncomfortable position, if not so much by Trump, who of course has a Jewish son-in-law, then by Trump as they fear that some of the themes that he’s raising, the style of his rhetoric. This kind of, it’s in some ways, it’s Trump is kind of a mega-troll, you know. Some of the things he’s come out with, are really riling people up!

 

That is to jews, akin to some kind of Pandora’s Box, that threatens to swallow them whole. This is viewed with great trepidation and will be met, over time, with, I’m sure, a very sophisticated counter-strategy. Already we hear about Republican donors, jewish Republican donors, slowly, according to Haaretz and The Forward, slowing opening their wallets to Trump.

 

This will be an effort, quite similar to the historical instances, where even where the monarch or the leader was quite hostile to jewish or jewish interests, to just get in there with any kind of influence they can and one of the most ancient forms of getting influence is to open the chequebook.

 

Henrik: Yes.

 

Andrew: It’s to shake the coins, you know. That will be the way in.

 

[65:13]

 

Henrik: Yes, that’s an interesting point, Andrew. Let’s definitely talk more about Trump and, “Trumpism” in the second segment. There is much to that, of course. We’ll have the websites up, of course, to the publications that we are talking about here, the Occidental Observer, the Occidental Quarterly and also to British Renaissance. And quickly here now then before the break. The book. Any idea when it will be out?

 

 

“Talmud and Taboo” Book

top

 

Andrew: Certainly, you know, I’m just finishing the manuscript right now, but the goal would be to have it out by the end of 2016. The book is called, “Talmud and Taboo”. Essays on the jewish question and as I said, earlier, it will contend some of the best content that I’ve produced for the Occidental Observer, some of that expanded and developed further, but also some new essays, covering things Trump and, “Trumpism” and also some thoughts on the jewish question as a whole and it’s contemporary significance. And also my own thoughts on counter strategy and slowly, but surely, we might be able to build something over time and it will take time, that can secure an existence for our children.

 

Henrik: Absolutely! Very important. All right, very good. “Talmud and Taboo”, keep an eye out for the book, ladies and gentleman, upcoming here probably towards the end of the year, hopefully. All right, well thanks Andrew. Stay with us here. We’ll be right back after a short break with the second hour. Much more to get into. We’ll talk to you on the other side.

 

[66:45]

 

END OF PART 1/2

 

 

Henrik: Yeah, exactly! We see Whites, we see White flight, and I mean this very aspect of, you know, native English or British people are a minority in their own capital. This is something that actually gained, somewhat focus even in the mainstream. I think there was a clip of John Cleese, of all people, actually speaking out and then talking about the fact that something is horribly wrong. When, when this is occurring. How do we, what I mean, how do we even, I mean people still fight, people like you Nick, for even, for even bringing attention to this.

 

I mean, how, how the heck can we can awaken people to the aspect that this, if this happened, if this same thing happened in any other country, if we had a population coming in and replacing the local one, especially we in the West would be up in arms and we would be screaming, “Genocide!” at this point. But it’s not happening because it’s happening in Western countries, right?

 

Nick: Sure, yes, and then, well. See, we’ve been saying this for decades, haven’t we? This is the problem.

 

Henrik: Yeah.

 

Nick: So, just saying it isn’t going to wake people up. I think now, certainly huge numbers of people that I’ve spoken to, and obviously I’m, I’m still, by far, the most recognised, or recognizable figure in British nationalism in the country. So people still come up to me, you know, in, by the way service stations, supermarkets and so on, and have a chat and tell me how they feel. And they all get it now. Huge numbers understand it, but they now feel, “What can we do a bit?” And actually, that’s a very sensible and legitimate question, because just pretending we can wave a magic wand and come to power and change it, isn’t going to work.

 

So, I think we’re now at the stage of having to prepare to, take advantage of at least one good thing that I think will happen. And that is that, every single minority, everywhere in the world that I’ve ever studied, once they become a minority — and we will still be the largest minority in Britain and Western Europe for a long time to come — when people become a minority and they and their children are therefore treated like dirt, that’s when they tend to fight.

 

You know, if you look at say, in politics, the internal politics of Britain, the English are always the majority, their politics is a class struggle. Whereas in Ireland and in Scotland and in Wales, because people were put down by what they saw as a foreign power, it became a national struggle, an ethnic struggle. You know, a linguistic and cultural struggle. And I think that we’ll inevitably find that our people will be more willing to accept our message and more prepared to defend themselves, because now they will have to. You had a choice until now, running away or pretending it isn’t happening. And that choice is now coming to a grinding halt.

So people therefore, they will fight, but of course they don’t know how to. And it is very, very important for us to stop the fantasies of drastic sweeping change from the top, and start to do what all nationalist and revolutionary organizations did, do. Which is to work to organize their communities, to empower their communities, to radicalize their communities. And to help their community learn how to defend themselves.

 

Henrik: OK, I want to ask you more about radicalize there. But you said, before that, you said minorities are treated like dirt. Now, would you say that the English treated the non-European minorities like dirt?

 

Nick: No. No, obviously that’s, …

 

Henrik: Right.

 

Nick: No, no, most definitely not. Everywhere else in the world, apart from the world colonized by our people, who probably are uniquely, amongst human populations, have the ability to empathize and put yourself in the other man’s shoes. And want to be, and therefore treat them as he want to be treated himself. But, when we look at the rest of the world, we see all too clearly that’s not what’s coming to Britain and Europe and for that matter the United States. Because the USA is only, what, twenty five or thirty years less far down the line, but heading in the same direction.

 

Henrik: Yeah, but, exactly. It’s almost like I do want to, … If someone is listening that lives, that lives in London, that they can give us a few examples and talk with us and explain what’s happening and how they’re treated, and how they’re feeling living there. Maybe they’re is a situation where they can’t, you know, they’re in one of these transitional neighborhoods where, ….

 

Jack: I can, …

 

Henrik: Yeah, yeah. Go ahead.

 

Jack: I can give you a good example.

 

Henrik: Sure, sure.

 

Jack: I can give you a good example. A few months ago when I started the British Renaissance, a young man reached out to me, via the Internet, and asked me if he could join the party. And I said that we’re not a political party. And he said, “Well what do you do?” And I said we’re looking to stand up for the rights of the indigenous population, and find a way to move the “Overton Window” over, slightly, to the right, so we can discuss things that are impacting our communities.

 

He then went into how he feels like a stranger in his own community. He was actually growing, he grew up a liberal in a liberal family. However over the years, he noticed his head would get lower and lower and lower when he walked down the street. First it was a feeling of guilt for seeing people who, minorities living in bad situations.

 

Then, he noticed that as the minorities gained in power and strength in number, they’d started to intimidate him. He felt he had become almost unwanted in his own community and it was quite alarming for him. And he told me how he would walk down the street with his head down. Because he was fearful of what they would say to him, simply for being indigenous White British.

 

[20:26]

 

Henrik: Yeah. Yeah, there you go. Actually, Brussels is a prime example of this. My wife and I went through Antwerp, when was this, three years ago now I believe and it was very interesting to see that. I think Brussels is a good example of also a nation of course that is internally, even without the immigration, in internal turmoil of sorts, because it’s like, … It is a forced nation. You have the Flemish nationalist, which seems to be the most cohesive, but then you have a German speaking population, a French one. It is just all over the place.

But, I remember this one thing. We were stopping, and trying to ask someone for directions, for help. And OK, granted I spoke English to the gentleman but, I couldn’t get any contact with the guy. I tried a couple of other people too. And it even seems that now after the terrorist attacks in Brussels, that even the Belgian authorities have been treating the situation, is very disorganized. It’s almost like that all this forced diversity on top of the nation that’s already pretty shattered and fractured is breeding these people that are incredibly atomized and so individualized that just as you say Jack, they keep their head down. They don’t engage in anybody.

 

When I asked for the directions, I couldn’t even get in contact with them, anybody. It was like, this, this, … They’re living side by side, right next to each other, but no one knows each other. They’re not even speaking their own language, and this is of course a hundred times worse with all the immigration now in Brussels. And I couldn’t believe it when we came into Antwerp, it was like the traffic rules were out the window, it was basically like being in Egypt. We have these beautiful, beautiful European buildings around us with a population that was like, not a single White person left anymore. It was just incredible to see.

 

Nick: That is how I feel, you know, going to London. I was born, brought up in London. I spent a lot of my early political career on the streets in London and when I go back there now, it’s both heartbreaking and makes me very angry. And certainly I don’t feel at home there and nor does any normal person.

 

Henrik: Yeah.

 

Jack: And Nick mentioned the fact that British families aren’t having children. And quite remarkably there’s been a UN study that they recently released, which, which states for the record that the solution to this problem is bringing in immigrants. To actually, save the population of Western Europe,. They actually believe that bringing in immigrant populations and migrations of Africans and Asians will actually rescue Great Britain from it’s failure to have children.

 

Nick: Well of course that is what, … There’s an enormous of pressure for that, because there’s the ideological pressure from the, from the far left, from the Talmudists, and so on. And then there’s the financial pressure from capitalism. Whereby, when you are trying to make a profit you’ve got to have plenty of consumers and plenty of cheap labour.

 

So you put on top of the ideological reasons for destroying our people. And all sorts of very powerful forces want to encourage, keep encouraging mass immigration. Just the last few weeks, actually, I’ve noticed it’s changed. Going back anything past a few weeks and people like me and people like us, we are the only people who ever use the word, “demographic”. Whereas now, on the BBC, and so on, Radio Four is their political flagship, program. Every morning, time and time again on that now you’ll hear leftists, saying:

 

“Oh, we’ve got to have mass immigration for demographic reasons. Because there’s not enough of us. No one will look after us when we are old, and we haven’t had enough children.”

 

It’s an incredible cheek when you consider the reason our people haven’t had enough children, is precisely the same people with their pressure against having kids, with abortion on demand. And one of the things as well, which I’m very sure they knew about, because I found out about it, and I’m not a rocket scientists.

 

There were studies done in the USA at the time of, as State by State were desegregated, and they found back, so we are talking in the early mid-sixties. They found direct correlation between desegregation and a collapse in the White birthrate, as people thought:

“Well is it really worth bringing kids into this uncertain world that is increasingly isn’t ours?”

 

Henrik: Yeah.

 

Nick: So, they have known for a long, long, time that bringing in immigrants from other places, especially ones who have some thoroughly anti-social tendencies, will, one of the things it will do is to disrupt and drive down the birthrate of good law-abiding peoples. And that is exactly what it has done.

 

[25:02]

 

Jack: Yeah, which transpired at the exact same time as, what, Second Wave feminism. So you have another driving force to pit women against man and divides families and preaches the importance of material, materialism and, … Having women in the workplace driving down labor costs, and you’re increasing tax revenue to the state.

 

So you have this massive force coming from all different angles but, which ends up with the same result. People don’t get married, they don’t have children, and the only people having children are the underclass, the minority populations and immigrants who believe that the family is the bedrock of their, their society.

 

Nick: Yes, indeed.

 

Henrik: Yeah. So on top of this, of course, you do have then, radical organized Islam, you have terrorism and of course, couple that with what Whites usually have, which is high investment parenting. That’s a recipe for disaster right there! There’s nothing, I mean if you can’t move out of those cities and maybe get to the countryside where there’s other people like you, the chances that you want to have children, at least, you know, many, is very slim I think, right?

 

Nick: Very, very slim and then there’s a new factor coming in, which I feel, I want to mention it, because it’s particularly relevant to young nationalist males. That there’s the, the new thing, that there’s a reaction to the ugliness and the anti-male hysteria of feminism. There’s now this, “All men together type approach” that is the likes of Milo, who some people say, “Oh, he’s some kind of hero”, you know, by standing up for the rights of men. No! He’s a homosexual, he’s Jewish and he very, very clearly has an agenda, in encouraging further hostility between women and men.

 

Up until now the hostility has come from the feminists, towards men. There’s now this very ugly drive to encourage our people to take an anti-women stance, not anti-feminist stance, an anti-dyke stance, but an anti-women stance, altogether. And, you know, to go off in little groups of men and not want to be associated with women. Well, it’s the kiss of death, isn’t it?

 

Henrik: Yeah, the, …

 

Jack: It is. You know, … Sorry, I was going to say that, yes, look at the message boards and the comments on a lot of the national sites. There is a palpable hatred towards women from White men and it is quite shocking. You know, some of the language I see directed at women. And, like Nick said, I think it is this anti-feminist people, like this Milo as well as men like, who would attend a conference in the United States. Who preach this sort of, “It’s us against them”. But the “them” is not the Muslims or the Jews, the “them” is the women, and it’s quite remarkable. Because, you know, in a healthy society men need women and women need men. And unfortunately we’ve been driven to hate one another by the left and now are unfortunately the right.

 

Nick: What makes it particularly effective is that a lot of, what the likes of Milo say about feminism and so on, it’s all true. There’s a close parallel with the Zionists and the Neocons who want to try and use very genuine legitimate concerns about Islamisation and radical Islam, to have us all go off and fight wars for Israel.

 

And again about 90% of what they are saying about the Islamisation problem in the West, is true. But when they take that final 10% and therefore we have to stand with the very people that did so much to create the problem in the first place, that’s where, that’s where we have to draw the line.

 

Henrik: Well, very good point. You know, I wanted to bring that up, but you’re right. I mean, Milo Yiannopoulos, as he’s called, an editor at Breitbart and, you know, this kind of similar publications. I knew that he was homosexual, but I did not know that he was Jewish! That’s interesting, and even on Wikipeadia, right there, so.

So, that’s a good point, because we do have Breitbart and I mean, don’t get me wrong, just as you say Nick, they have some excellent articles that exposes the problem with Islam, right? And these are legitimate steam valves that opens up now and then so that the discontent that the people have is channeled and funneled into the right direction where they, never ever, of course, talk about the main lobby that’s behind pushing mass immigration into the West, right?

 

Nick: I’d say yes. I absolutely agree with you. But I would say it’s worse than just a steam valve! They’re not just getting us to let off steam so we don’t do anything. They’re deliberately trying to provoke a total clash of civilizations. Where it’s all of us against all of them. One, whereby we lose, because, for instance, if you look at the Muslim population, even if we were against all the Sunnis, well that makes the Shia our natural allies. It makes Iran a natural civilizational ally and so on. So we don’t want to be fighting all of them.

 

But in any case, the minute you start thinking about fighting all of them, as opposed to having a sensible agreement and divorce to part company. But the minute you start about fighting all of them, you end up on the side of the people who created the mess in the first place. And that’s what they want. They want a civil war in Europe. And they’re working very hard to get one. And the ISIS and other scumbags on the other side ,will of course help them because, they want the same thing.

 

[30:15]

 

Henrik: Yeah, very good point. And it’s also of course very, very difficult in that, in that place to, to go a step further, to a level two, if you will, for people. Because, most of what they see is things that’s occurring right in front of their eyes, right? They’re going to see that Islam is a problem, they’re going to see that these people are not integrating. And all those things are true, just as we, you know, just as you say. But to try to go that extra length and ask, or rather to push upon, these people. “Well these are the people behind it” and what not.

 

I hope that there is enough interest in people alone, that they will some, … They will ask that question, I mean we have to provide the answers of course to them but, you know, in some cases I just know the situation in Sweden right. That you have a whole lot of people that are very upset with the Islamic invasion, if you will. But as soon as you begin to talking about, you know, that there’s, you know, Jewish influences in the country and what not. They’re looking at you like you’re from Mars or something, right? I mean it’s very difficult to to see them connect. It’s almost like them to say:

 

“Well now, now you’re talking like them because these Islamicists, they’re the new Nazis, right?”

 

[laughing] So it’s difficult, it’s very difficult!

 

Jack: We need to move the Overton Window to the Right. But also to, a portion of the Right, I could actually discuss issues other than Islam. Unfortunately there is no party in Britain that is, and there’s no part of the Right that will actually discuss the influence Jews have had on our society, any more. Even the BNP refused to discuss it. When I was in the BNP, I was told pretty much, “You can’t mention kosher with haram”. You can say a “halal” but you can’t say “kosher”.

 

Henrik: Yeah.

 

Jack: That, that was pretty much the, that was pretty much the path they wanted to head down. I mean UKIP, if you look at UKIP. I mean moments after Lee Rigby was decapitated by Muslims, they ran to a local mosque to appease the Muslims in private. But then publicly, they would say that they were culturally, possibly, not really incompatible, but there were issues.

 

So they’re things we can’t talk about, things we can’t speak about. And what I think we should do is move the Overton Window. In a slightly different direction so, things that people are thinking we can actually speak about again. Our politicians won’t even engage us until, until enough people start talking about these issues.

 

Henrik: Let me interject this. Isn’t there also then an interface here, because what I’ve noticed is that, despite the fact that, you know, Breitbart and the Rebel media, the Truth Revolt, a number of these that have adopted names that, you know, kind of the Alternative Truth Movement had ten years ago. But anyway, they have, they’ve also, they do have an interface with the mainstream media that now and then, they, they do get on mainstream TV.

 

I believe Milo, he’s like on these panels and stuff like that. He gets some media exposure, right? So that, there’s still an interface, despite the fact that they are seen as a kind of an opposition, or an alternative, or a new rising media. They’re enough, you know, on board, if you will, so that they get that attention in the media. Unlike, you know, us or, you know, in some cases you guys as well of course, that, … We don’t get that airplay, we don’t get that time. We, no one kind of on the mass scale knows that, not with you Nick, of course, people know who you are. But, I’m talking about certain outlets that we don’t get that same interface and recognition that some of these guys do. Right?

 

Nick: Of course not. No, because they’re essentially part of the same system. They’re the, the system, … They understood, I think they looked at the way in which White nationalist movements and individuals all over the world really dominated and to an extent still dominant, the Alternative media and the internet.

 

They saw that this was very, very dangerous and initially they put a lot of effort into trying to control the web. And I think they have concluded that they may well not be able to now. So they have moved into creating such a large block of interrelated alternative media. That when people go hunting and go looking and they give up on the BBC or CNN. So they get on the internet, they are still going to find the same poison, rebottled in different bottles.

 

Henrik: Yeah, good point, good point. Let’s talk a bit about how, I mean this, the media war of course is an issue in itself and, we can we can hold off on that a little bit. Let’s just talk about the politics of this now, too. Because you mentioned Nick that people now, they can see, right even, even with the terrorism that we’re now seeing in Europe on a almost monthly basis now. At some point it will be there, it will just increase and increase and increase.

 

There is a great time of opportunity, it’s a great danger of course to, to many people, but it’s a great opportunity. And it’s important for us to be there and what not. But, would you say that politically, is the option there or off the table? Is this now about a meta-political battle or how do you see that in terms of forming a, you know, yet another party, or do, you know, is there time for that? What do you think?

 

[35:02]

Note: To listen to Hour 2 at Red Ice Radio you need to be a member. I would encourage all readers to support Red Ice Radio by becoming a subscriber. The monthly subscription is only 18 Euros for 3 months.

 

HOUR 2

 

 

So, we now need to do that and to ensure that Christendom, and the White race survives as the dominant force somewhere. And it can be done in Central and Eastern Europe, at the present. Another twenty five years time, if they don’t turn around what’s happening there, then you have a massive Third World population in Western Europe. They can build all the walls they want. Unless they’ve got large numbers of young men with guns, prepared to use them, behind those walls, those walls will be pushed down by the Third World.

 

[09:45]

[Image] Zack ‘King‘ Khan has become the first British Muslim to claim the prestigious International Federation of Body Builders (IFBB) title in 2009.

 

[15:00]

 

Whereas Britons are almost fearful. I say that because my my wife, who keeps guns due to her background in sport shooting and hunting, has received a lot of flak from her friends who, when they find out that she does that, that she’s hunted and she’s killed a duck, unbelievably and eaten it. Can you imagine she actually ate the duck she killed! But it drives some of her friends ballistic and some people even scared even to bring their children, “Are you sure the gun is, you know, in the right place and sure it’s locked?”

 

And, you know, obviously in Great Britain it’s almost impossible to get a firearm without massive background checks. And the police inspect your home to make sure the gun is properly stored. And that it’s locked away. Even then, the average British person that we’ve encountered, when they hear that my wife, you know, we have weapons in the house, they are quite shocked. And I think that’s going to be something that people are going to have to overcome. That there’s something wrong with having weapons in the house. That there’s something wrong with, you know, even like Nick said earlier, the vast majority of young Englishmen are just playing video games on the couch. When they should be keeping in shape, going out, running, exercising, developing their minds, developing their self-defence skills. Just to defend their families even, not necessarily to engage in some kind of, you know, rebellion against the establishment.

 

But just literally, you know, a man should be strong and smart. And unfortunately, cultural Marxism has made it so men are weak, emasculated and unfortunately now, quite sick. And we need to change that. I think it has to be a complete shift in men’s mentality. Maybe we can even copy, I hate to say, copy the black mentality, but you see the way the black male, postures, at least in public. I don’t want to see young white men posturing out in public and picking fights, but certainly having more confidence in, you know, just strengthening their character would be nice.

 

We need to kind of, you know, reinvigorate the male figure and, you know, return to a patriarchal society would help. It’s very difficult with, you know, obviously feminism in all young women as they are. But I do think we need to have a transformation, a reshaping of the minds and hearts of young men in this country.

 

Nick:I’d say it’s absolutely so, reshaping the minds of young men and and young women for that matter. But to what extent can that be done in a society which is so rotten and so riddled with liberalism and Cultural Marxism, as all the countries of Western Europe? Earlier with spoke a little bit, on off, about the European Union, and the latest I’ve seen, I think they have now come up with, there are more than forty genders [laughter] a primary school child is allowed, can chose what gender they are.

 

Henrik: Right.

 

Nick: Now, why on earth would anyone in their right mind, want to rear a child, let alone children in a society where that is regard as normal or acceptable? In any normal society the lunatic suggesting that will either be laughed out of court or hung from a lampost! If people understood how really evil it is. And when you’re in a society where everyone goes along with that and they keep on watching the gogglebox, really you have got to think the revolution had to start not with blood all over the streets and everyone arming themselves.

 

It has to start with a husband and wife deciding that they are going to take the kid out of school. They are going to scrap the television. And they are only let the kids watch videos that they have chosen and they are going to educate their kids themselves with other like minded people in intentional communities. So how many kids are out of the mainstream, are perhaps even a temporary loss to our cause and our way of thinking, it’s a hardcore and growing hardcore who provide the leadership for the future rebellions and revolution. Which is of our minds and our blood.

 

Henrik: Yes. And don’t underestimate. The kids, there’s a lot of kids now that are rebelling against this Social Justice Warrior, you know, infection, that’s running rampant through our society. There are, there are people that are actually waking up to these, these kinds of questions and issues. Due to the fact that our governments are so vehemently pushing them, you know, upon them, right? And so we have to be there and this is already happening. It’s happening naturally, it’s happening, you know, through, through Reddit, through POL, through, you know, 4chan. It’s like, these kids are sick and fed up with it. They want structure, they want some kind of order. They want to have traditional, you know, family life. Traditional, you know, male female relations again.

 

I mean this is, we have to jump on that and, this is, we’re going to rebel against the mainstream and that’s happening now. We’re in a completely new place, I think now. So we shouldn’t, we shouldn’t underestimate all of the, … It’s a dire situation! But I mean, if we, if we think about it, things can change incredibly fast! We don’t have to rebuild society, we don’t have to even recreate the whole political structure. It’s just the minds and hearts of the people that need to be transformed!

 

[24:56]

 

Nick: Absolutely so! And there is, if for some incredible reason we don’t have, our, basically civil war, just around the corner, … If the Wahhabis and the Zionists, between them don’t manage to reduce Europe to a smoking ruin, then there is an alternative, possible future, in Western Europe. To say, to think that these people can all be encouraged to leave and they’ll all go. It’s not realistic. And economically, our society now couldn’t do it, remarkably enough, because there simply wouldn’t be enough people to keep things functioning to keep the capitalist society going, going around.

 

You could do it if you gave up on capitalism, if you gave up on consumerism, if you have a banking revolution, a way of life revolution and go back, basically, to living on family farms. Then you could do it. I’d love that, but realistically our people aren’t going to want that to happen. They are going to want to keep on, you know, their nice cozy comfortable consumer society. So you can’t revolutionize it and you can’t get rid of those people.

 

And for that matter, you know, there’s fifty million native Brits and everyone’s got one good immigrant they wouldn’t want to see sent home. So that more than covers all of them. That’s not going to happen, but you could have a system where we develop something like Syria was before the usual culprits decided to destroy it. Where you got different communities who live side by side for hundreds even thousands of years and they work together and they play football together and they support the same national team and they are in the army together.

 

But when it comes to their kids falling in love and marrying and having other kids, it’s within their own community. If they’re Christians or they’re Druz or they’re Sunni or they’re Shia or whatever. I’ve been to Syria a number of times and you can see in Damascus still, that system. They actually found a way to make that work perfectly well.

 

But before it can work for our people, in fact before it can work for any of us, we have to ideologically, spiritually develop all of us, different ethnic communities as well, a complete set of antibodies to the genocidal level of deliberately enforcing integration and race mixing.

 

And we have to, all of us, develop, particularly our people, we have to develop, what the, most of the ethnic groups have, a proper pride in our own people and it is normal for your kids to grow up learning the songs that their grandparents knew. And it’s not uncool to sing those songs. You know, that’s what you do. And you could have a society, we’re never going to put it back to what it was, this side of a bloody revolution. But you could have a society where our people live side by side with them and our kids still grow up and have kids just like us. Which is a damn sight better than we are now!

 

But the only way you can possibly get that, is, if our kids and people like us come to understand that doing the right thing is something you have to do. That wanting to be with your own kind isn’t some kind of wicked sin. That you have a duty to rear your kids up to value our culture, our society and so on. And then you can have something like a peaceful solution, as long as in the end the ethnic minorities, or rather the other ethnic minorities understand that if they mess around with the Swedes or the English or the French, the Swedes, or the English, or the French are going to kick their arses!

 

Henrik: Well, I think, I think there’s going to be an economic collapse due to what we’re seeing right now. They’re warning people not to travel in Europe right now and definitely, you know, in Brussels, right. But, it’s going to have a tremendous impact on the economy. It’s going to have a tremendous impact on, you know, tourism and the fact that if more and more of these events happen, people are going to be scared. It’s going to shut down everything.

 

And frankly, when the “gibsmedat”* is gone, many of these people, they came for the welfare systems and all this. They are going to self deport! That’s, and I think that that’s obviously an ideal situation out of it, right? Because I think that we could, we could rebuild and we can, we have done that before there.

 

Look at Germany after the Second World War in terms of how they’ve rebuilt some of their infrastructure and stuff like that, and I don’t think it’s going to be that, that bad, to be honest. But, I think that a great travesty, like an economic collapse, is something that we can have work towards our favor. And I think, again, a lot of people would actually self deport in that situation.

 

*[“gibsmedat”: Ebonics – “give me that”. The perennial demand for more handouts. The African begging bowl mentality, combined with an attitude of entitlement.]

 

Jack: Well, I mean, if, … The Muslim endgame is total domination and replacement of the population and it’s culture with Muslim people and people then who are raped into submission. So, do you really think that they would self-deport if their intention for being here is not just to make money, but actually to convert the entire British, the entire country of Great Britain into an Islamic state?

 

Henrik: Yeah, but they’re so small right? Because it’s fairly, … It’s, I mean, that’s not the majority of people there in our countries, right? Am I’m wrong?

 

[29:50]

 

END

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

Version 2: Mar 26, 2016 — Added first 5 minutes of transcript. Added another 10 minutes of transcript.

Version 1: Published Mar 26, 2016