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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Joanna Howe: Yeah, yeah.

 

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

 

James Howe: Yeah, I know the guy.

 

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

 

Joanna Howe: Yep.

 

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

 

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Sam Bamford: You’re welcome.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Sam Bamford: Literally, like, rip them out!

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

[05:17]

 

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

 

Joanna Howe: Yeah, just—

 

Sam Bamford: Just giving birth to a dead baby.

 

Joanna Howe: Yeah. Yep.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Joanna Howe: Yeah.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

And I remember just thinking, like:

 

“What the fuck are you talking about!”

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

And then we got onto abortion and you started saying:

 

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

 

And I think I just said:

 

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

 

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

 

“I never really thought about it.”

 

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

 

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

 

Joanna Howe: Yeah.

 

Sam Bamford: You get brainwashed people from the Right.

 

James Howe: Yeah. 100%.

 

Sam Bamford: Happens with everyone.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

And I asked around and—

 

Joanna Howe: Because he was Labor Right?

 

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

 

Sam Bamford: I don’t get this stuff.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Yeah, it genuinely tore me up.

 

James Howe: Yeah, it’s horrible!

 

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

 

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

 

Sam Bamford: The old‑school one from—

 

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

 

“Just the miracle of life!”

 

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

 

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

 

So, yeah—long story short!

 

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

 

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

 

James Howe: Yeah.

 

Joanna Howe: Yeah.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Sam Bamford: Because we’re all busy working.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Sam Bamford: Yep.

 

Okay, so when is it again?

 

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

 

[15:18]

 

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

 

Joanna Howe: Yeah.

 

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

 

“Are you gonna home‑school?”

 

Joanna Howe: Yeah.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Sam Bamford: Are you saying I’m short?

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Joanna Howe: Yeah.

 

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

 

“What am I going to talk about here?”

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Joanna Howe: Yep. Yeah.

 

Sam Bamford: Truly believe that?

 

Joanna Howe: No, I truly believe it.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

[20:02]

 

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

 

Sam Bamford: Is that because of the One Nation—

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

I guess I would say to people:

 

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

 

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

 

Joanna Howe: Yeah—

 

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

 

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

 

Sam Bamford: 100%.

 

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

 

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

 

Joanna Howe: Yeah, yeah.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Sam Bamford: What?

 

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

 

Sam Bamford: Over one in four!

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Joanna Howe: Yeah.

 

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

 

Joanna Howe: Yeah.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

[25:39]

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Joanna Howe: So it would have been 1988.

 

Sam Bamford: 1988. How old?

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

“Do you think I’m Australian?”

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

James Howe: True.

 

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

 

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

 

Sam Bamford: Like, 100%.

 

James Howe: Yeah.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Sam Bamford: Same origins. Anglo‑Celtic.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

[30:06]

 

 

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

 

James Howe: So you’re Anglo‑Celtic.

 

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

 

James Howe: Yeah.

 

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

 

James Howe: Okay.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Sam Bamford: Yeah, yeah.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Joanna Howe: We can acknowledge that.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

And they’re like:

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Sam Bamford: So what is it?

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Joanna Howe: Okay, so we all agree, …

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

James Howe: I agree but, …

 

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

 

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

 

Sam Bamford: Okay, so what is your definition?

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

James Howe: No—because we should, …

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

James Howe: No—don’t— Let me explain.

 

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

 

James Howe: Just let me finish.

 

Joanna Howe: Yeah.

 

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

 

“That’s not the case.”

 

And then you say:

 

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

 

And I go:

 

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

 

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

 

“Oh, well, here’s what I think.”

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Sam Bamford: Not at all!

 

James Howe: Why? Explain.

 

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

 

James Howe: Why?

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

James Howe: No, because—

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Sam Bamford: How! How?

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

James Howe: I’m not saying, …

 

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

 

[40:04]

 

 

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

 

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

 

Joanna Howe: Adapting to our way of life.

 

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

 

“Yeah, that’s all right!”

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Sam Bamford: We could bring up Africa.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Like, this is the problem!

 

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

 

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

 

“He wants a white only Australia!”

 

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

 

“You just want a White Australia!”

 

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

 

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

 

Sam Bamford: Do you think I’m a Nazi?

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

James Howe: Are you gonna let me talk?

 

Sam Bamford: No, you, …

 

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

 

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

 

Joanna Howe: Okay, guys, …

 

James Howe: Don’t say:

 

“Okay, guys.”

 

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

 

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

 

Joanna Howe: You’re changing, …

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

James Howe: Okay.

 

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

 

James Howe: Okay. White people and indigenous Australians.

 

Sam Bamford: Indigenous Australians are brown! *

 

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

 

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

 

“Do I think that’s Nazi?”

 

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

 

But it’s like a racist ideology!

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Sam Bamford: Okay, so what is an Australian?

 

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

 

Sam Bamford: Can’t answer it!

 

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

 

Joanna Howe: Yeah.

 

Sam Bamford: What is an Australian?

 

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

 

Sam Bamford: Yep.

 

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

 

Sam Bamford: Sam.

 

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

 

Sam Bamford: Yeah, yeah.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Sam Bamford: Are you proud of your Indian heritage?

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

[45:35]

 

 

[Remainder of Transcript in Progress]

 

 

[1:54:23]

 

 

END

top

 

 

 

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

 

Youtube Comments

top

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hide replies

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

7 replies

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hide replies

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

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

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

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

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

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

@fpenman
7 hours ago
Podcast episode of the year
8

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

@micphoenix8200
6 hours ago

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

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

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

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

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

@jaydenMRPF
3 hours ago

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

Hide replies

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

@gpumn1
5 hours ago
Totally agree
2

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

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

Hide replies

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

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

@aussiegypsywarrior
7 hours ago

Hide replies

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hide replies

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

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

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

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

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

@martincoyle-o3b
24 minutes ago
Jo is all Aussie the type we need

@Numptee86
57 minutes ago
Duke it out, then find common ground and UNITE. We can’t risk fracturing and giving the labor/green side of politics any more chances

@raelaris
9 hours ago (edited)
the thing that turned me on abortion was when i watched a documentary on babies and they cited a study that found that newborn babies can recognise their father’s voice.
4

@triciamears7338
2 hours ago
Fantastic debate.
Keep them coming Sam.
I don’t have all the answers, but, listening to this type of debate only helps me to “define” what my opinions are and it helps all of us (the ones who are interested and care about where our country is heading) to appreciate the complexities of what we “Australians” are truly facing. Keep talking, we’re listening

@user-uu2ty6xs8l
7 hours ago
Sam much respect.
4

@yogibighouse1
9 hours ago
Yeah me and my wife tried ivf $15000 on procedures and nothing. Me and wife would of jumped on the opportunity to have a baby
6

@mic4788
6 hours ago
Sam, on that point I think you’re incorrect. Their children are Australian. They were born here
7

@batesmate5510
3 hours ago
I think it’s more about potential religious upbringing, European religion for the most part aligns with ours where as somewhere like India worships different gods. Even if Dr Joanna Dosnt practice Indian type religion it’s still that exposure.

@Samsy22
2 hours ago (edited)
Sam is wrong on this, too much ego built into the opinion, needs to rethink in the cold light of day after letting heat cool out of it. Sam is intellectually out of his depth with this debate and just on repeat like a broken record without ever actually listening or absorbing the logic or reason.
How do I know, cause I used to do the same thing, fall back on the stubborn/proud thing and die on that hill just because I had strong opinions held with white knuckles.
1

Hide replies

@GoranRadovanovic-m4b
7 hours ago
Oh my goodness what an episode? Definitely love listening to it. There’s a few points I’d love to have a pick at. but all in all it was good listening to all three of them.
2

@leonmiller4774
10 hours ago
How can any sane human poison and torture a living human baby and call themselves a medical proffesional because all abortion is murder anytime from conception onwards i say BAN ALL ABORTION
11

@grannyannie2948
10 hours ago
When a third of the population is born overseas, who are the Australian women choosing this procedure? It is often done in cultures that don’t value girls.
1

Hide replies

@Thecarnivorecoachkymbullen
4 hours ago
Such an important conversation. 3 strong personalities, you all did well.
2

@MaySpecials
7 hours ago
She’s good
7

@jimini_crikit322
3 hours ago
It’s clearly a complex and emotive issue; I think you have all made incredibly valid points. I meet the “definition” of what Sam deems to be Australian. However, I don’t agree that excluding people from being Australian based on their ethnic background is the answer here.
In my opinion, being Australian is that you were 1) Born here 2) Share our Christian values and culture 3) Denounce all other cultures
It’s not a perfect list, but I think it makes the most sense
2

@tonypalmer9575
7 hours ago
It is so important to have these debates. Most of us do not yet have the cultural vocabulary for these arguments. So many cultural and political terms in use at the moment are coded with meanings and histories derived from post war liberalism. I hope in time conservatives will formulate their own meanings on their own terms. Well done, Sam.
2

@kimeccleston5586
7 hours ago
Well said

Hide replies

@TrishOwen
1 hour ago
My definition of an aussie is someone who was born here or came here when they were small children, grew up celebrating Australia day with back yard cricket, beach, bbqs and beers and would fight for Australia.
I wouldn’t move to the middle east and refer to myself as middle eastern. I was call myself an aussie. And if war broke out, i wouod be back here in Australia fighting with Australia.

@kimeccleston5586
10 hours ago
It’s heavy going but probably necessary. Kind of like argueing on the deck of the Titanic if a Violin is Viola as the ship sinks beneath the waves.
4

@mic4788
7 hours ago (edited)
Sam you can use the annology of “rabbits & cane toads with regard to immigration” if we import the wrong immigrants they don’t assimilate. I can understand your point.
3

@treewhisperer07
2 hours ago
Great debate
2

@RajNaidoo-b4e
9 hours ago
James & Sam sound like long lost mates! Love it. (saying this 18 mins in, we’ll see how it goes)
3

@hamish2884
5 hours ago
Cant wait to watch this!
2

@Steve-HIMSELF
6 hours ago
Sam, your debating training pays for itself. This bloke definitely came in with an agenda and you clapped him with logic. This shows that he has the labour party mentality if he can’t even define what an Australian is.
10

@wildstallionbby6369
8 hours ago
Enjoyed this see it is possible to debate opposing ideas .. without (imagining )violence .. mostly
3

@greeningfam8359
2 hours ago
You’re right, that did get a little heated
1

@johnrogers5825
7 hours ago
Love the fiery arguments. So much better to have it out in the open as opposed to sleazy politicians who talk politely and deceptively. Stop the PC bullshit and say it how it is ffs.
3

@MaySpecials
7 hours ago
Fair debate
3

@leonmiller4774
9 hours ago
The 4 parts of my forebares came here as follows 1832 English whalers 1841 German in Klemzig Adelaide 1854 Ehglish 1904 Scottish Kiwi so what am i now i consider myself a true blue Aussie yes my ancestors help build this country we went to jail for this country (1st world war because of our German heritage even though we were 2nd and 3rd generation Aussie) i am white all my family is white and I’m proud to be a white Australian, i do believe in the white Australia policy and that it should be bought back for the fact people had to speak english and assimilate to our culture by denouncing where they come from and accept our way of life
5

@colin76545
4 hours ago
This debate has to happen and keep happening and every where this debate it always ends up the same way which is (I’m a civic national vs I’m an ethnic national) and no matter what happens it’s never going to stop

@darrenparsons5299
8 hours ago
Christianity is the key fundamental
3

@APP1E5
4 hours ago (edited)
By Sam’s definition, I would be Australian.
My parents were Australian. Three of my grandparents were Australian. The other was British and fought for Australia in the First World War 977 DCM.
So I am not objecting because his definition excludes me. I am objecting because it points nationality in the wrong direction.
Australia should not be reduced to Indian Australian, English Australian, Scottish Australian, German Australian, or any other divided label. There should be Australians.
A person’s ancestry may explain where their family came from, but it should not become their permanent political identity.
The real question is loyalty, assimilation, culture, language, law, and shared values.
If someone comes here, makes Australia their home, accepts Australia’s inherited institutions, speaks our common language, raises Australian children, and gives their loyalty to this country, then they should become Australian.
Not partly Australian. Not hyphenated Australian. Australian.
That is why Joanna matters in this conversation. She is of Indian descent, born in the UK, speaks with an Australian accent, holds Australian values, and the most important point is that she is Christian.
That places her much closer to the old civilisational inheritance of Australia than many people who may have the right ancestry but reject everything Australia was built upon.
Australia must control immigration. Australia must demand assimilation. Australia should not allow divided loyalty. Australian or nothing.
But the answer is not to turn nationality into race.
The answer is one people, one country, one loyalty.
Australians.
5

@blakewaugh2536
4 hours ago
could not sum it up better

@MSummaz
14 minutes ago

Hide replies

@Butcherbirdsarecool
9 hours ago (edited)
Geez this was a frustrating video. Sam did a great job to sit there and listen to that. Being yelled at by Dr Jo’s husband. I know he’s defending Jo but geez mate I felt like I needed to block my ears. I agree with Sam on this one.
Rude asf dude!! Jo’s husband was in full attack mode. He wouldn’t listen and didn’t want to listen. What a dick! Sorry but wtf!
16

@slash1989
1 hour ago
Give Gov A cut And a pay cut No big Australia get there heads out of the clouds

@MagicManintheSky-j9q
3 hours ago
Sam is right. These people don’t understand the difference between ethnicity and citizenship. It’s not rocket science.
1

@benkhosh
6 hours ago
An Australian is someone who comes here and completely adopts Australian values and heritage and does not congregate in there Enclave of ethnicities. And by my definitions you can become Australian before you get citizenship or by the same token you are not Australian even if you have citizenship but do not integrate fully
3

@aphaseelec
5 hours ago
Sam you are the man. I 100% agree with you. He was fine and I liked his points but that part where he kept going to skin color was frustrating as hell. One thing I disagree with you on is you invited him to your house that didnt need to come up.
1

@ColdPatterns
9 hours ago
Well hopefully I can go over to India as a white woman and be considered an Indian
4

@grannyannie2948
10 hours ago
Ban abortion And ban immigration. Problem solved.
4

@gpumn1
5 hours ago
Not enough of the conversation is being had around completely shutting down immigration for 4-5 years. It will buy us much needed time to fix our nation and help determine the right path moving forward.
1

@Guska95
8 hours ago (edited)
James came across far more thought out and intellectually honest. His family is Australian ditch the sub class catagories we can only unite on Christian values and culture
3

@blakewaugh2536
5 hours ago
Anglo Celtic is different to Anglo saxon (which is what you are referring to in Germanic). Which one are we using here…?
1

@akingsroad
7 hours ago (edited)
That would have been really good without all the name calling.
It was actually really interesting to listen when you guys were teasing out some of the ideas around what is an Australian.
Don’t stop talking about this guys. I hope you catchup again, and remove the personal attacks because there were some really interesting ideas being discussed.
1

@Kingxr6t
5 hours ago
I liked Sams argument and i admire hes attempt at defining what (Australians) are, but i also understand old mates view and the flaw hes seeing, it might sound bad and theres probably most definitely flaws here! But myself= a cut off point? When did the people living here become Australians? Land was Mostly made up of brittish “subjects” and indigenous in 1949 no longer subjects or (just indigenous) we become our own individual people i.e Australians and there is a difference we mingled with indigenous and weve mixed together to make something different no longer just! a brittish subject or just! Indigenous, Put an Australian and a brit in a room together? Are they the same? Can you tell them Apart? Who’s who? 1 word gets spoken & BANG! You know exactly who is who hes an Aussie hes an brit, different lingo or accent, we are different how? Still working on it! the only thing we have in common is religion/ Christian values, drop an Aussies in Britain or ANY! white country he wont instantly adapt because theres different social norms behaviours, celebrations ect brits tea and crumpets Aussies bacon and eggs we are different the way we interact theres so many differences ,and yea it can be hard to pin down thats only because the conversations haven’t happened, that doesnt mean we haven’t shaped into our own individual people (Australians) and this country was shaped into what it is today due to a mixture of indigenous/ white Christian based subjects (similar) to other Christian nations, a white American isnt now Australian because hes white and was born here, the population of 8 million that lived here in 1949 and the millions born over the decades are what Australians are! In my opinion if you decent from that 8 million then you define what Australians are
2

@Alessandro-b4k
1 hour ago
Hey guys, good to debate these things. I want to share that this was directly addressed during the Eureka rebellion, as the government accussed ‘foreigners’, basically non-english, as causing the rebellion. The Ballarat Times Jan 01 1855 has a letter where the author refer to new arrivals as being the newest Australians etc. Give it a read, I don’t have the link with me now and cbf typing it up. But it reflects a very early perspective on the matter, granted they are talking mainly about other Europeans, like Italians etc. that were a part of the rebellion, such as Carboni. I think it is a convenient definition the host has for Australian, when I was at school the anglos couldn’t work out if Euro wogs were Australian or not…thanks to the arrival of muslims and indians we are now conveniently Australian, well I won’t complain, but we are certainly NOT the same ethnicity as the anglos, and culturely massively different thanks be to God. Happy for Australia to stay British though says I. Cheers

@Shallowchal
10 hours ago
What did I just watch -holy heck.
7

@williamguile1788
6 hours ago
That was a tough listen.
1

@kimeccleston5586
10 hours ago
Do you have a definition around the 42 min mark?

@domburton
5 hours ago
Crazy aye

Hide replies

@DB-in3jy
4 hours ago
Brilliant episode!
1

@APP1E5
4 hours ago
Sam’s argument falls apart on “Anglo Celtic” Look up John Christian Watson reputedly born in Valparaiso, Chile. King OMalley, Evidence points to USA. Two of the first Parliament.
1

@JustJoshofficial89
3 hours ago
Good work pushing through guys, hashed it out in the end.
Want to hear more on the mass immigration part you all agreed on a thoughts on what could be done.
Perhaps a new rule for the pod, 15 mins stuck on the same argument move on.
1

@breban18
4 hours ago
I think Sam doesn’t really believe people from a non-European background aren’t Australian. Audience capture is a problem and clicks are a powerful driver of opinion.
1

@CoenKR
4 hours ago
While both parties have things I do and don’t agree with my opinion is that you can’t say someone has Nazi and racial ideology about what they believe is an Australian while saying they don’t know how to define what an Aussie is in saying that I’m pleased that these discussions and debates are being had the way it should be even if it gets heated

@ausbushman2347
2 hours ago
The key word that seems to be getting dropped too often is Ethnic. To be an ethnic Australian you have to have descent from here and Anglo-Celtic descent. If you come from an Anglo-Celtic heritage but aren’t born here, you are not an ethnic Australian, but you can be an Australian citizen. Everyone else can only be a citizen. Jo is a great Australian… citizen. She can never be an ethnic Australian because she wasnt born here. Her kids could be seen as ethnic Australians because they have an Australian father, even if they do have a mixed heritage. I dont think we can avoid having mixed heritage these days.
1

@leonmiller4774
9 hours ago (edited)
Sam in Joes case to me shes a pom not an Indian also as a Christian you should believe in creation not that crappy evolution in that case we all came out of Mesopotamia not Africa
On another level didn’t you say your forebares came here after 1901?
Jo there is only a few million Irish there is 1.5 billion Indians and we didn’t import 100,000 of thousands of them like we have Indians and Jo being born in England was a pom before becoming
Jo is an english Australian not Indian Australian
Actually Sam India was part of the British commonwealth up until just after WW2
According to our constitution we do not have freedom of religion but freedom of association and there is a difference and Jo’s kids are Aussie not Indian Australian
Sorry my comments are slightly incoherent but I’m following along your conversation
3

@reubensrichardson
3 hours ago (edited)
Great interview. Defining something is the first step in protecting it.

@NicholasWitham
2 hours ago
Sam, I hope you have watched this back by yourself.
James was trying to show that when you differentiate someone as Indian-Australian or just Australian you do actually create a hierarchy of Australian.
I am Australian born on Australia. My father is from England in the 70s and my Mother is from Malaysia. With your definition my “Australian” label is somewhat grey….and to James’ point, this is similar to how the left define woman…it’s grey when it shouldn’t be.
I’m glad you had this debate, and I’m glad there were no fists thrown lol.
I hope your debate skills can grow in the future, and that you do become open to other ideas, your ideas and opinions are great and well rooted in yourself, but being open to other ideas makes a much better debater as you can see things from the opposite side….which I don’t think you can do very well right now. You seem to be very staunch with your argument and not willing to hear the arguments against them…although James didn’t do a great job at explaining the argument.
Keep up the good work, I’m looking forward to more.
1

@SueMurphy-l2n
6 hours ago (edited)
James referred to the people in the NT as Chinese people. He actually identified them based on their looks, which is just what Sam is trying to establish
1

@jimhaggerty2741
4 hours ago
Question for Sam Bamford:
If Australia became a full republic tomorrow, cut constitutional ties to Britain, changed the flag, and built a completely independent Australian identity separate from the Crown — where would you stand on that?
Would you support a fully sovereign Australian nationalism with an Australian flag, independent identity, and recognition that Aboriginal Australians were the original people of the continent?
Or is your idea of Australia still ultimately tied to British heritage and the Anglo world?

@ShaneCooper-b2u
3 hours ago
thank you very much

@DanAttewell-y5b
45 minutes ago
So it’s a mentality.

@jacoblowe4247
5 hours ago (edited)
India was part of the British Commonwealth the same British empire that founded Australia. So I guess because of their British heritage they can call themselves Australians and not just Australian citizens right? They technically have British heritage too… Just like you pal… I really don’t think you thought about this deeper than skin deep!
In fact their country was colonised before ours so I guess you could say that they have a longer British heritage than you do man. So can we lump India into Anglo and European because of their British heritage?
2

@Citraz62
9 minutes ago
NO.

Hide replies

@Cappuccino-ph7rp
1 hour ago
He shouldn’t be able to ask questions he can’t answer himself.
1

@southern-samurai
6 hours ago
Join the Australian Natives Association. Sounds like they are in sync with your position.
1

@nomoremaybes
6 minutes ago
She did the meme lol

@johnrogers5825
7 hours ago
James has wiggled his way into the Dr Jo podcast and I have been unsure about him, but now, watching him here, I don’t like what I see. He has agendas, and his potty mouth is one of the worst I have ever heard.
4

@aussiegypsywarrior
6 hours ago
His potty mouth is one of the worst you’ve ever heard? Really? I don’t agree with foul language in any way however, I’ve heard much worse.
2

Hide replies

@slash1989
13 minutes ago
Not hard men we need strong men

@kjing8109
5 hours ago
So what’s an Australian according to each side? Someone save me watching this entire episode

@victorgomes7585
2 hours ago
Dr Jo is simply gorgeous. You guys are a wonderful compatible couple. And I had no idea Dr Jo has Portuguese heritage. Well… hugs from a proud Portuguese born Australian citizen. PS … to be in positions of power, politics etc… no dual citizenship should be allowed for such person. Our biggest enemy is within.
5

@brontepetropoulos4755
9 hours ago
Great video
2

@scooter183
6 hours ago
South Africa and Rhodesia, Take a look at the 70s and take a look Now.. Australia is Next . Case Closed.
1

@danielpearce7585
8 hours ago (edited)
Yeah. That’s the stuff. I can see me in you Sammy. It’s that logic that kicks in and its hard to talk to these folks. Your a good man and I hear your argument’s and your personality shining through. I love it. Ex navy myself of 11 years and I wonder how much of this logic come from subservience to your country and a cause.

@becomng
2 hours ago
Pausing immigration isn’t such a crazy idea. Pausing immigration gave Canadian renters their first nationwide rent relief in five years, pushing vacancy rates above their 10-year average and driving 12 straight months of falling asking prices.

@raphaelbotelho91
3 hours ago
What a fcking great episode, guys

@uebergangster
3 hours ago
An ‘Australian’ is a legal citizen of the country who adopts the cultural and religious norms (which are inter-related). Skin colour and prior national background aren’t relevant in that equation. However, the argument against mass immigration and exclusion of majority immigration of certain nationalities is that both may threaten to either overwhelm the cultural norm, or that there is a heightened risk that immigrants under such cirumstances will not endeavour to adapt.
1

@uebergangster
3 hours ago
So the definition of what we are protecting is the cultural norm, not a biological race (which is not a real thing anyway). The cultural norm of Australian is then defined as: Christian (you don’t have to be practising, but be at least sympathetic), family oriented, capitalist (not socialist), generally politically conservative, accepting Westminster style democratic parliamentary rule and equality under the law.
1

Hide replies

@wotslife
6 hours ago

@marleymeathook1975
9 hours ago
On 23 December 1901 the Immigration Restriction Act came into law. White australia policy. We would be a lot better off if it was still law. Do you think we would have a lot of these problems today? i dare say we wouldnt even be talking bout this. love this podcast bro!
3

@grannyannie2948
8 hours ago
Exactly. Our forefathers federated to achieve two objectives. To implement the WAP, and to build a navy capable of defending the country. I would argue that the federal government has been a complete failure and should be suspended.
I can’t understand why all three of them ran away from the term the White Australia Policy, which was very popular and should come back.
2

Hide replies

@BLESSED2XS
9 hours ago
Dr. Jo, I Love You soooo much, You are an AUSTRALIAN, Nationality & Culturally, and brilliant one at that!!! But You ethnically an Indian.
The British aren’t from Britain naturally, they are from mainland Europe and before that Israel and before that the Caucus Mountain Range hence “Caucasians.”
To say that there is no such thing as Ethnically Australian just because We’ve only been here since 1788 (yes, my Ancestors came over on the First Fleet) HAS to be matched with “there’s no such thing as Ethnically British, or any National-Ethnic Identity other than the 3 root races of old social science: Whites/Caucasians, Blacks/Negroids & Asians/Mongoloids, and everyone is just one of those or a mix of those.” But that is not true, Samoans are Samoans (not just Polynesians), Irish are Irish (not just Whites), Fijians are Fijians (not just Melanesians), Ethiopians are Ethiopians (not just Africans), etc.
I am all for a multi-racial Australia as long as everyone lives the Australian monoculture and Ethnically Australian Australians are put first and that ONLY Australians can be in Parliament/Federal Government, and in State & Local Governments.
I Love You just as much as any Australian and I would fight for You to be protected and secure in Australia.
GOD Bless
5

@BLESSED2XS
8 hours ago
If I move to India and earn their Cultural Respect, gain an authentic accent, think like them, talk like them, walk like them, Marry an Indian, and have Children, I am an Australian-Indian and my hypothetical Children would be half-Indian, half-Australian, that DOES NOT make me less than the Indians and DOES NOT make an Indian “racist” for clearly seeing that I am not Indian. Australia is not an NWO experiment, Australia is just as much a Nation as Germany, as Samoa, as Tonga, as all of the other young Nations that got formed in the 1800s & 1900s, no different. We are ethnically Australian and to say that We are no different to British is “racist” to Us just as it is to say that there is no difference between Samoans, Maoris & Hawaiians even though they are all Polynesians, they are DIFFERENT, just like English, Welsh, Scottish & Northern Irish are all British yet they are DIFFERENT, so are Aussies, Kiwis & Canadians, We are of the root race of White/Caucasian but DIFFERENT, just like Indians, Pakis, Nepalese, Sri Lankan & Bengals are all South Asian but DIFFERENT. Respect Heritage Australians!!!
1

Hide replies

@gregsags3364
2 hours ago
F-ing good podcast.

@Howdnz
8 hours ago
That escalated quickly

@trishwilson8141
5 hours ago
I agree values are Australian

@Toastmalone6192
7 hours ago
Aussie Logan Paul being triggered for 2 hours
3

@ItsMe-vy1wt
3 hours ago
I’d absolutely LUV to see that “Fuck the ABC” sign done up all nice & professional…..& LARGE!

@Itsmevgc
5 hours ago
My mum has been here since 77, she’s still British
1

@MSummaz
11 minutes ago
Is she a citizen? If she is, she’s an Aussie with an English background! This whole hyphenated thing is a load of nonsense and I refuse to play that game. I’m Australian first and foremost who happens to have English ancestry. Sam’s argument is asinine!

@Itsmevgc
7 minutes ago

@MSummazher words not mine. And she’s a hell of a lot wiser than you. You’re wrong, listen and learn. Sam is %100 correct.

Hide replies

@jittmet7766
1 hour ago
James – the GREEKS created democracy.

@broke3008
3 hours ago

@unipartywonagainstthepeople
9 hours ago
Great stuff
1

@Pauly-v9j
1 hour ago (edited)
As a Aboriginal descent and European descent. A Australian is a person been here from birth or been here 6 years plus when they received their citizenship AND speaking English AND Christian beliefs AND leaving any other cultures war’s at our Australian door before they come in. My thoughts. Probably not agreed by some people. But it’s okay everyone has a different opinion.
Problem not speaking English is my wife is a nurse and some nurses can’t speak English properly and my wife finds it hard to understand them.
So Dr Joanna Howe you would fit into my definition as a Australian. Been here more than 6 years with citizenship papers, speak amazing English AND Christian beliefs.
4

@KathyRan
7 hours ago
There are some Chinese families that have been here since before Federation, so many, many generations. They are Australian in my opinion. Not Chinese Australian.
2

@domburton
5 hours ago
You’re absolutely right.
1

Hide replies

@slash1989
1 hour ago
No foul Langauge

@domburton
5 hours ago
I like Sam, but his definition is very problematic. To say Joe’s kids are not fully Australian cause they have brown skin is unjust and ridiculous. They share our religion and values and culture. They have no connection to India, as i have no connection to Ireland or Britain, except parts of their culture.
3

@RajNaidoo-b4e
10 hours ago
Abortion is murder!
4

@h.epeterjohnmanthey6295
7 hours ago
Yeah those who get angry know they are wrong.
1

@blakewaugh2536
4 hours ago
for looking out for others who aren’t ethnically from here, but put much more heart, effort, meaning, emphasis on integration and following the very values the place was built on? You would be disregarding the work that many non Europeans have done. Should we have the arguments about immigration? Yes, but not based on ethnicity, becasue that is the basis of prejudice. It will be, and it must be, VALUES first.

Hide replies

@redfinfisho
3 seconds ago
Imagine comparing Ireland with a population of 5 Million people to India with a population of 1.4 BILLION!! Also Irish people integrate perfectly into Australian culture and were never taking large proportions of welfare. Whilst Indians are not integrating, costing a fortune whilst disrespecting our country through littering, illegal dumping, polluting rivers just to scrape the surface.

@sarahs2764
8 hours ago
“Why are you saying a bunch?” – uhhh because thats actually whats happening

@Coke_Addiction
2 hours ago
The debate is between nature vs nurture. Is culture down stream of biology or is culture down stream of theology? It would be very difficult to argue that it is solely one sided. The people that do, cannot answer the generalisation once it gets broken down to the individual level.

@PixieTinsel
8 hours ago
If one of Sam’s kids breeds with an Anglo Indian Australian born kid then his grandchild will be a citizen but technically an Anglo Indian but if his other child breeds with the Aussie born child of Pommy immigrants then it’s Australian through and through tru blue….
1

@Howdnz
7 hours ago
We just need Jesus
2

@aussiegypsywarrior
6 hours ago
I totally agree. Sam especially needs Jesus. He has good values and would make such a good Christian. He’s not understanding where these 2 are coming from.

Hide replies

@lukemagro6060
7 hours ago
I see both sides and both seem completely valid in my mind. Yes I get called racist all the time. If we stop citizenship for a year, kick out all non citizens and replace abortion with truely anonymous adoption, financialy encourage big families and restart immigration limited to .1% of the population per year. Thats 10% over 100 years we can integrate that many to be just like us without loosing who we are (that’s still replacement in 1,000 years but a preserved culture. That’s 28,000 “heavily vetted skilled migrants” at 28 million population) do this and the difference in these opinions will be a moot point.

@matthewleonardi247
3 hours ago
Sam’s argument is flawed for example a lot of Bosnians are Muslim but are also from Europe so how would he seperate the two? Say they’re Aussie because they’re European? Or say they’re not because they’re Muslim?
It should purely be cultural, does your culture follow the western Christian modal? If not, would you become a Christian or at least follow our cultural norms to assimilate into Australia? If no , you can visit but you can’t live here.
1

@leonmiller4774
9 hours ago (edited)
SAM ANGLO CELTIC EUROPEAN IS WHITE don’t be so defetist as to not use the word white Jo is an Aussie she wasn’t born in India she was born in our mother country England so Jo is an Aussie i don’t care her skin colour and i am a WHITE AUSTRALIAN and my family has been here for a bloody lot longer than yours so who is Australian we are matey all 4 of us. I’m 7th generation Aussie so therefoe Aussie NOT German Australian ol’mate and you’re only 2nd generation so who is an Aussie i am. I speak Strine so do you that makes an Aussie anyway i hope you read all of my comments oh to Jo’s hubby the Greeks invented democracy our forebares created the Westminster system
If i want to go back far enough I’m a Viking on one side and a Germanic barbarian on the other side how far do you want to go back we all came from one family Adam and Eve
I have to disagree Christianity is not a white mans religion original Christians were from the Middle East (out of Israel), and Greece(olive skin colour) not white anglo-celtic European
4

@grannyannie2948
8 hours ago
I’m also seventh generation Australian on all my lines. Funnily this includes a German family escaping the wars of German unification in the mid 1800s.
1

@Snappernose
4 hours ago
She’s Indian/austalian
If I mirrored her life in China would they say I’m Chinese?
Didn’t think so
1

Hide replies

@blakewaugh2536
5 hours ago
How does federation being the coming together of all 5 states and territories, be the essence of who ethnically built this country? The Anglo’s started building the colonies but lets just say its ‘federation’ when it happened. History speaks for itself, so you obviously don’t understand history…
1

@batesmate5510
3 hours ago
53ish mins bro, bloke would’ve been on the ground for telling me to shut up in my own house

@DanAttewell-y5b
49 minutes ago
Who would you consider Australian, albo= no Sam thaiday=yes

@jasonwolfe5787
3 hours ago
51:13 Poor argument about irish immigration from 2008 to 2016. It was about 15k to 25k net migration from Ireland then compared to 150k to 250k from India. Still x more back then. Dr Jo is great but that was weak.

@southern-samurai
6 hours ago (edited)
What is an Australian? An Australian is one born here and descended from the host and founding ethnic group. It defines us as a Nation. What is happening now is pure replacement of people and culture, of Country itself. It is as bad as military invasion and takeover, only this is supported and promoted by our seditious government.

@flexo-c
3 hours ago (edited)
32:19 Completely disagree, indigenous people helped build this country, they have thousands of years of connection with it, they’ve made big strides in politics and art, helped shape our laws and culture, as much as I like Joanna she doesn’t have that ancestry connection, apart from a few notable figures Indian people and culture wasn’t really a part of what built this nation, but I’d say she’s become Australian, she’s spent her life here, built a family, she has an Aussie accent lmao, and from what I’ve seen she puts Australia first, that’s what it means. Like those old videos of Greek and Italian people, they moved here and assimilated, they saw Australia as the new country, they respected the culture, they built lives within it, became a part of it and are always so grateful to have had the opportunity to live in one of the best, safest places in the world

@maxyorke2453
3 hours ago
First of all, culture is inextricably linked to race. So Australian “culture” is race made manifest. I’ve never been so embarrassed as listening to James use leftist ideology to explain away what it means to be Australian. What a train wreck. Really tough listen.
This debate has been settled; now it’s time to fix the problem.
2

@Alessandro-b4k
33 minutes ago
Bro he is nailing you on the point that you can’t define an Australian, you need to work through that . An Australian is anyone who votes for ON, all you others fall short.

@darrenparsons5299
8 hours ago
And im not religious

@boags9098
8 hours ago
This is wicked

@jessiejordan2853
40 minutes ago
Sam, 100% agree with you but I don’t know why you’re using Federation in 1901 as the beginning of our foundation as people when we’ve been here for 240years.

@aussiegypsywarrior
7 hours ago
53 minutes

@scooter183
7 hours ago
Woman’s Sport.. I love Woman’s Beach Volleyball..

@RichardJohnson-nq9ys
8 hours ago
Calm down James or you will have a coronary.
1

@mannus7776
7 hours ago (edited)
Something to consider on the ethnicity versus culture discussion. The reason peoples from our ethnic background Sam built all this was because of the culture that they were immersed in, that being the Judeo-Christian belief system. And yes those two are inextricably linked, there can be no Christianity without there first being Judaism. The New testament relies on the Old and Jesus and the apostles were all jews. You cut Christianity off from Judaism and it’s a cut flower. In short it’s culture that determines destiny not ethnicity.
Ps Really enjoy your podcast, keep up the good work and keep thinking

@blakewaugh2536
4 hours ago
I’m absolutely pissed off that he took the Judeo bit out. If he wants to turn his back on a community that has not only integrated but done more for this country than many Anglo saxon or whatever he refers them to be, he can get fked and we must CALL this OUT for what it is. All we look for is to be regarded as Australian’s especially after Bondi. If he is putting all his eggs in the ‘lobby basket’ he can F OFF with that ideology. That is sincerely Anti Australia to a tee.

Hide replies

@slash1989
8 minutes ago
You dont need churches or Priests You can talk to god he will answer you if your serios

@saqaleka
9 hours ago
1:02:58 why did her response about deporting muslims get cut out?
2

@Trunka34
8 hours ago
Why do you think haha
1

@grannyannie2948
8 hours ago
She explains it in the comments
1

Hide replies

@MaryAnzac
7 hours ago
My family I married into are German/Polish they embraced the Australian culture and had children here.
They still classed themselves as Europeans that live Australia, their children are Australian as they are born here.
Anyone who comes to Australia and embraces Australian culture are Australian.
These new people who come here are not embracing Australian culture !
But I personally know people who come from Iran and are Christian and live in Australia with an Australian passport but they still see themselves as Persian!
This race debate and who is Australian is silly as we are Multi cultural country?

@johnryan1386
9 hours ago (edited)
This is the argument in the Uk, Everyone can be British but you cannot be English,Irish or Welsh etc.
James is confusing ethnicity and nationality, sounds like a leftist frankly!
My wife is Chinese and my daughter is half Australian and half Chinese, it’s pretty simple
9

@gogeorgia707
10 hours ago
Go Jo . Any fool knows abortion is murder. Admitting it – another story. Yes pregnancy can be sad, complicated when young, or risk. ‘ a psychopath looking down an ultrasound..” Hilarious but horrifying. Adopted children are loved . Needed like the air we breathe.
I was on the left too, then realised this is too important.
3

@grannyannie2948
10 hours ago
I can’t understand how any mother chooses this instead of placing the baby for adoption. Pure evil.
2

@gogeorgia707
8 hours ago
@grannyannie2948 life is so precious. We’ve clearly been misled. It’s a tragedy if someone is young and can’t afford the baby. But the joy they create can come either for themselves, or a family who will love them forever .
1

@grannyannie2948
8 hours ago
​ @gogeorgia707 Instead of paying migrants Centrelink, we should be ensuring that young couple have the resources they need if they decide to keep the baby. If not I’m sure there are 100,000 Aussies who would love to adopt a newborn.

Hide replies

@nam55A
9 hours ago
There’s a reason for these terminations. The choice isn’t easy.
1

@grannyannie2948
8 hours ago (edited)
Yes they do it because the government gives them taxpayers money for having a “stillbirth.” To engage in such a depraved level of evil a nd greed might be difficult for some. Though I doubt it.
1

@Kateeheel7
8 hours ago
Elaborate on these reasons?

Hide replies

@NicholasWitham
2 hours ago
James’ argument on 10,000 Christians from India or 10,000 randoms from France is great. Sam, it sounded like you were going to say you’d prefer the randoms from France.
Well I believe those randoms from France will have ideologies that go against the Australian way of life than the Christian Indians. I wonder that if you did go ahead and say you prefer the French 10,000….I’d like to hear your argument for that preference….because it does seem you’d prefer them because they are white.
I’m not calling you a racist or a nazi, just trying to point out that it seems there’s a gap there.
I do disagree with your definition being based on geography over ideals/morals/ethics etc, but will still continue to support you, keep it going Sam…cheers

@peterscudds7299
8 hours ago
I have a mate in the NT whose heritage is Afghan Aboriginal Chinese, he grew up in the bush and had no choice about his heritage. So according to Sam he’s 1/3 Australian. It’s not about race it’s about values. Oh and by the way do some research Sam and find out how many races of people make up Anglo-Celtic European origins. They’re not all white caucasian.
1

@domburton
5 hours ago
100 percent mate. He’s aussie as.

Hide replies

@blakewaugh2536
5 hours ago
So someone who comes here at the age of 4, doesn’t hold their traditional ethnic culture, grows up in Australia, is still classed as an Australian Indian because of her heritage? Well then clearly your definition is ethnically based because you want to separate someone’s ancestry that they left at the door but have done everything asked of them and integrated? Christ almighty!
1

@slash1989
59 minutes ago
Two against one not fair and there waxing

@marleymeathook1975
8 hours ago
i think lock the gates perid become a self sufficiant country we build grow make everything we need in this country. zero imigration until this happens. lets see how that goes.

@slash1989
47 minutes ago (edited)
I cant beleive Australian Government had a whites only Policy I am a white ozzy bourne here We will nut this out plan in progress God is KING

@julianshalders6047
6 hours ago
We broke from england in1901 and identified our selves as australians under parlimentary law. Its called federation. The immigrants do not reconise this.

@blakewaugh2536
4 hours ago
The Anglo’s helped found and build the colonies. So why is the definition then in federation, not when the same race that has been identifed, come here to commence work to make this a country? If he was consistent in definition, it would be that date, but i can see why he would say federation as a nation forming event. If we are to define it as that, we would have to look further back from that in defining that term. Just doesnt make sense to me…

Hide replies

@JohnClark-l5p
6 hours ago
At some point in the future Australia will be renamed

@4litrespoolyboi206
6 hours ago
42:41, bro just literally told his wife to shut up because she tried to speak…

@DrJoannaHowe
5 hours ago
If you listen to the whole thing, you’ll see that I also tell James to shut up. We have a very robust marriage. It’s not everyone’s cup of tea but it is our dynamic, and I’m fortunate to be married to an incredible man.
1

Hide replies

@sinaimbriano8317
7 hours ago
His trans argument is going against him, I think there’s a middle ground

@adensticher6842
13 minutes ago
You killed it Sam, the amount of times you repeated yourself was painful mate
1

@77Coddie
24 seconds ago
You’re all trying to define what is an Aussie on both an international and national view at the same time, the chick would be considered Aussie by a foreigner but an Indian-Australian to someone like Sam. Can we get this straight?

@darrenparsons5299
7 hours ago
WELL SAID JO
5

@victorgomes7585
2 hours ago
An Australian is anyone who’s been born here. They follow they respect and uphold culture and history. If their parents were born overseas the children are still Australian. Some Australians like to show great pride to the nationality of their foreign born parents. And this is because there’s not much pride in celebrating Australia anymore. We are shamed by government, bureaucrats, education system… there’s a globalist communist agenda. You guys were debating it at a superficial level. Anyone causing trouble and destruction over foreign issues in australia should go to jail!

@peterrichards1058
40 minutes ago (edited)
Multiculturalism policies and their definitions is the issue Sam .Australian identifies are defined by our Christian based values which define our Australian culture skin colour has nothing to do with.

@leonmiller4774
9 hours ago
Sam I’m sorry to say the one who loses their temper first has lost the argument and you did exactly that so sorry matey go take 10 stop lossing it then you may win your debate point
1

@jasonwolfe5787
8 hours ago
I thought James went 1st. I don’t think these things wouldn’t have really been as big an issue but across the west demographics are under attack. I don’t have an issue with organic immigration, but the horse has bolted and drastic action is needed.
1

Hide replies

@nunyaconsern5590
6 hours ago
This guy’s history sucks Christianity started in the west lol democracy start in England lol what’s he rambling about he should learn these things because it’s embarrassing if your going to talk about these things on a public forum
1

@APP1E5
4 hours ago
James has a good point. Half man half woman.

@neilrwatts
7 hours ago
It’s quite simple Sam, your birth certificate defines your country of origin, what you are debating is something totally different and I hope that one day you can step back and fully comprehend that.
I’m an English immigrant from 1966 and was 6 years old when we arrived in Australia. I’m a permanent resident who has grown up in Australia so rest assured that posses Australian values. I have been educated, worked here and paid my taxes on my taxes like every other Australian, I consider myself as an Aussie and would gladly die for this country. However unlike my mother and sister I am still yet to take out citizenship. I refuse to pay to accept citizenship as a piece of paper and a little tree doesn’t change the fact that I have already contributed and paid my way for this country.
I have two children and by your analogy they are British Australian just like your daughter.
I originally started listening to your podcasts as like many other Aussies (see what I did there, just joking) I am totally disgusted with what is happening to our retuned soldiers. I realise and accept that we all have different opinions in life and hope that we all accept the need to respect that but I do fear that your position on this his matter is playing into the he White Supremisisme debate.
Let’s be clear, not labelling you as one though.
Stay safe.
An old British Aussie.

@marleymeathook1975
8 hours ago
Idont think the immigration restriction act had nothing about WHITE in there

@Coke_Addiction
4 hours ago
Did the Chinese who came here gold rush build this country, Sam ?

@chrisdavis6436
1 hour ago
Love your stuff Sam but you are way off here .
What you are talking about is being born in Australian makes you indigenous to this country no matter who your parents are .
Joanne is Australian .
My family some come out on second fleet , I have welsh , English , Jewish blood in my line .
So I’m am white and that Anglo as they come .
Just a thought I live in country our family moved here from Sydney when I was 3 growing up we were accepted by locals . It took 20 years for us to be seen as a local and I accept that get used to living in area and fit in . Now we are the locals being here for almost 50 years .
Now I used this as to being Australian . I’ve been to India love many of people I met . But in Singapore at universal studios on holiday just chatting to people in the line of a ride because they looked Indian got chatting enjoying time . I asked where they were from thinking maybe India they said Sydney I went wow ok cool no problems there . But yes they are Indian I said how long lived in Australia they said 20 years . Aww your Australians
They were so happy a white man said they were Australians and proud and we kept chatting . Mate you need to adopt this view . Because you are not going prove what an Australian is by race .
I’ll tell you what Australian is defined .
And Australian is someone who lives in this Australia and loves this country for all its best and its worst but want to work towards making the flag , the anthem , our history and respect for it , you assimilate to the Australia law and way of life .
You can’t make it ethnic Australia doesn’t work like that . I agree with Joanne’s husband many people have built this country .
I’m still watching Sam you taking this way to far brother . And I think you are talking to wrong people and you do owe Joanne an apology she is Australian mate .
Still love your stuff and I’m sure you are one who would accept truth if it was put to you the right way . This maybe not the best conversation in this video because it’s not only heated but personal on all sides. I’m up for the debate if ya want bro

@overpotato4133
10 hours ago
This guy is clueless lmao
2

@JohnClark-l5p
6 hours ago
The only Australian is an Australian with an Australian accent

@suitathletics9074
4 hours ago
Australian born of European heritage and indigenous are “founding ethnic Australians” , thats the facts….just call it
“”founding Australians “ Sam…, the rest are Australian born Australians or Australian citizens…..time to freeze all Citizenships. James is right about christians but he just does not get it about founding Australians..which should be the majority ….but he seems like a decent guy… Joanna is culturally and spiritually Australian……. It is time re migration. Deportations. This is all the Govt’s fault. Bring back the 1980s demographic.

@maxyorke2453
3 hours ago
Notice how these ‘conservatives’ (Jo and James) actually keep using liberal/leftist arguments and also argue within the leftist moral framework? This is so important for people to understand. Even Sam occasionally argues within this leftist moral framework.
That’s what needs to be dismantled. Also the “what is an Australian?” debate shouldn’t be a debate any longer — it’s White Anglo-Celtic peoples, with additional broader European ancestry. Shut and closed discussion. Now the problems need to be fixed.
2

@samg8313
6 hours ago
Ok god squad, Christians will not just save this country because half the country are non religeous.

@jacoblowe4247
5 hours ago
By your own reasoning mate you have to call yourself English Australian and not just Australian because you originated from there. It’s so absurd, your arguments and definition fall apart with even the slightest stress test. What so if someone migrates from India to Germany, then has a child there and then that child grows up and migrates to Australia are they then indian-German-Australian and do they then fit into your classification of being “Anglo-Saxon, European” or whatever? Or would you not want that person to come to Australia because they are somehow not European because their heritage originates elsewhere. Then it becomes just a weird dive back in heritages and if we all go back far enough it’s Africa so I guess I’m an African-English-German-French-natural born Australian.
How about we just say that if you’re a citizen and you love our way of life and culture you’re an Australian and we should drastically reduce immigration so that no matter the colour of your skin or where you come from you can adapt to our way of life, which will of course evolve because we don’t want to live in a bloody stagnate culture. Gosh many other cultures have food culture far superior than ours and we should totally import some of that… Man acts like he hates a curry.
I think the words of Martin Luther King apply that a man should be judged not by the colour of his skin (or where their bloody heritage is from), but upon their character. Being Australian is a matter of character, not heritage. I know plenty of Australians hailing from other countries like South Africa for example who display a level of patriotism for this country that far exceeds that of basically any leftist activist who consistently whine about our Australian heritage and values. Despite many of these activists being however many generation Australians I’d argue they are demonstrably less Australian then our proud Australians who have come from South Africa.
Do South Africans fit in your “Anglo European” categories? What about indigenous South Africans? Be careful how you answer to not make it about the colour of one’s skin hey…
Sorry “bro” but your views
fall apart with even the slightest pressure test.
1

@jacoblowe4247
5 hours ago
And like bro how many generations in your mind does one no longer be say Indian Australian and just become Australian? You said Joanna’s kids are half Indian half Australian…. So after 10 generations that’s like 10% Indian and 90% Australian right? So you reckon you can define Australian, so what is a 90% Australian, how are they different than 100% Australian? Are you not 100% Australian because of your British heritage, so like 90% yourself? Genuinely curious…
1

@grannyannie2948
5 hours ago
Australia federated in 1901 to implement the White Australia Policy. In the 1970s this was changed without a referendum. It can be argued Australia as a nation nolonger exists as the federal government nolonger serves its purpose.
1

@jacoblowe4247
4 hours ago
​ @grannyannie2948 so you’re saying the Australian government should exist to keep Australia white? That if you aren’t white you shouldn’t be Australian? Holy smokes that’s racist. I think most people these days subscribe to the superior ideology that things should be determined based upon the content of one’s character and not the colour of their skin. I’m sorry you’re stuck in the past pre Martin Luther King era.
1

@grannyannie2948
3 hours ago (edited)
​​​​ @jacoblowe4247 To be fair the federal government did have another purpose. It was to build a navy capable of defending the country. This has also been a failure.
I am saying no more than what was taught in history classes in the 80s. I have since read extensively on the subject and on constitutional law and facts don’t care about your feelings. This immigration policy was extremely popular. Their were pop songs written about it in the 1890s and early 1900s.
The reasons were not what you imagine. One was that sugar cane farmers in Queensland indentured servants from Pacific islands. These were virtual slaves. Australians hated this.
At this period Australia was the wealthiest country in the world. We also had the highest wages. History had taught Australians that Asians in particular, undercut wages. (Yes the WAP was left winged, unions etc. ). We were also an early democracy. All the states were self governing democracies, where even the working class could vote. To put this in proportion, the working class could not vote in Britain until after WW1. It was feared that collectivist cultures could corrupt our democracy.
My father collected antiques. Australian antique furniture is often marked with a stamp, saying, made with European labour. This was to show the workers were paid high wages. This continued into the 1950s.

@jacoblowe4247
2 hours ago
​ @grannyannie2948 a very long winded way of saying you are racist and a fan of parts of our history that were racist. Are you also a fan of the murder of indigenous Australians and them having less human rights that is also a sordid part of our history? Just because Australia had a prosperous time during its white Australia policy does not make it the morally correct approach for the future… America was pretty prosperous during slavery, doesn’t mean we should pull that ol’ one back out, jeez. Once again it should be about the content of one’s character not the colour of their skin or their heritage, otherwise it would be racist. It’s not that hard.

Hide replies

@slash1989
1 hour ago
If you leave islam you could be assasinated by shari law

@jessiejordan2853
24 minutes ago
Joanna, I like you but you’re not understanding what you’re asking of Australians like me.
My great great great great grandparents were BORN in Australia.
My most recent ancestor to migrate here arrived before Federation.
You’re not “just as Australian” as me, and it absolutely diminishes and trivialises everything that my family and our people endured and overcame over generations when you claim you are.

@adzshez
3 hours ago
Identity politics are lame. Dont break up the right with this crap.

@crankin77
2 minutes ago
Aboriginals were born in Australia so they’re Australian. It’s not that hard.

@clintanthony1779
1 hour ago
Sorry James, I really like you and Jo mate but you’re wrong in regards to what an Australian is. Totally wrong. And the nazi/racist name tag is nothing but a silencing tactic for when you’ve got no argument.
1

@MSummaz
54 minutes ago
Bullshit! Is Sam an Australian/Australian? Just asking questions….

Hide replies

@darrenparsons5299
7 hours ago
Jo n james overwelming win sorry sam
2

@simdavis4830
5 hours ago
Sam was an atheist until 5 minutes ago, changes his views
like he changes his jox. I’m a Christian and the old testament is Jewish, the new testament is Christian hence the terminology Judeo Christian not all that difficult. Sam isn’t a Nazi but he is seriously brushing up against it with his crappy non thought out positions.
1

@MSummaz
14 minutes ago
I couldn’t agree more…

Hide replies
Top is selected, so you’ll see featured comments

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

See Also

top

 

 

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

Blair Cottrell: Picture this. Your country is overwhelmed by immigration and poor leadership. There’s rampant crime, there’s terrorism, and housing is completely unaffordable. You’ll never own a home like your parents did! And it’s really not even safe to just go for a walk in the streets where you grew up. But the presiding government ignores the problems and just keeps doing what (((the money))) tells them to do.

 

So you and your mates get together and you start talking about how to solve some of these problems. But you realise to have a lasting impact, you need a political party. You need to contest elections and win some seats in Parliament. You start by making some videos online, you host some protests, some meetings, and your message is really resonating with the people. Within a year, you’ve got almost, 2,000 members signed on and many more supporters. More than enough to register a party with the Electoral Commission. Your plan is to halt immigration, which will instantly drop the price of property and rent. You want to restore national manufacturing, get our oil refineries going again and put the Australian people, the original working class, first.

 

But then, early one morning, riot police kick your door in! They drag you out of bed and say:

 

“You’re a member of a prohibited hate group! And you’re under arrest!”

 

You ask them what that means and what crime you’ve committed, but they don’t answer you. They don’t actually know what you did or didn’t do. They’re just on orders to arrest you. And the truth is, you didn’t do anything! You haven’t actually broken any laws. The problem is your political party just got made illegal. In the weeks following, all your party members are arrested because while you were trying to register your party, the presiding government used a new law which allows them to ban political parties on the basis that those parties are “hateful”.

 

Some of your members do deals with cops to stay out of prison. Others go to jail for 10 or 15 years. That’s the end of your party and you’re in jail for the foreseeable future. That might sound crazy that could only happen in some Banana Republic, or a very corrupt third world country.

 

But as of January this year, the Australian government can and has been doing this! On May 15th of this year, Foreign Minister Tony Burke used new laws rushed through Parliament after the Bondi terror attack [Dec 14, 2025] to ban the White Australia Party as a prohibited “hate group”.

 

Now, the government in Australia hasn’t tried to do anything like this in a long time. Back in 1951, Prime Minister Robert Menzies tried to make a law to ban the Communist Party of Australia. But the High Court stepped in and said:

 

“You can’t just ban political parties. That basically violates everything we stand for as a democracy.”

 

Menzies wasn’t ready to give up though. He put a referendum to the people seeking public support to ban the Communist Party, but the people refused. The public wasn’t too keen on Communism, but they still agreed that banning political parties was undemocratic. So the precedent was set. Outlawing political parties wasn’t allowed.

 

Back to the present day, the White Australia Party obviously had nothing to do with the Bondi terror attack, but they’ve been outlawed as a hate group anyway based on laws that were made immediately after that terror attack and as a consequence of that attack. How does banning the White Australia Party stop terrorism? It doesn’t! At all! The government is just set on banning certain political parties.

 

But why? Well, new political parties are rising all across the West, opposing mass immigration and vowing to undo the damage former governments have done to their own nations. These new parties are generating huge amounts of support. Ever since social media changed the way we access information and the kind of information we can see, old governments or the traditional two party voting systems have never been more unpopular.

 

Basically, people’s eyes are wide open now! Especially after Covid-19. The traditional major parties of the West have really fallen out of favour with the people and they’re on the way out.

 

But in Australia, the presiding government has created a scheme for clinging to power in a way which really steamrolls our national constitution and essentially amounts to treason. It’s a very simple three step scheme:

 

– Immigration to replace the existing voter base.

 

– Censorship to stop you from talking about it.

 

– And banning political parties, so there’s no way we can vote them out.

 

The laws they just rushed through at the start of 2026 are called Combating Anti-semitism, Hate and Extremism Bill. They allow the government to ban political parties and jail their political opponents for up to 15 years! And they’ve done this in spite of the legal precedent set by the High Court in 1951. It’s like they don’t even care what the Federal Court says.

 

But here’s the crazy part. No one in a party that’s being banned needs to have committed any actual crimes. The presiding government only needs to be satisfied that the targeted party’s members have engaged in “hateful conduct”, even if that hateful conduct was years in the past.

 

What is “hateful conduct”? The definition is loose. It’s basically whatever the government decides it wants “hateful” to mean. The meaning of hate in the context of this law is almost entirely subjective, meaning it doesn’t have a strong fixed definition. And they’ve used this term deliberately so they can flexibly apply this law to any group or party the government wants to cancel.

 

So when you hear government ministers talk about hate or even hate crime, that’s not a term referencing any legitimate criminal activity. It can mean pretty much anything. You can say something that challenges government policy in a way which embarrasses a certain minister and they can decide you’re guilty of a hate crime. Any group you’re involved in, even loosely, you don’t have to be a direct member. Any group you’re associated with can be outlawed as a hate group on the basis of your comments or your conduct, which doesn’t even have to be criminal. It doesn’t matter if the group we’re talking about is a registered political organisation or religious group. There’s no legal protections here.

 

Now, I’m not someone who tries to drum up outrage for clicks. I’m not trying to sell you a Tshirt. I’m trying to tell you that if you’re Australian like me, we’re in a lot of trouble here! The major parties in our country have exploited terrorism to make a deal to cancel democracy, so we can’t vote them out!

 

Until this year, every Australian citizen had the right to register political parties, contest elections and vote for a party of their choosing. But that just got cancelled. While the media talks about taxes and the definition of a “woman”, your right to fully participate in politics, express yourself freely and vote the way you choose to vote just got shut down. This is the worst thing that’s ever happened to Australia and no one’s talking about it, because the government has deliberately misframed it as banning “Nazis”! But they’re lying! Because this law isn’t actually about banning Nazis!

 

This is about cancelling your right to contest elections, forge new political parties and vote freely. The Labor Party is using anti-Nazi moral hysteria to try to prevent people from understanding or criticising this new law:

 

“If you don’t like the hate group law, then you must be a Nazi!”

 

That’s what they’re trying to imply. But isn’t the whole reason “Nazis” are even considered bad is because they ban political parties and try to eradicate certain people and ideologies? So what? To fight Nazis, the government needs to do exactly what Nazis did historically?

 

And the White Australia Party was trying to participate in politics legally through a registered political party. So even if they are “Nazis”, whatever that even actually means these days, they were forced to operate within a certain legal framework which prevented violence and extremism, which is the whole point of democracy. But that framework is now gone! Which obviously encourages political violence!

 

And what happens when thousands of White Australia members and supporters retreat to One Nation, which they’re currently doing since their original party was banned? Well, then the government can just ban One Nation as well, on the basis that its new members and associates are guilty of hate! And there’s no realistic way for One Nation to protect itself from this outcome. Even if they shut down their branches and introduce strict vetting process, people are going to slip through the cracks and someone will have done something the government decides is “hateful”, at some point in the past.

 

The government will try to ban One Nation next and any of its major contenders. One Nation really has no choice but to demand these laws are repealed immediately and campaign on that basis. Because even if One Nation or other political parties are not banned immediately on the basis of this law, the threat of a ban will constantly loom overhead, coercing the way these parties behave and forcing them into deals they otherwise wouldn’t have done.

 

Any political party which expects to participate in politics independently and forge its own policies freely has to contest the next election purely on the grounds of repealing these new laws. If these laws stand, they allow the government to ban any political party without any due process and no criminal convictions required.

 

Constitutional legal expert Dr. Anne Twomey* just three days ago sounded the alarm, using her YouTube channel to warn Australia that the government has implemented these laws to set a precedent for banning political parties to preserve its position and cancel its opponents. As long as this hate group law exists, there’s literally no point in voting, and no political solution.

 

[ *See: Constitutional Clarion – The Challenge by ‘White Australia’ to the Prohibited Hate Group Law – May 24, 2026 – Transcript ]

 

Former White Australia Party member Thomas Sewell has applied for an emergency injunction at the High Court, which was accepted and is scheduled for a hearing in September to try to fight these laws. But you don’t need to support Thomas Sewell or Thomas Sewell’s ideology directly in order to understand the severity of these laws and oppose them. Every Australian with a brain has a moral duty to oppose these laws! Every sensible person will stop worrying about the definition of a woman and start talking about these hate group laws. Nothing in Australia is more pressing right now!

 

So share this video with your friends and family and help them understand.

 

[9:33]

 

 

END

top

 

 

 

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

 

Rumble Comments

top

(Comments as of 5/28/2026 = 4)

TVR_
5 hours ago
Great video on what is ultimately the greatest pressing issue in Australia today
9
0

Gretashapiro
1 hour ago
needs to be shared to normies
3
0

Skygod2020
3 hours ago
I left Australia 14 years ago, moved to China, and I feel sorry for the Australian people for what they are going through and what’s to come. China is light years ahead of Australia in every aspect. Australians need to ask themselves why they are subject to anti-China propaganda 24/7.
1
0

‹ Hide 1 reply
somethingforthisbox
7 minutes ago
Strange how my Chinese friends find the west more comfortable at least for them, though more expensive here… and they are monitored here too. Many things they won’t discuss
0
0

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

See Also

top

 

 

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

Anne Twomey: Welcome back to the Constitutional Clarion!

 

The Commonwealth Government has made a regulation that classifies White Australia, or the White Australia Party, as a prohibited hate group. The party has now commenced a constitutional challenge in the High Court to the validity of that law, which will be heard in September. In the meantime, there will also be a hearing in the first week of June which of an application to suspend the effects of its prohibition until the Constitutional case is determined. In this video, I’ll try to explain some of the arguments that will be run in the Constitutional challenge.

 

But first, a bit of a recap on what the law does.

 

Now, for those of you who want more detail, see my previous video, which was called How the New Federal Hate Laws Work.

 

The power to prohibit hate groups was enacted in the Combating Anti-semitism, Hate and Extremism Criminal and Migration Laws Act in January 2026. It inserts a new part 5.3B in the Commonwealth Criminal Code. It authorises the Governor General, acting on the advice of the Australian Federal Police Minister, to make a regulation designating a group as a “prohibited hate group”. The Minister must be satisfied on reasonable grounds that the group has engaged in conduct constituting a hate crime or been associated with a hate crime.

 

For example, by:

 

“Preparing, planning or assisting a hate crime, or advocating engaging in such conduct. The conduct of formal or informal members of the group can also be attributed to the group.”

 

So if rogue members of a group incite racial hatred or advocate violence based on race, that might well be sufficient.

 

Now, you might think that the term “hate crime” means that the group or its members actually have to have committed crimes! But that’s not so! The law says that:

 

“No crime needs to have been committed, no one needs to have been convicted by a court, and conduct can be a hate crime even though it happened in the past when it wasn’t a crime. It’s enough for the Minister to be satisfied on reasonable grounds that the group has engaged in or been associated with the conduct constituting a hate crime.”

 

This means that it’s the Minister, rather than a court, who assesses that the group has engaged in such conduct. There’s no independent assessment of whether that conduct occurred, whether it satisfied the terms of any offence, whether it could be attributed to the group or whether any defences apply. In some cases, the Minister would have to also be satisfied that the conduct would:

 

“Cause a reasonable member of the targeted group to be intimidated, to fear harassment, or violence or to fear for their safety.”

 

These matters are quite impressionistic in nature and ordinarily they are determined by a court after hearing relevant evidence.

 

But under part 5.3B, it’s just up to the Minister to be satisfied without evidence, without a hearing and without procedural fairness.

 

Moreover, it seems that the conduct in many cases could have occurred at any time in the past, no matter how long ago, and certainly before that conduct became an offence.

 

Given the past rhetoric of members of political parties about racial, immigration and refugee matters, it would not be hard to satisfy this criteria in order to ban any political party! Making this a very dangerous weapon for a future authoritarian government to use.

 

There are, however, some further hoops to go through before a grip can be banned:

 

“The Minister must be satisfied, on reasonable grounds, that banning the group is reasonably necessary to protect the Australian community, or a part of it from social, economic, psychological and physical harm.”

 

But “psychological harm” could mean almost anything. And its stated in the act to:

 

“Include harm caused by the continued presence in Australia of the group that has engaged in or been associated with hate crimes.”

 

So it’s actually a self fulfilling condition!

 

More significantly, the Minister must have received advice from the Director General of Security, who’s the head of ASIO [Australian Security Intelligence Organisation], recommending the group be banned because it has:

 

“Engaged in activities that are likely to increase the risk of politically motivated violence or communal violence, or has either itself advocated for or engaged in such violence, or there’s a risk that it might do so in the future.”

 

So it covers activities that do not themselves constitute or cause harm, but simply if there’s a risk of harm.

 

While one might trust ASIO to make that assessment fairly now, one cannot guarantee it for the future. If, for example, an authoritarian leader placed a crony in the Office of Director General of Security. It’s therefore some protection from the abuse of the power, but not great protection.

 

The Attorney General must also sign off on any ban and the Leader of the Opposition must be briefed, and that’s it! Once this process is completed, a group can be designated a “prohibited hate group”.

 

Now, to be clear, this does not involve convicting anyone of a hate crime. It’s an administrative act to ban a group. But the consequences of that ban are serious! Continuing as a member of a prohibited hate group, if you know that it is prohibited and you haven’t taken reasonable steps to end your membership, that’s an offence with a penalty of up to 7 years in jail! Directing the activities of a prohibited hate group can land you in prison for 15 years. There are other offences of recruiting for a prohibited hate group, training it or being trained by it, funding it or providing support for it, all with penalties ranging up to 10 or 15 years in prison. It’s also an offence to display any of the prohibited hate group symbols.

 

Now this brings us to the Criminal Code Prohibited Hate Group White Australia Regulations 2026. They state that White Australia, also known as WA, WAP or the White Australia Party, is a prohibited hate group. The regulations commenced on 16 May 2026.

 

The White Australia Party, of whose members were drawn from the since disbanded National Socialist Network, is an incorporated association registered in Victoria on 20th December 2025. Its registered purpose is:

 

“To advance the cultural, historical and ethnic interests of Australians of European heritage and advocate for immigration and population policies that serve the national interest and engage in lawful political advocacy, education and community activities to support candidates and policies aligned with its objectives.”

 

It claims to have 1, 779 members. It sought to become a registered political party at the Commonwealth level, but it’s not submitted the details of the names of its members as required. Presumably this is because it would provide evidence to the Commonwealth of its membership and of course membership, unless you take reasonable steps to get rid of your membership as soon as you find out that it’s a prohibited hate group, is a criminal offence! One would imagine that the number of party members is dropping rather quickly as a consequence.

 

On the 18th of May the White Australia Party lodged its constitutional challenge in the High Court. It’s arguing that Part 5.3B of the Criminal Code is invalid on three grounds.

 

One, the absence of a Head of Legislative Power to enact the law. Two, breach of the implied freedom of political communication. And three, breach of the separation of powers by vesting punitive powers in the Executive. Due to time constraints on doing these videos, I’m only going to discuss the first two.

 

The Commonwealth Parliament must have a Head of Legislative Power in order to enact a law. The White Australia Party claims that its position is similar to that of the Communist Party when it was dissolved by legislation. That legislation was found by the High Court to be invalid due to the absence of a Head of Power. In the Communist party case in 1951, it was claimed that the law dissolving the Communist Party was supported by the Defence Power and by what we now call the implied Nationhood Power, which includes protection of the nation.

 

The High Court disagreed, finding that neither power supported the law. The White Australia Party asserts that the current law is not supported by the Defence Power or the Nationhood Power. It adds that the corporation’s power is also not applicable to it because the party is an “incorporated association” and not a corporation. It claims there is no Head of Power to enact part 5.3B.

 

Now, three issues arise here. First, while the Defence Power was held in the Communist Party case not to support the relevant law, more recently in the case of Thomas and Mowbray in 2007, the High Court took a much broader view of the scope of the Defence Power, particularly in relation to terrorism and the protection of the people of the nation from violence.

 

The reasoning in the majority judgements is so poor that it’s actually quite difficult to pinpoint the rationale.

 

But it seems that the majority rejected the view taken of the scope of the defence power in the Communist Party case and that the Defence Power in section 51.6 of the Constitution now extends to matters concerning national security and the risk of internal violence within Australia. Whether it would extend further to the prohibition of a political party and whether such a law would satisfy a proportionality test would be a matter for argument.

 

Second, the scope of the Nationhood Power has also been expanded by the High Court, with a majority in the PAPE case regarding it as a power to deal with national emergencies. There might be scope for the Commonwealth to argue that the prohibition of hate groups is necessary to protect the Commonwealth against internal threats and that it’s a matter peculiarly adapted to the government of the nation that cannot otherwise be carried out for its benefit. Which is critical part of the test for the Nationhood Power. Again, however, a proportionality test may apply.

 

Reliance on either of these powers would prove difficult because it would be hard to satisfy a proportionality test in relation to either Head of Power, given the breadth and vagueness of the application of Part 5.3B, as explained earlier.

 

Third, we have the External Affairs Power. This is the power expressly relied upon in Part 5.3B of the Criminal Code. It states in section 114A.1 that:

 

“One of the objectives of the Part is to give effect to Australia’s obligations under articles 20 and, 26 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, known as the ICCPR, and Articles 4A and 4B of the Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Racial Discrimination, known as CERD.”

 

Articles 20 and, 26 require:

 

“The prohibition of incitement of racial hatred and the protection of people against racial discrimination.”

 

Part 5.3B, of course, goes much further than that! So they’re not terribly helpful.

 

The most relevant treaty provision, however, is Article 4B of CERD. It says that:

 

“State parties shall declare illegal and prohibit organisations which promote and incite racial hatred and shall recognise participation in such organisations as an offence punishable by law. Article 4A also requires parties to make an offence punishable by law the provision of any assistance to racist activities, including the financing thereof.”

 

A proportionality test also applies with respect to the implementation of treaties. The law must be:

 

“Reasonably capable of being considered appropriate and adapted to implementing the treaty obligations.”

 

In this case, Part 5.3B or at least most of it, would seem reasonably capable of being considered appropriate and adapted to implementing Article 4 of CERD.

 

So it’s likely that a Head of Power will be found to support it.

 

This is subject, however, to the key issue that arose in the Communist Party case. In that case, it was accepted that the Commonwealth Parliament could enact a law against subversion. But the Communist Party Dissolution Act did not itself prohibit subversion. It instead authorised the Governor General, acting on ministerial advice, to declare associations and individuals to be communists on the basis asserted in a recital in the preamble to the Act, that Communists engage in subversion. The connection between the law and the power was based on a decision of the Executive, the Governor General, on the advice of the Minister, not by a court!

 

Now, this led to the law being struck down as invalid. Part 5.3B of the Criminal Code sails perilously close to that same problem! It’s the Minister and the Governor General who determine that a body is a “hate group”, connecting the law to the power to enact it without there being any judicial determination that a hate crime has ever been committed.

 

But there are also differences. Part 5.3B, for example, applies generally, not just to a particular group. It doesn’t rely on recitals in a preamble. And there’s greater facility for administrative review of executive decisions than there was back at the time of the Communist Party case.

 

So it will be interesting to see what a court makes of those similarities and differences in the course of this challenge.

 

The next issue is the implied freedom of political communication. This is most likely where the Constitutional problems will arise. Would the designation of a group, including a political party, as a “prohibited hate group”, burden the implied freedom of political communication? Well, the answer to that must be, yes!

 

So we move on to the next part of the test. Does Part 5.3B have a legitimate purpose that is compatible with the Constitutional system of representative and responsible government? The High Court held in Farmer and the Minister for Home affairs in 2025 that:

 

“Prohibiting incitement of Discord in the Australian community was a legitimate purpose to the extent that this meant preventing harmful dissension or strife, including intimidation, vilification or victimisation on a large scale in the Australian community or within or amongst segments of the community. But it would not be sufficient if only the feelings or sensitivities of the Australian community, or a segment of the community would be hurt or adversely affected. Parliament cannot use its legislative power for the purpose of curbing political disagreement and debate inside Australia. The purpose must be directed at preventing material harm to the Australian community, or a segment of that community, rather than merely eroding social cohesion through disagreement and debate.”

 

The Objects clause in section 114A.1 of Part 5.3B, however, goes broader than that. It states that:

 

“The object is to protect the Australian community, or part of it, against social, economic, psychological and physical harm and from the promotion of violence by prohibiting organisations that engage in, prepare or plan to engage in or assist the engagement in, or advocate engaging in conduct constituting a hate crime and to give effect to those treaty obligations (that I mentioned).”

 

It will be a matter for argument in court about whether that actually is the purpose of Part 5.3B, and whether it’s a legitimate purpose, taking into account the qualifications given by the High Court in the Farmer case.

 

If the law has a legitimate purpose, the final question will be whether Part 5.3B is reasonably appropriate and adapted to serve the legitimate end, whatever that is, in a manner that is compatible with the Constitutionally prescribed system of representative and responsible government.

 

Now this is where all those problems that I raised at the beginning of this video about the breadth and the vagueness and the discretion in these provisions will become important. One could imagine that a far more narrowly tailored law could achieve any legitimate end without imposing such an extreme burden on political communication.

 

In short, there is a good argument that it is disproportionate in its application.

 

The outcome, of course, will depend upon how it is argued before the court, which none of us can dictate or predict. It will also require putting aside any personal objection to the plaintiff in this case and its ideology, and instead place the focus squarely on the long term application and the validity of this law.

 

Thank you once again for watching or listening to the Constitutional Clarion and I look forward to your company again next time. Goodbye.

 

[19:30]

 

 

END

top

 

 

 

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

 

Youtube Comments

top

(Comments as of 5/25/2026 = 174)

@husaberg650
2 hours ago
But we can have Communist Parties.
13

@holobiont3197
3 hours ago
Not convinced they fully thought through the acronym WAP.
8

@richyglitched
4 hours ago
The primary function of discrimination for the group is enough to have it outright banned. Lumped with the Bikies
4

@benhall8172
6 hours ago
If WAP can be declared a hate group and then have every member jailed, so can any political party or group the Govt of the day doesn’t like when the language is so vague and broad anything can be construed as illegal: Three Felonies a Day
16

@farright118
6 hours ago
These laws are so undemocratic.
I’ll be shocked if these laws aren’t thrown out
27

@andhewonders
7 hours ago
I’m curious that if these groups form themselves into a religious body, will hate laws still apply?
8

@constitutionalclarion1901
2 hours ago
Probably yes. Section 116 of the Constitution says the Commonwealth shall not make any law for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion – but that has been interpreted as subject to limits (eg if it is part of your religion to engage in human sacrifice, etc). You cannot use religion as an excuse for engaging in criminal conduct.
8

Hide replies

@malcolmfletcher7295
8 hours ago
I find it interesting that the Federal Government spontaneously decided that such a law was a good idea.
7

@hillstrong715
8 hours ago
The problem with this is that an administration change can take out any and every group that the government of the day finds objectionable. So any group that objects to any of the policies of the government of the day can be banned by simply defining the objection as hatred. Bad news for everyone in this nation, most particularly anyone who is a citizen.
11

@obliviouz
9 hours ago
Thank you for another informative video. Given the fact that the law almost expressly provides for punishment without (full) involvement of the Courts, I would be interested in the third issue referred to, the separation of powers point. That was a point taken and relevant to a recent determination in a visa/immigration detention/terrorism case if I remember correctly.
3

@constitutionalclarion1901
2 hours ago
Yes, it’s a far more complex issue and would require quite a bit more work on my end. I just haven’t had the time for it so far. But maybe in the future.
1

Hide replies

@Lucid-AUS
9 hours ago
Very informative thank you

@constitutionalclarion1901
2 hours ago
You’re welcome.

Hide replies

@caboose00f76
9 hours ago
Man these comments are wild. The creepers coming in from Pauline’s lot and the Trumpers. What a mess these people are.
5

@lukepaul7931
10 hours ago
I dont like them but i wish the government didnt block them. They are a pressure relief valve that has been blocked.
2

@__Max-oe6zm
10 hours ago
It’s an interesting situation for sure.
1

@steveliveshere
10 hours ago
Considering everything that’s going on in the world a White Australia Party is more concerning than a communist Party.
2

@mahcooharper9577
10 hours ago
I’m sure you could find someone who is genuinely distressed by the presence of ANY group in this country.
It’s a very poorly thought out piece of legislation, and as mentioned a terrifying weapon for an authoritarian to use.
Irrespective of who the group is who is currently proposed to be banned, I hope they can succeed in having the law overturned.
6

@JamesThomas-n3q
11 hours ago
Thanks Anne for the informative video. Always a helpful watch for those of us who want knowledge on the laws both current and upcoming.
11

@constitutionalclarion1901
2 hours ago
Thanks. I very much appreciate it, as it does take quite a bit of effort to do these videos.

Hide replies

@therig.88
11 hours ago
If we don’t have freedom of political opinion.. do we really have freedom? Or free ideas in a democracy?
32

@richyglitched
4 hours ago
We don’t put up with criminal organisations like the Mafia or Bikies..

Hide replies

@not.rumple.stiltskin
11 hours ago (edited)
They really threw the toys out of the cot with this one.
sooo being unpleasant to someone is unlawful seems to be the goal.
also how is the reasonableness of a person measured?
17

@sylviaelse5086
11 hours ago
Is there anything to prevent the president of the group from being arrested and charged with directing the activities of a prohibited group while the group is litigating?
9

@constitutionalclarion1901
2 hours ago
That was an issue raised the other day when they sought interlocutory relief (which will now be dealt with in the first week in June). As Justice Jagot mentioned, it is likely that any prosecution would be stayed until the constitutional issue was resolved.

Hide replies

@CaptainKremmen
11 hours ago
You say that it could be misused by a “future authoritarian government”. Surely simply creating such a law working totally outside the judicial system means we already have a current authoritarian government.
50

@Pastor-of-muppets1985
11 hours ago (edited)
How does it operate outside the judicial system? It’s currently being challenged in the HCA.
1

@mahcooharper9577
10 hours ago
​ @Pastor-of-muppets1985 if the HCA rules it is valid there is no further review, and no review is applicable to a Minister’s decision.

@constitutionalclarion1901
2 hours ago

@mahcooharper9577 – No, that’s not quite right. If the HCA rules it is valid, then that just means the law is valid. It may still be the case that the Minister did not have reasonable grounds to make a decision and that this may be challenged on an administrative law basis.
1

@yt.personal.identification
11 hours ago
Don’t attribute to malice, that which can easily be attributed to stupidity.
3

@hs-yr1zu
7 hours ago
@yt.personal.identification Doesn’t apply here. You don’t accidentally form a govt that delivers the 2nd worst record for secrecy and transparency of any govt since federation, and you don’t accidentally use a historic mandate to dismantle FOI laws as a first order priority. The authoritarian govt is well and truly here. If their contempt for democracy wasn’t clear enough, the latest budget should seal the deal, regardless of your view of the budget itself.
9

Hide replies

@mendaciousferret819
12 hours ago
Instead of focusing on how effective our security services have been we get this. They failed and are now blaming it on insufficient power.
19

@AGoodYear-q2v
12 hours ago
Very interesting clip by this lady. Protecting freedom of political expression is critical – such an important decision for the High Court coming up.
28

@constitutionalclarion1901
12 hours ago
Thanks.
8

Hide replies

@scottn2046
12 hours ago
I’m curious – how much freedom does a Federal Government have to sign a Treaty and then use the External Affairs Powers to claim a Head of Power that otherwise wouldn’t exist? Can it be used as a “Magic Head-Of-Power Tree” potentially initiating a treaty with co-operative countries with the intent of creating a Head Of Power that it doesn’t have, but would like??
6

@constitutionalclarion1901
12 hours ago
The High Court has said that it must be a ‘bona fide’ treaty (see Tasmanian Dam case). You can’t just go shopping for a treaty or bribe a small country to enter into a treaty to give you a head of power. But so far there has been no case where the validity of a law has been struck down because the treaty was not a bona fide one – probably because the Commonwealth has not been game to push its luck on this point.
5

@andrewjgrimm
11 hours ago
One of the past CC videos touched upon it. Sorry I can’t tell you which one.

Hide replies

@EAFSQ9
12 hours ago
I’m just here before the comments get locked due to the PHON types and White Australia Party members brigading this video
6

@therig.88
11 hours ago
You afraid of different opinions may the best man win in the land of ideas.
23

@Pastor-of-muppets1985
11 hours ago
So no opinion then? Just wanted to get a comment in?
16

@steveliveshere
10 hours ago
@Pastor-of-muppets1985 its not an opinion mate its fascim.

@mahcooharper9577
10 hours ago
If Trump was in charge here and was banning left wing activism groups I suspect you wouldn’t mind those groups objecting.
You need to step outside who it is and whether you personally support them and think about what this law actually means.
3

@homelander-enjoyer
12 hours ago
Better not let them have opinions in our brave little democracy!
34

@trunkage
11 hours ago
​ @homelander-enjoyer Unfortunately, their opinions is taking everyone else opinions away
Either way, someone is going to lose their opinion
1

@ricochet2977
10 hours ago
@trunkage
Who is taking your opinion away, didn’t you just state your opinion?
4

@constitutionalclarion1901
12 hours ago
Yes – shut down will happen soon, as I don’t have the time to keep monitoring the comments. I’m afraid I have other work I have to do.
9

Hide replies

@duncancargill6371
12 hours ago
As opposed to any and all forms of racism as I am I see this legislation as a draconian over reach open as it is too absurd levels of abuse. Also it is puzzling that the same government that enacts this legislation for, inpart, to protect social cohesion at the same time acts to destroy social cohesion with it’s immigration detention policy?
19

@CaptainKremmen
11 hours ago
It’s especially ludicrous to make arbitrary laws aimed against the White Australia Party, a tiny group of around 1500 members. The group is so small that it would be sensible to just ignore it, unless it commits any actual crimes. This kind of heavy-handed legislation is more likely to give them free publicity and possibly even support.
8

Hide replies

@SuperLloyd84
12 hours ago
Forcing people to give up their association seems like such a smart idea. I’m sure this won’t anger any radical elements and drive them underground, or give them a grievance they need to resolve.
24

@CheekyJebus
10 hours ago
giving people 15 years in prison for wrong-think strips them of having a peaceful route to seeking change in the country, that’s never a good idea.
4

Hide replies

@Margarinethebutterlover
12 hours ago
Great vid, thanks. Under these same circumstances, your own media may well be under attack.
6

@constitutionalclarion1901
11 hours ago
I try to weed out the comments that would breach existing laws, but it’s always possible I will miss some, or judge incorrectly which side of the law they fall. It is a real risk of running a channel like this – but I do try hard to ensure that the channel stays within the law.
5

@nationalistpolitics
9 hours ago
@constitutionalclarion1901 How could you possibly be held responsible for what other people post in the comments?

@constitutionalclarion1901
2 hours ago
Unfortunately, there are a number of cases in which the person who owns/runs the channel (or facebook page or blog) has been held responsible for the comments, as they did not take action to delete a comment (where that comment breaches an anti-hatred law) in a reasonable time. I didn’t make the law – but I do have to obey it.

Hide replies

@mathewritchie
12 hours ago
Under the rules outlined all the major parties could be defined as hate groups.
21

@Robert-xs2mv
12 hours ago
Besides I don’t “ hate” anything, I just disagree
10

@phwbooth
12 hours ago
Excellent analysis, ma’am. Thanks.
11

@constitutionalclarion1901
12 hours ago
Much appreciated.
2

Hide replies

@phwbooth
12 hours ago
Hate is a sin, and has not in the past been a crime ( Matthew 5:43–44 ) Only when it resulted in action was such an action punishable, and then (in England) by the Ecclesiastical Courts.
2

@dodecahedron-r7d
12 hours ago
They have redefined biblical principles and turned things into thought crimes and crimes of perception
Instead of 1:1 cause and effect, they have decided now that something is s crime when it’s one step removed from reality, thus if someone is offended now they have been harmed. The next stage will be pre-crime or being born into the wrong lineage
My biggest objection is that all these laws that keep proliferating at a rate society cannot ascertain the long term effects of, are not being agreed to by those who are expected to be governed by these laws, or ANY laws for that matter
It is part time laws were wound back and we reassess the very notion of law and it’s so called right to govern others, especially when 99% of laws are never agreed to by those placed under them and are asserted by nothing more than the violence of the state or by implied rights
5

@hs-yr1zu
7 hours ago
@dodecahedron-r7d The joys of postmodernism. The only objective truth is that truth is an oppressive social construct, so reality is as defined by any given individual. Now it’s enshrined in law and the ideology of our ‘democratic’ government. We might be cooked.

@DizzyButler
10 hours ago
Not sure if a biblical reference was made in the video that gave this comment more context and I just zoned out during that bit, but the Bible doesn’t say hate is a sin in it’s entirety. Romans 12:9 “hate what is evil, cling to what is good.” This ‘hate what is evil’ has been used as justification for actual hate crime historically and currently.
1

Hide replies

@pmafi_eng
13 hours ago
Given Pauline Hanson’s past comments and actions against minority groups such as Muslims, Chinese etc.
Do you think it would possible for One Nation to be a banned group?
9

@LuckyLocust
12 hours ago
The laws are so vague and retroactive that likely any party could be banned. Just needs the minister to have the will to do so. Any party that said negrative things about the germans, italians or japanese during WW2 could be banned under these laws.
13

@mahcooharper9577
10 hours ago
Pretty much every political or activist group in the country has said something that could be considered hateful, on both the left and the right. This (aside from the legal issues) is the problem – it’s too vague and it’s antithetical to democracy.
2

Hide replies

@peregrineh1620
13 hours ago
Seems a bit fishy that it’s left to the minister to determine – and after what we know about the lack of info sharing…seems dodgy….ministers are not capable! This is not a good idea.
7

@tomo9224
13 hours ago
As much as I hate speech being silenced, this is probably one of those videos where the comments section should be shut down, Professor
2

@nationalistpolitics
9 hours ago
“This legislation silencing free speech is bad”
“We will disable the comments so that people cannot discuss it freely”
???
4

@constitutionalclarion1901
2 hours ago
Unfortunately, the law requires me to do so – it’s not my choice. There have been several cases in which the person who runs a Facebook page, blog or channel has been held responsible under anti-hatred laws for failing to delete offending posts made by others.
1

@CheekyJebus
10 hours ago
nothing says democracy and education like not allowing open discussion.
3

@constitutionalclarion1901
12 hours ago
Yes, I’ll do so shortly.
2

Hide replies

@jackhanley293
13 hours ago
We already give ministers too much power. Is this an attack on free speach
15

@worker-wf2em
13 hours ago
The antidote to hate speech is not censorship, but more speech. This is a lesson mankind consistently fails to learn. As soon as you hand those in power the ability to determine what constitutes acceptable and unacceptable speech, there is only one outcome. I vehemently disagree with everything White Australia stands for, but it is foolish to cheer any system of power censoring it.
19

@somluck2813
13 hours ago
Singapore and Malaysia use laws made by British to quash opposition groups.
2

@MrTiddalik
13 hours ago
Never a dull moment
1

@lauchlanguddy1004
13 hours ago
I trust the courts. The law already allows an elected crony to make these decisions.

@somluck2813
13 hours ago
Given that act applies to historical statements made by the relevant party, the Australian Labor Party has from since Australia was established to at least the 1960s made racist statement, the ‘White Australia’ was part of its platform up to the 1970s, it would seem that questions can be raised in relation to the ALP.
17

@Imagineering100
13 hours ago
This will cause nothing but problems.
8

@dancarmody3789
13 hours ago
If the challenge is succesful and the law is found unconstitutional, it will affect all the other groups listed so far…. Hizb ut-Tahrir. What a crazy world we live in that white supremacists might end up helping Islamic extremists. One has to wonder if that they’ve even considered that outcome.
3

@Jordz97
13 hours ago
No one has even heard of Hizb ut-Tahrir, once White Australia gets in Hizb ut-Tahrir will be deported lmao.
17

@dancarmody3789
13 hours ago
@Jordz97 Lol, White Australia aren’t going to get in.
2

@JamesThomas-n3q
10 hours ago
@dancarmody3789 if that’s what the government thought then they wouldn’t have banned the WAP.
2

@TheKrispyfort
13 hours ago
Misogynists and xenophobes helping other misogynists and xenophobes.
3

Hide replies

@williamhay3029
13 hours ago (edited)
Wondering if their arguments will be a mix of the best cooker material, mixed with badly misquoted sections from your videos and involve red/ green constitution.
Also coincidentally this has come out on the afternoon that John Safran has a new show on free speech in Australia, focussing on free speech laws such as this and whether it’s healthy to have these. And of course he then discusse and meets with NSN and learns how to give a decent Nazi salute
3

@jimmy12347654
10 hours ago
Isn’t doing the NS salute a crime in a lot of states in Australia ?

Hide replies

@davidsullivan4449
13 hours ago
This was both awesome and very disturbing. I saw Rupert Lowe in the UK talking about similar trends in law whereby judgements that were usually made by juries are now being made purely by judges or a judge. I don’t really know the details but you know what I mean.
12

@TheKrispyfort
13 hours ago
You should read up on NSW legislation and laws around compulsory possession of proceedings of criminal activity.

Hide replies

@NelleBligh333
13 hours ago
It irks me as the granddaughter of a member of the Communist Party of Australia who only ceased to be a member when the party disbanded, to see this kind of legislation brought in to ban a political group when they tried to ban the CP twice and each time the ban was overturned by the High Court. You would think current members of Parliament would be aware of this history. Stop impinging on our right to political expression!
35

@PhilipGissing
10 hours ago
This former member of the Communist Party, who also was around when the party disbanded, couldn’t agree more!

Hide replies

@2paulstacey
13 hours ago
A Nazi party won’t get many votes but any votes for it would be damaging to Australia.
2

@TheKrispyfort
13 hours ago
Apparently, “Nazi” was initially a derogatory nickname for Hitler’s political party.
Kinda like calling the Liberal Party the “Libs”
6

@CheekyJebus
10 hours ago (edited)
If they won’t get any votes why do we have to go out of our way to frantically ban them? (let alone criminalize any association with up to 15 years in prison)
2

Hide replies

@stephenwellstriggers
13 hours ago
Too many numbskull’s in the comments who dont care about the tyranny inherrent in this law, as long as it stops “muh Nazis”. As President Kennedy said “thiose who make peaceful revolution impossible, make violent revolution inevitable”. The former leaders of the NSN and White Australia Party explicitly condemed terrorism and political violence to achieve their goals. What do you think all the young men who followed them are going to do if they think that strategy has failed? Ultimately the Government has shown it doesnt trust the Australian people to reject the White Australia Party at the ballot box.
46

@jimmy12347654
10 hours ago
It’s such a weak move that only pushes people underground, We have so little faith in our people and ideas that they need to swing the ban hammer so pathetic
2

Hide replies

@supernoveau
14 hours ago
Which party has the burden of proof?
2

@hevsa1507
14 hours ago
This is just a test as to whether we live in a completely corrupt system, or not.
None of this passes the pub test.
38

@JimmyCall
14 hours ago (edited)
I posted a comment on this subject in previous video, but deleted it due to mistakes/poor structure. The topic is some of the most complicated argument/dilemmas of Constitutional law.
1

@SH-3274
14 hours ago (edited)
Professor Twomey, I have a question about the “future authoritarian government” concerns you mentioned.
Suppose that a ruling party wanted to illegitimately classify a well-established political party (GRN, ALP, LIB, NAT, ONE, etc.) as a hate group. Assuming that their caucus and ministers were entirely on-board with this*, how many well-placed cronies would they require, and how difficult would it be to place them? By my guess they’d require five – the director of ASIO and four High Court judges – but my understanding of this is quite shaky. I certainly don’t understand how difficult it would be to place them.
*I say this because a leadership spill would undoubtedly make this difficult to pull off.
(Edited for clarity and typo correction)
3

@constitutionalclarion1901
11 hours ago
I agree that it would be difficult. In the past, one would have thought it unthinkable. But the unthinkable has been happening in a number of countries around the world in recent years. So it is no longer unthinkable. In my view, at least, it is something we should be alert to and defend against. In particular, we should not pass laws that could be abused in the future.
5

@SH-3274
8 hours ago
​ @constitutionalclarion1901 thanks for the insight. One follow up: with the laws as they currently exist, if the government wanted to seriously abuse them, what would the minimum required number of cronies be? Would the head of ASIO and four High Court judges be enough?

@constitutionalclarion1901
2 hours ago
Another factor is that the regulation declaring a group to be a prohibited hate group can be disallowed by either House. So an authoritarian government would need majority support in the upper House to prevent disallowance.
2

Hide replies

@mrx6682
14 hours ago
They have a right to form a political party, thats just common sense.
27

@79gengen
13 hours ago
Sure, but they won’t even give their names…. Go figure
1

@lioncross1849
12 hours ago
@79gengen because if they do, they risk going to jail under these new laws. That is the issue at hand. That’s why we are having this high court case.
Shouldn’t that not be obvious to you mate?
11

Hide replies

@richardjohnston-bell476
14 hours ago (edited)
Free speech is the foundational right that all other rights are built upon and is worth protecting. I also believe that not only is ‘hate speech’ free speech, but that free speech cannot exist without it. Free speech is not just about the right to express an opinion or an idea, free from violence or government intervention, its the right to be able to listen to those ideas and opinions. As an adult, I find it insulting that the government thinks so little of my ability to reason, that they get to decide what information is too dangerous for my poor little brain to handle.
This is why I am voting for One Nation. They are the only party that is serious about free speech
17

@C0wCakes
14 hours ago
Australia isn’t the United States. There’s nothing in the constitution that guarantees free speech or makes it a foundational right. We have a very long history of common-law and case history. That includes that speech that is harmful to society and its people isn’t permitted, backed by the prior mentioned case law. That’s actually far better than a few lines in a constitution that are exceedingly diffult to change.
2

@supernoveau
13 hours ago
There’s a very big difference between speech that is advocating for physical violence, and speech that some identity group doesn’t want to hear because it’s contrary to their political interest.
4

@richardjohnston-bell476
12 hours ago
@C0wCakes why do people always confuse the concept of free speech and what it is in law. The US didnt invent free speech, they have just taken the concept and placed it in the constitution. If you base your argument defining free speech by what the laws say, then if we put the same rules as the US into our constitution, then your argument no longer exists, Would you then agree that ‘hate speech’ does not exist becasue the law says it doesnt?
3

@79gengen
13 hours ago
Sure, have free speech, but be prepared to face the consequences that go with it.
1

@FairyBreadforbreakfast
13 hours ago
@79gengen The only consequence that is reasonable is that someone disagrees with you. Any other state sanctioned punishment is not reasonable and means you don’t have free speech.
4

@richardjohnston-bell476
12 hours ago (edited)
@79gengen I assume you mean consequences that are within the law?

@79gengen
8 hours ago
​ @richardjohnston-bell476 I assume you mean free speech that is within the law.

Hide replies

@nicholassteel5529
14 hours ago

@learningmore8047
14 hours ago
This is a great video, well done. It gets me thinking about how this law and how the Indigenous peoples see their positions especially as they have taken the brunt of hatred since the arrival of the first fleet, throw that into the context of what the Uluru Statement from the Heart stated about their unceded sovereignty and mix that with Australia’s obligations under the ICCPR for example and then the intentions of Australia when it supported UNDRIP in 2009. You have really triggered ones mind with this video. Please keep up the great wotk especially with these videos.
3

@AustralianGrandmasForDemocracy
14 hours ago
Thanks Anne. I think this and related issues will be hotly debated for some time to come. Time for a Bill of Rights to balance it out I think!
9

@Pab_1967
14 hours ago
We have a Bill of Rights 1688, which the GovCo is breaching, it’s attached to our Commonwealth Constitution of Australia, Imperial law

@AustralianGrandmasForDemocracy
12 hours ago
@Pab_1967 According to Google that one only covers parliamentary privilege. The (4 I think) rights mentioned in the constitution are totally inadequate. There are a hodge-podge of rights mentioned in different acts of legislation in different states but I still think we need a fully fledged Federal Bill of Rights. Perhaps Anne can clarify?
2

@Pab_1967
12 hours ago
​ @AustralianGrandmasForDemocracy the Commonwealth Constitution of Australia was never about rules for the people, it was designed to keep Corporations and Parliament in line. Ours are given with the blessing of Almighty God, ten commandments.

Hide replies

@kipwatson
14 hours ago
They sound like a nasty, stupid party; and it sounds like a stupid, extremely dangerous law.
12

@JayGuitars1
15 hours ago
Why can’t we all just get along?
4

@dancarmody3789
14 hours ago
Some folks aren’t good at just minding their own business. The internet has made it worse.

@aussiegodx8629
14 hours ago
Bcus we tried that and it’s not working and never will
7

Hide replies

@Hansel_and_Grettle
15 hours ago (edited)
I think the best way to legitimise a far right movement is to ban them.
If you believe their ideas to be horrid and wrong (which I do), then you should be able to debate and beat them with ease.
Silencing them only incentivises them to move away from democratic means of pushing their agenda, which is far more dangerous and scary imho. So far Australia has mostly avoided large scale right wing terrorism, I’d like to keep things that way.
17

@seanlander9321
14 hours ago
Is it fair then to ban other groups who aren’t on the Right but which oppose Australia’s institutions, promote violence, hate, or prejudice? Because it really is a can of worms that’s being opened, and the prejudice of the Minister has too much sway in what should be the decision of a court.
7

@stephenwellstriggers
13 hours ago
From a former member of said party, I agree.
5

@uasj2
14 hours ago
This is it. The prof is not supporting this group but nevertheless we don’t want repressive laws to ban them, just well-crafted laws that target only extreme groups
4

@seanlander9321
14 hours ago
@uasj2 How then would a government that has funded a group that advocates hate or violence treat itself then?

@stephenwellstriggers
13 hours ago
​ @seanlander9321 you can make violence illegal, but if you make hatred illegal then everyone is a law breaker. Hate is a universal emotion and part of the human condition. You cant legislate it away.
4

@RSA_Liberty
14 hours ago
The system doesnt want open debate
4

@MrBlaygor
14 hours ago
In my opinion if the government really wanted to end extremism, they would have put in a clause ENCOURAGING any group targeted for designation to escape that designation by requiring them to participate in the electoral system.
3

Hide replies

@DeGuerre
15 hours ago
I hate that we have to think about “what this would be like in the hands of ȧ madman” because that’s not hypothetical any more.
16

@Teufeltusken
15 hours ago
This appears to be what happens when you make rushed laws. The intentions may be honourable, but by being sloppy you allow the targets of the legislation to make valid challenges.
4

@CheekyJebus
10 hours ago
Stripping free speech and your right to political expression is never “honourable”
1

@constitutionalclarion1901
15 hours ago
Indeed. Much better to do it carefully and sensibly.
6

@SethWAE
13 hours ago
​ @constitutionalclarion1901 Like Donald Trump?

Hide replies

@MartyH99
15 hours ago
Will the Labor party object when these laws are used against themselves?
10

@MartyH99
15 hours ago
It will interesting to hear how the government proved ‘hate’?
1

@lauchlanguddy1004
12 hours ago
They dont have to. Its not a court. All comes down to one person, seems

Hide replies

@zalzalahbuttsaab
15 hours ago
thank you. informative and well-researched as usual!
3

@constitutionalclarion1901
15 hours ago
You are most welcome.
2

Hide replies

@paulx3733
15 hours ago
Sometimes in this ” modern world” the best motives are easily undermined by those who try to hard to appease the people who are to easily offended…
Just cause your feelings are hurt, don’t make you right.
5

@hs9067
15 hours ago (edited)
I’m continually suprised by Labors attempt at overreach. Restrictive protest, speech laws etc Should we be worried are they trying to lay the foundations for Authoritarianism?
11

@constitutionalclarion1901
15 hours ago
It was supported by the Coalition too.
9

@hs9067
14 hours ago (edited)
@constitutionalclarion1901 Thats worrying two mainstream partys and than One Nation who is outright oligarchical. Thank you for all the work you do!
2

@AustralianGrandmasForDemocracy
14 hours ago
@constitutionalclarion1901 that isn’t at all surprising!
1

@JayGuitars1
15 hours ago
And trying to eliminate legal firearm possession at the same time…gee you could draw a conclusion.
2

@constitutionalclarion1901
14 hours ago
The law did not seek to ‘eliminate’ legal firearm possession. It imposed some restrictions – eg on the number of firearms that could be owned.
4

Hide replies

@robertwalker7924
15 hours ago
the largest ” hate group ” in Australia is the Australian population towards Australias indigenous peoples…its all very one sided
8

@justheretowatchatrashfire
14 hours ago
Yep
1

@AustralianGrandmasForDemocracy
14 hours ago
It’s shameful that antisemitism gets far more attention than the disrespect and violence that our First Nations people are subject to.
5

Hide replies

@aarondemiri486
15 hours ago (edited)
Will be excited to read what the High Court decides in their judgement.
They will likely discuss Latham’s dissent in the communist party case. Fullagar and Dixon’s separate judgements still stand the test of time.
2

@lylegc01
15 hours ago
Thanks again for your vids
1

@Robert-xs2mv
15 hours ago
Hate in it self is never a crime.
To state otherwise is an injustice!
And when injustice becomes law, the law becomes irrelevant!
11

@RSA_Liberty
14 hours ago
Which human emotion are they going to regulate and ban next?
4

@constitutionalclarion1901
15 hours ago (edited)
No one has suggested that hate itself is a crime. It is the public expression of that hate in particular ways (eg inciting violence, intimidating, humiliating others, etc) that is the crime.
1

@Robert-xs2mv
15 hours ago
@constitutionalclarion1901 . So being condemned and accused to be a sinner is a hate crime inciting violence? And you clearly accentuated the relevant minister has the ability to declare whether an expression of hate indeed is inciting ? Sounds like an extremely fine line.
8

@worker-wf2em
10 hours ago

@constitutionalclarion1901 There are already laws against inciting violence in this country. All I see here is overreach from government equating words with violence. Terms like ‘humiliating’ is a ridiculously broad and objective feelings based standard that will be abused by those in power to target dissenters, and anyone the Israel lobby doesn’t like if we’re being honest.
3

Hide replies

@StephenSkinner-k4w
15 hours ago
Who decides if the minister actually did have “reasonable Grounds” to prohibit a “hate group”?
Why, the minister of course!
What could possibly go wrong?
6

@constitutionalclarion1901
15 hours ago
It could be challenged in a court in an administrative law challenge.
1

Hide replies

@JOSEPHDANCE75
15 hours ago
Nothing to be ashamed about for being white. Same can be said for Black or Asian , what ever else is out their like us hybrids. For those that did bad in the pastis on them . Cannot blame so many today for the actions of some.
6

@tedknight2608
15 hours ago
Quick Question: If it is a criminal offence to direct the actions of a prohibited group, then isn’t someone committing a crime by directing the group’s legal challenge against the prohibition?
2

@constitutionalclarion1901
15 hours ago
Possibly. It depends on whether the law is valid, for a start. I think there are also exceptions which allow funds to be provided to lawyers for such a legal challenge – but I haven’t delved into all those provisions.
2

@yubnuts
14 hours ago
This is similar to the question that arose in Deripaska (2026) where the sanctioned person (Deripaska) argued that the sanction laws were invalid because to engage legal representation to contest the listing would have itself been a breach of the sanction laws. The High Court saved the sanction laws by reading them down so that they would not extend to prohibiting a person from engaging legal advice for the purpose of contesting the listing.

Hide replies

@michellefranklin3182
15 hours ago
Thanks for this.
4

@constitutionalclarion1901
15 hours ago
Much appreciated.
2

Hide replies

@DS91284
15 hours ago
Insecurities are so vague and should never be handled by double digits.
1

@Know_It_All
16 hours ago
Thanks
3

@constitutionalclarion1901
15 hours ago
You’re welcome.

Hide replies

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

See Also

top

 

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

“No, that wouldn’t have worked!”

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

[04:12]

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

“Deport him!”

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Germar Rudolf: Incitement to hate.

 

Kenny Ko: Exposing the truth?

 

[09:40]

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

So I have no intention of leaving the country.

 

[15:21]

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Kenny Ko: Were they jewish?

 

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

 

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

 

Germar Rudolf: No, no, I don’t know.

 

Kenny Ko: Interesting!

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

And the answer is:

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Germar Rudolf: Peeping Tom!

 

Kenny Ko: Yeah.

 

[20:03]

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

“What did happen that morning?”

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

So that’s what I eventually did.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

[25:04]

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

“I want to find out!”

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Bunch of horseshit! Excuse my English.

 

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

 

[28:49]

 

 

 

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

 

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

 

Kenny Ko: Sorry about that!

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Kenny Ko: I wonder why that is!

 

[32:53]

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Kenny Ko: Right.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

“Why did you lie?”

 

He said:

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

[37:14]

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

[44:43]

 

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

 

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

 

So why is it here?

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

“Yeah, we fought absolute evil!”

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

[Image: the mostly jewish CHEKA secret police]

 

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

See: The Other Holocaust — the Terror Famine in Ukraine

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Kenny Ko: Right.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

And if you tell them:

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Kenny Ko: That’s a great point!

 

[58:36]

 

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Kenny Ko: For reparations.

 

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

 

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

 

[1:01:49]

 

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

“What are we going to do?”

 

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

 

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

 

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Germar Rudolf: Yes!

 

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

 

[1:05:31]

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

[1:10:19]

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

 

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Kenny Ko: Right.

 

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

 

[1:15:00]

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

So he makes up this story:

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

“Okay, it was diesel exhaust!”

 

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

 

[1:21:24]

 

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

[1:27:11]

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

“Oh, because the evidence was destroyed!”

 

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

 

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

 

“Where’s your evidence?”

 

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

 

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

 

Kenny Ko: Right.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

“Well, it’s wrong.”

 

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

 

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

 

Kenny Ko: Right.

 

[1:30:56]

 

 

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

 

“We were transited through there.”

 

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

 

Kenny Ko: Right.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Kenny Ko: Very interesting.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

So one of these local commanders says:

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

[1:38:50]

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Germar Rudolf: Yeah, much appreciated.

 

Kenny Ko: Of course. Have a good one.

 

Germar Rudolf: You too.

 

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

 

 

[1:40:59]

 

 

END

top

 

 

 

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

 

Rumble Comments

top

(Comments as of 5/8/2026 = )

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

See Also

top

 

 

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

Harry Richardson: Multiculturalism in Australia, as elsewhere in the Anglo-sphere, is irrational and inconsistent. In order to perpetuate this monstrous ideology, its champions are compelled to attack free speech, that great Anglo tradition which exposes and ridicules such nonsense!

 

A recent example is Peter Drew, an Australian artist who produced a series of posters depicting people of non-European ethnicity who lived in Australia at the time of the so-called White Australia Policy. The posters all have the word “Aussie” underneath, implying that these people were Aussies because they’d lived here. These people faced difficulties because they were told that if they left Australia, they would not necessarily be able to return.

 

It’s a similar situation to that faced today by foreigners living in Thailand. European foreigners are known as “farang” and, unlike Thai people, they’re required to leave Thailand periodically and reapply to return. No guarantee is given that they will be allowed back into the country. These farang are not Thai, and nobody thinks that they are. Nobody thinks any less of Thailand for insisting on this policy, despite the inconvenience and upset that it causes many of these farang.

 

Peter Drew put up his posters around Melbourne without permission. Here he is explaining that in his own words:

 

“It’s a very popular project. It’s so popular that even though it’s illegal, I can put my name to it and I’m still allowed to do it, because people like it, whereas these copycat posters are done anonymously because nobody likes them.”

 

Peter Drew’s artwork is propaganda which reinforces the preferred narrative of the establishment elites who run the government, the media, the education system, the legal system, and the bureaucracies. And maybe it’s a coincidence, but it appears that Peter Drew has a picture of Chairman Mao on his wall. The establishment who are supposed to enforce laws don’t enforce this law, perhaps because they like what Peter Drew is doing. The rule of law doesn’t apply to propaganda that supports their narrative, apparently.

 

So fast forward to a short time ago, and a provocative young social media influencer decided to make a statement by creating posters in a similar style to those of Peter Drew. Instead of the faces of historical minorities, however, Auspill, as he’s known, put the faces of diverse Australians who’ve committed horrible crimes, as well as some others, including Donald Trump, with the word “Aussie” underneath them. The most confronting of these posters had the face of Naveed Akram on it. He was one of the two alleged perpetrators accused of the Bondi massacre.

 

Auspill then made a video of himself and a friend putting these posters up around Melbourne, as well as some of the reactions of establishment figures, with commentary from himself and his friend.

 

Full disclosure here: The BAC made two videos a couple of years ago about the Drew posters, and part of one of these was featured in Auspill’s video. We’ll post links to our videos in the description below, along with some references.

 

At this point, Dr. Dvir Abramovich stepped into the fray. Dr. Abramovich runs a well-known jewish defence and advocacy organisation called the Anti-Defamation Commission. Here’s what he had to say about Auspill’s posters:

 

“They should utilise every measure, every law, to make sure that these people end up behind bars. It was a kick in the guts. This is a hate crime, pure and simple. It’s dancing on the grave of those massacred in Bondi.”

 

Quote:

 

“They should utilise every measure, every law, to make sure that these people end up behind bars.”

 

And Dvir Abramovich again:

 

“It was a kick in the guts. This is a hate crime, pure and simple. It’s dancing on the grave of those massacred in Bondi. It’s psychological intimidation.”

 

Dr. Abramovich’s comments are interesting on a number of levels, especially in light of some of his previous statements. The first thing that strikes us is the severity of the punishment. He’s calling for. Prison time for putting up a poster? This is very extreme by Australian legal standards. Secondly, and perhaps most strikingly, is the way Dr. Abramovich has completely misunderstood the point of the posters. His statement characterises it as a deliberate attack on the grieving jewish community, when both common sense and Auspill’s own words suggest otherwise.

 

Peter Drew himself admits to attempting to deconstruct Australian identity and help ensure that anyone of any racial, religious, or cultural background can be an Aussie. To this end, he portrays a group of racially diverse people who lived in Australia and are perceived as positive for the nation.

 

Auspill has turned this concept on its head and made posters in the same style depicting racially diverse people who are either clearly bad for the nation or, in the case of Donald Trump, someone who’s never lived here. This dialectic is a form of discussion about the identity of the nation. It would seem that way to us, and Auspill appears to agree. Here he is explaining it in his own words:

 

“This project—this funny little Donald Trump, Naveed Akram—this is taking it to its natural conclusion. Naveed Akram—an Aussie; Donald Trump—an Aussie! It’s not exclusive, right? ‘No one’s illegal on stolen land! Everyone’s an Aussie! It’s a piece of paper!’ I don’t think many Australians the Anzacs or the founding people of this country, would agree with that. It is an invention—a very modern invention—that needs to be upheld by, literally, street propaganda. But we can counter it in the street and get people to look at the extreme conclusions of this ideology. And that’s what this really is about.”

 

Note that he also put up a poster of a Chinese man who’s believed to have deliberately scalded an Aussie baby with a boiling hot cup of coffee. This was a horrific attack on a vulnerable member of the Anglo community, but no one thinks that this was “dancing on the misery” of an injured baby. The image of Naveed Akram is well known because it has been shown repeatedly on mainstream media.

 

As far as we know, Dr. Abramovich had not complained about the image previously. It is understandable, however, that using this image to make a political statement could be upsetting. With that said, however, we feel that Dr. Abramovich is completely missing the point of Auspill’s video.

 

The reason I’m bringing up Dvir Abramovich’s comments is that he has a history of commenting on this topic. Back in 2016, TV personality Sonia Kruger made some remarks during a discussion on TV about Islamic immigration into Australia. I’ll quote from a news.com.au article at the time. She said, whilst talking about Islamic immigration:

 

“Personally, I would like to see it stop now for Australia.”

 

She referred to Japan, a racially homogenous country with a low proportion of Muslim migrants, and pointed out—correctly—that they don’t experience terror attacks by Islamic extremists. She also said that she would like to see freedom of speech. Bear in mind that Kruger made her comments in the wake of a horrific Islamic terror attack in France.

 

But we’d also had attacks in Australia. There was the Skaf [Bilal Skaf] rape gang of 50 Anglo girls in 2000; the Cronulla gang in 2005; the Endeavour Hills stabbings of 2014; the appalling Lindt Cafe siege, also in 2014; and the Parr a matter a shooting of a Chinese-Australian accountant who worked for the police in 2015.

 

In the same article, Ms. Kruger is given a severe dressing-down by none other than Dr. Abramovich, who said, and I quote:

 

“I am dismayed and concerned by this misguided and outrageous statement! Sonia Kruger’s call to ban Muslim immigration to Australia is deeply offensive, irrational and unacceptable.”

 

End quote. So I have to say, that statement didn’t age well at all! And, okay, maybe it was offensive to some Muslims, but “irrational” in light of recent events? Worse than that is Dr. Abramovich’s final claim that this position is “unacceptable.” In other words, no one should be even allowed to argue against this viewpoint. Freedom of speech should be suspended for this topic. Insisting on shutting down everyone else’s speech on a topic suggests a belief in one’s own infallibility. In this case, it turns out that Dr. Abramovich and his opinions were not as infallible as he’d assumed.

 

There’s a particularly sad irony to the staunch opposition to free speech expressed by some jewish community leaders, especially around immigration and diversity. For instance, parts of the organised jewish community were instrumental in draughting Section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 and defending it against Tony Abbott, who’d promised to repeal it.

 

The peak jewish national body were also consulted in the formation of the latest laws against anti-semitism, hate, and extremism, which gut the Anglo tradition of free speech, particularly where it includes criticism of minorities. During this consultation process, they advocated for stronger provisions and harsher sentencing.

 

Ethnic diversity tends to have serious and well-documented costs wherever it’s found, and this is true for all Australians. But in this latest tragic episode, it’s jews who have borne the brunt of these costs. This just Showcases the irrationality of multicultural minority politics. Australians are expected to suspend common sense when discussing minority interests. The policies of multiculturalism and its feed corn of indiscriminate immigration have never been discussed at an adult level. The shifting allegiances on which multiculturalism is based can shatter when people least expect it.

 

Dr. Abramovich continued his 2016 comment, stating that, quote:

 

“Banning anyone from entry to our country on the basis of their religion goes against long-standing Australian values of respect, inclusivity and religious freedom.”

 

End quote. What he fails to mention here is that for most of our history, Australian immigration policy restricted non-White intakes in order to minimise ethno-religious diversity. We did, however, have some jews in the colony from the beginning, and this was one of the safest and most welcoming countries for them. We had Sir Isaac Isaacs, who was jewish, as our first native-born Governor-General, which is the highest office in the land. General Sir John Monash, who was the pre-eminent Australian general in the First World War and was widely regarded as one of the finest Allied commanders on the Western Front, was also jewish.

 

Dr. Abramovich continued on in his criticism of Sonia Kruger. He said, quote:

 

“Such singling out and demonizing of Muslims is counterproductive and will only serve to foment fear and hatred. As we face the threat of radical Islamist terror, we must avoid falling into the trap of blaming individuals and communities.”

 

This just makes no sense at all! He admits that we face the threat of radical Islamist terror, but insists that we shouldn’t ban Muslim immigration because that will cause fear and hatred of Muslims. Bear in mind that he expressed this opinion after a string of Islamic-inspired attacks, and recent events simply emphasise how appallingly wrong-headed this approach is!

 

The only reason such weak arguments could prevail was the chilling of free speech, which put pressure on people like Sonia Kruger for opposing them.

 

The abolition of free speech means that influential people get to decide on vital policy directions for the whole nation. When these people are shielded from common-sense arguments, their fallibility is protected by a wall of censorship. Dr. Abramovich reinforced this approach when he continued, saying:

 

“Our nation is strengthened by diversity and it is crucial that all leaders stand united in combating any manifestations of bigotry and prejudice.”

 

End quote. This ideological nonsense just has to stop! Diversity is a strength? The fact is that our once peaceful nation of Australia is now riven by blood feuds that have been imported from around the world.

 

Unfortunately, minority advocates are not the only ones attacking free speech. Chris Minns, who’s the Leftist Premier of New South Wales, has been cheer leading the abolition of free speech for some time now. Why? Well, to protect diversity, of course:

 

Minns: When did I say ‘free speech is incompatible with a free society’?

John Ruddick: Mr Premier, you have said that on multiple occasions!

Minns: Would you mind repeating it to me where I have said it and what I said?

John Ruddick: Are you denying that you said it, Mr Premier?

Minns: I would love it for you to quote it back to me.

Minns: I recognise it and I’ve said it from the beginning, that we don’t have the same freedom of speech laws that they have in the United States. And the reason for that is that we want to hold together a multicultural community.

Minns: We don’t have the same free speech rules that they have in the United States. We’ve got strict interpretation of hate speech in the state. If that needs to go further in a legislative sense, that’s exactly what I’ll do!

Minns: We have to take steps to protect that. It can’t just be a willy-nilly race to the bottom where civic society turns a blind eye and says, ‘Well, look, freedom of speech reigns here. People can say what they want.’ That’s not the case in New South Wales. We don’t have the same freedom of speech laws that they have in the United States. And the reason is because we love the country that we’ve got here and we are going to take steps to protect what has been built up over decades.

Minns: And I don’t apologise for the fact that we don’t have the same free speech laws that they have in the United States. It’s clear that we don’t! We don’t have the same set of regulations. It’s not embedded in our constitution the same way it is in the US.

Naturally, he isn’t the only one, but he is arrogant enough to say the quiet part out loud. This has to stop! Because, as George Washington once said:

 

“If the freedom of speech is taken away, then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep, to the slaughter!”

 

A majority never wanted mass, indiscriminate, immigration. And the elites who insisted on it are now intent on shutting down our rights to free speech so that we can no longer voice opposition to it. And maybe if Peter Drew wants to abolish a national identity, he should have a go at the Indians or the Chinese or the Palestinians, just to show that it isn’t only Anglo-Celtic identity that he wants to abolish.

 

The whole point of this is that these posters represent free speech. Peter Drew’s posters express an opinion on who can be an Aussie, and so do Auspill’s. Both of them should be allowed to express their opinions.

 

Unfortunately, when we allow powerful elites to destroy free speech, then they will decide what can and cannot be expressed. This is a very slippery slope which leads to tyranny and oppression!

 

In the meantime, the British-Australian Community will continue to defend the identity, the interests, and the free speech rights of our people, just as the rest of the multicultural community defend their people. If you think that this is a worthwhile goal, then join us now!

 

Thank you.

 

[14:46]

 

 

END

top

 

 

 

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

 

Youtube Comments

top

(Comments as of 5/4/2026 = 38)

@iksootm
1 day ago
If you don’t have a border, you don’t have a country.
30

@LucienCanon
1 day ago
You must upload more BAC. Thanks so much for your work.
32

@britishaustraliancommunity
1 day ago
Thank you Lucien, agreed. We are more active on X and Instagram however – youtube doesn’t like us very much.
8

Hide replies

@SirJad_
1 day ago
Multiculturalism will always degrade a society into totalitarianism as the state naturally needs to expand its power to ensure all groups remain cohesive and the overall structure of society remains functional. There is no coincidence as Australia becomes more ‘diverse’, it becomes less free.
21

@southern-samurai
23 hours ago (edited)
The fact that we cannot even have an open conversation about this without risking violating hate speech laws if someone decides to interpret one side as racially offensive highlights the erosion of basic freedoms and cultural norms in Australia as a result of protecting multicultural ideology.
7

@keilgre5319
17 hours ago
Freedom. Remigration.
7

@Zinnia-x9c
1 day ago
Peter Drew is still crashing out over Auspill’s art series.
13

@Generico301
1 day ago
Nice 1, Harry. Need more like it.
7

@Whats_newss
1 day ago
Great video
7

@user-di8gh5fw6d
23 hours ago
Africa 54 countries, SA is now kicking out other africans from their South Africa country because their not South African. Are they racist.
5

@what_social_contract
1 day ago
Cracking video
4

@leonhanford5560
4 hours ago
Peter Drew is a delusional lefty.Full regime backing.And don’t get me started on Dvir
2

@joelwhaley8182
23 hours ago
Where is your 1901 federal red flag. Where is your Commonwealth of Australia. Where is your townspeople. Where is your self determination. Lest ye forget is strsight out of the AKJV bible. A warning that rings true today as Australians forgot who they are and what their ANZAC even fought for at all.
2

@Cohen-cidenceinspector
1 day ago
2:47 ….. looks like the ghost of a mud slime woman floating down the street.

@Westyrulz
3 hours ago
The European Race could cease to exist as all European societies have opened up to mass Non-White immigration.

@masscreationbroadcasts
1 day ago
Why do you try to convince people? Sorry, I’m not being clear enough. These people got power by taking advantage of your good will and giving themselves power over you because they hate their own kind for status. Debate won’t fix this.
2

@Melbournelost66
1 day ago
Those posters I utterly despise. I have noticed them around inner Melbourne, in particular Fitzroy, Collingwood etc. Who said its popular? Have they taken a poll? What if we rip them down????
4

@John-p7i5g
17 hours ago
Multiculti society = logical contradiction = balkanisation
1

@persiandrum9871
1 day ago (edited)
Can you imagine the outrage and backlash, if China were to have an Australian-Anglo as its ‘Foreign Minister’, or if India were to have an Australian-Irishman as one of its parliamentary senators? Or if Israel were to have a non-Jewish, Australian Christian prime minister? Or if Saudi Arabia were to have an Australian atheist serve in its Council of Ministers? (continued below)
Why is it that we are expected to applaud all other nations of the earth for having their people represented by their founding stock, while White nations only are expected to prove their ‘diversity’ and ‘multicultural’ bonafides?
How log will this ridiculous canard be tolerated?
11

@Is_This_Really_Necessary
19 hours ago
Multiculturism only works when it’s NOT forced down everyone’s throats all the goddamn time. But because Western governments have chosen to impose multiculturalism onto everyone, as an Auzzie I choose freedom.
So I will say whatever I want, however I want, whenever I want, I don’t have a damn what anyone else thinks.
1

@raycap
2 hours ago
Minns is telling us we don’t matter, it’s, I will take away your freedoms, and you will keep your mouth shut, or it’s jail time. Slowly but surely, like any extreme left party, they are implementing communism.

@THEOFFICEOFHELP
1 day ago
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T4YMXPiM6Jc

@insolent6702
15 hours ago
Mouse click sound effect is ruining this video
1

@australiasindustrialage689
4 hours ago
What Chris Minns said is a load of trash, he fails to understand that Australia was founded on Anglo-Australianism, free-speech was an implied right

@MELcontents.not.american
6 hours ago
You lost me in your first statement. Multiculturalism makes us strong, liveable, rich.
Multiculturalism is the kernel of the Australian experience.

@tsopmocful1958
6 hours ago
No, Australia and the entire West has gone downhill ever since multicultural policies were implemented as early as the 1970’s.
2

@MELcontents.not.american
4 hours ago
@tsopmocful1958 are you suggesting that for example, Vietnamese immigration has been a bad thing for Australia?

Hide replies
Top is selected, so you’ll see featured comments

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

See Also

top

 

 

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

 

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

 

Rumble Comments

top

(Comments as of 4/28/2026 = 5)

leibekohne
1 day ago
Well said,its simply policy promoting war on white people.This is done by tiny JZOGBots, who own media, those scum who gave so called power to useless stinky ugly fat aboerectus who parricides on white men who build Australia. We see that it will never work and only creates contention with patriotic nationalistic young Australians. As for Anzac one can make gymnastics about. The truth is we fought wrong enemies Germans Japanese Italians in WW1 WW2 our heroes “fought” for white Australia they thought only later the same JZOG turn it to multi-cultural melting pot, to destroy white race, just opposite what they were fighting for. Thus our existence is replaced and children no future for our children. This is truth about weakness and perversion of ANZAC its legitimacy has to be challenge again in high court as abos can not be allowed to subvert sabotage subjugate whites men ancestral holiday. Australia is whites men land always was and always will be. Abos have they theirs own name let it be so; “Kangaroo Island” or “Great Sandy Island.” . That’s why scum is burning Australian flag for which they should be severely punished, and they are not part of. That’s what they had and have with abo flag and jzog can do nothing about it. Challenge it in court as its opportunity to separate from abos and rest of non-whites and stop paying taxes for them once and for all. https://www.studycountry.com/wiki/what-did-the-aboriginals-call-australia-before
4
0

Watchman4u
Supporter
1 day ago
it’s the jews
3
0

charliebrownau
1 day ago
Gday Why would it stop the entire system is Anti White as more and more boomers die off the mask is revealed more and more No longer is the majority White Working Class thus the system no longer needs to pander to them Africans , Indians, Abos, Gays, Chinese and Jews are the new ‘Modern Australians’ legacy White Australians are just in the road of the Multi polar World Order utopia Even the false civnat claim that we are all equal and we don’t see race and we refuse to use racial identity ‘politics’ is slipping as Abos, Indians, Jews all have a racial group preference its just whitey that’s been brainwashed with race blind Universal Individualism No such thing exists as apolitical/unpolitical subjects/groups/activities everything is political anything that ‘isnt’ just means people don’t understand whats going on and you lot refuse to pull your head out of the sand and get off the fence It needs to be worse, more anti white and more Anti White Australians on a more widespread scale for the majority to change/adapt / forced to wake up Still not bad enough for massive change Accelerate towards victory —————————————- ” Truth Fears NO INVESTIGATION ” ” Facts don’t care about your feelings ” ” Access to White is not an Universal ((( RIGHT ))) ” ” My Wallet My Choice ” ” Real Freedom hasn’t been attempted yet ” _________ Regards Charliebrownau * Email – charliebrownau@protonmail.com * Videos – https://poast.tv/c/charliebrownau/videos * Telegram – https://t.me/s/Charliebrownau
2
0

Lokislad
Supporter+
1 day ago
Lost me when he started to manufacture Abo Lore BULLSHIT! It is a scam – period NO DREAMING BS AT ALL!

fastnail
11 hours ago
jews
0
0

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

See Also

top

 

 

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