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

 

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

 

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

 

Joel Davis: Yes, Sunday morning. Yeah.

 

Greg Johnson: Okay.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

So the first point that he makes is:

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

[07:17]

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

[13:19]

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

[20:10]

 

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

 

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

 

I started thinking, you know:

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

[26:52]

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

So the form that it takes, basically the foreign policy of National Socialist Germany is the most irrelevant aspect for us today. The relevant aspects, it’s the process by which National Socialism rose to power. The process by which National Socialism turned itself against liberal Marxist jewish elements and took on International Finance and sought to create self sufficiency and self consciousness within the German people and manifest it in a concrete political form that crushed all of its enemies in the domestic sphere. That to me is what I take inspiration from and what is pertinent and what needs to be basically rehabilitated.

 

[33:24]

 

Greg Johnson: So nationalism that’s anti-liberal, basically what you can call national populism today. What do you believe in terms of the idea of sovereignty? This is related obviously to Schmitt both in the crisis of Parliamentary democracy and also the one idea that everybody seems to know from Schmitt about the sovereign being the person who decides to be the exception. It seems to me that there are really two different concepts of sovereignty there and that the most important one is the idea of popular sovereignty. That ultimately what’s sovereign is the common good of a particular people. That is the criterion by which you judge legitimacy. It’s the criterion by which you judge policies.

 

Basically that is what populism is about. When people talk about populism today, they’re really talking about the assertion of the sovereignty of a particular people usually against a liberal, democratic political system that has battened on these societies.

 

And basically liberal democracy is the art of not giving the people what they want. I think it ultimately boils down to in practice minority rule. It starts out with protection of minority rights, but it ends up being the minority veto.

 

And ultimately that ends up being ruled by empowered minorities, political insiders, political elites, and hence populism tends to array the majority against the elites. So I mean there are two senses of the populace and populism. One is the people as a whole and its legitimate interests. And then there’s the many, the majority who are excluded from power by, and have their interests not represented by the people who do occupy power, which are the elites.

 

Joel Davis: Yeah, of course.

 

Well, I mean obviously populism has a kind of certain vagueness in a lot of its manifestations. For example, if we look at like contemporary examples, like insofar as you could call Donald Trump a populist and the MAGA movement populist or whatever, you can see that it’s completely ideologically vapid. That a lot of contemporary populist movements are like this, where they kind of have this vague kind of appeal to heartland’s traditional understanding of what the country is and is supposed to be about and play to their identity in kind of vague ways.

 

But there isn’t really like a very concrete programme that is put forward or even worldview. And so when these movements get electoral success, usually they just become recuperated by the broader system. And maybe the system makes a few subtle adaptations, or maybe even not so subtle adaptations to incorporate it and kind of return to status quo. Which is like what we’re seeing now in the United States, where what Trump’s original movement was about and what it currently is are two very distinct things. I think what Trump’s success basically means now is a recognition in a large portion of the American elite for the necessity to move from a liberal internationalist to a realist foreign policy in order to deal with a rising China and all of its ramifications. And so that’s why it’s been tolerated.

 

And basically the idea that Americans are not going to be galvanised to really face the threat of a rising China on the basis of wokeness, but instead, [chuckling] or something, they’re going to have some kind of, at least the semblance of patriotism, you know, given to them in addition to the kind of assertion of American interests specifically, rather than just this project of like liberal internationalism, America as the kind of merely like the vanguard of liberal internationalism or something.

 

But anyway, that’s besides the point. I mean, the point basically that I’m putting forward is that National Socialism is a totally cohesive ideology that is actually thought through to its logical conclusions, and it is built off, … Well, if we basically purge all other kind of, all liberal notions from the idea of nationalism and just think through, from it up, you basically get something akin to National Socialism in any kind of equivalent context to Germany in the early 20th century. If you are to repudiate it from a moral standpoint, if you can say:

 

“Oh, well, I don’t agree with this or that foreign policy decision.”

 

That’s one thing. But if you’re to repudiate National Socialism as a tendency, what you’re basically saying is that the nationalist idea itself is dangerous. The nationalist idea itself needs to be immunised against working itself out to its logical conclusion, because its logical conclusion is the most horrible thing that has ever happened ever in world history. And that’s the Spectre that we’re living in.

 

And so the immunisation of the nationalist idea results basically in it being rendered utterly impotent. And so when nationalists have to constantly provide these elaborate forms of justification as to how they’re not Nazis. And why all of the aspects of National Socialism, which are scary are not present in our nationalism. Well, what that basically forces you to do is submit to the paradigm moral and ideological of the enemy.

 

And insofar as you’re doing that, you’re basically not asserting your own idea from a strong moral standpoint. You’re not providing a strong projection of will behind your worldview, which really is the whole essence here. The assertion and total victory of the national will over the state is what the project is supposed to be! Now it becomes known, negotiating from a losing position some modicum of national survival within a system that’s fundamentally built around literally the destruction of your people.

 

[39:51]

 

Greg Johnson: Now, there are two points here. One, I don’t know how worked out a political philosophy National Socialism really was.

 

If you look at it, there were a lot of different tendencies. And when Hitler came to power, there was a lot of improvisation and chaos actually in the government. I don’t know if they had a system worked out in concrete political terms or in intellectual terms. There were all kinds of debates that were going on within Germany at the time.

 

And one of the ways to understand that is that this was part of a larger cultural and political movement, anti-liberalism, the conservative revolution in Germany and so forth. And it wasn’t necessarily a worked out political ideology.

 

But the second thing, and this is more important, I don’t see why it’s problematic for nationalists to say there’s a good kind of nationalism and a bad kind of nationalism. And the bad kind of nationalism is the nationalism for me, but not for the position [opposition]. It’s:

 

“Yes, I’m going to take care of my nation and I’m going to figure out all the ways that I can stick it to my neighbours!”

 

Which historically is what nationalism generally means.

 

And this is why you can get people who issue these pious lectures that the reason why we had the First World War and the Second World War was this bad old form of nationalism. And therefore we need to get beyond nationalism. I get that argument and I can say:

 

“Well, wait, but there’s another kind of nationalism which is not beggar thy neighbour nationalism. It’s not nationalism for me, but not for thee.”

 

It’s a consistent position that acknowledges that there’s a plurality of different peoples in the world with different interests and different ways of life. When these people have to occupy the same territory and compete for control of the same government, they generally start hating each other. And come to blows. Fortunately though, the world is big enough for every people to have its own patch of dirt, its own borders, its own state. And therefore we support nationalism, understood as the principle of self-determination for all nations. I don’t see anything wrong with that.

 

Okay, so what’s your critique of that?

 

Joel Davis: First of all, a very obvious point to make is you’re saying the world is big enough for every people to have their own nation. Okay, but the world isn’t equally divided, right? There is obviously some national territories are much bigger than others. Some national territories are more strategically advantageous than others. Some national territories have far more natural resources than others, and so on and so what this creates there is power is a reality in the global system.

 

So if you have some states that are incredibly large and powerful and some states that are incredibly small and dependent on larger states, you don’t really have self-determination of all peoples. What you have is a system that maybe could dress itself up in that language, but ultimately is a system where there’s some very big states that create orders of alliances of subordinate states in antagonism toward one another. Which is basically what we have. So that then has to then be navigated as its own reality. So in the example of Europe, Europe has been remade in the image of, basically American ideology in the post World War II international order. There hasn’t been a self-determination of all European peoples.

 

There’s been an active project of subversion led by foreign power to change the political culture and culture in general of European nations in order to make them more ideologically simpatico with American foreign policy objectives.

 

Greg Johnson: And I grant that’s an undesirable thing. And I would say:

 

“Okay, isn’t that an example of the bad old form of nationalism too?”

 

Joel Davis: But it isn’t nationalism. The American, …

 

Joel Davis: It’s imperialism. Right?

 

Greg Johnson: Yeah, okay, so this goes to an even deeper point and again to bring up Schmitt again and his Concept of the Political. Schmitt, I think, provided a very good prediction and refutation in advance in 1932 when that book was released of what would ultimately be the Liberal international order. By saying that the doctrine of pacifism is either fundamentally non-political, in other words, no one is willing to actually fight for it, or it becomes, paradoxically and ironically, actually one of the most destructive and violent and imperial doctrines ever asserted. If you actually turn it into a political doctrine and you say:

 

“No one is allowed to make war on this planet because making war is itself immoral.”

 

What does that then necessitate? It necessitates an international order to be asserted to act. It proactively prevent war from breaking out, which requires basically global domination of the pacifists. Right?

 

Greg Johnson: I do think that you can create an international order that penalises people from committing aggressive war with their neighbours. And you could do things like the Persians did to the Greeks after they stopped trying to conquer them. I forget which Persian emperor, I think it was Auto Xerxes II, basically enforced peace on Greece by saying:

 

“If one Greek city state attacks another, I will align myself with the victim and put the Persian Empire’s resources behind them.”

 

And it did manage to pacify Greece for the better part of a generation. These things can happen!

 

Joel Davis: That’s the assertion of a powerful empire though. So if America comes into Europe and says, and offers the same deal, which I guess the British kind of were doing, that I guess you could say to a certain extent. Because it’s in their interests for Europe to remain divided as opposed to becoming dominated by one power and unified underneath their control into a more powerful state than the British Empire or America, then that obviously serves their particular national interests.

 

But maybe the European national interests or the European people’s interests are actually served better by becoming so powerful they don’t have to be subordinated or be mutually weakened to the British or to the Americans, but actually could become powerful enough to assert themselves and assert their destiny.

 

[47:24]

 

Greg Johnson: I think that that would be highly desirable and that’s certainly possible.

 

Joel Davis: That’s the National Socialist worldview, basically one of the core tenets, which is that in order for us to assert our destiny in the world, we have to become strong. We have to become so strong that basically no one can get in our way. That we can become, basically develop sufficient national strength to the point at which no one can say anything to us. And that is the ambition basically of every great world historical state is to become so powerful that no one from the outside can impose its ideas and its culture and its power structures upon you. And that often requires expansionism to actually become feasible. That requires active meddling in the affairs of foreign peoples in order to achieve that.

 

And so this idea that the world is big enough for everyone to be able to determine their own destiny, I just think is false! And history is my witness. Because being a small state subject to much bigger states is not actually self-determination. You aren’t determining your own destiny if for Example, you’re a small European state that, yeah, okay, your people get to elect their own representatives, but ultimately your entire political process and culture is being massively influenced by a foreign state that is trying to impose its will upon you, because you aren’t strong enough to be able to build up your own financial, commercial, military, etc., institutions that enable you to become genuinely self reliant and self-determining in a totalizing way. Self determination requires self assertion and requires far more comprehensive, it actually has far more comprehensive requirements than simply having a nominal state called Germany, where the German citizens elect representatives.

 

Greg Johnson: Yeah, well, this brings into play another concept of sovereignty which I think is important to distinguish, which is you have this idea of sovereign states in the world today and there are 200 of them basically. And under international law, sovereign states are equal. Now what does that mean?

 

Obviously they’re not equal in terms of population, military power or anything like that. So in what sense are they equal? They’re morally equal! Meaning that they have certain rights vis a vis one another and that these rights can be violated of course, because having rights doesn’t make you bulletproof.

 

But the point is that the idea of a sovereign state is not a material feature of a state. It’s autarky, it’s invincibility, it’s invulnerability, it’s a moral concept. It’s basically the international equivalent of moral personhood within a legal order. And if sovereignty doesn’t mean that, if sovereignty means basically invulnerability and autarky, then there is no such thing as a sovereign state. Because even the biggest and most powerful state states in the world today are less powerful than the entire rest of the world if it unites against them.

 

And so if you understand sovereignty simply in terms of autarky and invulnerability, there’s no such thing as sovereignty because nobody is autarkic and nobody’s invulnerable.

 

Joel Davis: Those are ideals to aspire towards, like to become as powerful and self reliant as possible.

 

And the more powerful and self reliant you become, the more capacity you have to self-determine. That’s what self-determination means. That you are literally in control of your own destiny, that you are acting and expressing according to standards you derive from your relation to yourself rather than your relation to others.

 

And so obviously the more powerful you are as a state, the more capacity you have to do this. And the much more difficult it is for other states, foreign states, to argue the point and to undermine you. So that’s just a concrete reality. You can argue for this abstract ideal, but in the real world that’s just a fact.

 

And so what I care about as a nationalist is the actual concrete fact of how much self-determination my people have, rather than the abstract ideal where we could say:

 

“Well, wouldn’t it be so great if everyone in the world could all agree to these abstract rules?”

 

And it’s, well, those abstract rules in practice, no one’s actually willing to fight for them unless they’re getting something out of it, generally speaking.

 

And so the current paradigm under which those rules are upheld is either defended by the Americans when it suits them, or violated by the Americans when it suits them, or defended by the Russians when it suits them, and violated by the Russians when it suits them and so on. It’s not a genuine reality. It is a sham edifice.

 

So I’d rather Pierce through that and get to the fundamental and get to the real. And this is also why it’s important to come back to, I think, Romanticism versus the Enlightenment and German philosophy itself, which in many respects is a radical accounting of particularity and in particular national particularity.

 

If you want to look at people like Herder, Fichte, there is a in romanticist German philosophy tied up within German nationalist project originally in the 19th century was:

 

“Okay, we just got ramroded by Napoleon. There’s this giant British Empire that is imposing its commercial will on the world. We need to bring all these kingdoms together into a big German state so that we can be powerful enough to protect German national particularity against these foreign influences and never be run over by a foreign military in the same way Napoleon did, ever again!”

 

[53:49]

 

And so there was a kind of a very strong movement towards recognizing all that is particular as opposed to looking for just simply what is universal rather than this ideal of well, how do we negotiate this international order according to universal principles? How do we actually find what’s particular about being German and what about our own self relation?

 

And again, the concept of national self-determination. You can see why this is actually way more relevant than what is universal about the idea of trying to universalise the concept of national self-determination into just merely a set of like universal principles that could be respected. Instead, let’s look at the actual concreteness of what is our particular national culture, what is our particular national consciousness? What does it mean? And how can it fundamentally be protected? And how can we fight for our particular, in their case, German national expression?

 

And I don’t care about the national self-determination of fucking Libyans. I don’t care about the national self-determination of fucking Syrians or Indians or all these countries that I have absolutely no care or concern for! I really don’t. I would not permit the sacrifice of one drop of the blood of our race to defend any of their nationalisms. I don’t give a shit about their nationalisms! I only care about the nationalisms of people whom I respect, people with whom I have some kind of fealty, some kind of kinship. They’re the only nationalisms that I actually care about that I find relevant.

 

And so for me, as someone who comes from a more romanticist standpoint, I empathize far more with this view that it’s from like, and particularly if you’re a German at that time, it’s like, in order for Germany to have its own culture and not be dominated by these foreign influences, we have to fall in love with ourselves and we have to build a political movement that is for us in particularity, because we’re the only ones that truly care about being German people who are not German. There’s a few Germanophiles, but generally can’t understand and don’t care about our national destiny because they don’t participate in it. So why would they? And that makes complete sense.

 

And then development of German thought. I mean, if you get to someone like Martin Heidegger, well, obviously this is actually quite this is moving into far more abstract territory.

 

But, you know, Martin Heidegger in his critique of technicity or the kind of technological worldview, technological and framing, or the kind of metaphysics of modernity, the reduction of thought, in his view, to a kind of ratiocinative calculating modes of thought fundamentally deprive us of having a kind of a relation to the homeland. For Heidegger, the homeland is something which actually is ambiguous, which is pretty rational. It’s related a lot to myth, to artistic forms, to spirituality.

 

And so, and this is very much what the German, like volkish tradition was also trying to drive at in its focus upon, you know, reviving, you know, ancient German mythologies and Wagnerian operas, you know, pertaining to pursuit of the Holy Grail, and which obviously isn’t particularly German, but it’s Germanic you could say, or it’s Northern European. It’s part of all Northwestern European culture. Trying to drive to like, what is actually the spiritual meaning of what it means to be German as opposed to just simply what is universal about all nations that Germans also possess? Actually, what is particular about individual nations is far more interesting and far more pertinent.

 

And I agree with Heidegger that basically this ratiocinative, universalistic way of thinking actually came into the world through the conduit of my people. It actually came into the world very strongly through the conduit of the Anglo English people. I actually do feel Germanophilic about this. I actually think that’s a tragedy. I think that’s a great problem. And it’s highly contributive to why we became a, not just in England, but in all of our colonial projects, we became essentially a power in the world that enabled the machinations of international finance and commercialism, and jewish ethnic interest and so on to become so monstrous through the prism of that worldview. Through a kind of loss of a spiritual sense of the homeland and our relation to all that which is pre-rational that makes up our identity as a people. And the Germans were resisting that process. The Germans had a lot more of a cultural immunisation and a high cultural immunisation against that process and a rejection of that process.

 

And so I think the Germans were the correct spiritual leaders of Europe. I think we were the incorrect spiritual leaders of Europe, which is what ended up happening Now. Europe has been remade in the image of our culture which is built, which is these notions of universal rights and so on are derived from. And it’s causing the suicide of our race!

 

And it’s also a worldview. And Heidegger makes the point that in the black notebooks that the jewish people, because they lack a homeland, their fundamental orientation towards the world is calculative, is ratiocinative.

 

And so a worldview they can inhabit, a metaphysic that they can inhabit, which is reductive in that sense, is exemplary to the accumulation of their power.

 

Whereas a worldview which tries to reach back into the pre-rational essence of the homeland into the earth from which our particular national world in the Heideggerian language, out of which it arises, but which is kind of mysterious and ambiguous, and not reducible to any kind of like, conceptual schema, that actually is the form of spiritual immunisation and the form of spiritual resistance, of the assertion of our national cultures against this kind of jewish homelessness.

 

[1:00:10]

 

 

Greg Johnson: Yeah, there’s a lot to that. German romanticism, new German philosophy in general is very, especially the anti-Enlightenment strain of it, is very critical of globalisation, basically. And I think that that’s entirely correct.

 

I do think that the British mind, the tendency of Anglos is to mistake their full consciousness for the universal. And that’s very bad! Anglo-Americans, they really mistake their folkish ways as universal, and they think of themselves as avatars of the universal.

 

And that means that they basically promote the destruction of their own people and every other people, because they just don’t think that there’s any meaningful difference. I know that Swedish liberals are like this too. I was speaking to the Swedish woman who’s saying:

 

“Yes, you know, Swedes in their hearts, the Swedish Leftists believe that everybody wants to be just like them.”

 

They can’t fathom that there would be anybody who would want a radically different way of life and that therefore admitting such people into their societies could threaten it. There is something very peculiar about that.

 

But let’s just say that we affirm folkishness and say, yes, there are many different peoples. They have many different worldviews, different ways of life. And again, the best way to cultivate that is to separate them. Because we notice historically that when they’re competing for territory or government favours or whatever, the more diverse the society is, the more unnecessary conflicts that we support self-determination. You still get this question, okay, well, how is that kind of world going to be governed? You can be a complete realist about enmity, like Schmitt, you can say we will never have a world where there’s no difference between the insiders and the outsiders.

 

But you can still ask, okay, given that we accept that this is the world that we live in, what are the best ways of establishing amicable relations across a globe like that? If you affirm nationalism, if you understand that it’s in a way inevitable and you try and deal with the problems that people who are broad thinking face, which is how are we going to live together on this finite planet? You’ve got to come up with some kind of geopolitical vision of how these different groups are going to get along.

 

Joel Davis: So why is “getting along” just simply conceding to the other, like a really effective strategy in getting along with somebody is becoming far more powerful than them. So they fear you and are forced to submit to you. That’s actually a really effective strategy at people being very friendly to you is when they fear you. When they don’t fear you, it’s actually a lot harder to get their friendship.

 

So this idea that we need to have this universal nationalist ideology in order to get along doesn’t make any sense to me! What makes a lot more sense to me is how about we just become really fucking powerful and then we can negotiate from a position of strength rather than weakness in how we’re going to relate to surrounding groups.

 

Greg Johnson: And this is the situation that Whites are in today, and this is the situation that nationalists are in today. I get the image of George Floyd under the knee of a cop, under the knee of a globalist cop. And there are two ways that you can get out from under the knee of this globalist system, and only one of them really works. And that would be to appeal to whatever elements of fairness and decency there are in the guy who’s got his knee on your neck. Now that doesn’t mean that you can persuade everybody in the world, but there are many, many interlocking powers that are screwing us right now and driving us to extinction. And some of them definitely can be appealed to on moral grounds.

 

But the one thing that I know is never going to work is if George Floyd, you know, under the knee is saying:

 

“I’m going to kill you know, let me up and I’m going to kill you!”

 

And that I think is basically the position that you’re articulating. Because we’re in a situation now where we’re going to have to, because we have no power now. We’re the weak, and, …

 

Joel Davis: I fundamentally disagree that Whites collectively lack the ability to assert ourselves on the basis of our own strength. We do have that ability.

 

Greg Johnson: We do if we change our thinking about certain things, and you’re not addressing, I think, the predominant thinking patterns that stand in the way of that. And any kind of philosophy that smacks of “might is right” or something like that, I think is a non-starter for us today because we’re the weak! And if we believe that might is right, then we believe that we should be believing that our enemies are in the Right. And clearly we don’t believe that.

 

Joel Davis: That doesn’t follow at all! The reason Whites are in the position that we’re in is because of our own ideas and our own kind of moral proclivities. It’s not because of the assertion of any other group against us in a way that dominates us against our will. It is a willful embrace of these ideas. If Whites collectively mobilise the willpower to resist what is happening and assert ourselves on the basis of our own strength, we do have the strength to regain sovereignty over at least some territory, if not pretty much all of the like, our historical territories across the West. We are by far collectively the most powerful, richest, most effective fighting groups in our respective nations. Like no other group, even all of them combined would lose to us if we were organised and assertive on our own terms.

 

[1:07:22]

 

Greg Johnson: What’s stopping us?

 

Joel Davis: Yeah, so what’s stopping us? What’s stopping us is moral cuckoldry essentially. What’s stopping us is this universalistic world view that we’re debating. I mean, what’s stopping us is this necessity to process our self assertion through some kind of like universal humanitarian, abstract set of principles of rights. And that is fundamentally a bullshit edifice. It’s not, …

 

Greg Johnson: I don’t think it’s a bullshit edifice.

 

Joel Davis: And it’s derived in a fundamentally flawed worldview from my standpoint, metaphysically and logically.

 

Greg Johnson: Okay, what is that flawed worldview? Just briefly, where does it come from? What are some of the thinkers that articulate this?

 

Joel Davis: First of all, I mean, we’ve been discussing the kind of the concrete ridiculousness of a kind of universal nationalism that it doesn’t actually in practice realise the principle of self-determination, which is the core principle with which it seeks to realise. And so therefore it’s in contradiction with its own principle. So logically it’s just a non-starter.

 

Secondarily from a metaphysical standpoint, I agree with a Heideggerian premise that this attempt at reducing the moral to a kind of universal rationality rather than asserting one’s particularity is again I think fundamentally incongruent with the human condition as such.

 

Greg Johnson: Right, okay. Okay. Yeah, well, let’s start out with that. Okay. I look at Hobbes and I think Hobbes provides us with a path by which you start out with something like a self assertive group, or a self assertive individual with no rules. Right.

 

What did Trayvon Martin call himself? He called himself a “No Limit Nigger”. I think that was the term. Well, imagine a world of “No Limit Niggers” basically all asserting themselves against one another. That’s the world that you’re picturing. That’s the world that realists in foreign policy picture. It’s the state of nature in Hobbes’s terms. And Hobbes make a very good argument that actually if you’re rational, you will want to get out of that state of nature as quickly as you possibly can and establish certain boundaries, of limits. You want to have limits! You want to have limits because in the end it’s in all of your interests. And he actually makes a fantastically cynical argument for equality. As one of my Professors as an undergraduate put it, he said:

 

“Hobbes argument for equality is this. You might be big and tough, but you’ve got to sleep sometime. And when you do, a bunch of skinny guys can get together and shank you. And that’s the end of you. That’s the end of the high and mighty.”

 

And you could do that in individual terms. Think of the prison house, right? The bully in the prison. Or you can think of it in global terms, in terms of countries.

 

And again, there’s no country that’s so big that the rest of the world couldn’t get together and shank it. You’ve got to sleep sometime, right?

 

And that means that, …

 

Joel Davis: Well, I disagree, actually. I mean, Russia and the United States have nuclear arsenals that could completely wipe humanity off the face of the planet. They are in a certain sense impossible to shank!

 

Greg Johnson: Well, if people really want to go to the limit, they can be shanked.

 

But the point is that, and there is this odd little thing that’s happened that’s very disturbing to my view because I love to say, wait a second here. Nuclear arsenal, it’s the ultimate, it’s the ultimate ace in the hole. We’ve recently had a nuclear power invaded by a non-nuclear power. You know, it’s the whole Kursk thing in the Russia-Ukraine war, which is kind of extraordinary because I was really hoping that the you could basically hide behind those nuclear arsenals.

 

But the point is that, …

 

Joel Davis: That’s a bad example because it didn’t, wouldn’t existentially threaten the Russian state. I mean, they weren’t “shanked”! It was a minor border incursion. It wasn’t going to escalate to like dropping nukes.

 

Greg Johnson: Well, but here’s the thing that they, …

 

Joel Davis: They have designs over integrating into their own federation. And they want to win the public opinion of at least the people who live in the territory they’re annexing.

 

Greg Johnson: Yeah, well, but you know, the point is that if you, … Hobbes makes an argument that if you have a world in the state of nature, you will all rationally, both the very strong and the very weak want to move to a conflict resolution, conflict containment model that involves things like rights.

 

Now, of course, the problem with Hobbes’s view is that it implies the necessity of a sovereign. How do you deal with a world, and by sovereign that’s a decider. And how do you deal with that in a world where states are to one another, as Hobbes would recognised, as individuals are to the state of to one another in the state of nature. There’s no overarching power, so what do you have to do?

 

Well, they’ve been trying that for hundreds and hundreds of years, since really the conclusion of the Thirty Years War, to create international law and international institutions to deal with conflict resolution.

 

And there are two models of globalism. The terrifying, horrible model of globalism, in my view, is the commercial model where everything is interlaced on the levels of the economy of desire and everything becomes commodified and everything slowly becomes homogenised because why wouldn’t you listen to Taylor Swift all over the world if you could, right? That kind of bullshit! That’s a terrifying model of globalisation because it destroys culture and peoples.

 

But there’s another vision of globalisation that I think that we have to try and figure out how to make it work, and that is the “conflict resolution” model. How can we have a world independent states, and yet make sure that these independent states don’t spin out of control and create global thermonuclear wars and things like that? That I think is a reasonable enterprise. And yes, you want to be as strong as you possibly can given that these things might not work. Go ahead.

 

[1:15:07]

 

Joel Davis: I mean, you bringing up Hobbes, I mean, is kind of crazy because the whole theory of Hobbes as you kind of just mentioned and then jutted away from, is that the only way to overcome the state of nature is for there to be a monarch that isn’t just simply formally presiding over some kind of constitutional order, but is actually concretely so powerful as such that it can dominate the entire social sphere and is powerful enough to deprive us universally of all of our rights, but then in the pursuit of peace, grant us a limited series of rights. That’s the basic premise. And that what we inherit from submitting and empowering the monarch to become so powerful as to be essentially impossible to resist is that we then inherit a set of limited rights.

 

Well, in the international system, what that would mean would mean that there would have to be one country that is so powerful that it can utterly dominate the entire earth. Now if that country is dominating the entire earth and it has an ideology that is genociding my race, well, that’s fundamentally unacceptable! Now if it’s a country that is dominating the entire earth and it’s like Nazi Germany, maybe I don’t mind so much.

 

So the question is who is going to be sovereign insofar as that cannot exist, you can only really have limited pockets of negotiated relationships. So if within Europe you have one all powerful state that’s just so much more powerful than all the other states combined with, they create a regional order, but you know, that couldn’t then be universalised. You know, they don’t have the power to dominate maybe the entire planet, but they can dominate a region. Right. Like in North America, America kind of functions like that. Like it’s basically almost impossible to argue with the American government from the perspective of, and they can just flagrantly just go and you know, just, the CIA can just like go into Mexico and just start like taking over, engaging in massive covert operations. And the Mexican government barely says anything because they don’t really have sovereignty because their neighbour is just so powerful that they barely have a very limited amount of sovereignty.

 

So there’s obviously the point that I’m making is that appealing to this notion is itself the refutation of this idea of that we can sit down and just have a rational discussion about the morality of national sovereignty and create an international order around that. No! The Hobbesian argument is that we can’t sit down and have a rational discussion about our mutual rights, that the human condition doesn’t allow for that. All we can do is create a centre of power so powerful that it can impose only a limited series of rights and it basically itself be elevated outside of that same order and have the ability to violate it, have the ability and become so powerful you can’t do anything about its violations.

 

Greg Johnson: Yeah, well, I understand that, but Hobbes understood that right on the global level there is going to be no sovereign. And there were other thinkers who came later, really who tried to figure out, okay, how could we have, how could we model relations between sovereign European states in such a way that they can relate to one another without, …

 

Greg Johnson: That obviously failed, didn’t it?

 

Joel Davis: Well, yes and no. There is this notion of collegiality as a model of relationships. What is that? Well, collegiality means that they’re independent actors with common goals and interests, but no overall hierarchy that controls them. And the idea of the comity of nations in international law, it is basically a collegial model for sovereign states to come together and work out their problems. It’s remarkable, though, how many sovereign states have existed for very long times with no power at all! Some of the oldest sovereign entities in Europe are the tiniest and most powerless, like Monaco or Lichtenstein or San Marino. How is that possible? Well, it’s possible because, …

 

Greg Johnson: They pose no threat!

 

Joel Davis: Well, it be you could say that. Or they have friendly relations with their neighbours.

 

Joel Davis: Yeah, but they pose no threat and obviously don’t have the ability to assert themselves. And so therefore it’s unnecessary to develop enmity with them. Whereas the more powerful you get, the more enemies you’re going to accrue, because the more fearsome you become.

 

And also, I’m not saying that nations can’t be friends or recognise mutual interests. Obviously they can. And from my perspective, the nations of Europe should find common cause at this time in history, because we now are in a very different world than we were in 100 or 200 years ago, when the European powers were so far ahead of the rest of the world technologically that their mutual enmity really was the decisive factor of who controlled global destiny.

 

Whereas now the rest of the world has caught up and our race needs to come together to safeguard the future of our civilisation and culture, which is very largely shared. There is a very substantial aspect of the culture of every individual European nation is the collective European culture. In fact, I would say overwhelmingly so.

 

And so in order to safeguard our civilisation, we need to find common cause and put aside old differences which in previous bygone historical contexts were more relevant, actually.

 

And that’s why there were so many wars in Europe and why now there isn’t really the same appetite for war in Europe, but there still is a current war in Europe. Why is that? Because there’s still a clash between two, basically two fundamental power structures over the determination of Russia’s sphere of influence, NATO’s sphere of influence.

 

[1:21:40]

 

 

And so, in a sense, what that demonstrates is that the only reason why you’ve had relative peace in Europe for so long is because of the domination of really big and powerful superpowers that have nukes pointed at each other and Europe’s subordination essentially to the American led international order. So that isn’t Europe creating this ideal of rational discussion where the Polish are coming and sitting down with the Czechs and sitting down with the French and working out their individual differences. It’s the fact that they’re all subject to much larger powers and so they’re not actually able to assert themselves and have genuine [chuckling] differences under these conditions.

 

Greg Johnson: Let me ask you, do you think that Europe will ever become a formidable separate independent block without one European country dominating the rest of the continent?

 

Joel Davis: Well, the reality is that when Europe, so let’s say America keeps going down this path of moving towards a realist foreign policy away from liberal internationalism which I really hope occurs. I really hope that this isn’t a temporary aberration, and I think it’s necessary because the rise of China is necessitating it. And the Americans get out of Europe largely, and Europe finds some self assertion in coming decades as a result of that and further European integration is pursued. And obviously they’re dealing with Russians to the east. And so they need to be strong and powerful to resist Russian advances.

 

And they also need to be able to provide their people with a political formula that can resist Russian subversion which hopefully moves them towards the assertion of Europe’s particularity, that moves them towards the assertion of their actual ethnic and racial identity. And we get policies like re-migration and the borders get shut. That would be beautiful if that happens. That’d be my ideal.

 

If we get into that kind of world and Europe starts to trying to re-inspire patriotism and develop a kind of a national patriot movements in various European nations that align themselves and build up independent military strength, economic strength and so on. When that Europe sits down and meets, right, the leaders of Europe to whatever this future European Union or if it has a different name, whatever, whoever is the leader of Germany, whoever is the leader of France, what they say and what they want is going to matter a hell of a lot more than whoever the leader of Croatia is or whoever the leader of Lithuania is. Right? And that’s just the reality. Now that doesn’t mean that we hate Lithuanians and we hate Croatians.

 

But at the end of the day the power of Europe is more fundamentally concentrated in those bigger, more consequential States, then there’s more minor states. And so therefore, you know, Europe will come under German and French leadership. It will. And we’ll have to go in that direction.

 

Greg Johnson: Will Germany and France fight it out?

 

Joel Davis: Well, I mean they probably will have antagonism, but you know, if they have a mutual animus of greater enemies around the world, that gives them a strong incentive to work out their differences and form a strong alliance. Right?

 

Greg Johnson: Yeah. I mean, it’s possible to come up with a simulacrum of human behaviour that’s entirely based on selfishness as a motivation. And liberals love to do that. Right. And foreign policy realists love to do that’s sort of what you’re doing now.

 

Joel Davis: It’s not based on selfishness though. It’s securing your national community and its future, that is not selfishness. That’s service to your people!

 

Greg Johnson: Well, but you’re talking about selfishness in terms of vis a vis other countries. And I, …

 

Joel Davis: Yeah. Okay. So obviously Germans care more about Germans than they care about Greek people. But there could still be a wider European fidelity as well. It’s not an either or.

 

Greg Johnson: Yeah.

 

Joel Davis: They can also care about Europe at large.

 

Greg Johnson: Yeah.

 

Joel Davis: Like if you’re really awake, you would realise that the particular national destiny of any one European nation is actually intimately tied to the collective destiny of the European people. And so you have to safeguard that to safeguard your own national interests as well.

 

So you can have concentric circles of identity. It doesn’t have to be one absolute identity to the exclusion of all others. There can be multiple layers of identity at play. Just like you’re a member of a family, you’re a member of member local community, you’re a member of a nation, you’re a member of a race. Like all of these things are important and have to be balanced.

 

The point of reducing it to selfishness, I mean, it’s just that only makes sense in your abstract theoretical model. It doesn’t actually make sense in the concrete humanity of what we’re discussing. Patriotism is not selfish. Patriotism is a love of the other, of the direct other of your blood!

 

Greg Johnson: Yeah. I do think it’s possible for there to be non-selfish relationships of amity and mutual respect between different peoples. And they’re.

 

Joel Davis: Yeah, of course that’s possible, but it’s still like, for example, Australia now has an alliance with the Japanese.

 

Greg Johnson: Yeah.

 

[1:27:09]

 

Joel Davis: Now there was one point in which we were massacring each other, in the Second World War and they were a great threat to us.

 

But now Australia and Japan, because of the strategic circumstances surrounding the rapid rise of Chinese military and economic power, well now we have common cause and we have very strong military agreements. Both of our militaries have permission to operate in each other’s sovereign territories, which is agreement that I think both countries only have with the United States and maybe we have similar agreements maybe with the British actually as well. But it’s a pretty like rare agreement for either country to have with another country.

 

So we have very close military relationship now. And I admire Japanese culture. I think Japanese culture has a lot of very compelling things both historically and contemporarily and I think the Japanese people are very respectable people and I’m happy to be allied, and I think it’s a good thing for both countries for us to have an alliance.

 

But at the end of the day, if circumstances were different like in the Second World War where Japanese interests and Australian interests are diametrically opposed, then I am totally fine with killing Japanese people. Right. Because that’s actually what’s good for Australians. Those two things can both be true.

 

So it isn’t about that I respect their universal right to self-determination. I don’t! I don’t give a shit about this universal concept of self-determination! I care about the particularity of how is my region going to be organised and how can I secure a future for my people. If that means respecting the Japanese nation as our ally, then I respect the Japanese nation as our ally. I would also like it if the Chinese state was divided into like 10 states, because that would be fantastic for Australia because then it would completely weaken them and they could all be turned against each other and massacre each other. That would be in my interest as well.

 

So I don’t give a shit about the Chinese right to national self-determination because that right actually is very scary, if it’s practiced! And that’s, I think that’s a totally reasonable worldview. I care about my people more than I care about Chinese people or I care about Japanese people. So it’s all relative.

 

Greg Johnson: Well, I think that’s completely reasonable because there is this, but that’s a universal fact as well, namely that people have a love of their own and given that you have the greatest interest in your own people, it makes sense for you to take care of your own people first. But you also recognise that that’s true of everybody else on the planet. And again, you can posit an international order that respects that fact, …

 

Joel Davis: And I don’t support Aboriginal self-determination. There are people! Because that directly conflicts with my, the sovereignty of my people over this continent.

 

So I don’t actually respect the universal right to self-determination! That’s the thing. I will respect particular claims to self-determination where it makes sense, but I do not support an abstract universal. The abstract universal doesn’t actually exist! It isn’t based on anything. You’re proposing that we negotiate one into existence on the basis of our shared individual national interests. And I’m providing all these counter examples where, well, the universal often isn’t in my individual national interest.

 

Greg Johnson: We can raise the question like this. You can say, okay, let’s say that, let’s use this example. Let’s talk about property rights within Australia. You have private property rights. Now you could go through life negotiating and calculating all the whole time and saying:

 

“Well, you know, is respecting this person’s property rights in my interests in this particular moment?”

 

And oftentimes it might not be, but you might still recognise that as a general rule, having a system of private property in place benefits you as much as it benefits other people. And therefore you want to, you’re not going to go through life thinking:

 

“Can I steal this pen and get away with it?”

 

You sort of get beyond that because you recognise that you’ve got a general interest in civilised rules like respecting other people’s property. And you can go on to you broaden that out. Any kind of general civilised rules. You might be able to benefit yourself by violating these rules in particular circumstances. But in a broader sense you probably benefit from just having these rules.

 

Joel Davis: As a nationalist, I support seizing the property of foreign nationals. I support seizing the property of racial aliens. I support a taxation system that seizes a significant portion of everyone’s property in order to make arrangements for national defense. And the national interest in various other ways. And so I don’t actually respect the universal right to property. I respect the limited right to property.

 

Greg Johnson: It’s an analogy. Okay, I’m not saying, …

 

Joel Davis: That’s the same as what I’m saying on the international basis. I respect in a limited sense, the national self-determination of various other peoples, but I do not support it in an absolute sense.

 

Greg Johnson: Would you be safer in a world where people treated it as an absolute or treated it as something that they renegotiated in every particular circumstance.

 

Joel Davis: We’re never going to live in a world where people treat it as an absolute because it’s fundamentally incongruent with the human condition and with the political as such! The political is fundamentally a question of:

 

“What are you willing to fight for. On what basis can the state legitimate war? On what basis can the state legitimate putting people in prison? On what basis can the state legitimate organise men with guns, pointing them in people’s faces and potentially shooting?”

 

That’s what politics is about.

 

And so there is not going to be a world in which we all put down our guns and sit down and rationally negotiate some peaceful set of agreements. Now with our guns pointed in mutual directions, we can sit down and negotiate alliances or negotiate agreements to prevent us from engaging in mutually destructive conflicts. So we can have a limited negotiation, but we’re never going to have an absolute negotiation. So it’s not only like frivolous question that has no basis in historical or human reality!

 

[1:33:57]

 

Greg Johnson: I don’t think it’s baseless, because the world has been working in one way or another for hundreds of years to create institutions that allow different states to come together and mediate conflicts and avoid conflicts.

 

Joel Davis: But that is the world underneath the domination of the United States of America. This idea of liberal nationalism has only actually been successfully implanted, implemented underneath American global power where the American led international order has been organised around these institutions. But without the American guarantee of power, sovereignty, etc, what the American Navy guaranteeing global trade, American participation in all these international institutions, they would crumble! They would no longer function! And insofar as states have become powerful enough to challenge the American led international order, they challenge these institutions and they’re, and at the same time America itself has destroyed the legitimacy of these institutions by also violating its dictates where it saw fit, for example, in the invasion of Iran.

 

Greg Johnson: Absolutely! Absolutely!

 

Joel Davis: So these institutions are fundamentally, as I said, I use the phrase “bullshit edifice”! It’s a very reasonable assessment. It’s a very reasonable assessment because what it actually is a form of American imperialism. And that’s all it is, basically.

 

But then with a very amicable negotiation, it’s a very good propaganda. It’s a very good way of bringing your junior partners in the empire in and giving them representation and giving them a voice and so on, which is a prudent way to run an empire. But what it isn’t, is what you’re describing it isn’t actually a respect for the abstract universal of self-determination because that same American empire has been utterly destroying in concrete terms our capacity as Western states to have self-determination by literally genociding our race and creating state sponsored programs to destroy our national self consciousness!

 

So according to the abstract universal, well we’re all in all these international organisations that respect Australian sovereignty or French sovereignty or German sovereignty or Italian sovereignty or whatever. But in concrete terms there’s a series of international institutions and organisations and the perpetuation of an international order that destroys the capacity of our nations to have a genuine seat at the table because we can’t even be self conscious. We can’t even assert our national interest within our own political process!

 

So we have a bunch of traitors that will go and sit at these international meetings and represent us. Well, isn’t that fucking fantastic? I feel:

 

“Oh my national self-determination is so respected when they send some communist traitor like Anthony Albanese to go sit at the UN and go and sit down with the Indian Prime Minister and negotiate how they’re going to bring more Indian immigrants into Australia so I can be genocided more quickly!”

 

That’s fantastic!

 

Greg Johnson: Well I was, last year I gave a talk at the Institute for Historical Review in Southern California and I gave this analogy that I’ve used for years about how institutions fail, how diversity hollows out institutions. And I talked about the fire department. It was just an arbitrary thing. I said imagine the fire department decides to go woke and diversify and you know, it’s all fine, it’s all well and good if you lower standards and you spend more time worrying about the gender and racial mix of the people on the department, so forth. It’s great, it’s great for parades, it’s great for propaganda videos. But what if there’s an actual fire?

 

And then as if on cue, [chuckling] right? As if God wanted to prove my point, Los Angeles bur burned down! And we found that part of the reasons why the fire department was so ineffectual was it was being run by a lesbian and it was full of lesbians and they were all doing TikTok videos showing off their diversity, but they weren’t paying attention to what was necessary to actually put out fires. And you can just say that this is an institution that’s been rotted out by a crazed idea. Right?

 

And this is the way I think we have to understand what’s happened with NATO and the EU, and things like that. The purpose of the fire department is to fight fires and the purpose of NATO is to defend its member states. And the purpose of the EU is to pursue conflict resolution and greater prosperity and mutual understanding and respect in Europe, blah, blah, blah. And these institutions unfortunately have been become infected with these insane ideas, this insane woke ideology.

 

But we have to understand that there’s a distinction between the institutions and its purposes and the bizarre destructive goals that they have been wrenched around to by these ideologues.

 

Joel Davis: They’re not just “bizarre”, Greg. They’re not just like this random appendage of ideas that spontaneously emerged within these institutions and just made them retarded! What these ideas are in concrete and historical terms is a social engineering project to actively destroy the national identities of the constituent states that make up this liberal international order. Because of the recognition that nationalism is an idea which contradicts this liberal international order and its fundamental premises itself, embodied in National Socialist Germany. So, but if you understand it historically and dialectically, then that is the case.

 

Like if you look at the motivations of these “woke” academics, so to speak, if you look at the motivations that they explicitly state themselves, particularly in that 1950s, 1960s period where these ideas are being formulated and they’re being actively supported and so on, their concrete motivation is directed specifically at the Third Reich and its conditions. And there was a mutation in Left-wing ideology around the recognition that:

 

“Well, when the White working class is empowered, they didn’t actually support socialism, they supported fascism and National Socialism. And so the Left needs to be reconstituted around a different set of clients as opposed to the working class.”

 

[1:40:47]

 

 

Greg Johnson: Absolutely, yeah.

 

Joel Davis: And so all of, all of these things are fundamentally relevant. And so the rehabilitation of the nationalist idea as something which can stand necessarily has to stand against the Liberal international order. The rehabilitation of a nation which asserts itself in its particularity that doesn’t need to justify itself within these, the shackles of these moral universalisms that you’re so partial to is fundamentally tied to the historical experience of the National Socialist regime insofar as it existed.

 

Now that doesn’t mean that every single illiberal nationalist is exactly the same as a National Socialist. But what it does mean is that nationalism has been fundamentally cucked and morally outmoded from our political process. It can’t represent itself correctly, it can’t assert itself, and in fact is being actively attacked pre-emptively and purposefully to make it harder and harder and harder for any for a nationalist movement to ever exist, that it has any concrete chances of success in any of our respective democracies. In order to preserve this liberal international order where no nation starts thinking about its own interests too hard and starts asserting them too directly and brings down this whole bullshit edifice as I called it, and starts challenging the American led liberal international order.

 

So this is all interconnected! It’s not just like oh, we had this great idea of liberal internationalism back in the 19th century and it went all wrong with wokeness. We could just get back to it. It’s completely non-dialectical, it’s completely ahistorical to think like that!

 

And it’s also just patently ridiculous when you think about how discourse actually works in the contemporary situation. That’s why it works the way that it does. That’s why whenever you start advocating for anything that sounds like White nationalism or ethno-nationalism in any White country, particularly in Western Europe or the English speaking world, immediately you start getting called the Nazi and all of these discussions around National Socialism start popping back up because it is all fundamentally tied. But there still needs to be a level of rehabilitation where we say:

 

“Okay, but the Germans asserting their national interest wasn’t some unique historical evil.”

 

In fact it actually makes sense why they would react against liberalism, why they would react against Marxism, why they would react against jewish subversion in the way that they did, why they would find a necessity to take on the Soviet Union and the Anglo-American world order to try and assert a different idea for Europe and a different political order for Europe. All of this actually makes sense! And is actually things that we can sympathize with and you should sympathize with, particularly in retrospect after seeing what has happened after their defeat, if you actually care about the European race and its destiny.

 

Greg Johnson: My position still boils down to this. I think that National Socialism was the wrong kind of nationalism! It was the bad kind of nationalism in the sense that it was imperialistic, that it was aggrandizing itself at the expense of other primarily White European nations.

 

And basically I think that what nationalists need to do, and I’m going to put this in an intentionally provocative way, is that we need to solemnly swear that we’re not going to do that kind of shit again!

 

Joel Davis: I diametrically oppose you. I think it was the good kind of nationalism precisely because it didn’t cuck itself to these universalist moral limits that you want to impose upon nationalism, and actually took on a form that was actually capable of asserting itself in a totalizing way against the enemies of nationalism, which were foreign and domestic. And that in order for us to free ourselves as a race of all of these forces, whether it be the Leftists, whether it be jews, whether it be what have you, structures of international finance, capitalist elites that are diametrically opposed to nationalist goals, all the rest of it. We need to take on a similarly uncompromising ideological project that seeks to seize state power and then use state power to utterly destroy and eradicate them from our lands and push them back. Create an international order in which they fear us too much to attack us.

 

That is ultimately the only way in which we can genuinely have self-determination as a race is to become powerful enough to do that, to actually defeat our enemies! And actually be sovereign over our own territories. And that’s what those are the principles in National Socialism, not necessarily the, … Now German Chauvinism I, from the perspective of culture, I do think the Germans had the greatest culture of any nation in Europe. They are the cultural and spiritual Guardians of the European race, particularly in the modern world. You could make historical arguments as well, but particularly in the modern world because okay, you want to cry about Poland. Where’s Poland’s Beethoven? Where’s Poland’s Wagner? Where’s Poland’s Hegel? Where’s Poland’s Nietzsche? Where’s Poland’s Heidegger? Where’s, … The list goes on. The Germans and their contribution is exceptional without equal in the modern world.

 

[1:46:16]

 

And also it is antagonistic directly to the ideas of which have destroyed Europe. The Germans were the great power in Europe that actively, on a cultural and political basis provided the most resistance to the development of this hellscape that is what has become of modernity.

 

So the Germans should be Chauvinistic to a very large extent. They should see themselves as superior because they actually are on a cultural basis. But I don’t necessarily mean that doesn’t necessarily mean they should be genociding the other European peoples. It doesn’t mean though that the other European people should be looking to German culture for leadership as opposed to looking to Anglo-American culture for leadership, which has been a total disaster! Which is what has actually happened due to our imposition. And what that means is jewish cultural subversion and leadership to a very large extent because we’re infected with this.

 

So that’s what has actually become of Europe’s destiny, which has been a total disaster! So I think Germanophilia is actually necessary for the White race because the Germans did provide, in their political thought, in their philosophical thought, in the development of their particular nationalist movement, the most spiritually powerful refutation of all of these forces. And then they then created, in a political form, the most politically powerful opposition to all of these forces.

 

And so, of course we should take inspiration from it. Of course we should defend it. Absolutely!

 

Greg Johnson: And yet they were defeated by liberal internationalism. Is there any lesson in there?

 

Joel Davis: Yeah, they were defeated by an ideology that is genociding our race. So you could say:

 

“Hey, this ideology that is genociding our race won against an ideology that was trying to defend our race. So maybe we should side with the ideology that genocides our race!”

 

No! That’s not the lesson to be taken away.

 

Greg Johnson: Okay, well, I mean, we’ve almost run out of time, so I don’t want to go, … I’m envisioning a huge digression here, which I don’t want to get into. Because I don’t want to digress from history, from philosophy into history again, because I do think that that’s the for me, I wouldn’t say that I wasted my time reading David Irving, but it was a digression from philosophy into history. And to the extent that I learnt anything from it, my feeling is that the rest of the world has a justified suspicion of people who say:

 

“I want nationalism, like Germany between the wars.”

 

Joel Davis: I have a justified suspicion that of anyone who claims to be for our race, but proposes that we frame our nationalism within the ideological and philosophical framework that is precisely antagonistic to nationalism, which is what liberal variants of nationalism are.

 

Greg Johnson: I just don’t think that they are necessarily antagonistic to nationalism properly understood. I think it’s possible for there to be distinct nations that are proud of their identities and wish to pursue their own destinies and that do so without being bad global citizens. And that’s the fear that is constantly being evoked whenever nationalism comes up.

 

And of course, in part, it’s being evoked in bad faith, but it finds purchase in people because they think:

 

“Well, yes, maybe there’s a better way of doing this.”

 

And this is why I do think that I think we should try and get beyond interwar and let’s just not even say National Socialism, but interwar nationalisms, because I think we need a new Right. And that we need to understand that it’s possible to advocate for a plurality of different nations.

 

Joel Davis: We can’t have a totally free discussion about what form that can take in the contemporary world unless National Socialism is at the very least rehabilitated enough to be relativised and for its ideas to be seen as a series of options on the table that should be considered and debated, as opposed to it being like before we even discuss. Start the discussion the premise is that it’s immediately beyond the pale.

 

Greg Johnson: Well, I would agree with that.

 

But I do think that if we had that discussion, and maybe we’ll continue this discussion, because I’d like to bring you around to my thinking, which is to basically say:

 

“We need to step over this.”

 

We need to relativise it. We need to understand it in its context. We can even appreciate it as long as it remains dead. But that we have to create something new for the world situation that we’re in today. And it’s not just because of National Socialism, but they always bring it up.

 

But you know, even if none of the unpleasantness of World War II had happened. Let’s say there was only one World War, you would still have globalists with their pious lectures about the evils of nationalism that led to the First World War. I think it’s bunk, but we have to respond to them.

 

Joel Davis: But the moral weight of these pious lectures is only something that has been able to be asserted through military victory. If the Germans were successful in a military sense in the Second World War, and they were obviously successful at convincing Germans and convincing also substantial portion of other European nations to side with their metaphysical war is what I would describe the Second World War as fundamentally, of the particular against the universal. They did win the argument with a lot of people in the European continent. It wasn’t like they didn’t have a compelling position that was just refuted because it was inherently objectionable. They did have a compelling point of view. They did have an inspirational point of view. Incredibly inspirational point of view. What political leader had a more inspirational point of view than Adolf Hitler? None! He’s the most inspirational politician ever! Right.

 

So they had a very compelling idea. And the reason why that idea is now marginalised is not because it wasn’t compelling. It’s not because it doesn’t carry weight. It’s been marginalised through a totalizing suppression by the State, through mass indoctrination imposed through a military victory of a hostile foreign power, multiple hostile foreign powers. Powers which are fundamentally rooted in evil ideas that we wholeheartedly must refute in defense of our race and in defense of nationalism as an idea! So that you’re not really contending with properly. You know, you’re not really actually acknowledging that reality, which is, I think, impossible to avoid.

 

[1:53:28]

 

Greg Johnson: I’m not sure of your point, because I don’t think it’s true. I think the main stigmatisation of nationalism is based on war! It’s based on unnecessary suffering caused by one nation basically trying to, …

 

Joel Davis: You can describe the Second World War in just as plausible way because you can’t tell me that the Allied narrative on World War II is 100% historically accurate. In fact, they make it illegal in a lot of Europe to even debate the Second World War openly.

 

Joel Davis: Yeah.

 

Greg Johnson: So one side of the argument is entirely suppressed, even in countries like ours. Well, I mean you don’t live in America anymore, but in countries like ours, like in the English speaking world, it is still legal to debate the Holocaust in theory, but in practice, any actual historian who tries to do it they’re not going to be able to work at a university. They’re not even going to be able to get their books published by any kind of mainstream publisher. They’re totally marginalised from mainstream discourse.

 

So that’s not a reasonable:

 

“We’ve sat down and we’ve had a reasonable and rational accounting of the Second World War and of early 20th century European ideologies. And we’ve come together as a society in a spirit of rational discussion and free thinking. And we’ve come to this conclusion.”

 

That’s laughable as a premise! In an actually open discourse where both sides can present themselves the National Socialist sympathetic or fascist sympathetic view of the Second World War, which portrays it as a result of the encroachments of Anglo-American universalism, of the Soviet Union and so on, the revision, the so-called revisionist narrative would be compelling to a very large amount of people.

 

In fact, insofar as it is being able to be to kind of poke its head up on the Internet, it is actually showing a lot of organic popularity right now!

 

So you’re kind of presenting it as if the ideas on your side are just like so incontrovertible and they’re just so compelling and the ideas on my side are just so ridiculous and so morally objectionable that no one would ever consider them!

 

Greg Johnson: Oh no! I would never present things in that way. Not at all! You misunderstand me. What is the root of liberalism? Ultimately, the root of liberalism as an ideology is dealing with the Thirty Years War, and other religious wars in Europe after the Reformation. That’s what drives it! There’s an essay by Judas Schlar called The Liberalism of Fear.

 

And I think liberalism in many ways is driven by fear, fear of insane violence! And I think the Liberal international order is driven by fear of insane violence. Like the First World War, like the Second World War, and the fear of nationalism. Nationalism is scapegoated.

 

And of course, it wasn’t just nationalism that was at the root of these wars. It takes a world to have a World War. And not all the parties were fighting for national self-determination. Obviously Stalin wasn’t doing that. But that aside, people want an alternative to a Third World War, another world at war. And the rehabilitation of interwar fascisms is going to be very difficult, there’s an uphill battle. And it’s not just the battle that’s been set in place since the Second World War. It’s an uphill battle against problems that people have been pushing back against since the Reformation.

 

Joel Davis: But also, you also have the other side of that coin, which is that. Well, yes, like often major conflicts can be quite shocking to the communities involved in them and they can retreat into a more pacifistic set of doctrines for a period of time.

 

But then there always comes a point as well in history where a particular paradigm becomes so intolerable and a different idea in opposition to it becomes so compelling that eventually you get another major conflict. And that’s part of the human condition.

 

And right now our race is being genocided! Right?

 

So this is existential. This isn’t just a battle of ideological preference or something on the basis of these values or those values. This is a fundamentally existential question. Are we going to continue to exist as a race or not? And that is in a very precarious position. And the entire establishment of the Liberal international order is basically in an agreement that. Yeah, that this is either unimportant or that they actively support it. Right. In most cases.

 

So under those conditions, an ideology that is violent or that has violent potential is actually alluring. An ideology which limits itself purely to moralizing and rational discourse and so on lacks appeal because we do not have a rational and sympathetic interlocutor with whom we’re negotiating our survival. Here we have an existential enemy. And an existential enemy can only be confronted through force, through active resistance.

 

Joel Davis: Yeah, yes and no.

 

Greg Johnson: That is why my ideaactually has incredible relevance to the contemporary situation, because I do not believe that we’re going to negotiate our survival under this order. I think we’re going to need to assert it.

 

[1:59:26]

 

Greg Johnson: I disagree with you on this because what we have is we’ve got an existential enemy that’s a rather small party, a rather small number of people spread around the world in key positions. But these people depend upon a large number of other people who are basically just goofy liberals. And these goofy liberals can be persuaded. Especially because even from their point of view, there’s something ridiculously unjust about, say, the idea that:

 

“It’s okay for China to be for the Chinese, and Africa for the Africans, but White countries are for everyone.”

 

There are things about this ideology that’s promoting and greasing the way towards White genocide. They’re just flagrantly immoral by liberal universal standards!

 

And frankly, what we have to do to beat the enemy, which is an existential enemy and is not going to be persuaded, but to beat them, we have to start reducing the number of people who are on their side! People who take their phone calls and take their money and make this shit happen! We have to reduce the number of people on their side. And the way we can do that most easily is not playing into the stereotypes of the 1930s, but by using patient arguments that appeal to moral universalism, ideas of fairness and things like that. Because there’s nothing unfair about nationalism for all people.

 

Joel Davis: What you’re now appealing to is, first of all, a quantitative rather than qualitative argument. You’re saying:

 

“Well, if we remove the moral barriers to entry for the largest number of people, this is going to ultimately be what best serves the nationalist movement.”

 

I believe in quality over quantity. I believe that what is actually necessary is to cultivate a spirit of radicalism and of sacrifice.

 

Because the reality is in politics, there is a Pareto distribution of political influence. A very small amount of people have pretty much all the influence.

 

Joel Davis: Absolutely.

 

Greg Johnson: And most people are not that politically active at all! They maybe vote once every four years, if that. And they don’t really have a very well developed political worldview. Only a very small minority of the population is politically engaged enough to even have an ideological worldview, and is engaged enough to be participating in the political process in a more direct way.

 

And those people fundamentally set the paradigm. So going for broad spectrum mass appeal with people who are largely indifferent towards politics is not going to be that successful. We already have the opinion polls, right? In basically every White country. Nationalist political policies are more popular than their alternatives on basically every metric. What actually will create political power is a committed group of radicals who are willing to devote their life, their resources, their time, their efforts to struggle for political victory. An ideology, …

 

Greg Johnson: I absolutely agree with that.

 

Joel Davis: Inspiring those people than an ideology like mine. An ideology like yours, the spirit of compromise, the spirit of kind of reducing oneself to achieve mass appeal is going to actually turn off those who seek after ideological coherence, those who seek after purity of thought, those who seek after purity of principle.

 

And also your worldview is fundamentally already conceding defeat in many respects to the enemy. It is fundamentally lacking in confidence in our own people’s innate capacity to assert our collective will.

 

Greg Johnson: I absolutely have enormous and reasonable doubts about that! Until they are given, … I mean, people. This is a very cynical thing. People are only as good or bad as they are, … You know, basically, they’re as good as they’re permitted to be, or they’re as bad as they’re permitted to be. What permits them? Well, ultimately it’s going to be their consciences.

 

But there’s another thing about the sort of political process as I understand it, that needs to be brought in here. I do think that most people are politically passive. I do think that our enemies are highly, politically, active. But they exist in tiny numbers. But around them is a group of people who are more politically engaged because they’re cogs in the machine. And it’s those people. And that would include, you know, educated people with above average social capital, people with above average incomes. These people count more. And these people are being held in bondage basically, to the woke idiots who are running our race to ruin by certain moral principles that they hold. I think that that moral consciousness has been hacked and distorted and turned against our interests and that we can, by appealing to them, change things around. And we can’t do that by enacting 30s fascist stereotypes.

 

And there’s no way of doing that!

 

Joel Davis: Let me respond to that though, because number one, what you’re basically saying is that, yes, the issue is the moral state of our people. What I believe the solution then is to create an inspirational, romantic, idealistic notion in direct opposition to those moral values. Because frankly, the vast majority of Whites do not go along with Left-wing ideology, or Leftism gone mad, whatever it is. This ideology of White self-erasure on the basis of its internal compunction and they’re like deeply committed to it, to its values. It’s simply a product of social inertia and a fear of social exclusion and other social penalties. It’s easier to just internalise and believe the prevailing worldview to basically go along to get along. There’s only a very small minority of Whites that are actually active Leftists that really, truly and deeply and viscerally believe in these principles. And they’re obviously largely motivated by themselves being very spiritually and psychologically defective to the point of a collective self hatred which I diagnose as most fundamentally being a consequence of seeing this ideology as a way to drag down their superiors within our own race.

 

[2:06:39]

 

[Remainder of Transcript in Progress]

 

[2:50:10]

END

top

 

 

 

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

 

Odysee Comments

top

(Comments as of 10/22/2025 = 107)

unHerd
6 months ago
If NS didn’t matter the Jews wouldn’t be working so hard to try and stamp it out.

21
0
HH
6 months ago(edited)
Greg Johnson : “1930’s Nationalism gives people bad global citizens concerns”. Conveniently forgets the entire globe was carved up by three liberal democracies Britain, France and the Netherlands all at the peril of a sword/gun.

18
0
Hide replies

@v0lum3
6 months ago
Hitler dindu nuffin

2
1
Show reply

@W_Poe_White
6 months ago(edited)
Britain. France and the Netherlands weren’t anything even close to a democracy when they built up their empires. Nor are they really democracies today. They are liberal plutocracies, not democracies.
Plutocracy is the problem, not democracy as such.
A constitutional ethno-democracy where only members of the ethnos can possess citizenship and vote or hold office, and, furthermore, with a national socialist economic system, would work just fine.
OTOH, a one-party dictatorship is no panacea.

Hide replies

@v0lum3
6 months ago
Democracy is retarded in any context. The Greeks figured this out 2500 years ago.

1
0
Show reply
HH
6 months ago(edited)
Those details you outline matter none. The fact is 90 percent of the modern world views
them as liberal democracies, the original ANTIFA, the antithesis to Natsoc, Fascism and Nationalism. So the statement stands, the swords and guns that actually took over the world were made in democracies and used by the soldiers of liberal democracies. But “ooooo Hitler, the mad man, wanted to rule the entire world”. Of course people who read CC will know this may not be entirely true but to the normal who thinks in terms of global citizen, the actual description of the type of governance does not matter.

1
0
Hide replies

@W_Poe_White
6 months ago
What things are and what people call them can be very different things. You can deal with the illusion if you please. I’ll stick with the reality. Plutocracies, not democracies.
The actual point: decisions for the US, UK, Netherlands and France to go to war are NOT made democratically. They are made behind closed doors by wealthy elites and the politicians who serve them.
“Democracy” is a covering screen for authoritarian rule from the shadows by unaccountable plutocratic elites and their clients in office.

Hide replies
HH
6 months ago(edited)
Again you’ve failed to understand the psyche of the masses.
1930’s to 90 percent of the public: Britain/France Netherlands = liberal democracies therefore good, and no one cares that between them they carved up the entire globe with swords and guns made in democracies.
1930’s to 90 percent of the public: Germany = Nationalist, fascist, authoritarian therefore bad, so bad global citizens.
That’s how 90 percent of the Western mind interprets that time. What you and I may understand about democracies being nothing more than an illusion does not matter. We are in a tiny minority.
Point stands, Greg Johnson overlooks that democracies have been far worse global citizens than any Nationalist one.

Hide replies

@W_Poe_White
6 months ago
You’re failing to realize that public opinion has been manipulated by the plutocrats who own all the media and control education as well. The public has been massively lied to and conditioned to believe what is useful for the plutocrats – who have been increasingly led by Jews as time has unfolded.
However, some of the support for democracy is indeed authentic and this is fine so long as this democracy would be limited to members of the ethnonation, i.e. ethnodemocracy. Jews would lose their citizenship along with all non-Whites and not be able to participate.
I am not advocating a simple one-man one-vote system, but a moderately democratic system involving voting by a subset of “active citizens” who have demonstrated serious commitment to studying public affairs. Active citizens’ votes would be weighted to count as, say, 2/3rds of all votes for President and the Senate. Alternatively, only their votes might be counted in selecting the President and Senate.
The office of the President would also be strengthened by giving Presidents 12 year terms and a Constitutional authority to issue executive orders which would have the same force as laws passed by both houses of Congress.
General elections involving all citizens might be used for selecting the US House of Representatives and for selecting state legislatures and governors. Or, alternatively, weigh active citizen votes more heavily.
Furthermore, there is an absolute need for a more egalitarian and populist economic system.
Eliminating plutocracy eliminates Jewish control of the media and education since it takes away the Jewish money power necessary for monopolizing control of media and education.
Taking away citizenship from Jews and reinstating disabilities on them in combination with ending plutocracy solves the JQ. The solution is to reverse the error of Jewish emancipation while eliminating the means by which Jews rose to power in the first place – i.e. their money power.
Less

Hide replies
HH
6 months ago(edited)
Am not going to read all that given your refusal to understand you’re in an absolute minority.
It’s very simple, the Western world sees Britain, France and the Netherlands as democracies and the NSDAP as baby murdering, oven baking, brain washed psychos. One of those groups ruled the entire world between them and the other is constantly accused of being bad because they wanted to rule the entire world but didn’t.
Democracy good regardless of the millions murdered by them.
Natsoc bad.

Hide replies

@W_Poe_White
6 months ago
You’re flogging a dead horse. Who’s defending liberal imperialism around here? In point of fact the Western nations were not, and are not, democracies. They were, and are, plutocracies with managed public opinion. The “Western world” is not a monolith with a unitary opinion set in stone forever. Western public opinion has been massively manipulated by its ruling liberal plutocracies monopolizing the mass media and education. Opinions are mutable. Especially when they are based on gross propagandistic manipulation and lies.
“Democracy good…Natsoc bad”
Aren’t you simply taking the opposite, dogmatic, equally Manichean, position “Natsoc good; democracy bad”?
1930s German National Socialism is not a panacea nor is democracy necessarily a problem. OTOH liberalism, understood as plutocratic class rule, is definitely bad and needs to end. But a constitutional ethnodemocracy with a national socialist economic system is very different from the so-called “liberal democracy” which has existed in the West.
This is what I am proposing: a CONSTITUTIONAL ETHNODEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC with NATIONAL SOCIALIST (anti-plutocratic) ECONOMIC SYSTEM.
I take the best features of both “liberal democracy” and national socialism while jettisoning their bad (or at least problematic) features. Liberalism/plutocracy is rejected from “liberal democracy” and the fuehrer principle (individual and one party dictatorship) and the spirit of militarism from German National Socialism.
What is wrong with this? Why must there be dictatorship? Why must there be a spirit of militarism? Why must we embrace romantic nationalism as Joel exhorts and believe in extravagant conceits of mystical White superiority (rather than merely substantive innate difference)?
Less

Hide replies
HH
6 months ago
Again not reading all that. Stopped at the first sentence. You clearly have knowledge of esoteric descriptions of different styles of governance and whether they are what they say they are but this does not matter to the masses.
Fact is to the masses : Britain, France, Netherlands all good because democracy and ANTIFA. (Actually ruled the world at sword/gun point.
:NSDAP bad because Nazi, Fascist, nationalist wanted to rule the world (but didn’t). Even the supreme leader Greg Johnson is not above this thought trap.

Hide replies

@W_Poe_White
6 months ago
“Again not reading all that. Stopped at the first sentence.”
You’ve plainly closed your mind to any ideas which challenge your dogmatic beliefs. So I’ll leave you to the “based” echo chamber.

Continue Thread

@W_Poe_White
6 months ago
“Greg Johnson overlooks that democracies have been far worse global citizens than any Nationalist one.”
Replace the word “democracies” by the phrase “liberal pseudo-democracies” and I would agree. I’m not sure Greg would even disagree. He didn’t deny the bellicosity of Britain, France and the US. He simply (and unfairly) accused Hitler of aggression.
Hitler’s hand was forced in Poland. I’m not referring merely to the terrorist attacks on Germans living in Poland. Stalin was building up the Red Army to prepare for the takeover of all Europe (Suvorov’s The Chief Culprit and Meltiukov’s Stalin’s Lost Opportunity). If Hitler had not invaded Poland in tandem with Stalin in 1939, the Soviet onslaught in 1941 would have fallen first on Poland which would have quickly been overrun. The Red Army would then have invaded Germany on the offensive rather that being caught on its back foot as it had been by Barbarossa.

ThinRedLine
6 months ago
Greg conceded every single point of discussion yet still maintained that NS was the bad kind of Nationalism

18
4
Hide replies
HH
6 months ago
Greg Johnson suffers from boomer brain combined with the usual angry liberal mindset.

12
1
HH
6 months ago
Johnson gets emotional towards the end as his points were taken apart and reverts to “NATSOC lost though nuh nuh nuh nuh nuh”. What an emotional response.

16
2
Hide replies

@hhhhwhitepill
6 months ago(edited)
What is such a point intended to even convey? The German military lost owing to a few strategic blunders and an evil (collapsing) British Empire. The latter owing to the Eternal Anglo Problem.
It’s a bit more than a “stretch” to suggest that natsoc was “defeated” in any meaningful way beyond the decidedly narrow lens of warfare. We can’t bring it back? Why not? Because it “failed?”

7
2
Hide replies
HH
6 months ago(edited)
Johnson is effeminate and often exhibits female energy. It was nothing more than a chic lashing out because she’s losing an argument.

4
1

@EverybodywakeUp
6 months ago
Defeated the greatest , people and regime in history. To then pass a empire over to the worst cucked jew, nigger loving country in history, only nigs who have patents come America ffs it’s a disgrace.

ThinRedLine
6 months ago
Germany was defeated by a far larger powers it was a simple numbers game

12
3
Hide replies
PavlovPuppy
6 months ago(edited)
Why are you implying that National Socialism inherently requires Imperialism, Unfriendly Foreign Affairs, Denial of Foreign Sovereignties, Desire for War, Genocide etc?? I think your still falling for some Jewish propaganda, which is hard to believe because your clearly very intelligent. What the hell is going on here Overall I agree with Joel more than you, but you do make some good arguments. I am less might is right than Joel as I think friendly cooperation should be prioritized but there is also a requirement for power, leverage of trade/goods and military strength. However, preservation of the Race/Nation is always number one and it’s requirements can become very situational. I think there is a synthesis to be found here which would create a perfect system. Also I think National Socialist Germany was much more in line with some of your values than you and even Joel seem to think. They really were not Imperialists as much as they were cooperative with foreign states. They were certainly not genocidal, they did not want war, at all. They took the Sudenten which was theirs and was reasonably needed for living space. Other than that they temporarily occupied states for their own protection as well as a shield against communist forces for Europe as a whole. They were literally the friendliest occupations in history lol. They were welcomed with celebration, parades, literally showered with kisses and flowers at their feet in most cases especially in Eastern Europe where they were seen as liberators. Ultimately they did save Europe from becoming one big Bolshevik genocide and they deserve the credit for that. Anyways, this was very intelligent and thought provoking, you guys did a great job staying respectful, not interrupting etc. Its great to see! Be more National Socialist my friend, it is the way!! Hail Victory!
Less

9
1
Hide replies

@EverybodywakeUp
6 months ago
Yeah America. have led everyone into a jew washed state. America is the only place to worship blacks and jews then pushing it into Europe. You have Hollywood and let jews push this bullshit, Hitler said you’re a jewish cesspool and negroid dump who has nothinh in common with Europe. You basically armed isral to the teeth also never kicked them out once apart from cuddle and protect them.

4
0
Earthling Carl
6 months ago
Easy Joel W.

10
3

@filled_soda
6 months ago
Hail Joel, Tom, Blair and Jacob ○/

9
2

@Six
6 months ago
we are all nationalists. so is the socialism the problem? a redundant question unless you think we can have national capitalism. i think thats the proven failure here

7
1
Hide replies
ThinRedLine
6 months ago(edited)
You can’t be a Nationalist with out socialism

10
3
Hide replies

@Six
6 months ago
ties a nice bow on it doesnt it…

7
0
Hide replies
ThinRedLine
6 months ago
it does

5
0

@Arilando
6 months ago
Of course you can.

0
1
Hide replies
ThinRedLine
6 months ago
If you don’t care about the lesser of your people how can you call your self a Nationalist ?

2
0

@Scythe
5 months ago
No I don’t think that’s the issue Keith and Greg have. Free market capitalism obviously isn’t compatible with any form of nationalism. As far as I can see, Keith and Greg’s problem with National Socialism is a matter of taste, optics, genuine ideological difference, and a matter of what is realistic. Though I do sympathize with where they are coming from, and can’t say I’m a proper National Socialist, I think we do need to change the way people view the Third Reich, expose the lies around ww2. As this is the founding mythology of the postwar order. Unlike Joel and many others however, I don’t think we should necessarily change peoples views
from allies good, axis bad, to allies bad, axis good. Because it’s not that simple. We should merely stick to the facts and not narratives.

odysees dumb comment system
6 months ago
Aussies are lucky to have such awesome guys. Ive been following their stuff and they just seem to get it over there. They dont have all this gay infighting. This was very civil, but usually this debate is completely destructive. After Charlottesville the whole movement shattered, and it wasnt so much the actual event, it was the infighting that followed that we never recovered from. But people are becoming less afraid to talk to us again finally, hopefully we dont fuck it all up again fighting over optics like a bunch of retards.

5
0
Love of our People
6 months ago(edited)
Germany’s loss in WWII was without question one of the most profound tragedies and disasters in human history, perhaps THE great tragedy of human history. It was certainly negative. The United States government and the Soviet Union were two of the most evil forces ever seen on the planet (in the case of the former, it remains so).
One point I’ll give Greg, using the moral argument is a tool in our tool box that we have to employ at this point. We’re not in a position to just impose our will, far from it. Even Russia and America today use the facade of moral arguments when presenting their position to the world. Even if we grant that that’s all such arguments are, they’re still useful enough that the great powers resort to them to some extent. We should make a point of arguing our case from a moral perspective, while also working to gain as much power for our people as possible. We should leave no tool unused.

5
0
Northern Blue
6 months ago
Joel butchered him here. Cc came across as a Liberal unfortunately. A little convoluted at times.

5
1
The Ravens Hall
6 months ago
All of these other racial or ethnic groups if they could dominate us or any other group that is not them they would. The truth is that these other groups are fundamentally different to us with different conceptual notions of morals.
Also people misunderstand the ‘might makes right’ phrase, it is illustrates that no laws, morals or ethics actually mean anything as it is power that actually allows you maintain, protect and enforce them.
Also focusing on our own people and having our interests put above all others groups is what all the others are doing.

5
1
ThinRedLine
6 months ago
War is a part of the human experience and there is no reasion to think that Liberalism is less violent , we had plenty of wars since WWII and the reason why we didn’t have a WWIII is because of Nuclear weapons, were it not for these weapons we would surely have had a WWIII already in the fifties or sixties

6
2
Hide replies

@W_Poe_White
6 months ago
Liberalism is the ideology of the capitalist elites, especially the financial capitalist elites. Capitalist elites don’t want a free market. They want monopolies and direct managerial control. J. P. Morgan and John D. Rockefeller made explicit statements to this effect.
Liberalism tends toward imperialism whenever this seems to be a feasible option. Capitalism is inherently expansionist since without continuous growth it ceases to function. The canonical example of a liberal polity is the British Empire. You can’t build and sustain an empire without war and repression. Yes, indeed, liberalism is violent.
One shouldn’t let oneself be deceived by the ideologies that have emerged in association with liberalism such as egalitarianism, democracy and the idea of universal individual rights. They are not what they seem. The core of liberalism is plutocracy. Any ideology which contradicts plutocracy will not get far. Though the capitalist elites make Machiavellian use of such ideologies for social control, they will never allow such ideologies to actually be realized as intended by their sincere adherents. Liberalism, i.e. plutocracy, is inherently authoritarian, elitist and anti-democratic. Even the individualist element in liberalism is deceptive. It is really just a means of atomizing people so as to render them helpless to resist elite control. It is a totalizing strategy, as Michel Foucault described clearly in his lecture/essay Omnes et Singulatum and his 1977-78 lectures at the College de France, Security, Territory, Population.
There is a vanguard element within the capitalist elite which wants to take monopoly to its ultimate logical conclusion and consolidate control over all means of production and run society as if it were a single gigantic megacorporation. This, in essence, is communism, i.e. a centrally planned and directed command economy. Which is to say: The telos of capitalism is communism. Today’s name for such a society is technocracy.
Less

2
1
ThinRedLine
6 months ago
Hail Joel

8
4
Show reply
renunciate
6 months ago
Joel is making the rounds this week, eh?

5
3

@whitemonkey
6 months ago
id just like to say. NATIONAL SOCIALISM FOR ALL NATIONS.

2
0

@chambleth5
6 months ago
I think Joel makes some fair points, but it’s important to look at what he actually does in practice. He led a neo-nazi march thru a public park with his mates dressed in matching outfits which evoked brownshirts and tactical gear. Not surprisingly they got in fights with other citizens and then the police. What did other Austrailians at the park think of this? 16 of his mates were arrested. Joel himself was arrested thereafter. Joel and other NS leaders were bumped off X, probably forever. Was this the outcome of Joel’s philosophy? Was it a positive result?
It’s also important to think about who Joel is as a person. I think he’s an extremist personality type. He really doesn’t seem to have a stable personality at all. He has bounced around from one personality to another over the last 10 years; first he was 4chan shitposter Joel, then he became polisy theorycell Joel, then came tradcath Joel, now we have neo-nazi gymbro Joel. But before any of that he was an actual antifa member. He didn’t just flirt with marxism like some young people do, he was an actual member and he really wasn’t just a member he was in a leadership position. What kind of person is this? How do normal people react to people like this?
I think while Joel’s outlook is not irrational it’s coming from a certain base of personality that isn’t good. I don’t think it’s a wise to follow someone like this or to subscribe to a philosophy like his. It’s probably going to lead you into something bad and counter-productive.

5
3
Hide replies

@filled_soda
6 months ago
I’ve heard him say that the Antifa thing was just a youthful blunder. Where can I read/watch more on this? I don’t mean that in a Leftist “Source?!” way. I’m genuinely curious.

1
0
Hide replies

@chambleth5
6 months ago
It’s hard to say it’s a youthful blunder when he was a leader of the group. As for sources; it’s just something i’ve heard multiple times from different people that’s been confirmed so i don’t have a link or anything.

Hide replies

@whitemonkey
6 months ago
who cares its just part of the journey, hitler and mussolini dabbled with communism ,so what. its all about the destination, joel found the correct place, however is just maybe a little to out there for me, still much respect to the man for sticking his neck out.

Clown World Gamer
6 months ago
If being arrested is enough to undermine legitimacy then we might as well all surrender. I don’t know what other Australians think about it, but I know you won’t be arrested because you’re not doing anything that bothers the enemy.

1
0
Hide replies

@chambleth5
6 months ago
Are those 16 young men more effective or less effective after having been arrested? Bothering the enemy is, right now, like a gnat bothering an elephant.

@whitemonkey
6 months ago
you point to brownshirt likeness, whoa, antifa get a pass?
joel is a little;e= too out there for me, however makes some fine points.
as for joels journey, doesnt matter how he got there ,he got there in the end.
its been said that hitler may have been a communist very early on as was mussolini however there joirney lead them to a real truth ,that being national socialism. which every nation should aspire to.
hitler in 6 years turned the nation around like no other never forget that.

1
0
Hide replies

@chambleth5
6 months ago
If a psychologically unsound person gets you to a certain place, maybe that place isn’t as psychologically sound as you think it is.

Hide replies

@whitemonkey
6 months ago
unsound?thats just an opinion, joel for me has evolved to a much clearer position now, many can see that,
life is a journey of experience ,we all make mistakes. am in my 60s though i make very few mistakes through a learning process there’s always another hurdle to clear in an ever evolving world.
your entitled your opinion ,i would fight for your right to express it also, however i believe you maybe wrong.
with respect.

2
0

@Scythe
5 months ago
Joel is a smart guy, but I think you’re right on what really drives him. He’s definitely an extremist personality type. Not to say he isn’t genuine, but he has a natural proclivity for this kind of thing.

@Six
6 months ago
its odd to pretend that national socialism is bad because its german centric…..during ww2 that is. its obviously not now, it just means racist. our enemies know what it means when they call us nazis

3
0
ThinRedLine
6 months ago(edited)
Third position(NS ) is not so much about the actual policies but about the end goals and the policies will be adapted to fit the end goals
it is kind of like the sophists debate with Aristoteles , for the Sophists the the form is more important than the morals and for aritoles the opposite

4
3

@Maligned
6 months ago
1:12:00
Joel just decimated Greg with his limp wristed ideology. How he cant see that his own limp wristed ideology that he is advocating for is the very reason why Whites are fucked in the first place. The only thing stopping Whites from rising is their own will to rise.

2
1
Long Knife
6 months ago
now upload your recent interview with Martinez, why not

1
2

@Willhelm
6 months ago(edited)
all this “white unity” and “no more brother wars” stuff is an american concept. communists, the democrats, russia and a lot of others are white and anti-white at the same time today. the allies pretty much were antifa back in the day.
looking at ww2 from gregs white american perspective is very shortsighted especially because the allies killed tons of “muh whites” as well. this all looks like a captain hindsight mixed with pacifism. horrible. honestly america can go to hell. i dont care for every white person around the world. thats stupid.

4
11
Hide replies
Based and Rempilled
6 months ago
The antiwhites grin at this

6
0

@hhhhwhitepill
6 months ago
“The only people who care about white collective interests are Americans. ‘No brother wars’ is a corny cliche because white men killed each other before. Also white liberals exist, therefore white collective interests are invalid. Some white people are bad- fuck those bad whites!” No offense, man…you’re really not cut out for this sort of thing.

2
3

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

See Also

top

 

 

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

Ernst Zundel: Ernst Christoph Friedrich Zundel being interviewed by John Reynolds, former Member of Parliament of Canada, on CJOR radio in Vancouver, August, 78.

 

Radio Host: Oh, hello, it’s John Reynolds, CJOR. Yes, standby please.

 

Hello?

 

Ernst Zundel: Hello.

 

Radio Host: Yes, we’ll be going on in about one minute. What is samizdat?

 

Ernst Zundel: Samizdat is a Russian word and it means to be self published in the underground.

 

Radio Host: Okay, I’ll ask you that.

 

Ernst Zundel: Thank you.

 

Radio Host: Do you also call yourself. Is that the only name you use? Or you call yourself the Nazi Party of Canada or anything?

 

Ernst Zundel: No, no, no, no! We are strictly only publishing books.

 

Radio Host: Okay. You don’t have any organization, political movement at all?

 

Ernst Zundel: No.

 

Radio Host: Okay.

 

Ernst Zundel: However, I’m German and I was responsible for leading the demonstrations against the movie Holocaust.

 

Radio Host: Okay.

 

Ernst Zundel: It is not that we are political, Mr. Reynolds.

 

Radio Host: Okay, hang on a second. I’ll do an introduction, then we come back about a minute after this. You’ll hear it on this tape. Beep.

 

02 Some Commentary by Zundel on the Nature of Commercial Radio and Its Effects on Listeners

top

 

Ernst Zundel: At this stage, it is important for our European listeners to understand that in North America, radio stations, most radio stations are privately owned and that they live off radio commercial advertisements. So every once in a while the announcer will be interjecting and stopping for exactly such commercials. And it is during those commercials that I might come in with some explanations of what was being said, the importance of it and so on. And it might be interesting just to leave a few words of those commercials in there for our European listeners so that they can get an idea of the mentality and what shapes the mentality of the North American and what the North American psyche is constantly being subjected to and why Americans and Canadians maybe think the way that they think.

 

Radio Host: Hi.

 

Ernst Zundel: Hello.

 

Radio Host: If suddenly you don’t hear the feed on the line, hang up, we’ll call you right back. Okay? Just in case something happens.

 

Ernst Zundel: Okay. If I do not hear the feedback, then I’ll hang up.

 

Radio Host: Yeah, if you don’t when you’re on hold, if you don’t hear the show right, then hang up right away and we’ll call you back.

 

Ernst Zundel: Thank you very much.

 

03 Zundel’s Pamphlet Promoting Books and Tapes About UFOs, the Third Reich

top

 

Radio Host: Okay. The present airport temperature 14 degrees. At 8:31 it’s 18 degrees at CJR in the Grosvenor Hot Morning Report. I’m Maury Heskit. Have a good day!

 

Next to Reynolds Reports.

 

Good morning. The other day I received a pamphlet in the mail called What’s New at Samizat? It’s got pictures of Nazi swastikas on it. It’s got UFOs that asks questions about UFOs, are they real? It talks about were Hitler and Eva Braun on board, they may be still alive? It tells you can get tapes that you can listen to on the way to work in the morning. Battle songs and marches of the Third Reich. Very strange pamphlet. The gentleman who is an author of a book called UFO and Nazis A Secret Weapon, Christoph Friedrich is with us this morning. He’s on the phone line from Toronto. We’re going to talk to him about this pamphlet and some of the other books he publishes right after these messages.

 

Ernst Zundel: Again, please pay attention to what Mr. Reynolds has been saying.

 

The one thing that immediately grabbed his attention were the Nazi swastikas, as he calls them, and also some of the things that we are advertising in conjunction with UFOs. Therein lies the secret. He would never have called me if our advertisement had looked any different. Had it been a straightforward UFO advertisement, I doubt whether he would have called. But it was the combination of swastika and UFOs that got him to call us and we continue to listen to him now.

 

04 The Toronto Sun Calls Zundel a Fanatic, a Neo-Nazi

top

 

Radio Host: Okay, what is Samizdat all about? The Toronto Sun calls you a fanatic, a neo-Nazi.

 

Ernst Zundel: Well, one of the writers of the Toronto Sun does, yes, in a kind of a slanderous article that is kind of slippery that you can hardly sue him, or you would spend about $12,000 to sue him.

 

However, as to your question, what samizdat is or what samizdat means. Samistat is a Russian word and it simply means that all the material by samizdat is self produced, self written and published in the underground.

 

In other words, Sharansky, Solzhenitsyn, they are Russian samizdat authors. And I found to my complete surprise, in Canada, in the United States, in Western Europe, in the Western world, we have our Sharanski and our Solzhenitsyns. And I happen to believe that I am a Canadian Solzhenitsyn!

 

Radio Host: You really believe that?

 

06 Demand for Zundel’s Publications, Including the Book, the Secret Nazi Polar Expeditions

top

 

Ernst Zundel: I certainly do and I can prove it to you. We have suppression of new software, all kinds of intellectual thoughts in this country. We have censorship, not by a government censor, but by self-chosen and self imposed censorship in newspapers due to pressures from advertisers, certain business groups, ethnic groups, labor groups and so on. And I have been in the media field and lecturing, writing for the last, 20 years in my life in Canada. And I can assure you that we have a very definite system of censorship in this country.

 

Radio Host: Okay, you were born in Germany.

 

Ernst Zundel: I was born in Germany, lived half my life over there, and now I have lived exactly half my life over here. I came here when I was 19.

 

[06:27]

 

Radio Host:

 

“And restricted by government agencies to a small group of special authorized listeners. Samizdat that now makes these vital moments of history available to you.”

 

Are you back there?

 

Ernst Zundel: Yes.

 

Radio Host: Okay. How did you get all these documents that you tell us that our allied governments are not allowing the rest of the people to hear? How did you get them? Why are you being allowed to publish them and nobody else?

 

Ernst Zundel: Well, it’s not a matter of being allowed. So far I have had several visits by threatening people that I should stop this stuff. I’ve been kicked out of magazines because I advertise our books. But why am I allowed? Because I go back to the original German sources. I have made a fairly good amount of money in Canada and I’m independently well off. I have traveled the world and I have searched out the Germans who were involved in World War II on these projects. I’ve got original blueprints.

 

Radio Host: But doesn’t that prove that your case? You’re saying there’s censorship and this stuff is not being allowed to be shown. Isn’t it really a case of who really cares? Who wants to hear this stuff?

 

06 Demand for Zundel’s Publications, Including the Book, the Secret Nazi Polar Expeditions

top

 

Ernst Zundel: Well, the 12,000 people, after they were able, through some circuitous means, in fact out through my advertising efforts, underground advertising efforts, hand bills and so on, they were very much in favor of reading it. And I have got several hundred letters by people totally unsolicited who said they just love to read this stuff. They’re waiting for my next books. I put out a second book called The Secret Nazi Polar Expeditions that has sold already in the second edition. And there’s the German translation out of it. That’s selling briskly. The first book is the German edition that’s selling briskly. There’s a Spanish edition in the works and an Italian edition and the French edition.

 

08 The Holocaust Movie and Anti-German Programs Are Hate Propaganda

top

 

Radio Host: Surely there’s probably always some people that might want to buy some radical material on one end of the spectrum or the other. But aren’t you really creating, it really looks to me here like you’re creating a whole company based on a hatred. A hatred of jews!

 

Ernst Zundel: A hatred of what? Where do I hate jews? The jews don’t figure. You see, Mr. Reynolds, that’s the problem with you Anglos. You know, you accuse the Germans of having a hangup over the jews. In our thinking, …

 

Radio Host: I don’t accuse the Germans of having a hangup with jews. I accused you of it.

 

Ernst Zundel: Okay, basing on what? Is there one word about jews in my pamphlet?

 

Radio Host: No, he’s very careful that there aren’t any.

 

Ernst Zundel: Well, that’s the point. Because you people, maybe when you were MP up in Ottawa had to stifle freedom of expression through a Bill called Hate Bill.

 

Radio Host: Oh, I never stifled anybody. Why did you pick at the movie, Holocaust?

 

08 The Holocaust Movie and Anti-German Programs Are Hate Propaganda

top

 

Ernst Zundel: Because it’s nothing but lies! Zionist propaganda for profit. It’s that hate propaganda!

 

If you want to see hate propaganda piped into people’s homes, that was hate propaganda on a massive scale! And Mr. Reynolds, I am very sad to say that not one single nice noble Canadian came to our defense. No official government body. That after all, we Germans do enjoy, I think, some citizenship privileges which is equality in front of the law. We don’t get it! Every single night you can get anti-German programs on television or radio. What is this?

 

Radio Host: Well, certainly you would be allowed to your own movies if you wanted to and put that on.

 

Ernst Zundel: But then I’m saying to you, then the censorship comes in that we can’t advertise them, that movie houses won’t carry it. That’s the freedom. That’s what I mean to you. In the Soviet Union we have got the KGB putting Sharansky into jail. In Canada, what do we have? We have the self imposed censorship of certain ethnic groups who wield a tremendous amount of power here!

 

Radio Host: Are you saying that most of the things that were in the movie Holocaust didn’t happen?

 

Ernst Zundel: They were lies, outright lies! And that’s why they didn’t make it a documentary, but they called it a “docudrama” therein lies legalistic tricks!

 

Radio Host: What parts of it were lies? Are you trying to tell me that there were not a bunch of, millions of jews killed?

 

Ernst Zundel: No 6 million jews! That’s the basic point. Were ever murdered in Germany just for being jews.

 

Radio Host: Say that again.

 

09 No Six Million Jews – the Red Cross Report

top

 

Ernst Zundel: No 6 million jews were ever murdered in Germany!

 

Radio Host: How many?

 

Ernst Zundel: Murdered? Very few. Died? Maybe 350,000 maximum. I have in front of me the Red Cross Report put out by the International Red Cross in Geneva in 1947. Now you can write to the Red Cross in Geneva and get that same report. It’s an official report of the Red Cross, into the concentration camps of World War II on the German side. There is not one single gas chamber that they found.

 

Radio Host: What about Poland, some of the other countries?

 

Ernst Zundel: Well, are you asking about Auschwitz, for instance? Because Auschwitz was in Poland.

 

Radio Host: Yeah.

 

Ernst Zundel: The United States, Air Force overflew the concentration camp of Auschwitz dozens of time. Now we know that today from released Air Force documents. They never found one single thing resembling a gas chamber. The United States, Air Force never bombed any gas chambers. You know, World War II aerial photography was so good that the British were able to take out the German V1 bases before they were even built and operational.

 

Now, if they found gas chambers and the American jewish community was always very strong in favor with President Roosevelt, they could have wiped out those gas chambers. Nothing flat! But they didn’t do it because they were not there. It is Zionist propaganda to blackmail the German people and to cow the rest of the world into their voracious demands!

 

Germany is not the way it is portrayed in the world. I am German. I was raised in Germany. I didn’t see one single proper German in that [word unclear] Holocaust!

 

[11:45]

 

 

10 There Were No Gas Chambers Anywhere in Germany!

top

 

Radio Host: Are you trying to tell us that there were no gas chambers?

 

Ernst Zundel: There were no gas chambers anywhere in Germany!

 

Radio Host: What about anywhere where the German people, where the Nazis controlled the power?

 

Ernst Zundel: No such thing! When you, if you know the gas chambers, what they were delousing things, but they were certainly not used to gas people.

 

Radio Host: [words unclear]

 

Ernst Zundel: No, they were not. There’s a large body of evidence, suppressed again and censored in the usual Canadian and North American way, that states very clearly that there were no gas chmbers. We have a Professor of Northwestern University, Professor Butz has just written a 600 page study in which he comes to the very same conclusion. They have trials in Israel in which Adolf Eichmann was tried. The entire testimony of Adolf Eichmann, not one single time mentions a specific number of jews killed. Mr. Reynolds, we have had stories out of Europe of 11 million jews killed! Nine million jews killed! Six million jews killed!

 

The Red Cross says they never saw any gas chambers. The Germans statistically have a Red Cross report that talks about all the people died in World War II on all sides. And for the German nation there is 9 million people, including its 358,000 jews who died in German concentration camps.

 

Radio Host: Gotta go for a break. 685-9181’s our number. 685-9181. If you’d like to speak to Christoph Friedrich from Toronto, the head of Samizdat, give us a call, 685-9181. We’ll be right back with him after these messages. Hang on. I won’t put you on hold this time. I don’t know what happened last night.

 

Ernst Zundel: Well, I thought we were through.

 

Radio Host: Oh, did you? You hung up?

 

Ernst Zundel: Yes, I did. I’m sorry, I had no idea what the format of the show was going to be.

 

Radio Host: Oh, no, thank you. Hang on, we’ll get back and we’ll take a couple of calls. I’ll put you on hold here.

 

Ernst Zundel: Okay, thank you.

 

11 Zundel’s Commentary on the Conversation So Far

top

 

Ernst Zundel: We’re hardly into the program and what do we see? This man, a former Member of Parliament, Federal Parliament, obviously not a stupid man and certainly above average in intelligence. Otherwise he wouldn’t do the kind of work that he is doing. This Canadian called 5,000 km across the continent to a guy called Ernst Zundel to talk to him about flying saucers. Fascinated, attracted like a moth to the light by this combination of swastika, flying saucers, Third Reich, speeches of the Third Reich leaders which we advertise in our pamphlet. He only was cursorily interested in the flying saucer issue. Once in a while he comes back to it, touches upon it.

 

But basically what irks and bothers this man is all the stuff that I’m bringing out on this topic. Let’s return to him and listen to what he has to say.

 

Radio Host: Okay, John Reynolds back with Christoph Friedrich from Toronto. Are you still there?

 

Ernst Zundel: Yes, I am.

 

Radio Host: Okay, we’ve got some callers that want to speak to you. We’ll get to them in just a second. I just want to warn everybody because I’m sure, Mr. Friedrich, there’s going to be some people who want to yell and scream at you, but we won’t put up with that if you want to talk sensibly, talk to Mr. Friedrich. If you agree or disagree with, and I hope nobody will yell at either side of us, have to cut you off because nobody can understand people yelling, go ahead.

 

12 Female Caller Tells Zundel to “Lay Down and Die!”

top

 

Caller 1 (female): I couldn’t hear what he’s been saying recently. However, I have a statement here and I’d like to continue with it. It’ll take about 10 minutes.

 

Radio Host: You have to be quick because we’re going for the news. Go ahead.

 

Caller 1 (female): How dare do the [words unclear] come in now and [words unclear] this very many times? Do they think we’ve forgotten the horrors committed against the European continent and their plans to conquer the world?

 

Ernst Zundel: Oh dear!

 

Caller 1 (female): Who was the top spy in the USA, Reinhard Heindrich [sp], working with the American First Ambassador Hotel in New York with ITT, General Motors, Ford Company, Texas Oil, Standard Oil and defied the Neutrality Act by shipping supplies to South America and on to Germany. The then President Roosevelt, drafting his [word unclear], fearing impeachment, dared not make public firsthand information from William Stevenson, a Winnipeg born Canadian who headed the Secret Service in Britain. He’s the man called Intrepid. Germany was close to producing the A bomb and thousands of men and women sacrificed their lives to gather information that later helped to change all. If it had not been for Churchill, Roosevelt and Hitler, plus the Russian invasion, you might have won, but you didn’t! Lay down and die!

 

Ernst Zundel: [chuckling] Talking about hate. Was that love, Mr. Reynolds?

 

Radio Host: Well, you see, that’s what I was trying to tell you. I think what you do sometimes generates that kind of hate when you try to bring back some of the things the Nazis did during the Second World War.

 

Ernst Zundel: Mr. Reynolds, I want to tell you something that’s entirely the typical Canadian and North American attitude. You people think that you have a monopoly of what is truth and what is history. What you in effect have is your own World War II propaganda parading as history!

 

Now, when we Germans stand up and ever so mildly and meekly ask for equal time, never get number one, equal time. I have to send out a flamboyant pamphlet and I have to demonstrate, to denigrate myself, to demonstrate in front of newspaper offices, human rights commissions and so on, because we are not even getting equal rights and equal treatment in front of the law.

 

[17:48]

 

Radio Host: Well, it will be interesting to see if any of our German friends in Vancouver fall out because I’ve talked to a number of them who don’t feel exactly the way you do. Go ahead.

 

Caller 2 (female): Oh, good morning. This is the first time I’ve done this. I’m a little nervous, but I am so angry because listening to that voice in the radio, it brings it all back. And this is a tragedy of the German people. This man is talking in arrogance. He is talking from a prideful position, saying that we should tolerate him, that we should put up with him when he’s caused millions of people to [word unclear]. This whole thing is going to continue. The German people, unfortunately, are going to have to suffer for several generations, as long as my generation is alive. Who can remember being bombed in the UK you can remember the first pictures of the concentration camps being opened when there were children. You can remember everything about the war.

 

13 Camps for Japanese, Germans and Italians in Canada, America and Britain

top

 

Ernst Zundel: Okay, may I come in here, please? For equal time.

 

First of all, the United States, England and Canada bombed the living daylights out of Germany, killing 3 million Germans! 30,000 Englishmen were hurt, didn’t die, but were hurt in World War II bombing of England. So the score is certainly far out of proportion. That’s number one.

 

Number two, you had concentration camps in Canada in which you put innocent Japanese, robbed them of their property. And you also put Germans in concentration camps and Italians in concentration camps. You had the same in the United States.

 

Now we were in Germany. We are a dictatorship. You were a Democratic country. What did you, madam, do in England when you were in England at that time about those imprisoned in English concentration camps under the 18B regulation.

 

Radio Host: Okay, listen, let’s go for the 9 o’ clock news. We’re right back with Christoph Friedrich after the 9 o’ clock news. CJOR. Thanks for your call.

 

Caller 2 (female): Thank you. I was just child at the time. I couldn’t do anything.

 

Ernst Zundel: Well, so was I. But now we can do something.

 

Caller 2 (female): No, we’re not.

 

Ernst Zundel: Yes, we can prevent the same thing from happening again by speaking the truth!

 

Radio Host: Okay, thanks. Listen, we’ll call you back in five minutes, okay?

 

Ernst Zundel: Okay, thank you.

 

Radio Host: Make sure you don’t use your line.

 

Ernst Zundel: No. Okay, I can’t help incoming calls.

 

[break]

 

Ernst Zundel: Hello.

 

Radio Host: Yes, I got you. Okay, I’ll come back in about 30 seconds.

 

Ernst Zundel: It is interesting that during the next 30 seconds I could not monitor what he was saying. So I have absolutely no idea if he was going to give me some kind of a bad introduction or bad mouthing me or telling the listeners I was some kind of a nut case. That’s a very interesting point. Let’s return to the program.

 

[break]

 

14 Why Don’t You Use Your Real Name?

top

 

Radio Host: Tom Reynolds back and on the phone lines Ronald Christoph Friedrich out of Samizda. Are you the president of Samizda?

 

Ernst Zundel: Yes, I own it lock stock and barrel.

 

Radio Host: You own it. It’s no shareholders. It’s one man. Listen, somebody phoned me yesterday and told me that your real name is Ernst Zundel, that Christoph Friedrich are your two middle names.

 

Ernst Zundel: That’s right.

 

Radio Host: Why do you use those as your name for publishing?

 

Ernst Zundel: Well, because I run a fairly successful two other businesses. And when I started out, this Samizda thing, it was not flying saucer strictly. And you have to admit it’s a somewhat [word unclear] subject and people are leery of dealing with nuts. So I thought I might get myself a little protection. It’s nothing illegal. Everybody in the arts and in writing has nom de plumes, you know. It’s a perfectly natural and normal occurrence.

 

Radio Host: Let me ask you another question before we go back to the callers. You talk about censorship in Canada and the United States. Would you be allowed to do what you’re doing with your talking about your UFOs about Hitler, about the Nazis, if you were living in Germany today?

 

15 West Germany and East Germany Are Dictatorships

top

 

Ernst Zundel: No, because West Germany and East Germany are the most horrific dictatorships. They make Hitler pale into insignificance!

 

Radio Host: Why would you say West Germany is a dictatorship? They have elections. The German people elect all the people that go into their legislature.

 

Ernst Zundel: Because, number one, it’s a matter of having no choice. In West Germany, the Allies have riddled Germany with spy networks and we have a strictly political police and a political judiciary in Germany. The nation’s element which carries the German State for 13 years, is completely outlawed, has been killed, is rotting in jails.

 

Consequently, what we have in Germany are quislings. We have in West Germany, West German, pro-American, pro-British, pro-French, pro-Canadian quislings. And in East Germany we have pro-communist, pro-Russian quislings. Germany is occupied country! It is not independent. The people who have been speaking for Germany are executive organs of the occupying powers.

 

16 Do You Believe in the White Superiority?

top

 

Radio Host: One final question before we go back to the calls. Do you believe in the White superiority?

 

Ernst Zundel: No. No.

 

Radio Host: You are not [word unclear] with leader of the Nazi party in the United States then?

 

Ernst Zundel: He’s a jew!

 

Radio Host: Yes, I know that.

 

[22:43]

 

Ernst Zundel: Okay, fine. Now if you have a jewish agent, he might be a jewish hero in Nazi uniform if he brings out lines like that that conform with the Hollywood image which Hollywood has created about National Socialism and about Germany, that’s one thing. Hitler in all of the 800 pages of Mein Kunk not once mentioned the word Aryan “superiority” or “master race” or stuff like that! This is strictly Anglo-jewish propaganda! It is not true.

 

Radio Host: Go ahead.

 

Caller 1 (female): Hi John. I was born after the war, so this is really all history thinking, but I don’t feel any angry towards this guest. But I am kind of fascinated with him. Fascinated in the sense that I think he’s really taking us for a really good ride. I think he’s really capitalizing on our ignorance, on all these things and all that. But it kind of frightens me too in the other sense because people are angry and not these kind of things get stirred up.

 

Radio Host: That’s a very good question though. Christoph Friedrich, are you just really capitalizing on the Holocaust and other things that are happening to make yourself some more money?

 

Ernst Zundel: Mr. Reynolds? I don’t need to make more money. What I’m telling you is that I am now 39 years old. I’ve got children born by a Canadian mother going through the Canadian school system that are being brainwashed with lies and nothing but lies which will disarm them in any future conflict that we are seeing coming up on the horizon! The western world is in a life and death struggle and doesn’t realize it, because it is looking constantly over its shoulder flailing a dead horse called Nazism while there are Marxists in the highest places in government, the military, the media in this lovely land! That is my point!

 

Caller 1 (female): But sir, you must think we’re really fools because all these things have been past for so many years.

 

17 Problems with Canada and Its Immigration Policy

top

 

Ernst Zundel: You are asses because you allow non-subversives and certainly incapable people of running the affairs of this nation. Canada is a paradise, and it could be a paradise. And it was almost a paradise when I came to these shores. What we have now is our old people robbed of their pensions. We have got riots in jails, we have got kidnappings, we have got muggings. We have got murders on a scale that is unprecedented before. If you were such intelligent people and exercising your duties of citizenship properly, we could not get the kind of rotten leadership we are getting!

 

Ernst Zundel: Well, sir, I just don’t take you very seriously.

 

Ernst Zundel: Well, that’s okay. I don’t take you very seriously either.

 

Radio Host: Christoph Friedrich one of the reasons we’ve got these problems because of our immigration policy.

 

Ernst Zundel: Certainly, yes!

 

Radio Host: What should we do about our immigration policy?

 

Ernst Zundel: I was the only person in 1968 that appeared in front of the Parliamentary committee and the Senate committee on immigration and said:

 

“For God’s sake, do not change the immigration policy in this country or your children will curse you!”

 

Mr. Reynolds, what has happened is not the children are cursing the politicians of that 1968 Parliament. Their wives, their mothers, their grandmothers, their uncles and their hands are cursing them!

 

Radio Host: What should we do with our immigration policy in Canada?

 

Ernst Zundel: Don’t import problems!

 

Radio Host: Are you saying what types of people are the problem and what countries do they come from?

 

Ernst Zundel: Ask any police official. Who are being picked up for, numerically speaking, for dope peddling, pimping, distribution sniffing and stuff like that.

 

Radio Host: Are you talking about the blacks and the yellow people that are coming in?

 

Ernst Zundel: You know, that’s a loaded question.

 

Radio Host: I’m sure it is.

 

Ernst Zundel: Mr. Reynolds, I’m saying to you that we didn’t have it before, but certainly we now have it. Does that answer the question fairly?

 

Radio Host: More White immigration from England, Germany and the other such as that?

 

Ernst Zundel: Certainly.

 

Radio Host: Okay, go ahead.

 

Caller 4 (male): Mr. Frederick?

 

Ernst Zundel: Yeah?

 

18 Have You Ever Been to Auschwitz?

top

 

Radio Host: Have you ever been to Auschwitz?

 

Ernst Zundel: Pardon me?

 

Radio Host: Have you ever visited Auschwitz concentration camp?

 

Ernst Zundel: No, but I’ve entered Dahau. I don’t need to go to have a piece of fictitious history paraded in front of my eyes.

 

Radio Host: I have visited Auschwitz and the place where it is said that the gas chambers were, which is right beside the incinerators.

 

Ernst Zundel: Yes.

 

Caller 4 (male): Is right in the middle of the camp. You say, if the British believed there were gas chambers, they would have bombed them.

 

Ernst Zundel: Yes.

 

Caller 4 (male): With all the tens of thousands of inmates in Auschwitz, it would have been another “Holocaust”. Tens of thousands of prisoners who would have died through the bombing.

 

19 Red Cross Report on German Concentration Camps

top

 

Ernst Zundel: Okay, may I respond to that? I have in front of me the Red Cross Report, page 92. That’s an official document. No Germans participated in writing it. It is strictly based on the work done by the International Committee of the Red Cross, which by the way went to see every concentration camp in Germany and had even delegates living within some concentration camps. Now I put it to you, if the Germans had something to hide, they would certainly not allow number one to visit, number two, allow delegates to live there.

 

Now, the Russians don’t allow Red Cross delegates to go and visit their concentration camps, but the Germans did!

 

Now, on page 92 it says that the confidence man, the man of Kofiyas [sp], is the French reporter that I’m looking at was a British commando who was captured by the Germans and he was in Auschwitz. The Red Cross delegate asks him:

 

“What are these rumors about Sal Didush, meaning shower bars?”

 

And he said:

 

“They are nothing but rumors. We have been unable to verify that there were such things.”

 

Now, the concentration camp of was in September 44. Shortly thereafter, the concentration camp of Auschwitz was closed and the German razed it to the ground! Every single German concentration camp in the east that the Germans abandoned was razed to the ground! So any structure that you see there, built today was built after the war! So much for your historical accuracy.

 

[28:34]

 

 

20 Belsen and the Typhus Epidemic and the Germans Told to Protect the Camp Until the British Arrived

top

 

Radio Host: And you say the same for Belsen?

 

Ernst Zundel: No, I can explain to you Belsen very easily.

 

Radio Host: That was raised to the ground also?

 

Ernst Zundel: No. That was not in the East. If you were to listen and hear what I’m saying, you could get someplace in the story. Belsen is in central Germany.

 

Now, the commander of Belsen was forced to take up, because of the situation of the war, 20,000 more prisoners than the camp was designed for. Now typhus broke out because Medicines and food couldn’t get to the camp because England and America destroyed the entire German railroad system in Operation Thunderclap, which knocked out 9,000 German railroads stations and railroad junctions. Now the system of transportation and food supply broke down. Food rations had to be cut. Belsen suffered a typhus epidemic. And the German commander said in radioing to the International Red Cross in Geneva:

 

“We have this situation here. If the war comes to our camp and these prisoners go out into the land, they will infect the occupying army, namely Montgomery’s army, and also the whole population of Europe. What should we do?”

 

And the British commander and the German commander agreed that the German SS guards were to go and protect the camp and keep it while the war raged around it. And when the war was just about over in this area, the British came and they took over the camp. And in typical English, World War II fashion, they grabbed the guys who had agreed to stay behind and they, number one, had them beaten up and the torture of the guards and the story of how you Anglos at the end of World War II got your lovely show trials and stuff like that. That’s another kettle of fish.

 

Radio Host: Now you saying, … Gotta go for a break. I have to let some other callers. Thanks for your call. 685-9181’s number. We’ll be right back after these messages. Back in about a minute. I won’t put you on hold just in case we get cut off.

 

Ernst Zundel: Okay. Fine, thank you.

 

Radio Host: How’s the weather in Toronto?

 

Ernst Zundel: It’s a beautiful day, Mr. Reynolds. It’s a beautiful day. I wish I could talk to you about something simple like flying saucers. But I want to thank you for giving me the opportunity, believe me. I do appreciate it, believe me. There are far too few people in the Western world today like yourself.

 

21 Zundel’s Advice Re Dealing with Radio Station Hosts

top

 

[Zundel’s commentary]

 

Ernst Zundel: Now a very important lesson to be learned. Always congratulate your host. Always be deferential to him and be kind to him. Never bully him and never embarrass him! Always leave him a way out, because he too has a boss. He too has a station owner, station manager, program manager, advertisers. Don’t burn the bridges behind him unless you want to destroy him. And those cases ought to be very few. Always behave in such a way, even if you have to give a point or two, that you are the nice person, that you are the friendly one and a well mannered one. You don’t have to be mealy mouthed. Be hard and be soft. [chuckling] What I mean is be gentle and be kind. It has paid for me tremendous dividends. And time and again I’ve been told by moderators of radio and TV, the reason why they had me back on was because I always allowed them a way out with their station managers.

 

Now let us rejoin the program and carry on with the interview.

 

[Interview continues]

 

22 Germans Innocent of the Alleged Crime of Killing Six Million Jews

top

 

Radio Host: John Reynolds back with Christoph Friedrich, the head of Samizdat out of Toronto. Mr. Friedrich, let me ask you a question. You mainly deal in other than things with the records and the tapes about German music and so forth, but UFOs, why would [n’t] you stick to UFOs, and stay away from the Nazi angle?

 

Ernst Zundel: Because it’s a matter upon which our civilization fails or survives!

 

Radio Host: Explain that.

 

Ernst Zundel: The German, supposed German guilt for World War II has taken the militarily, economically, politically strongest nation in the heart of Europe which after all is the heart of our culture and has made it the [word unclear]. We are the outcast today. You have had no German input of any significance since the end of World War II.

 

Mr. Reynolds, we have had 138 wars since 1945.

 

Radio Host: In British Columbia the largest ethnic group is German.

 

Ernst Zundel: Of course.

 

Radio Host: They’re top citizens. They’re leaders in business. This situation with the “Holocaust”, and what you’re trying to promote is passe with a lot of people. Jewish families involved in the war. German families involved in war that maybe have some guilt, have some hard feelings. But the young people today don’t have those types of feelings.

 

Ernst Zundel: Mr. Reynolds. That’s exactly my point. Why can we not discuss it sensibly? And why can we only judge it from the Jewish-Anglo, jewish angle?

 

Radio Host: What talk about it all?

 

Ernst Zundel: No, we can’t do that, Mr. Reynolds. Why should German people collectively bear the [word unclear] and individually the stigma of coming from a group of people that have murdered 6 million people, if they are innocent of the crime, why should we? We are not, …

 

Radio Host: Number one, that I don’t think is a stigma. The German people living in this country. Number two, there was a crime there.

 

Ernst Zundel: Okay, was Dresden not a crime? Was Hamburg not a crime? Was Nagasaki not a crime?

 

[34:48]

 

Radio Host: That’s a crime.

 

23 Was the Canadian Concentration Camps Not a Crime?

top

 

Ernst Zundel: Was the Canadian concentration camps not a crime? You see, even, …

 

Radio Host: I agree with you. The way we treated the Japanese in the Second World War was a crime.

 

But it’s well talked about.

 

Ernst Zundel: Mr. Reynolds, but no restitution has been made, and to put it in proper perspective. You see, we have to first heal the wounds of the old before we can start anew. Humanity is like an organic body. If you have a cancer growing in one area, the body is sick, you see? And I’m saying to you, I want the wounds of World War II healed properly, not festering. And all those people who put on the Holocaust movie that was seen in 70 million American homes at one and the same time. And it was full of lies! ! Mr. Reynolds, they are the hatemongers! I tried to have that movie stop before it started. I am the nice guy! The others are the aggressors in this thing.

 

Radio Host: Go ahead.

 

Caller (male): Mr. Friedrich. How old are you?

 

Ernst Zundel: I’m 39.

 

Caller (male): So you were what? About six years old when the war ended?

 

Ernst Zundel: That’s right.

 

Caller (male): Do you really have no firsthand knowledge of what went on?

 

Ernst Zundel: My dear man, I have firsthand knowledge of being frightened like a dog by bombs falling on our head, by our house collapsing around us. By my mother being chased by American and Algerian invading troops. By the cruelty of your occupation, by the starvation. Don’t come unto me with honeyed words and say I have no recollection of the war. I do!

 

Caller (male): I happen to be German too. I came from there.

 

Ernst Zundel: Hey, that’s nice.

 

Caller (male): And I happen to be a lot older than you are.

 

Ernst Zundel: Good.

 

Caller (male): I saw it was, …

 

Ernst Zundel: It doesn’t make you necessarily wiser or more knowledgeable, though.

 

Caller (male): I’m not saying that I’m wiser, but you know, when I’m listening to you, I can understand, you profess to represent what German people think or say.

 

Ernst Zundel: I never did. I never did!

 

Caller (male): You don’t?

 

Ernst Zundel: I say what some German people think, those who think and not those who think they think.

 

Caller (male): I’m glad to hear that. Because, …

 

Ernst Zundel: You see, you don’t think, you just think you think.

 

Caller (male): I can quite see if somebody listens to you, then you just get turned off. If that is what comes out of Germany. Good God! You know, you’re a nut!

 

Ernst Zundel: What would you like to come out of Germany? Tell me! More reparations for crimes we didn’t commit? More flagellating, more self incriminating for things we didn’t do?

 

24 Caller Recounts Seeing Ss Shot People

top

 

Caller (male): All right. I happened to be in Germany and outside of Germany during those years and I have seen what was going on.

 

Ernst Zundel: You were outside those years in Germany, is that it?

 

Caller (male): Let me finish, please. Just don’t butt in all the time!

 

Ernst Zundel: No, look, get your story straight. Were you in Germany at that time or out of Germany?

 

Caller (male): Yes, I was in Germany. I was in Poland. Let me tell you. I have seen how the jews were rounded up. I have seen them running around in droves being driven by SS people. I’ve seen them being shot. Shot! Just because somebody was straggling, couldn’t follow the rest.

 

Ernst Zundel: And what did you do about it?

 

Caller (male): What I did about it? Nothing! I couldn’t do anything.

 

Ernst Zundel: Exactly!

 

In other words, you were a coward then and you are a coward now!

 

Caller (male): Let me tell you something right now. I may have been a coward! I probably was. I was at the time, 15 years of age.

 

Ernst Zundel: Well, if you saw somebody shot and didn’t do something about it, you were a coward!

 

Caller (male): I probably was.

 

But I can tell you one thing, it certainly has weighed very heavily on my conscience. Because what was going on, that was not right. And I don’t give a damn how much you rant and rave.

 

Ernst Zundel: I’m not ranting or raving.

 

Caller (male): You will never be able to obliterate the darkest period in German history. Okay?

 

Ernst Zundel: Well, if the Canadians are doing as well, and the British and the Americans and the jews in obliterating their dark parts in their history, we’d have a beautiful world. But as long as it’s only one sided, I Intend to speak the other side as long as good God gives me a breath to do it.

 

Caller (male): I just hope that people don’t regard you as representative of Germany.

 

Radio Host: 685 918 was the number. We’ll be right back after these messages.

 

[break]

 

You get any interference from the RCMP coming in to look at your membership list?

 

Ernst Zundel: Not anymore. Not anymore.

 

Radio Host: They did it one time?

 

Ernst Zundel: I used to be [word unclear] two or three times a week. Yeah, but not anymore. The main problem now comes from the Canadian jewish Congress and their agents.

 

25 There is Always an Uncle Tom.

top

 

[Zundel’s commentary on the caller]

 

Ernst Zundel: It never fails. There is always an Uncle Tom! The blacks have him, the jews have him and the Germans have him. That is if the caller indeed was a German as he claimed to be. He did have some strange accent, that’s for sure.

 

However, I practically smelled him coming from left field and decided early on that here was one guy that was going to be nailed. And he certainly was! And I’m happy that that is now. There is no way that you can allow people like that to dominate the program by trying to be overly kind to them. People like that who mess into their own bed, you have to be short and swift! Back to the program.

 

[39:59]

 

Radio Host: John Reynolds back with Christoph Friedrich in Toronto. 685-9181 the number go ahead please.

 

Hello?

 

Caller (male): Hello.

 

Radio Host: Go ahead.

 

26 Caller on Japanese in Concentration Camps

top

 

Caller (male): What he says about immigration coming in this country. Well, I’m in agreement what he said about only the White race, that White people should immigrate here. But I wasn’t in agreement with what he said about the Japanese being innocent because it was myself I think it was a good thing that they were put in concentration camps because if the Japanese had landed here the ones that were in the country would have helped the Japanese invading forces.

 

And one of Japanese was educated in Vancouver here went to school and had his education here. He went over to Japan during the war and he was one of the worst ones over there. He beat the Canadian soldiers with whips in the camps there and [word unclear] for it.

 

Radio Host: Does that mean that all the rest of them would have been the same?

 

Caller (male): Pardon?

 

Radio Host: Does that mean that all the rest of them would have been the same? Why would a Japanese Canadian be any lesser Canadian than you were?

 

Caller (male): Well, I mean I don’t have any agreement with it. It wasn’t very innocent. You didn’t know what’s behind it. They [word unclear] truckloads of rifles and war stuff and short waves receivers and everything.

 

Ernst Zundel: And Mr. Reynolds.

 

Radio Host: I don’t know believe that gives us the right to take away people’s property.

 

Ernst Zundel: Mr. Reynolds, if I may interject here. I have read the story of the tragedy of the American Japanese and the Canadian Japanese. I am not aware of one single instance where truckloads of Japanese rifles were taken away. That is a red herring of wartime propaganda. Now in the calmer days 30 years after. That’s simply not true.

 

Number one, I’d like to say on principle Japan did not declare war on Canada. Number two, Canada meddled in Japanese affairs 10,000 miles away from home in Hong Kong. Number three, the Japanese people who were in this country were legally admitted immigrants, had an excellent work record, were frugal, thrifty, pillars of society. They were robbed in the most sneaky, slimy way of their hard earned property. Proper restitution has not been done. When Premier Kuro went over to Japan and apologized to the people of Japan, the columns and the radio stations in the Toronto area were so full of hate towards our own Prime Minister. Just apologizing, that I am telling you Canadians have some skeletons in the crossing and their skeletons are intolerance and hate! And I am bringing those out. And if I speak forcefully, I speak with the eloquence of emergency. Because I can assure you if you Canadians are going to let this thing get done to the Germans today and you were allowing it yesterday to the Japanese, tomorrow you will allow it to another ethnic group. I’m telling you, if we don’t come to grips with this cancer in Canadian society tomorrow, it might be you!

 

Caller (male): Why don’t you speak to some of the Canadians that was taken Christmas day, prisoners in places there, and they were tortured.

 

Ernst Zundel: Sir, my question to you is, what business did they have to do over in Hong Kong? Did Canada have no problems in their own country?

 

So you see, if you meddle in a fight between two bullies, if you meddle in that and you get a black eye, it’s not like, don’t come back, complaining!

 

Caller (male): Well, they landed here, they came here by the submarine. They were just about pretty close to taking over the Aleutian islands. They had places dug in rock there and they confixated all their supplies. Don’t worry my friend, they were just about right to our doorstep here.

 

Ernst Zundel: This was after the war was on.

 

Anyway. Listen, this is a very fruitless discussion. I frankly think that the Japanese were maltreated and Canadians cannot make any excuses and cannot treat it under the rug. Justice is what we want. Justice for all the people, including jews, Pakistanis and Indians. What I’m saying to you is that I was the only one in 1968 to prevent problems from happening. Don’t you see? 1968, the United States was experiencing civil war on a massive scale where blacks were burning down practically every large city. You know, Watts and Detroit and so on. And I said at that time to the special Commission sitting in Montreal:

 

“Gentlemen, please learn from what is happening. We don’t owe these people anything!”

 

Canada didn’t have empire, you see I can see England having to import these people, but Canada should have a policy that is best for Canadians.

 

Caller (male): Well, the Black Panthers are stirring up the Indians here in Canada. And the Indians didn’t have enough sense to fight for themselves. But until another outfit came in here called the Black Panthers and they just stir these Indians up and it’s just making trouble for the Indians. And the Canadian government is surprised that they let these leaders come in from the United States.

 

Ernst Zundel: No, afraid I have to once again put it in the proper historical perspective. You Canadians in World War II allied yourself with Marxism, international Communism!

 

Now, because they were your allies then, you feel kind of uneasy about cracking down on them now because it would mean you made a mistake then. So what are you doing? You are allowing all kinds of Marxist infiltrators into your university, into your news media, and into the book publishing business and into education. And what they turn out are young commies. And these young commies then go out agitating minorities. Naturally, they’re not going to actually agitate the mass of Canadians because they are so lethargic. So they go after the Indians and other minorities.

 

[45:47]

 

27 Zundel’s Commentary on the Typical Canadian Man in the Street on Race

top

 

Radio Host: Okay, thanks for your call. 685-918 was the number. We’ll be right back after these messages.

 

[Zundel’s commentary]

 

Ernst Zundel: What you have just heard is the typical average Canadian man in the street, World War II veteran speaking. A simple man with a bigoted viewpoint. Basically what he is a racist, but afraid to say it.

 

Now, here in me, he had found somebody who was very seldom on Canadian airwaves these days, willing to put in the good word for the Whites and point out their desperate situation. And the poor devil called up and couldn’t really make his point coherently.

 

Yet he had lived this kind of viewpoint for all his life and ended up trying to defend the indefensible. Interesting also is that the moderator, former Member of Parliament, all he could think about was the Japanese property being taken away. It didn’t occur to him that that’s not the main beef. It was not that the property was taken away. It was the fact that in a Democratic country that was not under immediate attack, was not being invaded, the dignity of human beings was being insulted that they were being herded into concentration camps. Men, women, children, father, mother, grandfather, grandparents and so on. They were robbed of their fortunes. They were robbed of their fishing boats and their fishing gears, their farms and so on. And Canadians can make no excuses. And he tried to make an excuse with World War II propaganda. What he pulled on the Japanese, they’re trying to pull on the Germans. Back to the program.

 

Radio Host: Okay, John Reynolds back. My guest is Chris Christoph Friedrich, head of Samizdat. 6859181 is the number. Go ahead.

 

28 Caller on the Suppressed Book ‘All Honorable Men’

top

 

Caller (male): Yes, hello, Mr. Reynolds.

 

Radio Host: Yes.

 

Caller (male): I know you’re first, please. Thank God from your political deal. Is the other gentleman on the line too? Have either of you people ever read the first publication of a book called All Honorable Men? All Honorable Men.

 

Radio Host: Christoph Friedrich, have you read the book All Honorable Men?

 

Ernst Zundel: Is that by the English writer Douglas Reed?

 

Radio Host: English writer who was in Germany after the war. The book was suppressed. A new version came out which is completely different from the original publication of the book called All Our Men. Unfortunately, I loaned it out to somebody. I never got it back. There is a book out All Honorable Men, but it’s not the same version.

 

But in the original publication of the book, All Our Men showed how the Second World War was perpetrated!

 

Now, you realize that IG Farben was never bombed in Germany. IG Farben had a subsidiary in the United States. They made their deal and in United States manufactured and it said on there, it documented made in Germany was sent to South America. The money came back to Germany.

 

By the way, I’m a disabled war veteran.

 

And when I read that book, the original publication, which was the suppressed, showed how Schrader [sp], who was a companion of Roosevelt went to Germany and became the financial expert in Germany. I am in complete agreement. And I fought against you people. I speak German fluently. I’m a disabled war veteran.

 

Radio Host: Make your point, please.

 

Caller (male): Pardon?

 

Radio Host: Make your point.

 

Caller (male): Yeah, but what I’m saying is this. If you could, any of you, Mr. Reynolds and the gentleman there, could get the original edition of All Honorable Men, there is documentation after documentation. And I happen to agree. And Mr. Reynolds, but the other gentleman there were that not many jews were that. Now I don’t agree with all of them.

 

Radio Host: Okay, thanks for your comment.

 

29 World War II was Above All a Battle for World Markets

top

 

Ernst Zundel: Mr. Reynolds. May I say something to that, please?

 

Radio Host: Go ahead.

 

Ernst Zundel: There’s no doubt that World War II was above all a battle for world markets. You see, and it is clearly expressed in the British Foreign Office documents which have been recently released after the 30 year time is up and American Foreign Office or Secretary of State offices and documents which are now being declassified after 35 years.

 

The fact is that Japan and Germany being geographically in a small area, being devoid of raw materials, these two nations must export in order to live. So they were in effect disturbing the international trading pattern. And high finance and international multinational corporations got together the way this fellow describes out of this book, All Honorable Men, got together and they decided:

 

“Well, if we can wipe out the competition, we will have the world markets to ourselves!”

 

You see?

 

Radio Host: Let me ask you a question. What about a gentleman by the name of Speers? You know him?

 

Ernst Zundel: No.

 

20 Belsen and the Typhus Epidemic and the Germans Told to Protect the Camp Until the British Arrived

top

 

Radio Host: You haven’t read his book? He was one of the German officers who was tried in Nuremberg.

 

Ernst Zundel: Oh, Speer. Well, okay, I’ll be happy to respond to this. I’ve corresponded with him. Mr. Reynolds, that man was in allied custody for 20 years! He was only allowed to read what four different nations censored for him.

 

Now, if you and I can put on commercials in advertising and sell cars with 1 minute exposure over the radio or television, then a man whom I have for a 20 year captive audience is brainwashed so beyond recognition that he is a totally altered, different personality! The Albert Speer who came out of Spandau is an allied zombie!

 

Radio Host: So you’re saying the books he wrote about the atrocities are things that have been planted in his head by the Allies?

 

Ernst Zundel: After 20 years of confinement under sole allied tutelage, where only allied approved psychologists took his head apart and his brain apart, they only supplied him with the books that they allowed him to. Every newspaper is cut out meticulously as to articles which you’re not supposed to read, I ask you in all honesty, can that man be balanced?

 

[53:02]

 

Radio Host: May not be balanced. I don’t think he was balanced to do what he did in the first place.

 

Ernst Zundel: What did he do in the first place? He was our ministry of war production. You see, Mr. Reynolds, that’s my point. How can a grown up man like yourself, a Member of Parliament, say that he shouldn’t have done what he did in the first place? Nations in war, always find men who run the war machine for them. Canadians did. Americans did. Churchill did. Why should we not have very capable ministers of war? He was a very capable technocrat.

 

Radio Host: He also knew the atrocities that were being committed.

 

Ernst Zundel: He says he didn’t. He said he should have thought about it. But you see, the point is, if he says he didn’t, then I put it to you, if a guy in that kind of elevated office doesn’t know about it, maybe it is because they didn’t exist.

 

Radio Host: Oh, you heard the previous caller say he was a German from Poland and they did exist.

 

Ernst Zundel: Well, a 15 year old kid who was too cowardly to protect somebody from being shot, then to take his word, believe me, he doesn’t stand up against hard evidence.

 

31 Caller Claims Innocent Children Put in Gas Chambers

top

 

Caller (male): Hello?

 

Radio Host: Yes, go ahead.

 

Caller (male): Yes, I would like to know what business this German fellow has to criticize Canada and United States. I mean, listen. They have killed babies in pregnant women and send them the gas chamber. He’s lying! He’s a nobody! He was a little child at the time the war was on. What he know about it? How many innocent children was put in the gas chamber? And I lost myself 40 people for my family! He has a face, he has a nerve to come on the radio and talk lies like this. And people have to listen this. Not ashamed! You let him go on the radio station. You should send him to Germany. He wouldn’t talk like this in Germany. He don’t know nothing about the whole history!

 

There was not killed Japanese children. There was not food to give them. They let the people work till he died. Until he got killed in heavy stones. And he telling stories for the people. They wasn’t killing the jews and they don’t killing. They want to kill the whole world! There was the whole song made up from the Germans. Germany is small, the whole world is ours! What do you think men like this you let go on the radio. This is a shame! I can’t understand how can a person talk on the radio to the public like that? There’s nobody to give him the answer on it. How everything he is saying is lying. What mixing up Japanese and other nations in this program? They talk about Germany. Did Germany know that there was only 6 million jews only killed?

 

Ernst Zundel: I’m afraid you have had the, …

 

Radio Host: He’s allowed to say is a free country, whether we want to believe or not. 685918 was the number. We’ll be right back after the event.

 

32 Zundel’s Commentary on the Jewish Caller and Their Emotionalism and Lies

top

 

Ernst Zundel: Well, finally here we had it. I was waiting for that call for the very first part of the program. Usually, in the olden days, or certainly in Eastern Canada and in the Eastern United States where there is a far greater concentration of jewish people, we get this type of call by the dozens! Monopolizing the airwaves with their emotionalism. Trying to once again cry, moan, whine about all the things that have been done to them, offering no evidence. But for the gullible public, they certainly talk a good persecution and a good crime.

 

Now, is it interesting that the moderator did not allow me to get back at that man and to nail him. He just cut him off. And then, of course, went conveniently to some commercial announcements which gave me no chance to respond to this man’s accusations.

 

However, for the European listeners, this can serve as the typical call. This is why it is so very important that this issue of anti-German propaganda and of this monstrous, horrific lie about Germans killing 6 million jews must be exposed wherever we can! This is the pivotal question! Once this lie has been exposed as a propaganda lie, the world will change upside down, inside out! And our people who have been hated and maligned will become the angels of the world!

 

And this is what those who peddle the lie are afraid of they have gambled wildly and recklessly that they can can control all the channels of communications for all time. If it is possible for us to break through that curtain the way I have broken through with this interview, for instance, on this Canadian radio station, which was the largest radio station on the east coast in Canada, large enough so that they have two private helicopters looking after traffic reports, their own reporters, roving reporters, large enough that they not shy the expense of paying for a long distance call from Vancouver to Toronto over a distance of 5,000 miles for an hour and a half.

 

[58:44]

 

 

33 The Need for All Those Who Believe in the Rightness of the Cause to Help Spread the Message

top

 

Now, when we can break through day in, day out, year after year, through this media curtain with our facts, our figures, our proof, then a new age will be dawning. This is why it is so absolutely crucial that the people who believe in the same things that I believe in, who are unable because of age, lack of faith in themselves or talent in the media, maybe because they speak English with even more of an accent than I do, that they help us in financing my work. Because the proof certainly is given in this interview again that we can make breakthroughs and we can reach the public. And you can see there were all kinds of people out there who are willing to agree with us and who are willing to listen to us.

 

We have all kinds of allies. But right now they are isolated and we are isolated. We cannot reach them for lack of funds. If we had the money, we could buy radio time on every radio station, we could buy TV time on every TV station. Within a very few short years, we could change the German image in the world, the image of National Socialism, which, after all, was an attempt by White Europe to save itself at the end of a cultural cycle and to start and Make a glorious new beginning.

 

If people would only realize the importance of this, we could change the world together. I cannot do it alone. Obviously, some of the members of the jewish community made their usual quick phone calls to rustle up support and to get their fellow racial comrades to get under the airwaves and to give this German, of all people, a piece of their mind and to give them a hard time. Because it is so seldom that Germans speak out in public, and especially even more seldom that they speak out on the airwaves as frankly and as freely as I did in this particular interview. The reaction was equal. Just as we heard by the previous caller every old propaganda lie rehashed, even the canard of “Deutschland ueber alles” or the “tomorrow the world” business. So often has this story been told in Heideggerd UN Deutschland Und Morgen die ganze Welt, that I’m so sick and tired of trying to even explain it. If all the songs that every army in the world had ever sung was broadcast, I think that there would be some pretty red faces and embarrassed politicians.

 

34 Jews and Their Claims of Having Lost Untold Family Members!

top

 

And the fact that he lost 40 members of his family, well, gee, it is incredible! Everyone that I meet of these people lost 10, 20, 30, 40, 50, 80 members of their family. Some 200 members of their family! Hell, I can’t even remember 20 members of my family. But these people, they can remember 200! And they all lost them. And yet they’re all here!

 

35 Anti-Semitism as a Natural Self-Defence Reaction

top

 

The next caller is a female, and she also brings out the old war horse of jewish propaganda, namely that the German people had to suffer and have to suffer because of the world retaliating against us. Nobody ever bothers to reflect or give meditation or to think about why the Germans turned against the jews in the first place! Ours was a reaction of self defense. This is why the word anti-semitism or anti-Judaism was coined and created. It is inherent in the very word itself that ours was a natural reaction of a body politic, of a nation, of a state, of a culture, of a race, if you want, against intruders. If we had been for the jews, it would mean pro-semitism. But because of the way these people behaved, it was anti-semitism. If they had behaved beautifully, it could have been becoming philo-semitism. Or if they hadn’t been there would have been no anti, no pro, no nothing. You see, nobody bothers to think about those things.

 

36 As a War Measure, the Concentration Camps Can Be Justified

top

 

And it is once again important that we make this point again and again to the people of the world, that our reaction was natural, that as a war measure, the concentration camps can be justified. However ugly they are and however little we like them. Nobody likes to be deprived of their freedom. Neither do I. But the fact is we do not have to be forever bow our heads in shame because there were concentration camps and there were people in concentration camps. Because just about every country involved in World War II had people rotting in jail, forgot about their so-called human rights and civil rights. Imprisoned men, women and children. And in many countries, notably the glorious Democratic ally Joseph Stalin killed people by the millions and nobody cared and nobody squawked! So we should forget about defending ourselves but to take the initiative.

 

Back to the program.

 

37 Female Caller Supporting the Holocaust Movie

top

 

Radio Host: Hello, Good morning.

 

Caller (female): Yes, I would like to say a few words to your guest too. He seem to be awfully upset about a story that we saw on Holocaust. That story should have been told long time ago. You shouldn’t be upset because that’s a crime that was done and it should be told. Same like all other wars when they’re on TV, nobody’s upset.

 

But now when that story is told, he seems to be awfully upset because it’s something to be upset about. Because seeing something like that really is unbelievable!

 

Ernst Zundel: Madam. Has the mass murder of the civilian German population ever been shown in an eight hour television special all over North American television? Have the rapes of the 100,000 women in Berlin by the Soviets and Mongolian troops, ever been featured played? Have the rapes of the Viennese? Have the murders, the tortures in allied concentration camps after the war, have they ever been shown? No!

 

Caller (female): They might not be. But after the things that they did, they might be understandable why the people wanted to retaliate because of that you should understand that that story should be told a long time ago to remind us all the time what was going on.

 

Ernst Zundel: I’ve been in Canada for 20 years and I’ve heard nothing but this story from one side. Until finally after 20 years, …

 

Caller (female): [word unclear] not have got enough guts to [word unclear]

 

Ernst Zundel: You know something lady? I have enough guts, … Grant me enough guts from my side to speak up for our side.

 

Look. Grant me the guts from my side to speak up to our side. There is no not only your side. There’s always two sides to a story.

 

Caller (female): There is many nation sides and they all agree. Except you!

 

Ernst Zundel: They don’t all agree, my dear. They don’t all agree, my dear.

 

Caller (female): They do!

 

Ernst Zundel: In Tokyo during the war crimes trial., …

 

Caller (female): They do agree on this story, except you!

 

Ernst Zundel: Because you, my dear woman, there are thousands of books, there are thousands of books written in the world about the jewish lies about Holocaust, the blackmail that it is, and so on. It has nothing to do with fact at all! It is a money making racket employed internationally. Just the fact that a thousand guys tell a lie does make the original lie, not the truth! It is a lie!

 

[1:07:53]

 

38 Male Caller Somewhat Supportive of Zundel’s Position

top

 

Radio Host: Thanks for your call. Go ahead.

 

Caller (male): Hello. Good morning, John. First of all, let me put the record straight. This Holocaust business, this is a drama which has backfired completely. It has been produced by the jews themselves. Secondly, we are they always talking about the 6 million jews, but they never mention that there are 22 million during the Second World War who are gentile, Canadian, British, Russians, Germans as well, they have been killed as well.

 

Thirdly, those 6 million jews they have been smuggled into the United States. And quite a bit of them, they went into Palestine itself. To legitimize their claim in Israel.

 

Ernst Zundel: Absolutely!

 

Radio Host: All these facts they have not been told to the people!

 

Ernst Zundel: Absolutely!

 

Radio Host: [word unclear] can look for one side and neglect the other.

 

Ernst Zundel: Absolutely!

 

Radio Host: And two wrongs do not make right!

 

Ernst Zundel: Absolutely!

 

Radio Host: Exactly what has been practiced by the Germans on the jews and the victims of the jews by the Germans they are by Eichmann himself, who was a jew.

 

And finally the jews they have been compensated for all the damages. They got $35 billion out of West Germany for this so-called story of the 6 million jews. People better go to library and start to read and look to the two sides. I do not believe in killing, but two wrongs do not make right because exactly the jews are doing it in Palestine on the 3.5 million Arab Palestinians. And this is all that I have to say. John. Okay.

 

39 Israel Has Got Terror Squads Going out into the World Assassinating Diplomats, Etc.

top

 

Ernst Zundel: Mr. Reynolds. The week that Holocaust was being shown in the Western world, Israel invaded southern Lebanon.

 

Now, Israel has had three wars in the last generation. Germany has had none. Israel has got terror squads going out into the world assassinating diplomats and those whom they suspect of being terrorists. And there have been several mishaps reported where they got the wrong man.

 

In other words, we have hit squads roaming the planet, abducting people, kidnapping people, assassinating people, silencing people, burning people’s homes down like they did to this German in France, Jochen Pieper and so on.

 

Now there is an international gang of terrorists loose on the planet and they are camouflaging their international power by stuff like that. And we don’t like it. And the world should be grateful for a guy like John Reynolds and for a guy like Christoph Friedrich Zundel to get on the telephone and to alert them to the fact of what is happening! We are a planet in the grip of a gang of terrorists who are using this emotional propaganda to camouflage not their bygone deeds, nobody’s ever talked about them, but their current deeds!

 

Radio Host: Don’t thank me, Christopher. I’ve only got you on because you’re, …

 

Ernst Zundel: Controversial!

 

Radio Host: Controversial.

 

And I think people should know that you’re around because I think you’re, …

 

Ernst Zundel: What?

 

[Call cut out]

 

40 Male Caller Denies Gas Chambers and Disputes the Number of Jews Who Died

top

 

Radio Host: Hello? Hello, you’re there, Go ahead, go ahead Conor, go ahead.

 

Caller (female): The war was over. Hello?

 

Radio Host: Yes, go ahead again.

 

Caller (female): When the war was over I was 15 years old. When I’ve been around in Eastern Europe and then in Western Europe. When I hear this story it’s been told over the Holocaust, you know all the murdering goes on. It’s unbelievable what kind of lies! Because I’ve been down after war and around Bavaria with how concentration camp used to be. There was nothing! There was no gas chamber whatsoever! The gas chamber been built 1948!

 

Ernst Zundel: A Hollywood movie.

 

Caller (female): American supervision.

 

Ernst Zundel: A Hollywood movie.

 

Caller (female): In a little chamber, supposed to burn 6 million jews. Like in Canada, anybody who you listen to in the radio television he’s always:

 

“I was lucky I survived!”

 

How could he survive in Europe, in only 3 million jews? When you go back to Russia now and count the population the jewish in Poland how many immigrants to South America, to Palestine, the United States, Canada, you know how many are left who got killed? One million, two hundred thousand. That’s proven from the Swiss Red Cross. But that story they never told, people died of starvation. It was from 1944-45 because there was no transportation, no food! The food rationing was anyway. I mean there was no way to get the food to the people.

 

Ernst Zundel: In other words, …

 

Caller (female): Other people died. I saw him laying on the road as we marched from Poland to [word unclear] in front of the Russians, you know. And I thought he been shot down, you know from bombs and everything. But after the war when we stayed in Bavaria, so after you went to north German plain there, when his story’s been told [words unclear] brainwashed. The older people over there, they’re dying out. They forget, you know. It’s unbelievable, …

 

Radio Host: Anything that happened at the Nuremberg trials was true?

 

[1:12:59]

 

41 Zundel Talks About the Nuremberg Trials and the Dissenting Opinion of an Indian Judge

top

 

Ernst Zundel: Let me tell you about the Nuremberg trials.

 

Radio Host: I haven’t read them all but I’ve looked, …

 

Caller (female): Yeah, that’s the trouble, you know you only read the one side of it, you know.

 

Radio Host: Hey, thanks for your call.

 

Ernst Zundel: Mr Reynolds.

 

Radio Host: Go ahead.

 

Ernst Zundel: Mr. Reynolds I have in front of me a book put out by the British trial lawyer who defends Field Marshal Manstein in a war crimes trial in Germany after the war. And he quotes in there an Indian judge. He refers to him as “the great Indian judge Rahabino de Pal”, who wrote the dissenting judgment which he delivered as one of the judges of the International Court at Tokyo. Now he would have never been chosen number one as a judge had he been pro-German. He was completely neutral, an Indian judge, one of India’s great judges. Here is what the judge said as a dissenting opinion in Tokyo. And the same holds true for Germany:

 

“The so-called trial held according to the definition of crime now given by the victors obliterates the centuries of civilization which stretch between us and the summary slaying of a defeated in war. A trial with law thus prescribed would only be a sham employment of the legal process for the satisfaction of the thirst for revenge. It does not correspond to any idea of justice and may justly create the feeling that it is much more a political than a legal affair. To say that the Victor can define a crime at his will and then punish would be to revert back to those days when he was allowed to devastate an occupied country, appropriate all public and private property therein and kill the inhabitants or take them away into captivity.”

 

Mr. Reynolds, I will tell you that the United States, that the Soviet Union, that England, Canada, Belgium and France behave in exactly this manner!

 

In other words, the Indian judge calls them barbarians!

 

Radio Host: Okay, 685-9181. We’ll be right back after these messages.

 

42 Zundel’s Commentary on the Radio Host’s Willingness to Let Him Speak Freely

top

 

Ernst Zundel: Well, I have to admit to our listeners that in all the TV shows and in all the public debates and so on that I’ve ever made in North America, this one is turning out to be something else. This moderator is allowing me to say things unopposed. I can’t believe it! This has really in all honesty never happened to me before, that I would have been able to so openly state the German case and also to so openly and continuously attack the Allies. There is very little opposition from the callers that come in. We have had an Arab for the first time, an Arab coming to our defense. The reason why I am stressing the Arab is that I used to fight for the Arabic and Palestine Palestinian cause versus the Israelis with great vehemence and never received any support at all Over The Airwaves. And I was completely disgusted by it.

 

However, that was in Montreal. It does seem that the population composition of Vancouver is different and that this is why we can say more and be on the air.

 

43 Female Caller on the Amount of Hate Mongering That is Going On.

top

 

Radio Host: Yes caller.

 

Caller (male): I really, I can’t understand this program this morning. It just seems to be made up of hate!

 

But what I want to say is that can you tell me any country in the world that has not done, you know, terrible things to other nations, like even right today, right in Ireland, look what’s going on. And because a madman, Hitler, and he was proven mad! I mean, because he did these things, why blame the German people? The German are well educated. They’re one of the smartest people in the world. And not saying there’s lots of other smart people, but just because one madman did it, why is it all this hate perpetuated?

 

Radio Host: Because of Mr. Friedrich, I think, and what he’s doing.

 

Caller (male): Jewish people, too, seem to have a heck of a lot of resentment.

 

44 Zundel’s Run for the Post of Leader of the Liberal Party in 1968

top

 

Ernst Zundel: You see, it’s interesting, Mr. Reynolds, that I am supposed to be the hate monger. You can say about German people the most foul lies and the most horrible things. And you can say it over Canadian radio, over Canadian television. You can say it in Canadian newspapers and you can say it in our Canadian university textbooks. Mr. Reynolds, I went through your school system here and through your university system. I ran for the post of leader of the Liberal Party in 1968. I know what Canadians think, and I know what they do you know! You are the people, in effect, who have love on your lap and hate in your heart when it comes to Germans! It’s as simple as that!

 

Radio Host: How much did you get when you ran against Trudeau for the Liberal leadership?

 

Ernst Zundel: Pardon me?

 

Radio Host: How many votes did you get?

 

Ernst Zundel: I purposely dropped out five minutes before the balloting.

 

Radio Host: Why?

 

Ernst Zundel: Because I wanted to make the statement that a man with his own money, totally independent, could run and arrive in Ottawa and make it to the same podium, speak to the Canadian people. And I spoke to them strictly about anti-German hate propaganda. Nothing more, nothing less! I’m not a megalomaniac. I know exactly the limits of my personality. But I use that as a platform to say:

 

“Canadians, look in the mirror, stop hating us, number one, we don’t deserve it, number one. Number two, it doesn’t make you look any better for kicking around on us!”

 

You know, it’s okay to kick around a defeated enemy, but after 30 years, it reflects on the guy that does the kicking.

 

Radio Host: Why didn’t you continue and see how many votes you’d get?

 

[1:18:47]

 

Ernst Zundel: I had no misconception that Trudeau was going to win the election because I understand my fellow Canadians. You know, they were swept up by Trudeau mania. The media manufactured it.

 

And since I didn’t have the media behind me, thanks to my infiltrated cronies in the press, I certainly had no chance, just as little as Robert Winders or Paul Helio or anybody else. But if I had made it.

 

Radio Host: Thank you very much for being with us this morning. I don’t wish you any success because I think what you do, …

 

Ernst Zundel: Really, Mr. Reynolds, if I had made it, the country would be in much better shape, believe me.

 

Radio Host: Okay, well, that’s how you feel, I guess you’ve got the right in this country to do what you want to do.

 

Ernst Zundel: The results are obvious. Thank you.

 

Radio Host: Thank you very much.

 

45 Zundel’s Commentary on the Whole Program and Practical Advice to Callers

top

 

Ernst Zundel: Little remarkable remains to be said about this interview. On the whole, it is one of the most remarkable ones that I have done because of the length and because of the truth that I was able to say. Believe me, in 90% of the cases I couldn’t have been on that radio station for five minutes, and I would have been cut off.

 

But it seems that either the mood of the population is changing, or that the mood of the men in the media is changing, or that this man in particular doesn’t like what is happening and is using me as a mouthpiece. I do not know. I don’t understand it.

 

But as they say in English, why should I look a gift horse in the mouth? The program cost me nothing. The radio station paid for the telephone call. And my cause and my German people’s cause has been once again well defended and well served.

 

For those who are about to get into the media field, I think that this tape could serve as a good training tape, if I may say so, with all modesty, if you pardon the pun. But I have done so many of these radio shows that I’m beginning to consider myself somewhat of an expert.

 

Look at some of the callers that call in. They are amateurs and you can tell that they are amateurs. They are wandering all over the landscape. And again and again the moderator has to remind them:

 

“Make your point. Make your point! What’s your point? Come to your point!”

 

In other words, if you’re going to call in a program like that, write down what you want to say point for point, Rehearse it a little, say it out loud. Nobody’s around anyways. Most people are at work. And then state your case clearly, succinctly and carefully.

 

I learned my lessons and worked hard in polishing my media stance. I just wish I could have more opportunities like this one to make use of my 10 years of training, my 20 years of training, actually. And naturally, more than anything else, I wish I could do it back home in Germany.

 

However, there must be people who have to do it over here in North America. And as long as we are here, working here, living here, it is our duty to speak out and to stand up for what is right and for what is true. Naturally, I appeal, since this is in English, to all our many English speaking friends across this land, the United States and around the world.

 

This problem is not a German problem. It is your problem. It is our problem. It is a world problem. The German people didn’t create it, you helped create it. If you are too young, your father or your grandfather helped to create it. Now it’s your responsibility and my responsibility, our responsibility to change it. Because we live in this world together. It is up to you and I to pass on to our children and to future generations a better world, a healthier world, an honest world, a clean world and an unpolluted world. Not only unpolluted, that we have clear streams, clear oceans, clean air, but also clean brains! And thoroughly cleaned souls! Because we without those two, the other will, number one, not matter, and number two cannot be achieved.

 

Therefore, it is almost ironic that this problem of undetermined propaganda, of hate programs against Germans drag down those who do the hating and inhibit them in growing, because hate makes blind. And throughout this program you will have noticed that I speak very firmly and very quickly and very much to the point, but never with hate.

 

When in my early years and younger years I was so full of pain as to why and what had happened to Germany, and when I first discovered the horrendousness of this lie, I used to get so distraught that I suppose I hated, and I lost every radio program.

 

As a consequence I would say to check one’s emotions, to make sure one is relaxed, not tired, not agitated, and to try very hard to keep one’s emotions under control because the public airwaves are no medium for sounding like some raving lunatic. Speak by all means with feeling, but never with hate. Otherwise you will lose your audience, you will not be understood, and many people won’t be able to follow you. Therefore, try to state your case without hesitation, without humming and hawing, and rather be short and to the point than try to be long winded. And always keep in mind to whom you are speaking. If you are speaking to Canadians, address them on Canadian topics such as Canadian concentration camps, Canadian war crimes and Canadian skeletons in their closets. Don’t roam around the world about the 1918 revolution and this control and that stuff. Nobody’s interested.

 

[1:27:06]

 

Another thing to remember, stay away from figures. Nothing is more deadly and more boring than to discuss statistics and figures on radio. The counting of dead bodies is stupid and lurid and sad enough on paper, but it has absolutely no place on radio and not on television. I have seen how people have lost audiences left, right, front and center because they try to impress them with their knowledge of figures. Believe me, you can use it as a tactic to throw your opponent, of course, but don’t ever think you can score points. It’s a waste of time and it’s a waste of airtime. Stick to simple things that people can relate to, like stealing somebody’s property, beating, raping, mugging, torture, prison, stuff like that. Now that they can see every now night on television, they can relate to that. And if you relate that to them in our case, your point will be well made. Otherwise you’re going to get bogged down in 6 million and 9 million, minus 472,000 and so on. So many jews in Poland and all this, it is useless! Nobody cares. Nobody cares!

 

People basically think what the Germans did was monstrous because all they can relate to is that they might know a jew who is nice, or a jewish woman or jewish kid whom they like. And of course we murdered in effect the people whom they liked. So what we have to say is exactly what I said in this program. It is not our fault. We didn’t start this whole mess, somebody else did. It could have been solved differently if people had been willing.

 

Now, we don’t want to shoulder all the blame.

 

 

[01:29:13]

 

 

END

top

 

 

 

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

 

 

See Also

top

 

 

 

Monika Schaefer – The Flipside with Monika – Ep 15 with Jürgen Neumann on Ernst Zündel – Oct 12, 2024 – Transcript

The Flipside with Monika – Ep 18 with Jürgen Neumann – Nov 2, 2024 – Transcript

The Flipside with Monika – Ep 36 with Jürgen Neumann on Ernst Zundel – Mar 22, 2025 – Transcript

Ernst Zundel – Another Voice of Freedom Radio – Why World War II Started – 1994 – Transcript

Ernst Zundel – 1967-68 Radio Shows in Montreal Discussing Israel and Jewish Topics 1 – Transcript

Ernst Zundel – 1967-68 Radio Shows in Montreal Discussing Israel and Jewish Topics 2 – Transcript

 

 

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

Ernst Zundel: You are listening to Another Voice of Freedom broadcast financed through the free will donations of listeners like yourself. I’m Ernst Zundel, your host and moderator. The opinions expressed by our guests or in editorials and stories are always those of the originators. We believe that personal opinions freely expressed are not a danger to any democratic society. We don’t have to agree with any or all of the opinions expressed by others. We owe it to ourselves, however, to listen, to evaluate, and to possibly learn something new or different in the process. You may reach us at 206 Carlton Street Toronto, Ontario, Canada, M5A 2L1. Telephone 1492-29850 [Note: All contact details out of date].

 

And now we have another interesting program for you.

 

I’m Ernst Zundel with Another Voice of Freedom program. A number of our listeners from around the country, and some even as far away as Europe, have contacted us about our recent programs relating to D-Day and the period in Europe after D-Day, and some of our revisionist viewpoints that we hold on this topic. Well, some of them complained that I, in my programs had not spelled out in more detail what the Second World War was all about and how it came about.

 

So let me try to give it a layman’s overview. Nothing academic, just a layman’s overview. The Germans in the First World War were defeated by a coalition of forces, and the German government under the Weimar Republic was asked to sign a treaty in Versailles. And one of the stipulations of that treaty was that the Germans had to declare themselves solely responsible for the First World War.

 

And of course, with the loss of Germany’s territories in the east, coupled with this slap in the face for the entire German nation, who knew that they had not been solely responsible for this tragedy, which was the First World War. This meant there was a fertile soil for nationalists, or even extreme nationalists to agitate against the existing order of things.

 

Germany, you must understand, was under some form of Allied tutelage, was under military occupation in some regions. Germany was condemned to pay reparations, huge amounts of reparations which were to only run out in the year 1988! I want to repeat that these massive billions of dollars worth of gold marks of reparations the Germans were to pay to the Allies, were to be running till the year 1988. That was reparations the Germans had to pay for the First World War.

 

The reason why I’m stressing that is because, of course, it bankrupted the German nation, led to hyperinflation where people were paid three times a day, mornings, noon and night, because the money devalued between breakfast and lunch, sometimes by millions of marks!

 

And so when men were receiving their paycheck, they didn’t go and bring a wallet at the end of the week, they usually brought a basket.

 

And finally, some of the store and shop owners paid their people every single evening, because hyperinflation was running away with the currency in Germany.

 

My own mother, a very simple young girl, said that she worked for a whole month and at the end of the month, all she could buy with her earnings for that month in 1923, was a stamp with which to send a postcard to her parents. That is what the situation was!

 

In that situation, Adolf Hitler, a very gifted young orator in Germany, started his struggle for power. And he struggled against those who had signed this shameful treaty in Versailles and against those who had imposed it on Germany. And he found increasing resonance amongst the German population. At first the working people, finally an ever increasing number amongst Germany’s students, then amongst the more middle classes, and finally even amongst the intelligentsia, meaning Professors, doctors, dentists, lawyers and so on.

 

Then Adolf Hitler democratically moved into the Reichstag, and because his party was the party that had Garnered most votes in a coalition with other nationalist forces, finally became the government of Germany in 1933, on 30 January.

 

While Hitler was struggling for power, he had said over and over in thousands of speeches and talks and articles in his party newspaper and so on, and many of his Members of Parliament, the Reichstag at that time said to the German population:

 

“Understand that a vote for National Socialism does not mean a change of government in Germany.”

 

In other words, it’s not a change of administration. It’s not the Democrats being replaced by the Republicans, or in the Canadian context, the Liberals replacing the Conservatives. He said:

 

“What you are doing with this election, it is a plebiscite on which way Germany is going to go.”

 

In other words, there are going to be some fundamental changes in German society. And he had outlined them to the German population quite openly and quite freely, what he thought Germany should look like in the 1930s. The Germans were not sucked into or conned into voting for yet another politician who had made all kinds of promises that he wasn’t going to keep.

 

My own mother and my own father, who had been unemployed for four years by the time Adolf Hitler finally did come to power, said that they had tried the Conservatives, they had voted for the Catholic Party, the Christian Center Party, they had even voted for the Social Democratic Party. Other Germans, disgusted by all this party wrangling voted for the Communist Party.

 

And there was a polarization of political opinion and political action and the political spectrum in Germany in the 1930s between the extreme Left and, yes, the extreme nationalist Right.

 

Hitler represented the Right, the forces of the Right, and together with a number of smaller parties, finally did form the government, as I said. And he was hardly in power when an international boycott was called against Germany.

 

And the reason why I’m mentioning this is because in the next few programs, we are going to take a look exactly at what happened in “Nazi Germany”, the way the popular press calls it, or National Socialist Germany, in Hitler’s Germany after he came to power.

 

[07:46]

 

Let me just say to you that in studying this period of time, I found that Germany was in a terribly shocking state! And that, for instance, in the state of Thuringia, which is in the east, the budget for social welfare was two thirds of the state’s budget was eaten up by social welfare. Two thirds. You can imagine, that means so many people were unemployed, were on the dole, were half employed and so on. A state cannot function with this kind of budget. And so a crisis was looming large in Germany.

 

Also, the foreign currency reserves of Germany had gone down to such a level that when the German economics minister mentioned this to the new government, Hitler was alarmed. It was down to some 480 million marks, which, for a trading nation like Germany that depended on financing exports and so on, it was virtually the death knell. Germany was, to all intents and purposes, bankrupt!

 

How to get out of this situation was what dominated the mind of the new government. And during this particular time, there were rumors around the world that they were going to be preventive wars. There was going to be an invasion of Germany either by France or by Poland or by both governments.

 

Now, at the time, these two countries were, in a European context, superpowers. You must understand that the Treaty of Versailles condemned the German government to a force of professional soldiers of 100,000 people, just 100,000 men! That meant the entire German armed forces could fit into the Berlin soccer stadium.

 

Now, picture that. The Berlin soccer stadium. The only weapons that they had were machine guns. When they were practicing with tanks, they were bicycles with cardboard cutouts made to look like tanks. Because Germany was the only totally disarmed country and it was forced to disarm under the Treaty of Versailles. Hitler knew all this. In other words, he was in absolutely no position to threaten anybody! Others were threatening his government.

 

And suddenly there were these news from North America that the jewish community in North America was Calling for an international boycott against Germany! There was a man called Samuel Untermeyer, who had gone to Amsterdam for a conference. And when he returned to the United States, he gave a nationally broadcast radio program in which he called for a holy war against Germany, a national boycott.

 

And naturally, Hitler’s ambassadors and consular officials reported that back to Germany. So did the media. Hitler was alarmed! Here was the threat of military invasion, economic strangulation. Inside Germany the communists were restive. And so Hitler did what other German Chancellors had done before him, perfectly Democratic measure to call out some kind of an Emergency Measures Act. In Canada, we would call it the War Measures Act.

 

Into this period fell a fire that was started by apparently a communist, or a man with communist leadings called Van der Lubbe, who tried to burn down the Reichstag, meaning the German Parliament. Apparently as some kind of a note to other Leftists, to start simultaneously all over Germany similar activities and to try to have an overthrow of the German government.

 

Now, I know that in Allied propaganda, Hermann Goering is supposedly himself having carried a canister of gasoline through some secret tunnels into the Reichstag, and he’s supposed to have had a kind of a hand in burning down the Reichstag. Well, perfectly independent people and historical commissions and inquiries by independent historians during, before, during and after the war have come to the conclusion that, in effect, the Nazis did not torch the Reichstag! That it was a canard put out by communist and Leftist propaganda.

 

Hitler used this as his means of introducing draconian repressive measures inside Germany, outlawing political parties, political movements, arrest without habeas corpus and so on. It was a typical emergency measure act!

 

Now, I want you immediately to understand this is not to excuse Adolf Hitler and him breaking the civil rights of Germans. I am just trying to explain to you that this is nothing new in European history, certainly absolutely nothing new of the period. And in Canada, as late as 1972, we had what they called “the invoking of the War Measures Act”.

 

Actually, it was earlier still, during the FLQ crisis, the Front des Liberation Qui Pequoi, which was a Leftist group that was blowing up mailboxes, the stock market building and so on. And the Canadian government, in perfect peacetime, prosperous, not surrounded by enemies that were trying to invade our country here, imposed a War Measures Act. I lived there during the time in Quebec, and I can assure you here is what happened.

 

Hundreds, many, many, many hundreds of French-Canadian activists who had been politically vocal in wanting to have separation between Quebec and the rest of the country were rounded up at night. 4:00, 5:00, 3:00 o’clock in the morning. And they were arrested without any legal representation. They were put into sports arenas, meaning concentrated into the same kind of area that Hitler would take his dissidents and so on in the early 30s.

 

They were kept in there. Some of them were kept in jails in Canada without having the rights that we normally have to be brought before a judge speedily and so on, because the War Measures act had declared a national emergency, saying that there was imminent danger to the survival of Canada as a society and as a state. And then your civil rights went out the window.

 

Well, that’s exactly what happened to Germans in the Hitler era, as soon as Adolf Hitler came to power, because there was this perceived threat to the German state, the overthrow of the German government. And Hitler invoked what he called the Enabling Act, where he spelled out what his moves were going to be.

 

And so Germany, that moment, became somewhat of a dictatorship. True, there were elections and there were plebiscites later on, but ultimately, Hitler governed Germany under this kind of draconian enabling legislation, which allowed him to forbid parties and movements and seize newspapers, outlaw publishing houses and stuff like this, very much the way the West German state has been doing in the last six to seven months.

 

[15:26]

 

And again, Germany has no threat of invasion. Germany has no threat that the state is going to be overthrown. Yet the ruling clique in power in Germany says:

 

“Oh, we have got political dissidents here that are getting entirely too testy. They are having these big marches of 4, 5, 10,000 people. Our police forces can no longer control them, meaning they cannot cow them into silence. And even 10,000 policemen last fall could not prevent a march in honor of Rudolf Hess, for instance. And so therefore, we are going to pass this draconian legislation.”

 

Which they tried to do recently on the 20th of June with their what they call crime bill. But the German Parliament, at that time, the Upper House, at least voted down this draconian law.

 

Well, in Hitler’s Germany they did not, because National Socialism at that time, as I said, had the superior numbers. And so Germany began to rebuild under those measures with limited freedoms, restricted freedom of expression. And Hitler managed by all kinds of means, which we are going to cover in future programs, to prevent the invasion by France and by Poland, to prevent the boycott from crippling and destroying the German economy. And Adolf Hitler and his government went on and governed Germany in peace time for another six years.

 

And by the year 1936, we are able already to absorb all the millions and millions of unemployed in Germany and the surrounding countries. Two million people worked as guest workers in Germany in 1937 and 38, at a time when the rest of Europe was, and America, may I say, and Canada was still very much suffering under a depression!

 

Hitler’s Germany was like a beautifully tended garden surrounded by a bunch of gardens full of weeds.

 

And of course, the envy of the people who tilled the gardens, meaning the governments of the particular day, was rife everywhere! Not the people. For instance, Hitler had this program where he was going to [actually did] send hard working miners and farmers and so on these cruise ships to distant places in North Africa, in Egypt, in Greece or in Norway.

 

And it was such a hit with the working people of Europe that ordinary people could actually go on cruises that England forbade the landing of these German cruise ships in British ports! Because rather than giving their own working people such a break, they found it much easier just to restrict German ships from landing and not getting British workers envious.

 

What I’m saying to you is Hitler made Germany prosper! He made the trains run on time. Things hummed in Germany. Germany broke all kinds of records on the ground, in the air, with cars, with planes. National Socialist Germany in peacetime was a progressive, thriving country. And the people that lived there during that particular time apparently kind of allowed this restricted freedom that they couldn’t have different opinions and so on. They traded social security, financial security, bread and butter stuff over freedom.

 

It has always troubled me that that’s the way it was, but that’s the way it was. I personally am far more of a believer in individualism and freedom than that particular generation. But the Germans, after all, if the majority does rule by their majority, and by constantly reaffirming Hitler in power and his government decided that was the way they were perfectly willing to live, who am I to say in 1994 that they didn’t have the right to do that?

 

Now, why did the war break out? Because apparently Hitler was a sworn enemy of Marxism, Communism, then called Bolshevism. And Europe had these Bolshevik uprisings, especially in Hungary, Romania. Also in the east, especially in Russia, where a lot of blood was spilled, where hundreds of thousands, millions we know today, tens of millions of people were butchered in the most gruesome way, worked to death in the Gulag, worked to death while building canals through mosquito infested swamps and so on.

 

Today, now that the archives are open and the mass graves are being found in the Crimea and in the Ukraine and in Russia proper. Mass graves that hold 200, 240, 300,000 people and we have only just scratched the surface.

 

So the Bolsheviks who were in the east, armed to the teeth, had always said that they believed in world revolution and they were appealing to the workers around the world in uprising after uprising.

 

I know, I’ve got a book in my bookshelves here about a communist uprising in Brazil. Then we had the communist uprising in Spain. It was known at that time in Europe that communism was a huge threat to Western values and Western civilization.

 

Adolf Hitler was a strong opponent of Marxism. He considered it almost like an evil religion. And when President Ford, and later on much more so President Reagan and President Nixon before them had certain anti-communist statements made, President Reagan was the one that coined the phrase “the evil empire”. Well, let me tell you, Adolf Hitler had called Bolshevism and the Soviet Union “an evil empire” already in 1920s! And had initiated policies to contain the evil empire in the late 1930s. Making what he called the anti-Comintern pact with Italy, Japan and Germany.

 

[22:05]

 

And he also knew from his intelligence services that Russia [Soviet Union], armed to the teeth as they were, were pulling together troops at the Eastern border.

 

And so he knew that they were going to attack Germany and Western Europe. How did he know? Because the German armed forces and the German spy system against communism worked. They had lots and lots of ethnic Europeans in the east who were siding with the German government. And so their information was excellent!

 

But when Hitler finally ended up in this terrible tragedy with Poland, which France and England used as a declaration, as the reason for a declaration of war against Germany, Hitler knew that he had to quickly finish the continental powers in a kind of a pre-emptive quick strike in order to keep his back free, because he knew that the Soviet Union was arming and ready and rearing to go and invade Germany from the East. Germany didn’t have enough land, enough depth, geopolitically speaking, geographically speaking, to absorb the massive invasion forces which were then beginning to build up on her Eastern Frontier.

 

And so, luckily for Germany, France was subdued quickly, Holland and Belgium also. And Hitler could now turn his attention to the east. By now, his air force, using the very latest in technology, high altitude planes, quite similar to the later the very famous U2 spy planes which Francis Gary Powers used to fly over the Soviet Union. Hitler had similar planes, not quite as sophisticated, of course, but he could penetrate with his reconnaissance airplanes, flying at tremendously high altitudes for the first time using pressurized cabins, way into the heartland of Russia.

 

How do we know it? Because we have books about it. One man has been on my mailing list for three decades. His name is George Pemler. George Pemler, P E M L E R. He has written a book called, Der Flug zum Don, published by Drufel publishing house in Germany, in which he details and shows with all kinds of photographs the massive build-up of Soviet forces on the German border.

 

 

And so Hitler knew that he was not strong enough to just merely defend himself against Russia. And so they decided to pre-emptorily strike at the build-up of the Soviet forces very much the way Israel did in a repeat policy. And many people said, using a copycat plan against the Arab world in 1967 with exactly the same results. The Israelis attacked air fields in Egypt, in Syria and in other places, in Jordan, destroying the planes on the ground. They attacked missile batteries, destroying them on the ground.

 

And once they were silenced, then the ground forces, Israel’s tank forces, could sweep through the desert, driving the Arab forces before them into the desert. And ultimately Israel scored a stunning defeat in a very, very short war called the Six Day War.

 

Hitler’s forces did exactly the same thing in 1941 in the east. And the German air force that was opposed by over 14,000 Soviet planes knocked down over 12,500 planes or bombed them underground within the first two weeks of the war. The German air force at that time had less than 4,000 3,750 planes. The same could be said for ground forces, tank forces and so on. It was not German massive armor that won this. It was superior German generalship and planning. And also the elandes, the spirit of the German troops.

 

However, they were unable to deliver a knockout blow against the Soviet Union, which the world had expected. Basically, we know today because of treason in German ranks! Treason was the reason for Hitler not winning the war against the Soviet Union. And this is why Germany got stuck in the east!

 

And this is why these huge battles of attrition in Stalingrad, where over 300,000 German men marched into Stalingrad and where only 6,000 of them came back after the Second World War from Stalin’s Gulag. 96,000 prisoners were taken. About 90,000 of them vanished!

 

And you wonder why there were so few planes, so few troops, so few tanks in the West. Well, I tell you, they were in the east defending Europe, Western Europe against the Soviet onslaught, against the hordes of the evil empire, as President Reagan would have called it.

 

And so Europe’s men, we have to remember that, the Hungarians, the Slovakians, the many Polish volunteers, Ukrainian volunteers, Danish, Dutch volunteers. Alone in Denmark, four times as many people were serving in the SS in the German armed forces of Danish nationality than were serving in the Danish armed forces and police! This is an incredible statistic which very few people know.

 

[See: The Epic Story of the Waffen SS – Leon Degrelle]

 

So Hitler’s Germany was defending Europe’s interest in the east. And this is why the Allies had such an easy time in the West. This is why the there were only 270 operational tanks and only 375 planes to meet the Allies’ 12,000 planes in the West. They were bleeding to death in the east for Europe. And so look at it in the context of a German or of Germany. The Germans defended Europe and European style civilization against Soviet Bolshevism.

 

And so this was the reason that I should have given you before we went into Normandy.

 

However, the next series of programs that you’re going to hear have to do largely with Israel and German jewish relations. And I think it is timely because very, very little has been said about this period in history and the German side of it.

 

I am Ernst Zundel speaking for The Voice of Freedom. Yes, I am a son of the Germans using the facilities of North American radio stations and the freedom guaranteed to me by the United States, Constitution, by the Canadian Bill of Rights, or the other way around, to bring you dissident or different information. And all I’m asking you is. You don’t have to believe me. Just open up your mind to our German viewpoint and our Germans.

 

We are located at 206 Carlton street in Toronto, Ontario, Canada. Our postal code is M5A 2L1. Our telephone 416-922-9850 [Note: All contact details out of date]. Thank you very much.

 

Ernst Zundel here thanking you for your support.

 

[29:34]

 

 

END

top

 

 

 

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

 

Odysee Comments

top

(Comments as of 4/2/2025 = )

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

See Also

top

 

 

 

Monika Schaefer – The Flipside with Monika – Ep 1 – Intro – Jun 29, 2024 – Transcript

The Flipside with Monika – Ep 2 – Jul 6, 2024 – Transcript

The Flipside with Monika – Ep 03 with Paul Fromm – Jul 13, 2024 – Transcript

Monika Schaefer – The Flipside with Monika – Ep 04 with Oscar – Jul 20, 2024 – Transcript

The Flipside with Monika – Ep 08 with Alfred Schaefer – Aug 17, 2024 – Transcript

The Flipside with Monika – Ep 09 with Grace Eki Oyama – Aug 24, 2024 – Transcript

Monika Schaefer – The Flipside with Monika – Ep 15 with Jürgen Neumann on Ernst Zündel – Oct 12, 2024 – Transcript

The Flipside with Monika – Ep 18 with Jürgen Neumann – Nov 2, 2024 – Transcript

The Flipside with Monika – Ep 20 with Kathleen Dudley – Nov 16, 2024 – Transcript

 

 

Monika Schaefer – The Flipside with Monika – Ep 24 – Prof Tony Hall – Dec 21, 2024 – Transcript

The Flipside with Monika – Ep 27 – Germar Rudolf – Jan 18, 2025 – Transcript

The Flipside with Monika – Ep 36 with Jürgen Neumann on Ernst Zundel – Mar 22, 2025

 

 

 

 

Monika Schaefer – The Flipside with Monika – Ep 15 with Jürgen Neumann on Ernst Zündel – Oct 12, 2024 – Transcript

The Flipside with Monika – Ep 18 with Jürgen Neumann – Nov 2, 2024 – Transcript

The Flipside with Monika – Ep 36 with Jürgen Neumann on Ernst Zundel – Mar 22, 2025 – Transcript

Ernst Zundel – Another Voice of Freedom Radio – Why World War II Started – 1994 – Transcript

Ernst Zundel – 1967-68 Radio Shows in Montreal Discussing Israel and Jewish Topics 1 – Transcript

Ernst Zundel – 1967-68 Radio Shows in Montreal Discussing Israel and Jewish Topics 2 – Transcript

 

 

 

 

The World’s First Anti-Holocaust Convention — Instauration Dec, 1979

An Open Letter to New Jersey’s Governor

Historians or Hoaxers?

House of Orwell

Misha: Surviving with Wolves or …

Bradley Smith’s Smith Report # 1

The Liberation of the Camps: Facts vs. Lies

The Plum Cake

 

 

 

Auschwitz: Myths and Facts

Powers and Principalities XI – Ewen Cameron, MK-Ultra, Holocaust Revisionism — TRANSCRIPT

Tales of the Holohoax – A Historian’s Assessment – Part 1

The Holocaust Lie — Made in America

Probing the Holocaust: The Horror Explained — TRANSCRIPT

Jim Rizoli Interviews Prof Robert Faurisson, Oct 2015 — TRANSCRIPT

Holocaust Eyewitnesses: Is the Testimony Reliable?

Alain Soral – My Homage to Robert Faurisson, Oct 2018 — TRANSCRIPT

Inside Auschwitz – You’ve never seen THIS before! — TRANSCRIPT

 

 

Amazion Bans 100s of Holocaust Revisionist Books!

AUSCHWITZ – A Personal Account by Thies Christophersen

Jim Rizoli Interviews Bradley Smith — TRANSCRIPT

London Forum – Alfred Schaefer – Psychological Warfare – TRANSCRIPT

The Realist Report Interviews Eric Hunt — TRANSCRIPT

Red Ice Radio – Germar Rudolf – Persecution of Revisionists & Demographic Disaster – Part 1— TRANSCRIPT

Red Ice Radio: Nicholas Kollerstrom — TRANSCRIPT

Red Ice TV – Ingrid Carlqvist – Scandal in Sweden When Ingrid Questions the Unquestionable — TRANSCRIPT

The Realist Report with Carolyn Yeager on Johnson vs Anglin debate — TRANSCRIPT

 

 

 

 

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

Monika Schaefer: All right, greetings. Hello everyone. Good day. Good afternoon wherever you are. Today is November 16th, 2024. You are listening to the Republic Broadcasting Network at RepublicBroadcasting.org. This is episode 20 of The Flipside with Monika. I am your host, Monika Schaefer.

 

And today I am absolutely delighted to have a guest who is a very good friend of mine, Kathleen Dudley. She was born and raised not too far from where I grew up near Edmonton, Alberta, in a small town just north of there, but now is residing in the United States, in New Mexico, in fact, and has been, I think you became an American citizen quite a few years ago.

 

Before I bring Kathleen on, I’ll just remind the listener that this is listener supported. So if you possibly can support the Republic Broadcasting Network, go to the website@republicbroadcasting.org and you will find the donate button there. And there are different ways of donating, either directly or by supporting the sponsors.

 

And I always encourage people also to share these shows, tell other people about the Republic Broadcasting Network. There are many good shows on this network and you’re not going to hear this kind of stuff on the mainstream media or what some people call the “Mockingbird Media”. Okay.

 

And I will also tell people about the chat room. It’s at the flipside w.monica.chatango.com and you can share things there. And I share things there from time to time. And yeah. So I wanted to tell you about that.

 

Okay. So Kathleen, are you there? Can you hear me?

 

Kathleen Dudley: I can. And thank you very much, Monika. I’ve been looking forward to this and what a surprise and a privilege and a joy.

 

Monika Schaefer: Thank you. Well, I’ve been looking forward to this for quite some time. This has been sometime in the making, I think we could see. I’ll just tell the listener a little bit about how we first met. You interviewed me. You were producing some content. You had a YouTube channel and I think you still do, although probably a lot of the videos that were a little bit more in the forbidden territory. You have, I think, an Odysee channel or maybe you can tell us about that in a moment. But where you have most of your content. And you were interviewing me. That’s how we first met.

 

And then you ended up in your own big battle. It had nothing to do with World War II history, like my big court epic, you know, battles. [chuckling] But I found it quite amusing, to tell you the truth! It was rather amusing. That doesn’t matter what somebody’s trials and tribulations are about somehow there seems to always be a jew in the mix that brings in the Holocaust into it! [chuckling]

 

And the background to that is that I attended your trial, but it was virtual trial. Everybody was on Zoom and there were a bunch of people visible on the screen. And at some point, one of these people on the other side of things was pointing out to the judge:

 

“Oh, there’s somebody there on, in the witness in the room here, like on the Zoom screen. Do you know who that is?”

 

And I can’t remember exactly how they put it, but it was really quite comical, if you ask me, that somehow they managed to bring the Holocaust into it because they were pointing at me, my presence there and that I am, you know, quote, unquote, “a Holocaust denier”.

 

So this was supposed to smear you by association, which., … Well, there you go. Even though your trial had nothing to do with the Holocaust or World War II history, it was about other things.

 

But that’s not what we’re here to talk about today. Unless you wanted to share, you know, any background about that, Kathleen, because I know that in your process of going through the court system, you learned a lot! Do you want to talk touch on that at all?

 

Kathleen Dudley: Well, not unless it comes in indirectly in the rest of what we’re talking about. I think I’d rather stick to our plan, thank you.

 

Monika Schaefer: Yes, well, that’s the thing, our plan. Actually, Kathleen had approached me a few weeks ago and said:

 

“Well, I’m really looking forward to when you have a guest on that’s going to explain somebody who’s really an expert on fascism. Who can tell us what is fascism, what is that?”

 

And here we are today and it’s you and me talking about this subject of fascism because we, we’ve talked about this a little bit and you know, this term “fascist” is a term that is thrown around, bandied about willy nilly, constantly, all the time. And I would guess that 99% of the people who use that term just willy nilly to basically, if somebody’s bad:

 

“Oh, they’re a fascist!”

 

Or if some government or politician:

 

“Oh, that’s a fascist!”

 

You know. [chuckling] And I don’t think they have a clue what is fascism. So we both kind of dug into that a little bit, although I think you did more than I did.

 

So that’s what we want to unravel today a little bit. What is that? I mean, is fascism, does that deserve to be used as such a weaponized label that just means something really bad and what do people actually mean by it when they call somebody a fascist? I really think they have no clue. What do you think, Kathleen?

 

[07:19]

 

Kathleen Dudley: Well, I tend to agree with you. I think words are weaponized, as we know, and they’re the grimoire, the book of magic spells and incantations. And we’ve seen that you use the word “Trump”, and all of a sudden someone goes ballistic, or you use the word “Nazi” and someone goes ballistic.

 

But more than that, a picture, an image is created in their mind, and it evokes emotions and there’s no thought. It bypasses the reason. It bypasses the brain. It bypasses the capacity to be logical.

 

And that’s how words have been used. And they’ve been used that way for hundreds and hundreds of years. And fascism is one of those.

 

And so when I first talked with you about this, Monika, I said there’s two words, Nazi and fascist. And I said:

 

“Both of those need to be really torn apart and explained.”

 

And fascism has been on my radar. And between the two of us, I now have a sense that I understand “fascism”. And I’d like for other people to understand it so that they don’t get caught into that incantation, that spell, that grimoire of the word. Because how we use language expresses our clarity and our understanding of life. And if we aren’t clear with the use of our language, then we’re not clear in the direction in which we walk in life.

 

So to me, it’s critical. What’s your thought on that?

 

Monika Schaefer: Absolutely! Before I got a little bit of a deeper understanding of what is fascism, Because I’m still certainly no expert on it, but I do know a little bit more now than I did even just a short while ago. I still had the feeling, though, that people were using it wrongly and that it was just another one of these demonized words like Nazi. A demonized, you know, weaponized word. What does it actually mean?

 

And so I would say to people, when they use that word, or even people who are in our community of truth tellers and people who seem to know that were being lied to about this and that, but they would still use that word. So to those people, I would say:

 

“Look, I think that that word has been wrongly vilified and used, even though I myself did not yet know really what it was, but I still had the sense that they shouldn’t be just calling somebody a fascist if in the sense that, oh, that’s bad. You know, they’re bad.”

 

And so, yeah, it, we do need to stop people in their tracks when they’re using it, when we know that they should know better.

 

So that’s our mission today, to bring that out a little bit. Why don’t you talk a little bit about. Oh, well, in our, in our discussions we were talking about Ernst Zundel and then who was Ernst Zundel’s mentor? Adrian Arcand. And that’s the man who really helped Ernst Zundel wake up! And in his own words, he felt “born again”, born again to the truth! Adrian Arcand, he is a Canadian, was a Canadian man. He’s no longer alive. That was a while back. And he did, I think it was like a 10 minute talk that we both really liked because he explains fascism. Do you want to tell us a little bit about that?

 

Kathleen Dudley: Sure. Adrian Arcand was born in 1899 and he died in 1967. He was a politician and a writer and a journalist.

 

And the interesting thing is, of course, when you look at the jew Wikipedia, you know, he was a “fascist” politician. You know, it’s like name calling. It’s juvenile use of words, because it’s not meant in a descriptive way, it’s meant in a demonizing way.

 

 

So when he was interviewed, and I love this interview because it made it very, very clear.

 

And if you do a deep dive and you go on Wikipedia and you go on to the online dictionaries, the story of what fascism is so convoluted. What he says is:

 

“Fascism means nationalizing.”

 

He said it is:

 

“It’s the control of a nation by its nationals.”

 

And then you go:

 

“Oh, what’s a national?”

 

“So it’s having or expressing strong identification with one’s own nation and vigorous support for its interests, especially to the exclusion or detriment of the interests of other nations.”

 

So, for example, as a German born woman, while you’re a Canadian born, but you’re of German ancestry, you might have very strong nationalistic identification for Germany and its culture as it was. Would that be correct?

 

Monika Schaefer: Yes. Basically fascism is nationalism.

 

And it’s important to distinguish the word nationalism from patriotism, because nationalism means nationhood. And nationhood means your ethnic racial group. This is what you are loyal to this is who you want your country to be, geared towards the benefit of your people, basically.

 

And so now that really would explain why in our mainstream, you know, weaponized lingo that’s been foisted upon us, that word has been turned into a weaponized label that is just so demonized! Because, I mean, who is it that owns the banks and owns the media? It is jewish. You know, it’s organized jewry. It’s jews who don’t like fascism precisely because it is basically an opposite of their agenda. It’s people working in their nations for their nation. And if your leaders are fascist, that’s a good thing. They are working for our interests in our nation and our nationhood. Back to you, Kathleen.

 

[14:26]

 

Kathleen Dudley: Okay.

 

And so what’s most interesting, too, if we look at what is happening today, to identify as a White woman, to identify with my ancestral origins, is considered very negative. That I could be considered a criminal in one way or another. It’s leading in those directions.

 

[See: What World-Famous Men Said About the Jews]

 

Now, one of the things that Adrian Arcand said was that the First World War was a revolt against the high culture and civilization of Germany. And it was to implant communism in Russia. And so that was what the First World War was about. And it was the most strategic place in the world because it was touching Europe, the Near East and Asia.

 

And then the Second World War, it widened the scope of communism, it spread it, and it smashed down the empires of the Western world. Now high culture is what has been targeted by the Bolsheviks, the jews, both in Russia in the Bolshevik Revolution and World War I and World War II in Germany. And we see today the Christian ethics being absolutely trounced upon.

 

So one of the things that Adrian Arkan looked at was what was happening right at the time he was in Canada and doing his work as a journalist. Rene Levesque was powerful at that point in time as well. And I remember, as you mentioned, I grew up in Canada. I remember his party. He was hard Left. And he described that he himself was far-Right. And he said, and this is defining fascism in a broader sense. And he’s saying:

 

“The Right affirms the sum total of tradition, which is made of high culture. And high culture consists of music and the arts and literature and science and mathematics. And it’s about revering these cultural classics.”

 

And he said:

 

“It’s also about the existence of God, the existence of a human soul and the dignity of man and freedom, private property and the sacred rights of family, also of free enterprise, the free activity of free men and free markets.”

 

On the opposite spectrum of socialism, where Rene Levesque was postulating and socialism was defined by the Soviets, it denies God, it denies the human soul, it denies freedom, the dignity of man, it denies the sacred rights of family. It denies free enterprise. It denies private property and private initiative.

 

So if you take a look at everything on the Left having to do with socialism, which in essence was the precursor to communism, which is Marxism, it’s all negative. And there was no substitution, there was no alternative.

 

Whereas on the Right, it’s about family, it’s about high culture, it’s about valuing individuality.

 

And so all we have to do is take a look at, here’s this man who’s been claimed and called a fascist, and he acknowledges that he is, but his values are the values that are of very high morals and ethics. And I would be proud to walk beside and be a part of his legacy, which I feel like I am. And I’m proud to know that fascism, in fact, is a very positive and important word that embodies Christian ethics.

 

So if you take a look at who’s throwing the daggers at the fascists, it’s the communists! It’s the Marxists! They’re the ones.

 

And as I was doing my reading and looking at definitions and articles on fascism, the editors or the authors of those articles were, in one case, a Sephardic jew. And who is building Wikipedia on our computers?

 

So here we have a very clear explanation, in my opinion, of the difference between fascism and communism.

 

Monika Schaefer: Basically, they’re polar opposites. So fascism, …

 

Kathleen Dudley: Exactly!

 

Monika Schaefer: It just sounds to me like fascism is the opposite of communism! And when you say you would be honored to walk beside this man, you’re talking about Adrian Arcand, are you?

 

Kathleen Dudley: Yes!

 

Monika Schaefer: And let me just mention that Adrian Arcand spent six years in a concentration camp.

 

Now, when I heard that, I thought:

 

“Oh, I just assumed in Europe.”

 

Like, somehow I didn’t know why. I didn’t know that much about him. I didn’t know why in Europe, but I just thought, well, that’s where these concentration camps were that we all have heard about so much. But, no, he was in a concentration camp in Canada for six years during the war.

 

Now, the war didn’t last six years, so did he go into the concentration camp? Was he pulled in? You know, was he arrested and thrown in there before the war?

 

Kathleen Dudley: Yes.

 

Monika Schaefer: Or did they just keep him? Is that correct?

 

Kathleen Dudley: I think it was 1940.

 

Monika Schaefer: Oh. So after the war began. But then they held him in there for six years in a Canadian concentration camp. That blew my mind! I didn’t even know that that existed. Although we’ve all heard about the camps for the Japanese and that. But here was this French-Canadian guy from Quebec, right?

 

So, yeah, but he was a fascist, which is the polar opposite of communism, and communism is what the Bolsheviks were. And we know that that was overwhelmingly a jewish operation. And even the jews say it themselves basically that:

 

“Judaism is communism and communism is Judaism.”

 

So that’s one and the same thing. So we could just call it what it is.

 

Kathleen Dudley: Right. And so here we do have this name calling, and yet it is actually a compliment if you believe in God, if you believe in the sacredness of family, if you believe in individuality, if you believe in free market enterprise, if you believe in the right to own property.

 

So why would someone be hurling the word “fascist” against someone with spit and venom, when in fact it’s really an accolade? It’s such a positive characteristic!

 

And if you look too this has been going on for so long, and fascism originated from my reading in Italy. And Ezra Pound, who most people will know and will be very familiar with his Cantos and his famous poem on usury, Usura. He was an American poet and he had many protege. He had T.S. Eliot and Ernest Hemingway. And my mind goes blank on the others, but there were four Pulitzer Prize winners, and he was never awarded that Pulitzer Prize himself.

 

But he went to Italy, and during the wars, he was doing broadcasting, exposing the communist spread that was taking place in the Soviet Union as a result of the Bolshevik Revolution that hit in October 1917. And after the war, he was imprisoned by the US military and was kept in an iron cage. And then he was declared insane and put in St. Elizabeth’s Hospital in Washington, D.C. Where he wrote his most famous work, the Cantos. And finally he was released through the help of his friends. One was Ernest Hemingway. But we see how demonized, how threatening words are.

 

And so if you can take a word and twist it, turn it upside down, flip it, the flipside, right? And if people don’t do the deep dive and really look at, well, what does that word mean, then they become under the spell, that grimoire.

 

And so it’s our responsibility to pull apart everything that is being used against us so that we can shine light on it and walk proudly, knowing that with fascist beliefs, we are honorable people with integrity.

 

[25:08]

 

Monika Schaefer: Well said, Kathleen. That is so well said!

 

In fact, from now on, when somebody throws that word around, going to say:

 

“Thank you, I’m a fascist. That’s a wonderful thing to be!”

 

And then if it’s people who are throwing that word around unknowingly or ignorant of the meaning of it. Because like I said earlier, even people who understand the truth about the “Covidocaust” or about the “Holocaust”, they understand they’re kind of most of the way there in terms of waking up to many of the lies around us.

 

I mean, I suppose we’re always learning more and more, but they will still bandy about that word. And to them, that would be very effective, especially to them, because it will stop them in their tracks:

 

“Say what? What do you mean?”

 

And then it gives us the opportunity to explain this word in the shortest form, you say:

 

“Well, it’s the opposite of communism.”

 

And then we can expand on that and wow, that was a wonderful explanation. Yeah, really good!

 

And I just want to say before the bottom of the hour, and I should have done this at the top of the hour when we began, but I really was just coming off of the previous hour with Frederick C. Blackburn on his Saturday Snack Shack.

 

And I encourage listeners, if you don’t already tune into his show, you really should because it’s just such a great show and you can always find it in the archives.

 

So I was a little bit, not completely my brain was still sort of wired on that. But I just wanted to say, Kathleen, a little bit of background on my friend Kathleen. She’s a poet, a singer, a healer, musician with, I think, several instruments, a writer. And you have many talents and skills that I think you should name a few more because I think I only just touched on those things. But the healing really intrigues me. You have a lot of knowledge on healing ourselves, and that is a very, very wonderful and important skill to have. And maybe you can share with people where they can find you if they are seeking healing help, for instance, because I know that you do this as your work.

 

Kathleen Dudley: Well, thank you, Monika. Yes, I’m a reflexologist. I’ve also studied homeopathy and a lot of herbs and nutrition. And I have a website, it’s katdudley, KATDUDLEY dot com, and you can find me there.

 

And I’m also a builder of steps and, …

 

Monika Schaefer: Construction, we’re talking about?

 

Kathleen Dudley: Yes. And carports. And I love to build as well, so I have a strong intellectual draw, but I love the physical as well. I’m spreading large rock at the moment and rebuilding rock walls, so it helps keep me spry. [chuckling]

 

Monika Schaefer: That’s wonderful! [chuckling] Yeah. It actually just was so much fun for me to see the things you are building. And I’m thinking:

 

“Wow, that’s really very nice that you just take this on, you learn how to do it and you obviously must have acquired a few tools and just go at it!”

 

That’s great!

 

Kathleen Dudley: Thank you. Before we go to the break, I wanted to mention one thing that Adrian Arcand said in his, in that interview. He said:

 

“He said there is no anti-semitism. It never existed! He said it is a natural reaction against an assault of anti-gentilism which is non-jewish.”

 

He said:

 

“It’s a jewish conspiracy because I read it from jewish authors!”

 

Monika Schaefer: That’s great! [chuckling] That’s beautiful, Kathleen. Okay, hold on everybody. And we’ll be back in a few minutes.

 

[29:34]

 

[ad]

 

[36:00]

 

[music]

 

[36:58]

 

Monika Schaefer: All right, I’d like to welcome you all back to The Flipside with Monika. And I would like to first of all, give out the numbers. We invite people to call in the second half of the hour.

 

So the number you can call in is 512-248-8252. That’s 512-248-8252 or 1-800-313-9443. We invite you to join our conversation with Kathleen Dudley and myself. And I’d also like to remind you that if you have the means, if you can possibly support this network because it is listener supported and some older equipment, I know that they’re looking to replace some of their older equipment.

 

But anyway, during the break, Kathleen and I were kind of laughing about the fact that she had asked me to have a guest that would explain these words, “fascism” and some of these other words.

 

And I said to her, well, careful what you wish for, [chuckling] because here she is and she’s doing a marvelous job of explaining the fascism and fascist, the whole concept of that.

 

So, okay, Kathleen, why don’t we carry on with that discussion? And we had mentioned that there are some other words as well that we could go into that perhaps people don’t have really the best understanding of well, one word that came to mind right at the beginning that you mentioned already was “Nazi” and we know there’s a history of that. It was actually a jew who put that word into the lexicon to denigrate the National Socialists. Do you want to talk about that a little bit?

 

[39:02]

 

Kathleen Dudley: Well, I haven’t done the deep dive on that.

 

Monika Schaefer: Okay.

 

Kathleen Dudley: But one of the things that I found very interesting from Adrian Arcand was that he said that the term “fascism”, when it arose in the 1920s in Italy, the word “Nazism” arose in Germany, but that that had to do with Nazi-lism Nazi-nationalism, and that it was really about nationalistic perspectives expressing strong identification with one’s own nation and vigorous support for its interest. So I was quite surprised by that.

 

And then also in Spain, there was another term using their Spanish language, which I don’t recall. So that’s really all I can contribute at this moment.

 

Monika Schaefer: Okay. No, but that’s even just that about the Nazi-lism with the “l” in there. So nationalism. And that is that word that the Bolsheviks, the jews, they don’t like that concept of nationalism. And that would be like fascism. That would be so that’s why those words are so demonized! And anybody that does anything bad these days is called a Nazi, or a fascist. That’s why those terms are so demonized!

 

But you know that this is something that I am very, very interested in and have talked quite a lot about. My brother Alfred talks about it a lot, is our language and how our language has been so turned against us to compartmentalize our brains, to stop us from thinking straight, to frighten people, to make people think:

 

“Oh, we can’t talk about that. And we can’t talk about this!”

 

And make people scared to say anything anymore. And that’s all it is, really.

 

And so if we can take these words, first of all, to clarify in our heads that they are just weaponized words, and in most cases, they actually have been turned upside down to mean the opposite. Like you illustrated so well with the word fascist.

 

And then, you know, run with it. When somebody calls you something bad like this, say:

 

“Thank you. Thank you for noticing!”

 

It’s surprising how quickly it takes the wind out of their sails. You know, if somebody says:

 

“Oh, you’re an anti-semite!”

 

“Oh, thank you. Thank you for noticing. Yeah, you should be too!”

 

Something like that. [chuckling] Right? So it’s what we do with these epithets thrown at us that we can kind of change the discourse. What do you think about that?

 

Kathleen Dudley: Well, and people don’t even know that Semites are Arabs.

 

And so when you say you’re anti-semitic, you’re against the Arabs, well, that doesn’t even make sense because we’re talking about the jews and we’re talking about the Sephardic jews, and we’re talking about the Khazarian jews. We’re talking about. We’re not even talking about the biblical jews because the Hebrews, the descendants of that is so minuscule today.

 

And so the jews that have evolved to today have moved into countries, have moved into religions, have moved into businesses. They’ve basically taken on the sheep’s clothing that the wolf is wearing. And it’s been done slyly, very cleverly. And so everything has been done with duplicity. And that’s what we’re finding as we unbury the garbled of these words, the grimoire, the confusion.

 

And so once we find the truth in all of that, then we can shine the light on it. And that is what the rats in the center of the room don’t want. They’ll scurry to the edges.

 

Monika Schaefer: Yes, they will.

 

Now, Kathleen, there is something else that you have been doing over the last few months. I think you’ve been doing a lot of reading, and once you started, you just couldn’t get enough. Why don’t you tell us a little bit. What got you started in this direction? I won’t mention. I’ll let you talk about what have you been getting into so deeply reading, reading, reading lately? Tell us, please.

 

Kathleen Dudley: Okay. Well, I’ve always been a reader, but in January of 2023, I did a deep dive on 19th century and, 20th century writers, which introduced me to Ezra Pound and all of his contemporaries, T.S. Eliot, Robert Frost. And then there were quotes by Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn in that. And I was in the courts at that time.

 

 

And so there was tremendous angst and tremendous pressure and assault. And I needed a place to be able to go for truth and for some sense of a spiritual lift. And I was talking to a friend and he had been reading The Gulag Archipelago by Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn.

 

And I thought:

 

“Okay, it’s time for me to read him.”

 

I remember when he was exiled from the Soviet Union, and it’s time, it’s just time. And there are three volumes of the Gulag Archipelago, and I started diving into them.

 

Now, at that time, I was being threatened with imprisonment. And so I was trying to figure out how this arrest was going to go. And curiously, the first chapter in the first volume of The Gulag Archipelago is called The Arrest. And it was as many a hundred different ways to skin a cat. You know, they came at night. It was always secretively done. Innocent people were taken and they were shipped off to Gulags, they were shipped off to prisons in Siberia. They were separated from family, and the rest of the citizens didn’t know or at various times, and they were threatened and they kept silent. And this went on and on. It went on as a result of the Bolshevik Revolution in 1917. And now Solzhenitsyn was born in 1918, so it was even a year after the revolution. But he was raised in this communist milieu.

 

[46:29]

 

Now, his mother was of the Christian Orthodox faith, and his father had been killed when he was in the army. And so he was raised by his mother, and his mother wanted to raise him with Christian values. So he was taught the Russian Orthodox Christianity.

 

But he became a communist because that was just the way he was programed, along with all of his peers. And he was a writer just by nature, and wanted to be a writer. He knew he wanted to be a writer from the time he was about was very young, but I think about seven years old. He was in the army and he was corresponding with one of his compatriots, and his letter was intercepted and he was thrown into the Gulag under Stalin for speaking against Stalin’s concepts. And he was there for eight years, and then later he was exiled for three years.

 

And what he did during that time was he observed and he wrote. He was a real man of spiritual life, and he loved humanity, he loved the people, and he loved the Russian people.

 

And so he managed to develop his memory to such a degree that he memorized everything he wrote, and he memorized everything that other people told him, including writers, verbatim. He could quote them. And he had to store all this in his mind. And he did that whole time, the eight years that he was imprisoned.

 

And he was one of the very first to expose all of the atrocities of the Soviet Union’s repressive system and that they had been secretly perpetrating against their people. It was upwards of 100 million Christian Russians were murdered under Lenin and Stalin and even Khrushchev, even though that was considered the thaw. But he was then also removed because he was lessening his rule too much.

 

So Solzhenitsyn wrote these amazing books, his first one that they allowed to be published, because under Communist rule, under these repressive rulings, the censorship doesn’t want anything to move out into another country so that anyone can know what the atrocities are, what is going on. But because Khrushchev did this thaw, he allowed the book called One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich in 1962. And it was the first time a household could sit around the table and read about what had been going on to their people and how they’d been sent to the prisons and how they’ve been tortured and how they’ve been murdered, had they been pulled out of society and destroyed.

 

And this was it was allowed because Khrushchev thought that this was something that Solzhenitsyn was writing about, about Stalin and Lenin and didn’t realize that it also was being written about him. And it was also under Khrushchev that he was exonerated for his crimes, that he didn’t commit any crimes, but he was still exonerated.

 

 

And then he was writing the book called The Gulag Archipelago. And that book was a real deep dive. It’s the one that I read the three volumes of all of the tortures and all of the horrors of the Russian people.

 

And he had to pass it around on pieces of paper and on transcripts because he was constantly being followed. And it couldn’t get into the authorities hands or he would have been killed. But it did slip into the authorities hands through the secretary. And she was tortured and she ultimately committed suicide because she felt so responsible for the fact that she was the one that allowed the authorities to get this document.

 

And so he managed to get it out of the Soviet Union to the West. And it was published, and that was in 1973. And as a result of that publication, he was exiled from the Soviet Union.

 

And ultimately he moved to the United States in 1976, where he wrote the Red Wheel, which was the Russian Revolution of 1917 and dramatized. But this man is one of the most famous and most important Russian writers of modern time. And just his courage to be able to take the words and to honor the lives of all these people who were destroyed in the Gulags and under Stalin’s bloodbath.

 

And finally, when the Soviet Union collapsed, his wife and he regained their citizenship and in 1990, went back to Moscow, and he lived to quite an old age of 89. His wife is still alive. They have three sons. One of them, Ignat Solzhenitsyn, is a musician and a conductor who lives in the United States.

 

The other two are in the Soviet Union. But he’s known very famously for his Harvard speech. And I would highly recommend everyone going on YouTube and listening to it, because he’s warning about the dangers of the communist aggression and the weakening of the moral fiber of the West. And he says the materialism is really what has destroyed us in the West.

 

And I think if we do some reflecting, we can see how that is possible. And it is astonishing! He lived a tremendous life, and I am so grateful to him.

 

Monika Schaefer: That’s for sure. You know, interestingly enough, my brother Alfred, he was able to get these books from the prison library, The Gulag Archipelago, and he read them in prison. I was quite surprised by that they were available for him to read there. Wow! That’s such an interesting story. But I’m so surprised that when he had these books published, he was exiled for it. I’m kind of surprised they didn’t just, … Well, I suppose it would have put more attention on the books if they had just killed him. Right. Maybe they didn’t want to do that, but they didn’t want to, …

 

 

[54:13]

 

Kathleen Dudley: He was certainly concerned that his family and he were going to be killed. So the fact that they didn’t kill him and they exiled him is probably correct, that it would have brought too much attention because the books had already been published.

 

Monika Schaefer: Right. He would have been a Martyr. It would have Martyred him, and then even more people would have read the books.

 

Kathleen Dudley: Yes. Yes!

 

Monika Schaefer: Yeah. This way they just kind of put him out of the way and hope that it just nobody is much interested in them. I do have the books, and I haven’t read them yet, but you are causing me to want to read them soon. This is always my trouble. I have so many books that I want to read and to find enough time to do so.

 

But now he also wrote a book, Two Hundred Years Together. Do you know anything about that? Has it been translated into English yet?

 

Kathleen Dudley: Actually, I just received it in the mail today. And it’s the history, quote, “of the jewish problem in Russia”. And he is writing about what happened prior to the Revolution, the October 1917 Revolution, and what it was like living in Russia with the jews. Because under the czars, you know, up until Nicholas the First, they were excluded from society, and they were very limited. And when Nicholas the First allowed them in, what ended up happening is they grew. They created their capacity to build their Bolshevik Revolution, and they brought all their revolutionaries in from all over the world.

 

Monika Schaefer: Oh, okay. Thank you know, Kathleen, we do actually have a caller on the line now. So and we only have less than two minutes left, so I would like to invite Mike in Kentucky on line one. Are you there?

 

Mike: Yeah, I should have called earlier, but stop me if you’ve heard this one:

 

“We cannot Reform the Bolsheviks, but we can do our best to save them and ourselves from the consequences of their act.”

 

And that is the opening letter from E. Hewitt, Assistant Secretary, I think it’s the Ministry of Information:

 

“The Ministry can enter into no correspondence of any kind with regard to this communication, which should only be disclosed to responsible persons.”

 

And it’s a letter to the clergy asking them for their expression of belief into the allegations against Japan and Germany in order to distract the public’s attention from the doings of the Red Army. 1944. That’s in a book published in 1959 by Edward J. Rosnick called Allied Wartime Diplomacy.

 

I was going to bring that up on Blackbird9’s thing about how they killed the Russians, I mean, the general who wanted to go after Russia, Patton.

 

Monika Schaefer: Oh, thank you. Yeah, we just have a few seconds. Do you want to comment on any of that, Kathleen? That’s very interesting.

 

Kathleen Dudley: Well, I think I’ll leave that for you, Monika.

 

Monika Schaefer: Yeah, just wait. Well, I can already hear the music, but, Mike, I really appreciate that you called in and yeah, too bad you didn’t call earlier. It sounds very interesting, what you have there, the good information. Thank you, everybody for listening and thank you, Kathleen, for giving us a great talk about fascism. And thank you, Frank, that’s the producer. And thank you most of all the listeners. Bye bye.

 

Kathleen Dudley: Thank you.

 

 

[58:28]

 

[music]

 

[58:48]

 

[ad]

 

[1:00:00]

 

END

top

 

 

 

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

 

RBN Comments

top

(Comments as of 11/17/2024 = 0)

Let me tell You a sad story ! There are no comments yet, but You can be first one to comment this article.

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

See Also

top

 

 

 

Monika Schaefer – The Flipside with Monika – Ep 1 – Intro – Jun 29, 2024 – Transcript

The Flipside with Monika – Ep 2 – Jul 6, 2024 – Transcript

The Flipside with Monika – Ep 03 with Paul Fromm – Jul 13, 2024 – Transcript

Monika Schaefer – The Flipside with Monika – Ep 04 with Oscar – Jul 20, 2024 – Transcript

The Flipside with Monika – Ep 08 with Alfred Schaefer – Aug 17, 2024 – Transcript

The Flipside with Monika – Ep 09 with Grace Eki Oyama – Aug 24, 2024 – Transcript

Monika Schaefer – The Flipside with Monika – Ep 15 with Jürgen Neumann on Ernst Zündel – Oct 12, 2024 – Transcript

The Flipside with Monika – Ep 18 with Jürgen Neumann – Nov 2, 2024 – Transcript

The Flipside with Monika – Ep 20 with Kathleen Dudley – Nov 16, 2024 – Transcript

 

 

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

Joel Davis: And it is the Joel, Blair and Tom Show this evening. We have come up with a new name, but I just wanted to get the graphics made, so I don’t want to launch the new name until the graphics are all sorted and we can launch it with a coherent graphic style.

 

So you’re still waiting for promised name.

 

Blair Cottrell: What is the new name? Are we’re not going to know?

 

Joel Davis: We’re not going to announce it now. We’re not going to kill it now. Like:

 

“I don’t know what it is. I don’t know what it is!”

 

Blair Cottrell: I actually don’t know either. I literally don’t know!

 

Joel Davis: So there you go. That’s even better. Like, you won’t.

 

Blair Cottrell: I wasn’t consulted. If the name is shit, if the name sucks, I wasn’t consulted! [chuckling]

 

Joel Davis: You were consulted. I did consult you. I don’t know why you don’t remember this conversation, but it’s good that you don’t remember because that way you won’t say it and that way it’ll remain a surprise for the audience.

 

Blair Cottrell: Strategic. I like it. Yeah.

 

Joel Davis: Don’t worry, I will reconfirm with you now that you’re telling me you don’t remember our conversation to make sure that you are happy with it. But I’m basically going with something that you said that you already liked.

 

Blair Cottrell: No, that’s all right. You guys do what you want. I’m just a passenger on this ship.

 

Joel Davis: [chuckling] You’re not a passenger! We’re all in the same team. We’re a unit. You know, we were to move together as a unit.

 

But anyway, speaking of moving together as a unit, it is the 6th of September 2024. And on this stream we’re going to just talk a lot about World War Two, World War Two revisionism in particular. But where I want to start is I want to talk about the interview of, he goes by Martry Made on Twitter. He’s got a very large Twitter account. He actually has me blocked on Twitter, which maybe we could talk about. [chuckling]

 

Blair Cottrell: How do you spell that, Joel? Because I want to look him up right now. Martyr Made. MARTYR.

 

Joel Davis: What was his name again? His actual name? Was it?

 

Blair Cottrell: Darryl Cooper?

 

Joel Davis: Darryl Cooper.

 

Blair Cottrell: Darryl with, two Rs, I believe.

 

Joel Davis: Yeah. So he’s an American. He has a Substack, he makes a podcast, and he talks about history on his podcast. Tucker Carlson had him on the show. It got retweeted by Elon Musk. He then deleted it because the jews attacked him for retweeting it. And the jews are attacking Tucker Carlson pretty hard right now. It was probably the most based collection of statements we’ve ever heard from Tucker Carlson. He interviewed him extremely sympathetically. He called him:

 

“The greatest historian, popular historian in America right now.”

 

And then just set him up to talk about how our whole narrative on World War Two is total bullshit!

 

And then they then went on after Martry Made, after Darryl Cooper broke down a lot of talking points that are actually David Irving talking points, kind of softened them up a little bit. Talking about how he kind of intimated a Holocaust revisionist narrative. He didn’t quite go there, but he kind of gestured towards it. Then he said that:

 

“The real bad guy of World War Two was Churchill.”

 

And then he then argued for that position by talking about how Hitler sent the British multiple attempts at making peace, and that it was actually in the strategic interest of Britain to make peace. But Churchill was determined to continue on with the war because, well, he gave a few BS reasons.

 

But ultimately, he pointed out that his backers, the so-called “Zionist financiers”, ultimately installed him in the prime ministership for a reason, which was to pursue war with Germany at any cost. Which is basically the key thesis of David Irving’s book Churchill’s War, which I highly recommend! It is one of the greatest books ever written on history, period!

 

But it’s integral to understanding the Second World War.

 

So he kind of made that argument. Tucker Carlson was very sympathetic.

 

They even then got into a discussion about the World War Two narrative and how the narrative around World War Two was used to justify, essentially White genocide. And they basically talked about the problems in Western Europe with mass immigration and the replacement of White people in European countries and so on. And they related it all to the World War Two narrative. It was, Tucker Carlson even said at one point that:

 

“We should have the Nuremberg trial for the people responsible for filling up Europe with non-Whites.”

 

For the Liberal elite, basically.

 

And also, I noticed Martry Made actually used a Thomas777 talking point. And I know that he definitely listens to Thomas777 because I think he follows him on Twitter.

 

And also, they’ve been interviewed by the same people on multiple occasions. And Thomas is a friend of mine who I’ve streamed with just a few weeks ago, actually. And we’ve done many things together. He’s an American kind of like dissident, academic, eccentric guy, interesting guy. And he’s a Nazi.

 

But Thomas, one of his favourite talking points is that after Nuremberg, Nuremberg initiated a new paradigm in international law. This is something which is part of David Irving’s thesis as well about the Nuremberg trials. The Nuremberg trials initiated a new paradigm in international law, that was their express purpose. And effectively, it made it illegal to be Right-wing in the Western world after the Second World War. The Nuremberg paradigm.

 

[05:22]

 

This is a Thomas777 talking point. It’s true. And it was repeated! Anyway, this video has got like 50 million plus views already across different platforms. It’s kicked up massive controversy, particularly on Twitter, because that was the main place where it was posted.

 

But you can watch it on YouTube. You can watch it on probably other sites as well. It’s brilliant! I thought about playing clips, but the clips are so long, we just end up spending half the stream re-watching the clips. So after this stream, if you haven’t seen it, I do encourage you, go and watch the interview. It’s a very interesting, enjoyable interview. They talk about some other subjects that are quite interesting as well. It’s like 2 hours.

 

And it’s a really interesting cultural event because this is the re-mainstreaming for the first time in that I can remember in living memory of World War Two revisionism. So this is a pretty interesting watershed moment.

 

And if Tucker Carlson can stick the landing and just continue going forward, that basically gives licence now to the conservative movement in general in the English speaking world to go there on this subject, because he’s pretty much the biggest conservative political commentator in the English speaking world, I would say, at this point in at this point in time. So very, very interesting stuff!

 

That’s why I thought, you know, of everything else that’s happened this week, this is by far the most interesting thing that’s happened. So we should just do a whole show talking about this and spurg out in general about World War Two.

 

But I want to go to you guys, Blair and Tom, like, what you thought about this. I know, Blair, you watched it today, the whole thing. I know, Tom, you only saw clips.

 

Nevertheless, obviously, you have a lot of thoughts about the Second World War and the importance of World War Two revisionism.

 

So anyway, it’d be very interesting to get your takes on it.

 

Blair Cottrell: Yeah, I’ll go first. I guess. I’ve watched it nearly twice, but I skipped to parts which I considered more interesting and relevant. And it made me want more from Darryl Cooper. Apparently, the guy does 30 hours long podcasts! Multiple episodes!

 

So the guy really spurgs out and gets into really fine details about specific historical events in which he’s interested. And one that he brought up in the interview, you’ll know if you’ve watched it, was Jonestown and Jim Jones. The Jonestown suicides.

 

And I was surprised to learn that 75% of the Jonestown suicides were black people! Black children and elderly, mostly pensioners over 60. I suppose they were the most malleable, people most likely to follow a cult leader like Jim Jones. But Jim Jones was also, according to Darryl Cooper. I know we’re going to keep it to World War Two. I’m just kind of segueing for a couple of minutes because I was interested in this.

 

Jim Jones was a big political power broker back in America during his time, which I think was around the sixties, where he was most active. And he rubbed shoulders with various politicians at the time who really fed into his ideology, or at least encouraged his followers to believe in his own special status. And he was one of the first ever racial equality Civil Rights Activists in America.

 

And what Darryl Cooper said in this Tucker Carlson interview, was:

 

“Had he not gone rogue and committed mass suicide in the jungle with all of his followers, he would be regarded as a similar figure to Martin Luther King junior this day by liberals.”

 

He had that sort of impact on the racial equality culture. And he was one of the first people to pioneer that sort of revolutionary ideology, which was very revolutionary and unpopular back in those days.

 

I was surprised to learn all that. I didn’t know that. Every time I’ve learnt anything about Jonestown, I see video clips of White people drinking Kool Aid. I didn’t know it was mostly black people! But when I discovered that fact, I wasn’t surprised. I realised, yeah, black people seem to be the most receptive to that kind of fundamentalist, radical religious stuff. I mean, a lot of missionaries like to go to Africa to sell versions of Christianity to Africans because they seem to be a lot more receptive to that kind of thing for some reason. So they abandon Europe and go to Africa to get better results

 

But I’ve written down a few notes. But specifically, …

 

Joel Davis: I just wanted to say quickly. I didn’t know that there were blacks either, watching this interview. I never really looked into it. But I guess I should have known, considering that they all drank Kool Aid*! It just seems so obvious now. Like, what kind of group of White people commit suicide with Kool Aid? You know what I mean? It doesn’t make any sense.

 

[* According to Wikipedia is was actually a brand called, “Flavor Aid”.]

 

Blair Cottrell: Yeah.

 

Joel Davis: White people gonna commit mass suicide with watermelon lq ike, yeah, [chuckling]

 

Blair Cottrell: Whatever you can poison. But Darryl Cooper approaches all of these talking points, whether it’s Jim Jones, the suicide in the jungle, or World War Two, whatever it is that he studies, you can tell he makes strong effort to approach it, or at least explain it from the perspective of a humanitarian.

 

And his way of, I suppose, making himself appealing to his audience, to who’s listening to him, especially in this interview, is to help people try to get into the boots or look through the eyes of the people that he’s talking about specifically. He reminds the audience that Jim Jones was once a three or four year old boy. And he said he’s very suspicious of biographies and versions of history where it’s said that:

 

“The child already possessed some sort of psychopathic quality. And everything was kind of established from some schoolyard bullying incident.”

 

He was like:

 

“Oh, I’m going to get revenge!”

 

And that’s what makes the Stalin’s and the Jim Jones is of the world. He said:

 

“That’s not really true. There’s a series of events which leads to causing these people to do what they do and become the men that they become.”

 

Which I think is an honest approach. But it is very humanitarian as well. But it makes him seem more honest. And therefore, I think it’s a skillful way, Darryl Cooper opens the consciousness of the listeners because they’re ready to hear something now from a fair and honest man. So even if it’s not deliberate, it is a skillful way to open up the interview.

 

Now, his exact words regarding Churchill weren’t that he was the “bad guy”, but “the foremost villain”.

 

So it’s not necessarily that he was declaring Churchill was the leading bad guy, but he was the worst of the bad bunch, I think, is what he’s trying to insinuate, maybe? But he didn’t really say that specifically. He just said:

 

“He was the foremost villain of the Second World War.”

 

And he did say, you were correct. He did say that he wanted some style of Nuremberg type rallies [lol] for what, … Darryl didn’t say this, tucker Carlson said that.

 

Joel Davis: Not Rallies, trials! The Nuremberg trials, very, very different.

 

Thomas Sewell: It’s important to mention that as well, because we can’t have the Nuremberg trials without Nuremberg rallies.

 

[12:07]

 

Blair Cottrell: That’s a good point. But that’s what I meant, the Nuremberg trials. I’ve just made an error in my notes here. Keeping up with Joel’s opening. They’re trying to keep up. But Darryl describes the Nuremberg trials or what they’re talking about, Darryl and Tucker Carlson, when they’re bringing up that we should have Nuremberg style trials for the people who have done this. The people who have done this, who they’re referring to is who Darryl describes as a “superclass of limousine liberals” is how he puts it. Right. An international superclass of privileged, powerful people, most of whom are jewish or Whites. And far removed from the working class. Darryl specifically says they don’t identify with the working class of their own nation. They identify with each other. They identify with other members of this international superclass, which has all of them, the majority of the influence in Western institutions. And he’s right about that. He’s right.

 

But interestingly, after that was said Joel, did you pick up on the fact that Darryl said after Tucker Carlson said:

 

“Why can’t we have Nuremberg trials for these people, for what they’ve done to our nations?”

 

Darryl reiterates:

 

“We have to win first!”

 

That’s an interesting phraseology. “We have to win first”, as though he’s associating himself with our side, with us. We have to win first. I thought that was a really interesting statement by him.

 

But what do you reckon, Tom, from the clips that you saw, what was the vibe you got? Do you like the guy? Do you think he’s useful? What do you reckon?

 

Thomas Sewell: He’s definitely very intelligent and he’s definitely our guy. The talking points that he had, again, I haven’t watched the whole thing, but the clips that I’ve seen.

 

And while Joel was doing this introduction, actually, I didn’t realize he had a Twitter. I just went through his Twitter Martyr Maid and he’s just doubling down. He’s resharing stuff that’s completely consistent. It looks like one of our news feeds, really. It looks like one of our Twitter feeds. He’s even resharing people that are having a go at Drew Pavlou, which is hilarious! Like, even Pavlou somehow gets in the into the hive mind here.

 

Blair Cottrell: Which I’m sure he loves. I noticed that Andrew Tate, I noticed Andrew Tate had to get in on the comments of the main Tucker Carlson post with a video of him doing like shoulder press or something while watching the video. All of these people, they just need to get in on the action every time, don’t they?

 

Thomas Sewell: Yeah, they do, they do.

 

But, yeah, just going through his feed and seeing the clips, especially the one you shared about how he mentions the little spot of England and I think Tucker Carlson talks about Germany and Spain and France and, I mean, the point of the show here is, I think, twofold.

 

Firstly, the importance of World War Two as revisionist history becoming a mainstream talking appointment.

 

And secondly, how World War 2, 100% is connected to the White replacement, the White genocide, and a collapse of Western civilization! And that you cannot separate the two. It is impossible!

 

And anyone that tries to address White nationalism or White genocide or being pro-White and tries to avoid, somehow they think:

 

“If I don’t talk about World War Two or I don’t talk about Hitler or I don’t talk about the Holocaust, that somehow we’re going to make more progress this way.”

 

Not realizing that it is the linchpin! It is what everything rests on! And it’s just so wonderful to be, … I guess I’ll go into a bit more depth.

 

I started my journey with watching David Irving videos and Ernst Zundel videos on YouTube back in 2013.

 

I started like, it’s been eleven years. And I was up at 03:00 in the morning watching David Irving or Zundel or Frederick Tobin talking about the Holocaust being a lie, or talking about, … Because I loved World War Two, I loved studying it, but I didn’t necessarily, back then, think:

 

“Oh, Hitler’s the best! Hitler was the best guy!”

 

My dad and my granddad are English, so they’re like:

 

“Churchill’s the best!”

 

And then I studied in history that maybe Roosevelt was pretty based. And I never had any affinity with Stalin or anything like that. But I always had this kind of secret admiration for Hitler. Not a strong admiration, but a secret one.

 

And then watching all these videos on YouTube back in 2013 was like:

 

“Oh, my God! Hitler was the guy! He was actually the man. Churchill was actually the villain. Churchill was actually the bad guy. And he dragged Hitler into war!”

 

And when I learned about Hess, and Hess flying over to personally try to, … I don’t know if this is covered in the interview. I didn’t see any of the clips, but correct me if I’m wrong, …

 

Joel Davis: It wasn’t.

 

[17:13]

 

Thomas Sewell: It wasn’t? Well, a lot of people need to know that Rudolf Hess, who was Adolf Hitler’s right hand man from day one, he was just his most loyal supporter, follower, brother, leader. He was an absolute legend, Rudolf Hess. And he actually flew over against Hitler’s orders. Probably the only time he disobeyed Hitler’s orders, he flew over to the UK. I think he landed in Scotland, to personally try to hand the British government, or Churchill, the peace treaty that Hitler was asking for from the British, saying:

 

“We don’t want to go to war with Britain. We don’t want to firebomb Britain.”

 

Blair Cottrell: What did they do when Rudolf did that? Didn’t he parachute in? And what did they do? Did they arrest him?

 

Thomas Sewell: They locked him up! They locked him up for the entire duration of the war. They trialed him, they imprisoned him basically for life. And then he was put in Spandau prison back in Germany at the end of Nuremberg.

 

And then the day before his release, they had an African kill him. They assassinated him, when he was like. I think he was like, 87 years old. He was an old man. He was very old. I think it was in the 1980s. And they just killed him. Yeah, the day before he was. So they punished him to 50 years prison or something like that. And then he did the time.

 

And then they didn’t release him. They just assassinated him the day of his release or the day before his release.

 

So, you know, learning all this back in 2013 completely, radically changed my life! I am who I am now, and I’ve set the course and path, and I’m involved in the politics that I’m involved in, and I’ve been doing all the activism that I’ve been doing and building the Mannerbund and the organization that I’ve been building. And it’s the reason why I first met you, Blair, and I’m sure later on, it’s the reason why I met Joel, because we all have this common knowledge, this common understanding of the truth! And it’s just drastically changed all of our lives.

 

And for that to now be put in front of 50 million people is game changing! We’re just one step closer. It’s over for this evil, lying tyranny! It’s over! It’s getting so much faster that it’s impossible to tell when it’s going to be.

 

I’ve always said we’ve got about 40 or so years to get this done, between 30 and 50 years to get the job done before it’s basically impossible to get it done. We’ve got to get it done within about 30 to 50 years.

 

And a lot of people say:

 

“Oh, it’ll be done a lot sooner than that.”

 

And I always try to be a bit open minded to how long Roman Empire collapsed.

 

I mean, these things can drag out for a long time. It can be intergenerational, it can be fucking horrible! It can get a lot worse.

 

But then you see things like this and you’re like:

 

“Maybe it’ll be quicker!”

 

At this rate. It’s gonna be like five years. We need to get organized. Anyway, I’ll leave it there, for now.

 

Blair Cottrell: Well, if it’s gonna move, if anything moves as quick as the Internet does, it will be quicker because the Internet moves faster than reality, and we’ve all got to speed up to try to keep up with the Internet. Maybe that’s why society moves so quickly these days. I still remember after the day I first met you, which I think was April 4, 2015, first ever Reclaim Australia rally?

 

Afterwards, we spent probably an hour and a half, 2 hours on the phone, and you were just so excited! I remember you told me you didn’t think this moment would come in your lifetime, but you were so enthralled and fascinated by the public activism, and you saw it as an opportunity. You were really excited and you just were genuinely inspired by it all, I remember. I still remember that phone call. I took it in front of the fireplace.

 

Thomas Sewell: Talked about Hitler for about an hour as well.

 

Blair Cottrell: Yeah. And we’re like:

 

“What are we gonna do? Like, we’ll start a political party.”

 

And I’m just like:

 

“Alright!”

 

So that was kind of how we tried to springboard ourselves into politics. Didn’t work out that way, but here we are now.

 

But look, one thing I want to say before, … Yeah, yeah. You have to learn by doing! You have to make mistakes. You have to make mistakes, learn from your mistakes and keep moving forward. It’s the only way you gain experience. And I don’t think a lot of the mistakes we made were even that bad. Like, we always managed to still look pretty cool! [chuckling]

 

So, anyway before I throw it back over to you, Joel, what I have to say is Darryl Cooper, in the Tucker Carlson interview, presents himself as someone who is an objective historian. Okay?

 

But regardless of how objective Cooper considers himself to be, I think he does realize this, but maybe he’s pretending not to realize. By being truthful and more facts based. You’re actually serving yourself, you know how should I say this? You’re putting yourself forward as a propagandist for our side. Right? So even if he’s claiming to be totally objective and honest, it only helps our cause, because that’s what our cause is essentially. It’s based on the truth!

 

And World War Two, I said in the Space last night with Joel, really is the datum point from which all perspective of the present day is forged. And the reason people have the views that they have in society today, and the reason people have been so Hoodwinked by racial equality, mass migration, feminism, etcetera, is because of the perspective they have of the Second World War. And if we can flip that perspective or shift it somewhat. We need to totally reverse it, in my opinion.

 

But if we can flip it, then suddenly the perspective of reality for the ordinary person in our country will shift. It will change. Suddenly they’ll realize who they are and who their enemy is. Suddenly they’ll realize what they’re fighting for and what they’re losing as a result of these mass migration programs, something they can’t get back, their ethnic identity.

 

I’ve got a few notes on the interview itself. What’s the subject we want to move into next? Do we want to move through it structurally? How do you want to do it, Joel?

 

[22:59]

 

 

Joel Davis: Well, we can just kind of move naturally, but I just want to make a few comments on, like, building off what you just said, because most people that follow me, I noticed because I have pretty consistently, for some time, taken the view that World War Two is this, like, central event, which is the most important event in the “what went wrong” narrative. Like there are more abstract answers to the question, like talking about the history of jewish involvement in Western civilisation going back millennia, talking about the development of Greek metaphysics and Christianity and the fall of Rome and so on, and how that set up the modern world or the rise of nominalist theology or the Renaissance and the Enlightenment and the Freemasons. And there’s all these different aspects to the problem. Like the British monarchy being decapitated by Cromwell, basically, and then reinstalled but then overthrown again, and William of Orange being brought in with the jews, so the Rothschilds could set up in London and so on. There’s all these pivotal moments in history.

 

But at the end of the day, World War Two is the most pivotal, because prior to the Second World War, we lived in a completely different world ideologically. And afterwards, a completely new world has been constructed. And Europe lost political agency in World War Two. That’s the key point, is that Europe lost World War Two! It wasn’t just Germany that lost World War Two. Europe lost World War Two! Britain lost World War Two! That is something that people don’t think about enough, because people say:

 

“Oh, Joel, you’re an Anglo Saxon, you’re an Australian. Why do you side with the Germans and Hitler in the Second World War? You’re betraying your own side!”

 

Well, no, my side lost World War Two! Okay, we beat the Japanese like Australia beat the Japanese with the Americans, but the British Empire lost World War Two.

 

During World War Two, the official flag of Australia was the Union Jack. We didn’t even officially have our current flag yet, like, that’s how still British we were. Like, it was just taken for granted that if Britain goes to war, we go to war. We had this imperial Anglo consciousness, this pan-Anglo consciousness. We were all one king, one flag, one race, one people, at that time.

 

So it was a completely different world than the Australia that we grew up in that has more of its own identity in those days. And obviously, the Australia at that time also had a White Australia Policy and also was kind of anti-semitic, actively tried to stop jews from immigrating to Australia and so on.

 

So the Australia that existed prior to the Second World War simply cannot be counterposed to Germany in the way that the post-war narrative is put up.

 

But secondarily, the Second World War meant our empire collapsed. And now we were behest to the United States. Now we are basically America’s bitch, as is Europe. So we fell under American control due to the Second World War, as well as part of the British Empire. Not just Britain, not just Europe, but also us.

 

And that American influence is jewish influence! Because America is run by jews. So that meant we fell under jewish control1 And you could say that the British Empire had jewish infiltration and jewish influence. Obviously, it did that was one of the main reasons why they went to war against the Germans. But it wasn’t to the same degree of what we have in the post-war international order underneath the so-called Americans. So that’s very important to take into consideration.

 

But also when examining Churchill’s treachery, and we can get into this a little bit more, maybe later in the show. Churchill sacrificed the British Empire to go to war on behalf of the jews, and he tried to drag America into that war. And he mentioned this in the interview, Darryl Cooper, that after there was the successful annexation, basically, of France, after basically the British and French forces were routed in France by the Germans. The blitzkrieg just smashed through in six weeks, basically, and they kind of fled at Dunkirk. There were no British forces left on the Continent. All of Western Europe was basically under German control, and Britain had no hope of reinvading Europe and doing anything about it. They were still at war with Germany, but they were in no place to really do much about it whatsoever in terms of actually changing that basic kind of landscape geographically.

 

[27:36]

 

All that was left for them to do was either basically negotiate peace or drag one of or both the Soviet Union and the United States into the war. That was all they had left to do. And Churchill was fundamentally determined in particular to drag the Americans into the war. And what dragging the Americans into the war meant was he was basically saying:

 

“We’re going to drag Europe under the control of America. By dragging America into the war now, America gets to set the tone for once the war is won the fate of western Europe.”

 

And also that support that the Americans gave to the Soviet Union also enabled the Soviet Union to resist the German invasion. And that was part of why Hitler wanted peace with Britain. He wanted peace with Britain for two main geopolitical reasons.

 

Reason number one is that Britain had one of the world’s best navies. The only nation that could compete with the Britain as a naval power was the United States. But they had to build it up. They really rapidly built up their navy through the Second World War. But the United States and Britain were the world’s two pre-eminent naval powers.

 

And Germany needed access to the world’s oceans. Because Germany and Europe in general lacks a lot of natural resources, which it needs to get through trade, that is primarily through the oceans. It’s very expensive and difficult to move freight by land across large distances, like from East Asia or the Middle East or wherever. Obviously its impossible to move from America to Europe without using the oceans.

 

So controlling the oceans means controlling global trade. And that is vital to Germany, because if they don’t have access to the worlds oceans, that means they don’t have access to a reliable supply of oil and other significant resources, which means if they are cut off from accessing oil in a state of war, their entire war machine, which depends upon oil to function because it’s mechanised, can collapse and they can be brought into existential peril.

 

There were oil fields in Romania that were key for Germany to have access to because they were connected to continental Europe. But that was then under the shadow of potential military action by the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union has massive oil reserves as well, that it controlled in like Ukraine and other territories, that was under its control.

 

So that was a lot of the reason for Barbarossa, by the way. It wasn’t just about the threat of communism. Obviously, the ideological threat was significant, but it was also the geopolitics of managing resources and securing resources. Hitler did not want to be caught with his pants down, where Stalin moves on the oil fields in Romania, cuts the Germans off. And now they don’t really have the means to defend themselves, potentially against the communists sweeping across Europe.

 

So Hitler wanted a peace with Britain because he studied history and he saw Germany tried to go to war with Britain and Russia at the same time, in World War One, didn’t work. Napoleon tried to go to war with Britain and Russia at the same time and fight on two fronts. Didn’t work.

 

And so he didn’t want to make the same mistake again. He wanted peace with Britain for that reason, but also because Britain neutralises American influence. He didn’t fundamentally trust America. He understood that America was falling under jewish control, that America was basically an emerging superpower that would assert itself in the world and that Europe would lose its capacity to assert its own destiny, and Germany in particular.

 

But Europe in general would lose its capacity to assert its own sense of destiny and will in the world if America rises and the Soviet Union gobbles up half of Europe, and basically the Western European powers are kind of cornered and their empires are stripped of them, and they are kind of isolated. Which is exactly what happened at the end of the Second World War.

 

So Hitler saw those threats rising and saw a strong British Empire as key. The Germans would try and control the continent, repel the Soviets, and Britain would basically try and maintain a global order that prevented America from rising and kind of consuming the whole thing. That was his grand strategic vision.

 

So it was actually in his interest, which is why the Germans were so fair to the British, and they were offering peace offer after peace offer after peace offer, and they basically demanded nothing. The Germans didn’t demand anything for peace. They were like, basically:

 

“You keep everything that’s yours. Let’s just have peace. We don’t want to take anything from you. We don’t want to exact anything from you, even though you declared war on us first. We’ll just give you peace for free!”

 

And the way that it was responded to ultimately was, as was mentioned in the interview, the largest scale terrorist attacks ever in human history committed by the British covertly from, in terms of their own population, against the Germans.

 

So Churchill started ordering his bombers to go and bomb civilian areas all across Germany. And no one in Britain knew about this. It was classified top secret. While the Germans are trying to send peace offers to Britain, saying:

 

“We want peace, we don’t want war. We don’t want anything from you. Can we please shake hands and do a deal?”

 

At this exact same time, Churchill is ordering for women and children to be bombed in Germany! While, by the way, the British had – we know now that with the records – that the British had full access to the internal communications within Germany. They had decoded their internal communications and knew exactly what the strategic mentality of the German leadership was for the entire duration of the war, which is a big reason why they won, because they were able to get on the phone to, … Not on the phone. They would Telegram the Soviets and say:

 

“The Germans are about to attack here, and then they’re going to do this, and then they’re saying they’re going to do this next week.”

 

And so the Soviets were always one step ahead of them, because the Germans didn’t realise that the British could literally hear and see everything in all of the key high level communications.

 

[33:41]

 

So they had full knowledge of the fact that the Germans were sincere in wanting peace and that they wanted peace, and they just wanted to go and focus on fighting the Soviet Union, and they wanted no beef with Britain. And they saw what they were saying publicly was actually what they felt privately. They knew that and they had full knowledge of that.

 

Nevertheless, they started bombing the shit out of innocent civilians! They also knew that Hitler had an order, a directive to the Germans to not bomb civilian areas in Britain.

 

And even though German towns were getting blown up and some of the bombings were egregious, where like, 20, 30,000 innocent civilians are, like, burning to death in the space of an hour, …

 

Blair Cottrell: Imagine your own mother melting into a tar road!

 

zz Imagine not just your mother, everyone all of your friends, all of their children and so on in your whole neighbourhood just being, yeah, incinerated! This is what was happening across Germany. And Hitler ultimately broke. Like, he couldn’t handle it anymore. And it was like:

 

“Well, fuck! Like, fuck them! We’re going to bomb them back!”

 

And started bombing, you know, started bombing the shit out of London, which was he showed a lot of restraint waiting that long. Or his generals are practically begging him, saying:

 

“We’ve got to retaliate. This is getting ridiculous!”

 

He finally retaliates. And then Churchill spins at:

 

“Look at the German aggression! We will not stand for this! And we will fight them on the beaches when they try to invade!”

 

Churchill knew that they weren’t going to invade. They had no plans to invade and that it would make no strategic sense for them to invade.

 

Nevertheless, he made out like:

 

“This German aggression, we won’t stand for it!”

 

And so on.

 

Meanwhile, all the efforts of British intelligence was concocting BS. Kind of like how the Israelis concocted a bunch of BS narrative to drag America into war in Iraq. They were doing the same thing, like, creating all these fake documents, spreading them in America that that Germany was going to go and invade South America and had plans to take over the Americas and that they were going, …

 

Thomas Sewell: Propaganda!

 

Joel Davis: Yeah, exactly! All this bullshit that they were spinning, which was total nonsense, as if Hitler is going to know, try and invade South America while he’s in the middle of fighting the largest ever individual war between two countries in world history, between Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union. Like, the scale of that war is so far beyond the scale of any particular front in the history of warfare! As if he’s going to go and invade, like, on the other side of the world!

 

By the way, Germany at this time is under naval blockade, and can’t even sail to South America, let alone invade the whole place. It made no sense.

 

But anyway, this shit is getting spread so much. You know, everything that could be done is being done to try and drag the Americans in. And Roosevelt wants the war with Germany because Roosevelt has plans to create a kind of globalist, liberal, international order, much like what was ended up being created after the Second World War. And saw the kind of battle with Germany as key for American dominance over Europe to be asserted, and then therefore over the world.

 

But the American people didn’t want to go to war with Germany, didn’t want any bar of it. And ultimately with the Pearl Harbor bombings and the issue with Japan. Which, by the way, was also by design, because they imposed such intense sanctions on Japan while Japan is at war with China, to basically cripple the Japanese. And all through Asia to basically cripple the Japanese economy. Japan, like Germany, was reliant upon getting oil from the outside and other key natural resources from the outside. Because Japan doesn’t have a lot of natural resources. And so sanctions and naval blockades basically being imposed upon the Japanese completely cripples their capacity to have industry, and therefore cripples their war machine while they’re engaged in so much active warfare across the whole Asian region at that time.

 

So the Japanese felt they had no choice but ultimately to just start fighting the Americans directly because the Americans were crippling their war effort already.

 

And the Americans knew that it would ultimately result in Japan attacking. And actually, Australian intelligence told the Americans two months before, or six weeks before, or something, that Pearl Harbor was going to get bombed by the Japanese. And the Roosevelt administration allowed it to happen, just kind of like, move people that they were quite happy to die into the area and ships that they were happy to get blown up, moved all their key personnel out and just let it happen, basically, so that they would have a pretext to go to war with Japan.

 

[38:24]

 

 

Blair Cottrell: It makes me realise what like, passive “good guy Greg” role Australia played in the Second World War. We basically just fought some battles for the English. Won most of them. Apparently, Menzies* was involved in a lot of the war cabinet meetings with Churchill and kept a private diary about how insane Churchill was.

 

[* Robert Menzies-Australian politician, 12th Prime Minister of Australia (1894-1978) Sir Robert Gordon Menzies was an Australian politician and lawyer who served as the 12th prime minister of Australia from 1939 to 1941 and 1949 to 1966. Wikipedia]

 

And then the Japanese are heading to Pearl Harbor, and we’re like:

 

“Hey, they’re going to Pearl Harbor. We’re the good guys down here, just going to try and help!”

 

Joel Davis: Yeah, exactly! I don’t think anyone in the Australian leadership at the time would have wanted the war to become what it became because it wasn’t in our interest.

 

But ultimately, we had to fight the Japanese because we couldn’t, …

 

Thomas Sewell: Even in the United States, there was a survey done, a very large survey, basically one step down from a census, done on America’s involvement in World War Two. Well, obviously, before World War Two existed as a concept, but involvement in the European war, I think, is what it was described. As and they polled, like, less than 30%. I think like, 20 something percent had any interest in going, engaging, and involving in that war. And both political parties at the time, the Republicans and the Democrats, both ran their election campaigns on not being involved in it. So, obviously, the jews had ulterior motives. And, yeah, it frustrates me. It’s been a frustrating, I guess, eleven years of dealing with a certain faction of, I think Hitler describes them as historical, not “historical enjoyers”, but he has a really unique way of describing them in Mein Kampf, in one of the later chapters. I think it’s around, I could do quote and verse. I think it’s around page 168. [chuckling] I don’t know why I know that! But I really like Hitler.

 

Blair Cottrell: Paragraph three, beginning at word 17, …

 

Thomas Sewell: I’ll just get it. I’ll just get it out. I didn’t actually prepare this earlier. But he talks about people, but they don’t see the forest for the trees, …

 

Blair Cottrell: Is that the Mannheim books? Is that Mannheim books? The black one?

 

Thomas Sewell: Yeah. It’s a Rolf Mannheim that everyone hates.

 

Blair Cottrell: Have you got more than one of those, or is that yours? Because I need one of those.

 

Thomas Sewell: I should have a couple of them. Yeah. I’ve got an order in at the moment for the one Jacob was recommending.

 

Joel Davis: You should get the Dalton one as well, Blair, because the translator, Thomas Dalton, is very competent and is actually a National Socialist. And tried to do a translation that really honoured what the original German says to the that, as accurately as possible. Whereas the other translations, because of ideological bias, you still get the idea, obviously, of what he’s saying.

 

Blair Cottrell: But is Ralph Mannheim jewish?

 

Thomas Sewell: I don’t know. I could Google it, but I don’t know. I don’t think the translation of Mannheim is the problem. It’s mostly the footnote, obviously.

 

Blair Cottrell: I think the Mannheim translation is quite good.

 

Thomas Sewell: Yeah, I enjoyed as well. I just ignore the footnotes. So sometimes I read the footnotes because they just add context. It’s not necessarily biased, obviously, just there’s footnotes about the Holocaust in there. But that’s nonsense!

 

But the most important thing about reading Mein Kampf is, I mean, Joel just went on, like, a 30 minutes rant about the history of World War Two and its relationship, obviously, with Australia, the UK, America, the Soviet Union.

 

When you read Mein Kampf, Hitler describes his idea of a New World Order without jewry. Without world jewry. He describes that alliance between Germany, the United States, Germany, and Great Britain. It describes these relationships all the way back in 1925. So Hitler was completely transparent with his intentions. Hitler was completely, like, he’s writing stuff, how many, basically two decades before the end of World War Two, before the Nuremberg trials, and before all the lies and slander really started to go hard. But he already wrote it, and it was the most published book, I think, in history, after the Bible and the Quran.

 

So that’s why it’s so important to read, because when you read the words from the man, you can feel a sincerity, and it deprograms all of the “Holocaustianity”, as Jacob and William Luther Pierce call it. There’s a Holocaustianity. That’s the new religion. I think there’s a Catholic, a famous Catholic anti-semite as well. I can’t remember his name. Maybe Joel knows him, but he calls it “Holocaustianity” as well.

 

And I think that’s a really important understanding, too.

 

Joel Davis: [words unclear]

 

Thomas Sewell: Yeah. I’ve actually never heard you say call it, but it’s a very good way of describing it, because it really is a religion built around the Holocaust. And reading Mein Kampf and learning the truth about World War Two breaks the spell of Holocaustianity! And when you break the spell of holocaustianity, your politics is now free. You can choose to be whatever you want to be politically, but you’re most likely going to be on some sort of pipeline between racist, libertarian, and National Socialist. And you’re going to probably argue about something benign or irrelevant rather than the securing the future for our people. And to have a free mindset, to not be shackled by holocaustianity, and to have a free mindset allows you to address all information from that free mindset.

 

And so it’s interesting how everyone gets involved in the movement, if we want to describe it by that, I mean, we’ve got Darryl Cooper. Is it Darryl Cooper saying “we have to win first”?

 

So we’re a movement that’s trying to win! We’re trying to achieve state power across Western civilisation, across White civilisation. And it’s fascinating that we all come into the movement from maybe these different angles.

 

[44:20]

 

 

And a lot of the people our age that have been around for some time, we probably got red pilled through 4Chan or YouTube or some sort of alternative media source, even if it’s on a mainstream source, but the backwaters of it that are now banned as part of dead end Internet theory. But we were in that part of the Internet that doesn’t really exist anymore, but it doesn’t need to anymore. It’s become mainstream. Like, they tried to smother it! The Pandora’s box is open. They tried to rig the YouTube algorithms.

 

And I talked about this with Blair. You were there when we talked to, … Who was the guy from Mirror Mirror, the Channel Ten reporter, that American or Canadian guy? What was his name? Journalist Todd Sampson asked me a leading question because obviously they were trying to get it on the documentary. He said:

 

“Did you, when you were on YouTube, did you feel that the algorithm, that it was YouTube’s fault, that the algorithm set you down this path?”

 

And I was like:

 

“No, it was the opposite. I just randomly came across these videos by just deep diving into history, autistically.”

 

And then, I didn’t say that, obviously, on television, [chuckling] but, …

 

And then the algorithm tried to take me out. I’d be watching a Hitler video. And then the most recommended, the top recommended was like, a Ben Shapiro video, or a Jordan Peterson video. It was these astroturfed system people or Joe Rogan video. It was like always trying to pull me out of the rabbit hole. The algorithm was doing the opposite.

 

And he just paused and stopped his line of questioning and then just looked at his notes and then asked a different set of questions. He was like:

 

“Damn it!”

 

He wanted the sound bite. Like:

 

“I was groomed by YouTube. YouTube’s responsible. We should sue YouTube because YouTube’s making all these people racist!”

 

And now it’s like, [chuckling] Tucker Carlson is making all these people wake up to the true the World War Two. And obviously they’re going to go after him.

 

It’s interesting, the observation about Musk supporting the show and then realizing the implications of that and be like:

 

“Oh, shit! I’m not ready to go that far yet!”

 

And there’s a lot of people, a lot of chatter. I have checked the comment section of the show today, and there’s a lot of chatter about:

 

“Oh, this person’s controlled opposition. This person’s controlled opposition!”

 

It’s like:

 

“We’re all here! We all made it!”

 

And if the system is doing these things in a controlled manner, well, look, they’re clearly losing! [chuckling] Like, if that’s what they have to do to control the narrative, that’s the down, …

 

Joel Davis: This is losing control of the narrative. This is like:

 

“Well, in order to stop White people from waking up, what we need to do is talk about how actually Churchill was the bad guy in World War Two and maybe slightly deny the Holocaust and talk about how the jews were behind it in an indirect way and how that’s what’s justifying White genocide.”

 

That’s the controlled demolition!

 

Like, if the system is doing controlled demolition on the World War Two mythos, which is literally the fundamental pillar in the kind of ideological structure of the modern world, that’s victory!

 

I don’t think the system is doing that. I think Tucker Carlson is from a faction of the American elite, which are somewhat free agents to a certain extent, and who, I think, look at basically the current state of the United States and of the American empire and realise that if White people aren’t resupplied with some kind of dignity, then, basically the empire is toast! Because you need to have young White men moving up within the system, occupying positions of power and prominence and running America so that it maintains, that they can have a functional empire.

 

And right now, the way that it’s set up, they’ve denied so much dignity to young White men and to the White race in general. They’re being so destructive towards the high quality blood that is necessary for the empire to sustain itself, that it is on a trajectory to self destruction in very short order.

 

So I think there are a certain element of the American elite, I think, which are still kind of WASPy. They’re not jews, because, you know, his dad’s a CIA agent, and he’s got a lot of connections. So, I mean, he’s a part of the elite. He’s not just some guy.

 

Thomas Sewell: When people say:

 

“Oh, Tucker Carlson, you know, he’s, …”

 

I agree. He wore that Kabbalah bracelet. That’s suspicious, on a previous show. That’s an odd thing to wear, that crimson bracelet. Maybe it means something else in other circles, but most people are aware that’s a sign of tether or tie or submission to the Kabbalah mysticism.

 

But again, let’s say that’s correct. Let’s take that information and we all agree on it. How does that explain or justify what he’s done today? To me, I can only think of, obviously, that’s a clear answer, that there’s infighting within the Deep State and even there’s cabal, and it’s just CIA agents that are trying to get the American empire back on track and White people back supporting the government, because they’ve lost all trust. There’s no trust at the moment.

 

I think Republicans are at like 7% trust in the mainstream media, or it’s basically hit, … We’re like a couple years away in theory, a couple years away from the collapse of the Soviet Union. If you think about where public trust was in the mainstream institutions of the Soviet Union in 1987 or 1988, it was pretty obvious that the whole thing was going to come apart.

 

And there’s a lot of history, a lot of firsthand history of people that talk about how they would walk around in the Soviet Union in the late eighties and walk into car dealerships and pretend to buy a car, because they knew they weren’t for sale, because they weren’t getting manufactured. And they would have these fake conversations with the car dealer, like pretending to buy a car and pretending that they had the money to buy the car. And everyone just like, played pretend. And it was just like this really strange time where they were living in this, I think the term was called hyper, maybe not “hyper realism”. I think it was hyper realism. I watched a documentary called Hyper Realism on it, and that’s kind of similar to what we’re living. We’re living in a different version of hyper realism. But the two notes I have is that, …

 

[50:42]

 

 

Blair Cottrell: We’re in hyper faking gayism!

 

Thomas Sewell: Yeah, exactly! [chuckling] Yeah. It’s the same thing, but just gay and brown.

 

Joel Davis: They kind of had, like, ironic communism at that point. Like no one actually believed. So it was just like this ironic performance art. Because no one can step out and openly criticise it because that’s a capital offence, Gulags.

 

So everyone just ironically goes along with it to show that:

 

“Yes, I’m aware that this is bullshit and you’re aware. We’re both aware that this is bullshit, but we’re not breaking any laws.”

 

And it’s almost like liberalism is getting to that point where no one actually fucking believes that this shit is actually true anymore. Except retards! Even Drew Pavlou does not believe liberalism is true!

 

Thomas Sewell: No he doesn’t.

 

Joel Davis: He knows that the jews run everything and that racism is actually the only thing that’s actually funny or interesting. He’s a totally cynical actor.

 

Thomas Sewell: What he said on the Spaces last night that why do Right-wing people, someone asked AI, or maybe it was you, Joel. Why do Right-wing people wink at each other and that, …

 

Blair Cottrell: Some Leftist, why do like, Nazis smirk at each other in conversation or when they’re in an interview together, and the AI answered:

 

“To indicate a connected consciousness and the fact that they’re both in on some propaganda ploy.”

 

And I said:

 

“Yeah, yeah, that’s right.”

 

Thomas Sewell: It’s the bees. The bees. I probably told the story many times, but I’ll do it in the short version. When the wasp comes into the beehive, the bees don’t fight back straight away. They kind of just, … Bees are industrious. They’re kind of like, they’re kind of Anglos without, you know, well, they kind of like Anglos in a lot of ways, the bees. And they don’t necessarily fight back straight away. It takes a long time for the Saxon to begin to hate. Like, the bees kind of just tolerate the wasps coming in, just like eating people. Sometimes the wasps, even eat the young and start fucking up the royal jelly. And the bees are just like:

 

“Oh God! And they just, they got to get to work. You know what I mean? They’re stuck in traffic and there’s a traffic jam and life sucks! And I got to get the pollen and get the pollen back to the beehive. And this is more important things. Yeah, we get there’s a wasp, but it’s not my job. I don’t have to deal with it. It’s a police job!”

 

And the police are like dysfunctional, the bee police.

 

Anyway, how they eventually kill the wasp is they just start like, waving their wing a certain way, like a different way. And the wasp doesn’t really realise it.

 

And then eventually when all the bees are all just like doing this little twitch with their wing, and when everyone’s doing it, like, it starts with just a couple bees, like:

 

“Hey, we got to deal with this problem.”

 

And they start doing this little wink, this little smirk, this little. Like a little bee sieg heil. And they all start, …

 

Blair Cottrell: Like they’re bashing their spears against their chest plate.

 

Thomas Sewell: Yeah. Yeah, sort of but it’s like a subtle one. It’s like an Anglo. It’s like subtle racism. It’s like an Anglo subtlety.

 

And eventually, when they’re all doing it, then the bees. It’s a hive mind, you see? And when the bees all tune into the hive mind and they’re all geared together. And I say this on purpose because, I mean, Joel didn’t want to give it away, but we’ll talk about it later.

 

But when all the bees are all doing the little mini seig heil and the hive mind is all activated, when the hive minds all mobilised, then when that hive mind has achieved its purpose, then the bees just swarm the wasp and they vibrate the wasp to death. They can overheat the wasp and actually have a rotating meat grinder where they basically can overheat the wasp, and the wasp dies. But the bees just pass out before they die.

 

Blair Cottrell: I think, in there, there’s a clue as to the new name for the show, is there?

 

Thomas Sewell: [chuckling]

 

Blair Cottrell: I picked up on that. Yeah. A couple of questions I have, you guys.

 

First of all, I’ll make a remark regarding Mein Kampf. What you’ve basically explained, Tom, is that in a world where most books, especially books on politics and philosophy, are just spells trying to spell you, trying to get you to believe and invest yourself in a certain thing. Mein Kampf stands out as the spell breaker! It’s the book that dispels you. And allows you to think clearly for yourself see things as they are.

 

And whether Tucker Carlson realises it or not, he’s essentially putting himself forward now as a propagandist for nationalism, hardline nationalism, even National Socialism.

 

I did feel that Tucker Carlson was a little bit soft in the interview on a few occasions. Maybe he does it deliberately to try to seem fair. I know that that’s his game sometimes. But he brings up certain talking points that are quite “humanitarian”. Human rights and everyone having the right to live peacefully and in freedom. But those are the same talking points that led us to this fiasco in the first place. Like this mass egalitarian, mass migration culture that we have to tolerate now, the dispossession of our lands and eventual genocide of our people. So I hope that he realises that at some point and lays off that kind of rhetoric.

 

 

But question for you, Joel. You said that, or you alluded, … And both Tucker and I don’t know if Darryl Cooper did, but Tucker also alluded to the same point, that Winston Churchill, as a result of his stubborn refusal to accept Hitler’s peace offers, is responsible for the state Britain is in right now. But do you think Churchill knew that? Do you think back in 1940, world leaders could even conceive of the fact that a superclass of Leftist psychopaths were going to try to replace native Brits with Muslims and Indians? Right. Do you think Churchill actually understood that?

 

[56:10]

 

Joel Davis: The answer is absolutely that he didn’t! But Churchill was drunk off his tits every single day! I mean, the man was a total mess!

 

Blair Cottrell: What you’re saying is where Britain is at now is a consequence of Churchill, but it’s not what Churchill wanted.

 

Thomas Sewell: He didn’t necessarily know the exact plan, but he knew that these were nefarious agents because he wrote about them. Millions of dollars from the jews.

 

Joel Davis: Yeah, exactly! Yeah, exactly, Tom, is so, …

 

Thomas Sewell: He knew they were nefarious for a fact.

 

Blair Cottrell: He’s in bed with snakes. Churchill’s in bed with snakes. He knows he’s in beds with snakes. He talks about the fact he’s laying in a bed with snakes, but he stays in the bed anyway.

 

Thomas Sewell: Because he’s compromised.

 

Joel Davis: Churchill wrote a book in the early twenties talking about two strategies for jews, zionism and Bolshevism.

 

 

[Churchill’s 1920 article in the Illustrated Sunday Herald on “Zionism versus Bolshevism”. (click image to enlarge)]

[See: Book – The Myth of German Villainy – Part 04 – The Russian Revolution of 1917]

 

 

And also, there are other private communications. David Irving talks about this, of things, because Churchill was a prolific writer. There’s so much documentation of things that he wrote throughout his life. You know, Churchill had a very long life in public life. You know, he was a high ranking, a very successful politician, a high ranking member of the navy and so on. And World War Two is quite towards the end of his life. So when he was a younger man he was incredibly anti-semitic in some of his remarks. His book on the jews shows a very deep understanding of the jews.

 

Martyr Made in that interview, by the way, or Darryl Cooper, I should use his real name. He actually totally misrepresented that book, by the way, because he was like:

 

“Oh, I think Churchill was always a Zionist and he had sympathy to zionism because he thought that, like, jews, if they could either become Zionists or communists, and we would rather they become Zionists rather than communists, because communism is the real kind of threat.”

 

But if Churchill really felt that way, why the hell did he enable the Soviet Union to, why did he allow the Soviet Union to invade Poland, but not Germany? Why did he enable the Soviet Union to gobble up half of Europe with its actions. Why did he effectively ally with the Soviet Union if he was so [word unclear] communism?

 

Blair Cottrell: Apparently he had serious problems with Germany because of several military blunders that he was responsible for.

 

Joel Davis: That’s bullshit! When he said that was total bullshit! The reason why Churchill was fixated upon going to war with Germany was because Churchill went fucking bankrupt! Churchill was voted out of office. His political career failed. His military career was a fucking disaster, and he was a failed man, and he went broke. But he wanted to live a high society life of a rich, well to do, noble, you know, high ranking Tory British guy.

 

So he wanted to live in the fancy manor and have all these maids and servants and be part of high society and so on.

 

Blair Cottrell: And bottles of whisky, …

 

Joel Davis: He needed cash! And he was actually. He was engaged in all kinds of nefarious behaviour. Like, he would create counterfeit, he would do counterfeit painting where he would try and paint like, this famous French painter and pass off paintings like they were painted by someone else, so that he could sell them. Basically commit fraud to sell paintings at high values and so on. And he was doing all kinds of odd jobs, but he was completely broke.

 

And then jewish financiers came in and offered him literally the equivalent today of, like I think five or $10 million or something, or even more to become their guy, basically.

 

And the condition was:

 

“Here’s a whole bunch of money. We’re going to fund you back into politics, as well as paying off all your debts and enabling you to live this highfalutin lifestyle. And we’re going to get all, …”

 

The jews ran the media, right?

 

“So we’re going to get the media to start shilling you. But you’re going to be the guy who leads the charge against this Nazi threat against the Germans!”

 

And Irving points out that when Hitler rose to power, he actually has Churchill’s diaries and Churchill’s writings from that time. When Hitler comes to power in the early thirties. And Churchill doesn’t really care, he barely writes about it. If he was so passionate about Germany being a problem and Hitler being a problem, wouldn’t he have said something? It’s only after the jews come in and bail him out in the mid thirties with literally millions of dollars in today’s money, I can’t remember the exact figures. That all of a sudden he becomes, like, this public advocate within British politics for an aggressive foreign policy against Germany, and he becomes the biggest critic of Neville Chamberlain and the appeasement over Czechoslovakia and so on.

 

And so Churchill was effectively funded and promoted by the jews to be the anti-German war hawk in British politics. And ultimately elevated into the prime ministership, fueled by the jewish media and jewish financing, backing him and putting him in that role. So he owed his entire political, like, his kind of revived political career to the jews 100%! And it was conditional. And if he was to take Hitler’s peace offer, that support would be totally gone!

 

[1:01:24]

 

[See: That Blackguard — Winston Churchill]

 

And also he would look like a fool because he had basically pushed for war with Germany for so many years. If he then finally becomes prime minister and then goes and signs a peace deal with Hitler and tries to become Hitler’s ally, he’ll immediately get voted out because the British people have been sold this idea by Churchill that Germany is the greatest threat, we must defeat Germany and so on. So if he then cucks to Hitler, then there goes his political career, and also the jews would totally abandon him. He’d get cut off all the funding, all the money that he was receiving, or he can keep going along with, keep the jewish money flowing, keep the media on his side, save face, drag the Americans into the war and become the hero and so on, which is what ended up happening. Right?

 

So he basically sold out his people! He sold out our people. He sold us out. He destroyed our empire, because he’s of our blood. I mean, he’s an Anglo Saxon. He basically sold us out, destroyed Europe for petty personal reasons, ultimately. His own personal ambitions in politics and in lifestyle and so on. And Churchill was a racist and an anti-semite. He understood the theory. He didn’t have the honour!

 

[Something to keep in mind is that Organised jewry would have has several potential traitors like Churchill ready to replace him if he didn’t fullfill their agenda, so in other words he was a useful tool, but not indispensable – Kat]

 

Blair Cottrell: Wasn’t almost everyone racist and anti-semitic back then?

 

Joel Davis: Definitely! Yeah, but we have documented evidence showing that he understood. It wasn’t like he was a retard that didn’t understand ideology, didn’t understand race and what was going on, and that he didn’t understand jewish power and influence and the nefarious nature of the jews.

 

And actually, when Churchill tried to revive his political career again, because, remember, he was basically voted out immediately after World War Two ended. When he tried to kind of relaunch his political career again in the late 1940s, he actually, I think, almost ran with the catchphrase or whatever of “Keep Britain, White” or something akin to that, those words. He was going to try and do White nationalist populism as his, like, final hurrah to take back over the Tories and go back into the prime ministership and so on. They ended up kiboshing that idea. But like that shows that Churchill was not like some anti-racist libtard or secret communist or something.

 

He was just literally a piece of shit sellout! And yeah, and as I said, he was wasted drunk. Obviously that demonstrates like a lack of character to be running the British Empire, basically, be the prime minister. It’s such a pivotal moment in history and you can’t like, fucking sober up and make decisions?

 

But you just see, like, throughout his life, like so many incompetent decisions, so many selfish decisions, and just a complete train wreck within his personal life.

 

You know, David Irving talks about the fact that Churchill’s wife or widow, I guess, after he died, was willing to actually work with David Irving and hand over a bunch of Churchill’s records, knowing that David Irving was trashing him! Because she hated him so much, because of how much of a piece of shit he was! He didn’t have loyalty even from his own wife or whatever, or mistress or whatever she was.

 

Anyway, the point is that he was just a total piece of shit, like as a human being on every level. And that is, I think, the core to his motivation, which makes it all the more worse. Like if at least if he was like a anti-racist libtard, then at least like he would have actually had some kind of even though they’re completely wrong morals, at least he would had some principles that governed his behaviour.

 

Like Roosevelt seemed to have like a certain kind of ideological motivation behind what he did. You know, like he wanted to create this, like liberal globalist world order or whatever. And obviously that’s evil and fucked up, because it’s fundamentally immoral construction and look at what that has led to. But it was more conscious with Roosevelt, where Churchill was just like a scum piece of shit that was just used by these forces ultimately to bring down probably the society that he actually loved and wanted to be a part of he just wanted to be “the guy”, he wanted to be the hero, he wanted to be the high status, you know, Englishman with the top hat and respected and so on and so that makes it all the more disgusting!

 

[1:05:51]

 

 

Blair Cottrell: Seems like standard narcissism. Like the guy had deep feelings of inadequacy maybe, and was overcompensating. That’s just standard narcissistic behaviour. Every man’s flawed, and obviously Churchill was significantly flawed.

 

But it’s like no matter where you look, what Darryl Cooper is trying to put forward in the Tucker Carlson interview, that is that Churchill is the foremost villain of the Second World War. You find evidence of that everywhere you look!

 

When you look at other revisionists, when you look at former soldiers. I can recall watching an interview of some former members of the Royal Air Force from World War Two saying that:

 

“They felt like their orders came from cowards, that they were carpet bombing Germany, German civilians on orders, but they didn’t want to do it, and they felt sick about it afterwards.”

 

They didn’t understand why they were being ordered to do that.

 

So I suppose I harbour some resentment towards the man. And it’s funny because I’m not particularly well read on Second World War. I have a good general understanding. I remember, I suppose I first started developing my understanding by watching William Luther Pearce edits on YouTube, edited by Norse Wolf, who was a clever editor, back when YouTube allowed these clips.

 

And that’s how I learnt that what started the Second World War was actually Britain and France declaring war on Hitler, and not the other way around. Not only did Hitler not declare war on England or France, Hitler had nothing to do with the start of the Second World War, other than invading Poland to retake former German territory, which German civilians or German citizens were being slaughtered in because they still hadn’t moved out of that territory. And the Poles thought they had the British and the French on their side. So they thought they could just keep slaughtering those Germans and not suffer any consequences. According to Darryl Cooper, …

 

Thomas Sewell: It was a Polish variation of the NKVD. [words unclear] Part of the jewish administration in Danzig.

 

Blair Cottrell: That means they probably didn’t stop at murder. It was probably worse than that, too. And so Hitler was in a precarious position where he could either just continue letting these Germans get raped and slaughtered in former German territory because the Poles were ignoring Hitler’s advances and requests to stop killing his people so he could get them out of there safely, or he could just go in there and take the land back to protect his own people.

 

According to Darryl Cooper in the Tucker Carlson interview, Hitler didn’t actually expect England and France to declare war on him after retaking that land because he saw it as a perfectly reasonable thing to do, considering the circumstances and the position that he was in. And he was really surprised and upset when they forced him into a war, which is why he put so much effort into trying to sue for peace. Apparently, he was firing off peace office for months and months and months!