Tim Murdoch: This is Tim Murdoch. You’re watching WhiteRabbitRadio live in Game Exotica, the interview series. We have on Blair Cottrell. He will be on hopefully for almost a whole show, but most likely only half a show because he’s on a phone and all these, I guess we can say foreign run convenience stores don’t have the right cord for him.

 

So his phones might run out of charge on us and probably will. So get your questions in. We’re here to talk about Joel Davis and things going on over in Australia. Joel can’t be on because of his crazy bail.

 

So how you doing, Blair?

 

Blair Cottrell: I’m doing fine, man! It’s nice and early here. Not that early. What is it, like 8 o’ clock in the morning? But rolled out of bed, frantically searched for the local convenience stores with friendly local neighborhood Indians. Trying to find the Right charger cord. And I bought one not to let you guys down, but then it’s the wrong one. So we’re just gonna have to see how long this lasts.

 

But the reason I’m in a hotel is because a friend and I traveled from Melbourne to Sydney last night. It’s like a nine hour drive. Australia is a big country like America, but when you factor in the couple of stops to get fuel, it ends up being like 10 or 11 hours. And we did that to visit Joel. First time I’ve seen Joel since he’s been released from prison. Been released on bail about a week ago, just less than a week ago.

 

He’s got stacked of new charges on him. He was initially. If you guys don’t know the story, Joel’s someone I stream with down here. Joel Davis, political commentator and streamer from Australia. He was charged with offending a politician [Allegra Spender], harassing or offending a politician in a Telegram post for a comment he made in a Telegram post that was posted to his public channel. And he was held in isolation as a “national security threat” for the last four months. He was finally released on bail by a Supreme Court justice, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of New South Wales. But he had to pay a lot of money to get there. I think he raised maybe 40,000 from his supporters to get to that point to be released on bail from the Supreme Court. But I think he’s like down to his last 4,000 now.

 

So that’s how much it’s cost him just to get bail for a relatively not less than serious charge. It’s not really a serious charge. It typically carries a pretty low imprisonment rate. I think 6.5% of people that get charged with the same offense that Joel’s been charged with actually end up going to jail at all! So almost 95% of people that get charged with this don’t even go to jail at all! Joel hasn’t even been found guilty yet. He’s not even been convicted. He’s just been accused! But he was held in prison because he’s considered a “national security threat” due to his ideology and various opinions that he shares while he’s streaming.

 

So I had dinner with him last night, and he hasn’t changed at all! If anything, he’s, like, sharper and clearer and even more intelligent than he was before. It’s not surprising because when you sit in jail for a while, you’re removed from all of the petty distractions and the quote, unquote, “degeneracy” of normal society, and all you can really do is read and write. And when you do that for four months straight, you come out quite sharp and clear.

 

So, yeah, he’s in great spirits. He’s very happy to be home. Very grateful to everyone who supported him. He is. Everybody who made it possible for him to get bail, who pitched into the fundraiser. That was huge! But yeah, we had a good laugh. We had some food. He’s feeling good. So that’s where he’s at right now!

 

But he’s banned from the Internet.

 

The reason I have to speak for him, I guess, or update you guys, is Joel is banned from the Internet! Okay? He can’t even have a smartphone, guys. The judge has ruled that he has to have an old brick phone that can’t access the Internet. He’s allowed to access the Internet by computer, but he can’t post anything to social media. He can’t comment on anything, and he can’t have access to the Internet from his phone. Those are his bail conditions imposed by the Supreme Court Justice.

 

Tim Murdoch: Can we petition? Can I pay a lawyer to petition to get him on WhiteRabbitRadio? I wonder how funny that would be. How would that go?

 

Blair Cottrell: I doubt it.

 

Tim Murdoch: I think they’d probably throw him back in jail or something, right? Try to throw me in jail, maybe.

 

Blair Cottrell: Yeah.

 

Tim Murdoch: But anyways. I think that’s kind of funny, though. Well, it’s funny that they’re going to that extreme, but they’re just trying to make an example out of him, and they did. Is there any precedents for trying to keep him off the Internet or denying his civil, … This is denying his Civil Liberties in a modern, …

 

Blair Cottrell: We don’t really have., …

 

Tim Murdoch: Denying him the public square. I mean, he can’t come on a radio show and talk about his case. He can’t have a smartphone and post to his Telegram. Even if he’s not violating, … Telegram is not illegal in Australia. It’s not illegal for him to post on Telegram. It’s just illegal for him to say certain things which they’re constantly trying not to specifically define.

 

[07:18]

 

Blair Cottrell: There is some precedent. Look, this demonstrates the bail conditions imposed on Joel basically being banned from the Internet because the accusation against him stems from a post made on the Internet.

 

And so while the matter is still active and a conviction is yet to be found bail conditions preventing him from using the Internet. This kind of thing demonstrates the disparity between Australia and America. We don’t have Civil Liberties. We don’t have free speech rights down here. Like, so no one has the rights to be criticizing any government official, really. As long as you’re not being overly belligerent. You might be able to, but depending on the language you used, you can be charged with menacing or harassing or maybe something else. It’s getting quite tight down here, especially in recent years. But there’s been a significant shift in the past six months or so.

 

I mean, last year, after our most significant or our worst terror attack in the country’s history occurred on Bondi beach in New South Wales, a couple of Muslim characters opened fire on people on a beach specifically targeting jewish people. I think it was at a jewish festival of some sort. It’s like certain government bureaucrats were so disappointed that the shooters weren’t White guys that they just unleashed on Joel Davis! It’s like the Eye of Sauron was just completely focused on Joel Davis. And Joel’s, like, really surprised by it. When we were eating dinner last night, he was laughing! He’s like:

 

“How is this real? Like, I just posted one thing to Telegram and I’m being treated worse than the actual terrorist who shot those guys on the beach. I’ve been banned from the Internet!”

 

He’s almost struggling. He’s laughing at it, but he’s almost struggling to wrap his head around the logistics of it. And it doesn’t actually make sense.

 

So there is some precedent for people being restricted from using the Internet in a certain way if their accusation relates to something on the Internet in Australia. But the major point to consider is its very different from America. Here, basically, you can be just held indefinitely while your matter is being argued without any proof of guilt. You’re essentially guilty until you try to pay enough to prove yourself innocent. You know, so the whole concept of “innocent until proven guilty”, it exists in legal theory, but in practice it doesn’t exist because you get accused of something and then you sit in jail until the matter is finalized in court, until you pay enough money to prove your innocence, or do a deal and get out somehow.

 

So that’s how it really works.

 

Tim Murdoch: He can talk with his friends, he can talk with you and go to dinner with you. Not a problem. What he’s restricted from like former NSN because that’s been disbanded. For instance, if Tom comes and sees him, can he see Tom?

 

Blair Cottrell: I’m pretty sure he can, but the thing is, Tom has also been charged with a number of offenses which confine him to his state. And Joel resides in a different state right now, the neighboring state.

 

So you can’t cross state boundaries legally while you’re on bail for these offenses. And Joel can’t leave the state either.

 

Tim Murdoch: They basically have to have their cases done with, right?

 

Blair Cottrell: Correct. Yeah. So they can move through states freely again. And that’s very standard for any sort of indictable criminal offense for which you’re on bail. You’re not supposed to leave the state without permission. So technically they could call the police and say:

 

“Look, I want to go interstate to visit my friend and come straight back. Can I do that?”

 

But it just comes down to the whim of some police bureaucrat whether or not you can actually do that.

 

Tim Murdoch: Yeah. Not a free country! But none of us live in a free country. Just some more than others at the moment, maybe. When does this, how long. What is the next step for him? How long will this take before he can get to court? Because now he’s released on bail. But the matters are still pending. These guys have all kinds of matters pending, technically, I guess.

 

Blair Cottrell: Right. While Joel was in what’s called Long Bay Jail, New South Wales, in isolation, being held without conviction as a national security risk, he was hit with something like nine other charges, or more than that.

 

I can’t remember what he said. There’s a whole bunch of other charges.

 

Tim Murdoch: Are they more or less serious charges? I remember this, but when it comes to these Australia charges these charges are serious, but they’re not doing it. I mean, these guys really aren’t doing anything! They’re just hitting crazy charges over Telegram posts or crazy charges for getting into an argument with the shitlibs or it’s just total insanity!

 

But nonetheless, the charges are there and the charges are very serious on the books. And the police treat them like these are major criminal offenses and terrorists and so on and so forth.

 

Blair Cottrell: Typically, for this kind of thing, the police wouldn’t usually get out of bed for something like what Joel posted on Telegram, it’s just because of his ideology. And that was more or less admitted by the court system in the magistrates level of court, which is a lower level of a state court in Australia. Magistrates were just like:

 

“Look, usually bail would apply, but because of his ideological connections and the sensitivity around that, given this recent terror attack, he needs to be held in prison.”

 

Basically. That’s what they were essentially saying.

 

But look, all of the charges that Joel has, I think there’s beyond nine of them right now! Nine or ten or maybe even more. They’re all in relation to streaming. Okay. They’re from things. I think he has six charges from one stream! From the things he said about other ethnic groups.

 

[13:05]

 

Tim Murdoch: These are streams with you? These are streams with Americans or you don’t know?

 

Blair Cottrell: Stream with me. Yeah, well, it was just a stream out of Australia with me. The one in question. The’s being charged with a number of offenses relating to “inciting contempt or revulsion of a specific class of people”, which is relatively new legislation under Australia’s Racial and Religious Tolerance Act.

 

Tim Murdoch: This is saying something about jews, probably.

 

Blair Cottrell: Well, one I think is comments about jewish people. One is about Indian people and the other is about black people.

 

And all of the comments, there’s like six different charges I think, if my memory serves me right. But I know he’s definitely been charged a bunch of times in relation to one stream. And here’s the thing man, and this is what’s super interesting.

 

You probably heard Nick Fuentes have a crack at Joel and say:

 

“He’s just a Wignat. This was always going to happen to this guy. What an idiot! Whatever.”

 

But Joel has been charged for essentially being a groiper and streaming, like doing exactly what Nick Fuentes does.

 

Tim Murdoch: Yeah, but he’s in Australia.

 

Blair Cottrell: He’s been charged for what he’s saying in streams, and then directing his followers to criticize politicians on X. He’s been charged with doing the same thing. Americans have the freedom to do this apparently, but we don’t.

 

Tim Murdoch: Yeah, Nick actually said something that over his sentencing after the fact. But nonetheless, he can be on all sides of the ball, depending on who’s on his nerves on any given day.

 

Blair Cottrell: I think Nick’s great value. When he initially, his comments were:

 

“Oh, this was always going to happen to Joel!”

 

But I think when you look at the charges, …

 

Tim Murdoch: Liek:

 

“The charge this is bullshit!”

 

Or something. I forget what he said.

 

Blair Cottrell: Well, it’s bullshit when you look at the charges. Initially, you’re like:

 

“Okay, Joel was pretty loose!”

 

Everyone can agree that Joel was pretty loose. He was going pretty hard.

 

When you look at what he’s actually being charged with doing. What he’s actually being charged for doing is basically the same thing that Nick does for a living. And you’re like:

 

“What? Hang on, it doesn’t., …”

 

Like I said, it demonstrates the difference legally between Australia and America, and it demonstrates how important it is to have legislation, constitutional rights to freedom of speech, because this is what happens when you don’t have that.

 

Tim Murdoch: Fascinating. So how long will this take before all this particular case is over with and all these other cases. What’s the lineup like?

 

Blair Cottrell: I’d imagine he’s got 12 to 18 months of court appearances, but his next move will be to, at his own convenience, try to get all of the charges heard in bulk in one or two matters, so he doesn’t have to go to court for every single different offense.

 

Tim Murdoch: It’s all the same.

 

Blair Cottrell: Otherwise. It’s just too, …

 

Tim Murdoch: Him running his mouth. It’s all the same stuff. Him live streaming and talking.

 

Blair Cottrell: And there’s the Telegram post, which is a different category of offending, but similar still. And there’s a bunch of other offenses in relation to other things he said. He’s even being charged in relation to private messages he’s had. Because when the police. This is what I forgot to mention. When the police arrested him, the Federal Police, they took his phone, they went through everything, and he’s been making jokes with friends in private conversations that he’s been charged for. Like, literal private conversations that were never public. Because he’s mentioned people specifically in some of those, like, comments, which was all in jest mostly because when you’re talking to the boys, you think it’s private. You say stuff. You say stuff that you don’t think other people would see. But the police have gone through all of it. And he’s got charges in relation to private DMs as well.

 

Tim Murdoch: That’s, its such bullshit! None of these politicians could hold up to those standards. And it’s absurd! But nonetheless, it’s something he’s going through. I remember his fundraiser. I remember putting up and his fundraiser was doing well. Does he have enough money for court? You guys have some good lawyers these days compared to like 10 years ago.

 

Blair Cottrell: Yeah, 10 years ago I was relying on the sympathy, … When I was charged with “hate speech”, I was relying on the sympathy of one lawyer, one lawyer slash barrister, like performing two roles. And I paid him as much as I could, but it was never quite enough. These days there’s a lot more resources available, there’s a lot more sympathy internationally. And the lawyers that Joel has access to, the barrister he used at the Supreme Court, all very professional, top tier stuff. And having access to that for him right now is like indispensable!

 

Tim Murdoch: Plus, there was no such thing as, like GiveSendGo or anything like that, back in the day. There was no crypto.

 

Blair Cottrell: Shout out to GiveSendGo too, by the way. Like just standing strong in the face of all the pressure they must receive from governments around the world and saying:

 

“Look, we believe in free speech. If these people want to raise money, they’re not doing anything illegal. They can raise money.”

 

Like most platforms, most fundraiser platforms would not do that. So GiveSendGo, they’re top notch.

 

[18:26]

 

Tim Murdoch: Yeah, I haven’t checked out his fundraiser. I’m assuming it’s still going or I know he hit his goal. That’s all I remember.

 

Blair Cottrell: I think maybe he was saying to me last night that he’s nearly spent at all! Just to get bail.

 

Tim Murdoch: I would imagine.

 

Blair Cottrell: But, I don’t know the details of when he goes to court next and what’s going to be necessary. So once that is known, I’ll help get the information out there and we’ll see what we can do to keep helping him.

 

Tim Murdoch: Okay. And Tom as well. Right. And who else? I know that there’s other guys charged, correct?

 

Blair Cottrell: Oh, there’s a bunch of guys with a bunch of charges. I don’t even know how many. I think the point, obviously is you’re probably understanding Tim. I think the point is just to bog you down.

 

The point is like to just throw this hooked net, this hooked net of just legal nonsense over you that you get entangled in for years. You spend your energy on it, you spend your money on it. And that just kind of holds you back from activism, politics and what you really care about. And that’s the way the Australian government deals with its dissidents.

 

Tim Murdoch: The “process is the punishment”, as they say over here. That’s the whole entire deal. You might get off because it’s all bullshit, but you’re going to have to go through money and it’s all big pain in the ass.

 

Hopefully everyone comes out smarter and more clever. But nonetheless, it sounds like he’s in good spirits. And now this particular program where you can’t be on a smartphone or anything like that, that’ll continue until that particular or trial is over?

 

Blair Cottrell: I think the intent generally, because he has 20 bail conditions, I think, that’s more bail conditions than I’ve ever heard anyone having! Even like the worst criminals don’t get that. I think that the Supreme Court Justice probably just wanted to demonstrate that she was taking everything seriously. She wasn’t just releasing him willy nilly. She wanted to demonstrate to the (((right people))) that she still considers him very threatening. Whatever.

 

Tim Murdoch: Why did he have to be released to his mother and not his wife and kid?

 

Blair Cottrell: Well, this is the funny, this is a weird thing. He’s been banned from Bondi, where his partner lives. And that’s public knowledge now because the media, like doxed her ages ago and, …

 

Tim Murdoch: Right.

 

Blair Cottrell: Literally took a photo on there. Yeah, she was coming out the front of her house. They literally was waiting for her, taking a photo, which I don’t know how that’s legal, is that stalking? The media seems to be able to do whatever they want here. So I don’t know.

 

Tim Murdoch: She’s being a public person now. But they do celebrities. Where there is no decorum, there is no decency in the societies we live in anymore.

 

Blair Cottrell: That’s a good way to put it. Right. And that’s how it feels, definitely!

 

But in Bondi, that’s where the terror attack happened against members of the jewish community. And because of Joel’s public statements considered anti-semitic and because there’s a considerable population of jewish people living in Bondi, that seems to be the reason he’s been banned from that whole suburb. He can’t go to that suburb!

 

Despite the fact that his partner and child live there. And that was his previous residence. That’s where he lived as well. He can’t go home. He’s not allowed to go there because jews live there!

 

Tim Murdoch: Can they come and see him? Can they come to his mother?

 

Blair Cottrell: They can visit him, but I think it’s like an hour’s drive or something, so there’s a bit of a distance to travel. But they have visited him regularly since he’s been out. He’s building a relationship with his son:

 

“My son seems to like me. He’s happy when I hold him.”

 

Is what Joel said:

 

“You know, my son likes me.”

 

So that’s good news. It was just good to see him last night Tim. He’s happy. He’s the same old Joel, but kind of sharper and more energetic than ever!

 

Tim Murdoch: Yeah, I know that when he first got in, it was really bad! Right. Did he have any stories from jail that he told you?

 

Blair Cottrell: So many! Too many to get into. It was really funny because even though he’s in isolation, he’s in isolation with other guys in other cells who can all talk to each other through the vents and the walls.

 

Tim Murdoch: Okay.

 

Blair Cottrell: And so, yeah, he met some very interesting characters. Very funny stories. Probably the funniest thing that I could share without stepping on any toes or upsetting anybody. I didn’t know this. I assumed that when Joel was arrested by the Federal Police in Australia, when he was arrested, he was arrested at a cafe while he was eating breakfast. And because it was just down the road from where his partner lives, I assumed that his partner was at the cafe with him.

 

But that wasn’t the case. He said to his girlfriend, who was due to give birth to their baby the next day, he said:

 

“Babe, I’m going to get breakfast. I’ll see you later!”

 

And he never came back! [chuckling] The day before his girlfriend was due. So she was probably sitting at home thinking:

 

“Has he ditched me? What the fuck?”

 

The timing of that [chuckling] was really ironic and funny. Like when he told the story.

 

[23:40]

 

Tim Murdoch: I remember him getting arrested. I didn’t know it was a restaurant. I didn’t know where it was at. I just remember seeing him getting arrested, the picture. I wonder what he was eating that morning?

 

Blair Cottrell: And I think even the cafe owner made a comment to the media, because the media rushed into the cafe, the breakfast cafe, and asked a bunch of questions and even asked:

 

“What was he eating?”

 

I think he was eating smashed avocado on toast. That was his last meal. That was his last meal! But look like credit where credit’s due. The police actually went, Joel said:

 

“Can you at least tell my girlfriend what’s happened? Because she’s going to think I just ran away!”

 

So [chuckling] the police actually went and knocked on the door and said:

 

“Yo, just so you know, we arrested your boyfriend. That’s why he’s not coming home.”

 

Tim Murdoch: It seemed like the media was there as he was arrested, which is kind of shady. They must have known about it or something. Or did they?

 

Blair Cottrell: I don’t think so. I think the footage of him being arrested comes from police body cam footage. Okay, maybe. I think they all have cameras on their chests and these days it’s part of procedure to actually document high profile arrests and stuff like that. So I think that’s where that footage came from. And the media rushed there after the fact.

 

Tim Murdoch: Fascinating. Okay, did he have any words of advice? Is he full of advice and knowledge now?

 

Blair Cottrell: He’s definitely acknowledging that there’s a shift in what is going to be possible in Australian political discourse in the future. Okay, that’s probably the best advice. He hasn’t given any advice directly, but this is what I’m projecting to you guys as what I think is probably the best advice given the situation. Joel’s acknowledging pretty much openly that the stuff they were doing before, stuff him and the NSN were doing, the kind of activism they were doing, has essentially been made a “hate crime”. It’s illegal now to openly criticize the jewish community is basically illegal in Australia now. You can’t do that.

 

And so you need to approach discourse in a way that appreciates that new reality. And Joel’s acknowledging that, everyone’s acknowledging that’s why the NSN has disbanded, to prevent their members from going to jail for 10 years for being a member of a hate group.

 

So that chapter of the NSN, the way it was, is done. And a new chapter in Australian political discourse is opening. But what that’s going to look like isn’t clear yet because the laws that have been imposed are so extreme, no one’s sure what’s going to be allowed and what’s not. And it’s going to come down to the whim of political bureaucrats.

 

Tim Murdoch: Sounds like a bunch of bullshit, that’s for sure! Let me get to a Superchat because this one’s for you, actually:

 

“Happy to hear of Joel’s release.”

 

Thank you White Bitch Triple Six. What a handle she has, eh? See what we’ve got here. Okay, up here:

 

“Happy to hear of his release. Hope him and his family, …”

 

Let me get this right here:

 

“Hope him and his family are doing well despite these bogus charges. Wondering if Blair does one on one fitness consultations. I would pay for an hour of his fitness wisdom.”

 

Actually, I think you have something going down that particular line. You’re lining up websites and stuff like that and that’s something you do know about, but go ahead.

 

Blair Cottrell: Yeah, thanks for asking. I do provide. That’s what I do to support myself. And I think I’m pretty good at it. I can basically solve your problems in that regard. And I try to offer a lot more than most people do and I’m very pretty passionate about that. You’ll have to DM me on either Telegram or Instagram at the moment because I’m still setting up a more convenient way for contact. And that’s nearly finished.

 

But if you’re keen to get onto it straight away, just send me a DM on Telegram. It’s at Blair Cottrell. Just my full name. Or you can find me through my main channel, which is at Real Blair Cottrell. And that’s what I do. I help people burn fat and build muscle. I’ve been doing it a while.

 

Tim Murdoch: You can also email me White Bitch Triple six, since I know who you are and I will put up his information because I have all of it. I’ll send it back to you in an email if you didn’t get any of that or you need to know how to get a hold of him. I’ll try to hook you two up.

 

But yeah, that’s what he does. But go ahead, finish.

 

Blair Cottrell: That’s fine. I appreciate it, Tim. Cheers. That’s basically. There’s not a lot more to say.

 

But before the show started, you were asking me about Ben Roberts Smith, the veteran who was recently arrested. That’s a big deal in Australia too, guys! Like this is like a huge deal! This guy Ben Robert Smith, if you don’t know, he’s like a 6 foot 7 chad, Special Forces SAS, Australian army veteran who in Afghanistan was basically responsible for rescuing his colleagues, which he was very good at doing. He’s known for storming significant numbers of enemy troops on his own and somehow winning! This guy’s like basically being hailed as a war hero ever since the war in Afghanistan. There’s certain situations where Australian troops were betrayed by members of the local army or police who offered to kill them in exchange for doing a deal with the Taliban at the time. And they were pinned down by enemy fire, they were betrayed, they were murdered in their sleep. And Ben Robert Smith was the guy who hunted those guys down to save any colleagues that had been captured or pinned down.

 

[29:18]

 

Tim Murdoch: He was in some type of anti-terror squad?

 

Blair Cottrell: I think SAS is kind of like a Special Forces or like a more serious, … I don’t know exactly! Tom Sewell would be much better explaining.

 

Tim Murdoch: I can tell you what the problem was in Afghanistan is that there was a continuous issue on the rules of engagement, where someone could fire at you, throw a grenade at you, throw a bomb at you, or do something like that. Then they would make sure the village they were hiding in they would drop the gun, run back to the village. They would basically make sure that they were unarmed at all times because you couldn’t really do anything with an unarmed individual. It became like a police operation for a lot of different guys. But there was various different teams hunting these guys down. Yeah, playing these games. It was very nasty!

 

Blair Cottrell: It was. And that’s the thing. Basically the Australian army was in Afghanistan supposed to be hunting terrorists, terror networks, members of terror cell groups, but they basically had an arm tied behind their back and their feet bound at most cases. Like they couldn’t actually do their job properly because the rules of engagement kept changing. You just described it in a great way. They would like fire on Australian soldiers, then drop their rifles and act like they were just citizens.

 

Tim Murdoch: Well, this was a problem. This is a problem with my friends that were there from America. So no, this is what they were doing. They were feathering or floating the rules of engagement, terrorists were to make sure that:

 

“Well, they can’t kill me because I’m unarmed.”

 

When they just basically killed one of their friends, you know, an hour for something like that they were constantly playing these games where they became a policing operation. You have to go in and fingerprint them and try to prove the crime. It was a fucking mess, it wasn’t a war, basically.

 

Blair Cottrell: Look the big drama is one of our war heroes from that time, from that era, from Afghanistan. The main one who became a bit of an icon was Ben Robert Smith. But there’s this huge, complex investigation that’s taken place behind the scenes, headed up by I think a combination of media and the Australian Federal Police, they’ve like sent people over to Afghanistan to try to get statements to use against their own soldiers. And the name Ben Robert Smith, that’s the one they kept targeting. There was a defamation case initially against media bureaucrats, specifically a journalist named Nick McKenzie who called Ben Robert Smith a war criminal without evidence. So Ben Robert Smith took him to court and said:

 

“That’s slander, I’m not a war criminal, I’ve got all these medals, what the hell?”

 

But the courts ruled in the favor of the media and they said:

 

“Well look, it could be true, so we don’t know the truth, so it’s not slander.”

 

So it’s like it basically just demonstrates that journalists can say whatever they want about anyone in Australia without any real basis. But now, a year or two after that finding, he’s actually been charged with five war crimes. With apparently either shooting people or commanding his comrades to shoot people who weren’t actually soldiers, weren’t Taliban or weren’t connected. That’s the accusation.

 

But this is the thing, guys, whether he’s guilty or not isn’t really what matters. What matters is the ripple effect that this has on our sense of national pride, the trust our soldiers have in each other and in our government and military, the willingness to actually join the military and go fight for the country. All of that gets pole-axed. That gets steamrolled now by the fact that they can’t even feel confident to go and kill their enemies to do what they’re trying to do without being thrown in jail for life for it when they come back. Because that’s a war crime! That’s the kind of feeling that this is created.

 

Tim Murdoch: Yeah. When I first heard it, I thought it was like ICC. I thought it was going to be a big international deal. Then I looked and I’m like:

 

“Holy shit, they’re bringing him up on charges inside of Australia!”

 

This is like some kind of shitlib ordeal, where they actually put up billboards and had advertisements over in Afghanistan for testimony and stuff like that you know, they’re like drumming stuff up!

 

It is somewhat unprecedented now, I assume, because a lot of these guys from my experience, aren’t necessarily on our side. In fact, the ones I know I would kind of consider assholes. [chuckling] You know, our societies are heavily degraded. These guys aren’t necessarily hugs and cupcakes or nice individuals. Many of them you could describe as Zogbots to a certain extent. “Rah, rah”, you know, patriots. But they would line us up against the wall as well if ordered by the government. What is his politics like? Is he being targeted for political reasons or is he targeted because he’s just a military icon and they’re trying to degrade a famous White military icon? You know what is the deal? Because he’s on their side.

 

Blair Cottrell: Like most soldiers he probably doesn’t have politics. And even if he does, it doesn’t matter! When you’re a soldier, you don’t have politics. You’re [government] property!

 

Tim Murdoch: Right, true.

 

[34:25]

 

Blair Cottrell: So that’s like the way I see it. Even if the charges aren’t political, they might as well be, as I explained just then, because they really have a dramatic negative impact on our sense of pride as Australians and our trust that our army members of the Australian Defence Force have in our government and each other. It just makes people not want to fight for this country and not want to take this government seriously.

 

Tim Murdoch: I didn’t mean to interrupt you, but in America that’s already happened long ago. So I’m taking it, this is like we’ve got upset veterans handing in medals. You guys have never had anything like this before where people are saying:

 

“You know, fuck this! I’m not fighting for this government!”

 

This is like the next stage from Covid Covid was a big trust hammer in Australia. This is another thing that’s really putting the nail in the coffin, so to speak?

 

Blair Cottrell: Yeah. Like you said, there’s been really good articles put out there by Noticer News, which is huge source of news. Really good source of news in Australia. Probably the best source we have down here in Australia. And they just did a story I think yesterday or the day before, and war veterans all over the country are handing in their medals in disgust that the government has gone after this guy just for following orders, for being one of our best soldiers.

 

Tim Murdoch: It is years after the fact and you’re putting up advertisement. It’s years after the fact. It’s not like you’re dealing with fresh off Afghanistan and ICC charge or some type of formal investigation. Formal charge that this guy was doing really shitty things or unbecoming of an officer, so on, so forth, etc.

 

Blair Cottrell: Exactly! Why now? What’s the point of this?

 

Tim Murdoch: Yeah. Years after the fact doesn’t make any sense.

 

Blair Cottrell: When something like this happens to him, like who benefits? What is Australia getting out of hunting or targeting its own soldiers? For, like, historical war crimes that probably didn’t even happen. And even if they did, where, … Let me ask you this question. Where’s the Taliban? The government there that’s still in place now. Where are they charging their soldiers with war crimes?

 

Tim Murdoch: They don’t give a fuck!

 

Blair Cottrell: Who are they investigating?

 

Tim Murdoch: They don’t have our standards. They don’t have our moral standards.

 

Blair Cottrell: That’s what I’m saying, right? The Talibani government would never drag its own soldiers who did commit war crimes! There’s no doubt about it. It’s well documented. They’ll celebrate them as heroes! They’re doing the opposite. Right. So that just goes to show, …

 

Tim Murdoch: We’ve always had a very high standard for soldiers and soldier behavior. This is just years after the fact. This is Australia advertising they wanted to do this. And they’re doing it inside of Australia. And it all just doesn’t. I mean, hey, maybe he’s a piece of shit, Zogbot? Maybe he said, “kill all Nazis”. Whatever. I don’t know anything about the guy. But he’s being, you know, railroaded, giving the White nationalist treatment, as what I call it, really. And it’s all inside of Australia, and they’re kind of like, okay, you know, he killed a guy and drank out of his prosthetic or something like that. Well, why are they waiting so long if he’s doing all these terrible things?

 

Blair Cottrell: Exactly! It’s like, why now? Who benefits? What’s going on here? What’s the point? Is it really just bureaucratic procedure that took ages to roll around? And if that’s the case, it’s kind of female coded.

 

Because if you’re fighting a war and you’re holding yourself to certain standards of war crimes where you can’t actually even kill your enemies when they’re there, but your enemy’s not doing that, well, it’s no wonder we didn’t win that war. Right? But what was even the point?

 

Tim Murdoch: Yeah.

 

Blair Cottrell: I don’t know. But there’s this thing going on right now that’s the new head of the AFP. I think her name’s, [Krissy Barrett] I can’t remember her name. That’s that woman.

 

Tim Murdoch: It’s obviously political. This is the thing. We’re in a heavily degraded society, as I always say, and it affects everyone. And there is a problem of behavior amongst a percentage of Whites, especially in charge, especially in positions of power.

 

But there’s also a huge problem in this case of a White woman who obviously is targeting this guy, you know, would this be happening if it wasn’t for her? I don’t know. Seems like?

 

Blair Cottrell: Well, there’s this weird shift. There’s all these new task forces that are being created in Australia, specifically within the Australian Federal Police. There’s like, Task Force Against Anti-semitism, a task force to Promote Social Cohesion by targeting racism.

 

And all of that’s come about, Tim, in the last six to eight months. This is all really new stuff. So there’s these new like, it’s almost like the AFP was quietly overthrown. I mean, this is just speculation, but it was quietly overthrown.

 

And now it’s in the hands of someone. I don’t know, someone with hostile intentions. Because it’s like it’s being turned into a political police. And it happened very suddenly. It’s weird! I can’t explain it at this stage. All I know is that Australia is changing rapidly! It’s targeting its own citizens, its own veterans, its own people, to the benefit of (((foreign lobby groups))), foreign nations often and historically hostile to Australia.

 

[39:48]

 

Tim Murdoch: Yeah, I saw one particular piece from the Daily Mail and the quotes were, … You know, they were analyzing, these particular departments and whatnot were analyzing all his tattoos. And he has a Christian cross tattoo, or we’re calling a crusader tattoo.

 

Blair Cottrell: That was a patch. Yeah, he had a patch. This is Ben Roberts Smith, the soldier who’s been charged. There’s this famous photo of him which was allegedly taken immediately after he just charged in against superior numbers and rescued a bunch of his comrades under heavy fire.

 

And as he’s walking away from that battle, he has a crusader knight’s cross patch, like a red Christian cross on a White shield. But the media in Australia edits the Christian cross out of the photo before they publish it in order not to offend Muslims or offend anyone who might not like that.

 

I mean, that just goes to show where we’re at! If there’s that level of political censorship happening in media, then it’s not unreasonable to assume that he’s being targeted for political reasons. That’s why he’s been accused of war crimes.

 

Tim Murdoch: Yeah. They’re targeting Whites across the board, and he’s obviously a symbol and they’re going after him for that particular reason.

 

I mean, there might be something legitimate. I’m not going to say that the guy’s perfect. I don’t know anything about him. He might be evil. [chuckling] There are some badass veterans in the US Army that I wouldn’t want to live near, that’s for sure. So you never know! We don’t know anything about him. But what I think is shitty is that if he’s doing something and it’s that over the top and there’s all these charges, why are they waiting so long, and why are they doing it with inside of Australia, like they’re doing it?

 

So I don’t know. And putting advertisements, putting up advertisements?

 

Blair Cottrell: There’s appeals to Afghanistanis, … There are more Afghanistanis living in Australia now, who have come from Afghanistan recently who have served in the army. Right. Because they have to over. There are more of them living here now than they, than the amount of Australian soldiers that were ever in Afghanistan.

 

So it’s like we have this fifth column and what the government’s doing and the police, they’re putting out advertisements appealing to those people in Australia saying:

 

“Hey, if you have any information about Ben Roberts Smith or any other soldier doing something mean or wrong to you, come and report it to us. And we’ll put it into our investigation.”

 

So it’s mind boggling! It’s like, how is this real? How is this happening?

 

Tim Murdoch: This is within the military, the confines of the military justice system of Australia. Correct? Or is it outside of the bounds of that? Because they have these laws on the books, war crime laws on the books and I don’t even know how old they are. Australia has these laws on the books that they can go after soldiers for war crimes regardless of the international law or anything like that it’s just kind of like internal to Australia. Now there’s always been a court martialing and stuff like that in America and behavior unbecoming of an officer and so on and so forth, et cetera. We have a military court of law here, but I don’t understand how it’s going over into civilian. I guess I don’t really know Australian courts.

 

Blair Cottrell: It’s definitely an Australia internal thing, because it’s the Australian Federal Police that are leading the investigation. But they’re not really confined to the borders of Australia geographically. Like I said, they’ll send cops and investigators over to Afghanistan to get information from former Taliban fighters about Australian soldiers so they can go home and prosecute their own soldiers. I just think we need, regardless of this guy made some mistakes. I don’t care! This guy went to fight a war in another country against the enemy. That’s what he’s trained to do! And we need to stand with our own, even if they do make mistakes sometimes. It was easy to make mistakes in an environment where your enemy isn’t abiding by any specific rules of engagement. I’m not even saying he did make mistakes. I don’t know. I wasn’t there. The cops certainly weren’t there.

 

Tim Murdoch: Yeah, I’m not interested in trusting the advice of Afghanis that you’re soliciting, that are known liars, that they’re soliciting advice from. We have to see the evidence. But I just don’t like the way they’re doing this years after the fact. If he’s that much of a bad apple as they’re suggesting, you should have easily done something when he committed these acts because supposedly this is like known stuff and he’s a bad actor and he’s this big asshole and blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. Okay, fine. Why are you waiting so long? And why are they having to solicit anything? Shouldn’t you have collected evidence right then and court martialed him or whatever? That’s normally what happens.

 

Blair Cottrell: Exactly! But look, guys, this is just what we’re going through down here in Australia.

 

I’m sorry to check out early, but my phone’s about to die. I’m just gonna give you guys the warning before it does. And like, look, we did kind of like a spontaneous drive up to visit Joel and have dinner with him last night. And so that’s why I’m like in disarray. I’d usually go sit with you guys for a bit longer. Yeah, thanks, Tim, for having me on. And thanks for the questions. Maybe in a couple of weeks or whenever you’re free again, we could say may, I could see up Tom Sewell. He could come on and he, Tom Sewell would be excellent at explaining the Ben Robert Smith Australian army situation because he spent a couple of years in battalion as a soldier. He has much more inside knowledge about how things really work.

 

[45:20]

 

Tim Murdoch: What blew me away is they’re doing this outside of the military, … Well, I don’t know how Australian military works, but they’re doing it, … I mean this is something that happened in a war, but they’re doing it outside military court of law, which I think is pretty crazy! But and they have their own little war crime, their own little war crime ordeal.

 

But anyways, I appreciate it, Blair, for coming on and being a good sport. Guys, I’m going to let’s see what I’m going to do here. Hang out here a couple minutes and look what’s going on in the chat. I thought he’d be on a couple hours obviously, but his phone ran out and what are you going to do when your phone runs out?

 

But this case is one to watch. It’s definitely a political trial. We’ll have to see what evidence there is and why they waited so long. It all stinks to me. But we do appreciate Blair coming on. His phone ran out and he had the wrong cord.

 

Let me see what you guys are saying here. Yeah, it sounds like Joel’s doing quite well. He’s doing okay. Bo Nilson, thank you very much for the sub. But I’ll stay around a couple minutes. Let me cruise around and see what’s going on and then I’ll let you guys go. And for the weekend I’ll be back on Sunday. Yeah, I’ll get those guys on again soon. I’ll get Tom Sewell on again. I have on Warren Balogh but I’ll try to get on Tom Sewell or I’m trying to think of who else. You know, Tom I think was in the military. So.

 

But anyways, I appreciate you guys tuning in and supporting the show. I will be back Sunday. I was planning on doing a two hour show with Blair but nonetheless these things do happen. We do appreciate him being a good sport and coming on for 45 minutes. I was hoping he’d make it on at least an hour but he got close. But I do appreciate it guys and I guess I’m going to go ahead and let you guys go. You guys have a wonderful Friday evening and Saturday and I’ll be back on Sunday same time, same place, about 5:30 PM. Need we’ll talk about everything going on. I know they’re meeting with, … Let’s go over to Drudge. What’s up? Crafty Booms. I know they’re meeting on, … Trump’s vowing complete decimation of Iran. They’re meeting with Iran tomorrow in Pakistan.

 

Okay, so get this. They’re meeting with Iran in Pakistan and Did Do Nothing Replay, bro:

 

“Catching live. Great show. Thanks for what you do, sir.”

 

Well, thank you for support. We got Crafty Booms. Thank you 14 for the 88. I do appreciate it. I appreciate you guys generosity.

 

But this whole entire Iran situation is not over with. It’s not over with. It might die down for a bit. But why Pakistan? Pakistan arranged the meeting. There’s a few different theories on it. They’re a Muslim country. It’s kind of like they’re not in the war and they arranged the ceasefire. Or maybe Trump, through a back channel, had it. I think what they’re trying to do is stall for a period of time to build up enough forces to try another angle. They’re not going to be happy, they being Israel, is not going to be happy until the IRGC, the current regime in Iran, is gone.

 

So they’re going to keep going at it, and they’re going to obviously stall by time, until they can degrade that regime enough and kill enough of them. What they keep doing, obviously, is killing the elites they’re meeting with. So really, how are you going to meet with them anywhere if you’re killing them other than a situation like this? I mean, Pakistan escorted the jet from Pakistan, when it flew into Pakistan’s airspace. The jet containing the Iranian dignitaries and Iranian authorities, negotiating authorities in Pakistan.

 

I mean, the Israelis just keep on killing. And so Israel is supposed to be backing down in Lebanon, but of course, Israel let loose, what, 100 bombs in 10 minutes, dropped 100 bombs, missiles in 10 minutes and totally destroyed Lebanon. It’s just insanity! So Pakistan was a neutral player and they’re trying to, … There’s probably more explanation than that. But the Iranians can’t go just anywhere and meet just anywhere. They just can’t. Because everywhere they pop up, the Israelis kill them.

 

So, I think what Trump wants to do is build up a force to break them another way or maybe take oil or do something. He’s pulling something! The Iranians so far haven’t trusted anything, though. They don’t trust the Americans at all! Let’s see what Field Marshall has to say:

 

“Thanks for getting our Blair on. Hi, Joel. Thanks. Good luck, everything. Congrats to you and yours. The birth of your first child. Done.”

 

Thank you very much, Field Marshal. I do appreciate it. And when Joel can come on, he’ll be on, that’s for sure. I guess he has to get back on Telegram first and get these cases over with. We’ll see.

 

Yeah, I don’t know. There’s like a long explanation on why they did Pakistan and there’s a few conspiracies about it. But the Iranians. Who are you going to trust if you’re Iranian? So now the negotiating team. The negotiating team is JD Vance and it’s Trump’s son-in-law and it’s the main negotiator. Hold on here.

 

Okay. Daily Signal:

 

“I’ll see Vance to lead the negotiating team.”

 

Yeah, we’ve got like four or five guys in the negotiating team. See here, Steve Witkoff. Yeah. Jared Kushner. They’re both going to be there with J.D. Vance.

 

[52:17]

 

But there’s a fourth as well. I want to say maybe it’s Ambassador to Pakistan. Pakistan has four dignitaries there. Pakistan sets modest goal. Let’s look at Al Jazeera:

 

“Pakistan sets goal. A deal to keep talks going.”

 

They want to keep conversations going. The problem with this particular war so far, one of the reasons that I think the English speaking world elite and sections of Europe really don’t give a shit is that it hurts the BRICS. It really hurts the developing countries. That has become very clear. The developing countries, the BRICS countries are being hurt by the closure of the Strait of Hormuz, which is kind of an interesting thing because Trump doesn’t like the BRICS countries.

 

But one of the side effects is they are hurt by the closure of the Strait of Hormuz and only 15 tankers a day can get through. So the whole entire situation actually hurts the BRICS countries, which I find intriguing. They’re the ones suffering the most.

 

And so that’s probably one of the reasons behind it as well. Pakistan, developing countries. You know, these guys are all like:

 

“We’ve got to stop this war if we can.”

 

The Iranians, supposedly, what they’re saying is they’ve come a long ways in agreeing to various different things, supposedly, but I don’t know. Well, Iran doesn’t want to look like a bad guy internationally. They don’t want to play into the bad guy role. They’re not the aggressor. They’re defending their country, they’re defending their homeland. If Pakistan [Iran] would have shut down the Strait of Hormuz any other time, all hell would have broke loose. The whole entire international community would have came down on Iran and probably removed them somehow some way. But because of the way it happened, No one could really blame Iran. The blame would go to Israel, against Israel in the United States.

 

And Iran has the upper hand and they don’t want to lose that, which is very clever of them. They basically have been playing it very well. They’ve been doing a bang up job in handling themselves so far. I don’t think they’re going to make any mistakes. But they’re going to have to be ready to fight to the death, there’s no doubt about that. Because they’re not going to be happy until they get they get the particular uranium. They don’t want them to have nukes. And Trump wants to send them back to the Stone Age. He’s saying that again. He vows complete decimation and ceasefire warning to Tehran.

 

Now I am guessing he’s saying a lot of this shit just to get them to the table because this is hurting the American economy. But I do know in the back of everyone’s head these guys at the top don’t like the BRICs and they want a way to harm the BRICs. Having the Strait of Hormuz shut down harms the BRICS countries, more than anyone else. You know, the Chinese are prepared, the US is prepared more than most. Europe’s got issues, but the BRICS really has issues, that’s for damn sure!

 

But anyways guys, I’ll be back on Sunday. We’ll talk about it more, 5:30 PM. Thanks you guys for tuning in and I’ll get Blair back on when he can bullshit for a couple hours. White Bitch Triple Six get a hold of me via email if you need Blair’s contact information and he can hook you up with a fitness consulting. That’s what he does. And he’s very good at it.

 

But anyways, cheers guys and thanks for tuning in and supporting the show, as well as all the support out there.

 

[59:21]

 

 

END

top

 

 

 

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

 

Rumble Comments

top

(Comments as of 4/12/2026 = 21)

MountainMan1847
1 day ago
Australia for the white man o/ Heil to my Aussie brothers
17
0

‹ Hide 1 reply
xSTRAWMANx
16 hours ago
Ken oath mate
1
0

traceywilliams
1 day ago
Would’ve loved to hear Blair finish a sentence.
11
1

‹ Hide 1 reply
LiftWaffen
18 hours ago
He is really great at interrupting!

Tristan_Blixt
21 hours ago
you need to listen more and talk less. let blair do the talking
6
1

‹ Hide 1 reply
timmurdock
VerifiedAdminSupporter
20 hours ago
I had lots of questions and only an hour to get them in. Cut me a break or get your own show.
2
1

Correctifier
Supporter
1 day ago
Wotan bless me Aussie mates!
4
0

TheWhitenessoftheWhale
1 day ago
Do they want to humiliate SAS?
2
0

renunciate
Supporter+
22 hours ago
Ben R Smith is a war hero. His treatment is intentional demoralization.
1
0

BradC1988
6 hours ago
Its great to hear Joel Davis has been released on bail and that he hasn’t changed a bit! Hail White Australia! o/
1
0

renunciate
Supporter+
22 hours ago

KingTut999
1 hour ago
after Joel got released his Go, Send, Go or whatever fundraiser link got nuked. so not sure what happened exactly.

Spaceman69
1 day ago
ben robert smith is being crucified by hes OWN CREW testifying against him because he cross some big lines and deserves all that he is getting. rules of engagement brothaaaaaa. you aint above the law big fellow. imagine how bad things were your own crew ratted you out, and rightly so!!! dont take my word for it, go read the court transcripts for yourself or watch this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J896i3yrTbQ&t=2s come at me nazis, this is the only place you can exercise your racism these days…. prove me right. prove the hate speech laws right!
0
11

‹ Hide 1 reply
renunciate
Supporter+
22 hours ago
You couldn’t resist squawking buzzwords, could you? “Nazi” “racist”. Both propaganda terms used by communist agitators. Label someone with a negative name to justify persecuting them. GFY.
8
0

‹ Hide 1 reply
Spaceman69
15 hours ago
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA are we pretending like joel davis was not a self proclaimed racist nazi LEADER? blaire use to be as well till he got kicked out cause hes missus cucked him with another member of NSN, so he chased the guy down with toma hawks then burned the guys house down- hence went to max security prison.. ohh boy, ya cant make this shat up.. hey whitey.. feel free to white wash the information to your liking… but now its the age of the internet…. that hitler brain wash bullshat aint gonna float. the truth is out there. the internet never forgets
1
4

‹ Hide 1 reply
BradC1988
6 hours ago
Shut the fuck up retard LOL
Spaceman69
1 day ago
blair sounds funny. like he forgot to take meds or sumthin. joels arrest, that racists try to white wash is that the female politician he had hes nazi possy harass AKA “rhetorically rape”, well she ended up quitting her job and moving house for her families safety because of the degree of online treats and harassment she received. i imagine she also took out intervention order against him and hes nazi friends. so yeah its kinda serious!!! you cannot threaten people like that even “rhetorically” especially a politician. thanks to NSN nazis and racists, Australia has passed laws against hate speech. basically it is now ILLEGAL to be racist in Australia. which i think is freaking awesome! an example to the world. these dumb nazis seem to think their freedom of speech includes insulting people to their hearts desires on the daily! like a aussie magistrate has said, people have the right to go about their daily lives without being subjected to your vile hate filled racism. on behalf of immigrants here in aus, thank you nazis for making racism illegal!!! we couldn’t have done it without ya… now we sit back eat pop corn and watch the overwhelming avalanche of court cases these racist dickheads are about to face.. they make for a perfect example of why these laws are necessary. nazi racism destroys common sense!
1
16

‹ Hide 2 replies
bthor29
21 hours ago
Are you referencing the multi million dollar mansion she inherited then spent $800k renovating using her political influence to assist with council approval?
7
0

‹ Hide 1 reply
Spaceman69
15 hours ago
completely unrelated. next you’ll be talking about affairs and sex scandals… are you trying to justify rhetorically raping her with threats and harassment?!? because she had an opinion about NSN?
0
2

‹ Hide 1 reply
BradC1988
5 hours ago
Joel’s comments were totally justified, retard. However, your presence in a White country has no justification. You and the rest of the unwelcome brown/black hordes contribute nothing but crime to the host country.
BradC1988
5 hours ago
Again, shut the fuck up you antiWhite piece of shit. Also, you will be going home to your shitty country. Its only a matter of time, shitskin! LOL
0
0

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

See Also

top

 

 

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

Caller 1: The present day European jews came up through Spain. They came through North Africa, through Spain, from Italy and from the Middle East, and they went through Germany and they went to Poland. That’s the route that they followed. The jews are now in Israel.

 

Ernst Zundel: Hundreds of thousands come from under the stars in the Pale of Settlement. Can you tell me that.

Caller 1: They came from Poland?

 

Ernst Zundel: Oh, they came from Poland. They came from Poland and from Germany.

 

Ernst Zundel: I’ve heard of big migration from Khazars into Poland and into Germany under Frederick the Great, to be exact.

 

Caller 1: No, no, no! You’re speaking of the Oriental jews who came up from the Caucasus Mountain. The mountain jews who came from Babylonia and some Assyria.

 

Host: Ah, well, when it comes to this area, …

 

Caller 1: Let’s forget about it.

 

Ernst Zundel: No, in a sense, why would you want to discuss it? Because it’s going to., …

 

Caller 1: What’s that got to do with the jews who are now in Israel?

 

Ernst Zundel: Because then 80% of those jews living in Israel, according to the Arabs and according to this interpretation of it, are not Semites. Therefore they have no historic attachment to the Wailing Wall.

 

Caller 1: Good. Good heavens. You know what you sound like? Yesterday I read a book about a guy who said that the South American-Indians were the lost 10 tribes. They wandered across from Mesopotamia to India and to China. It crossed that Alaska and then down. The Incas and the Aztecs were descended from the 10 lost tribes.

 

Ernst Zundel: You are referring to the Book of Mormons, I suppose.

 

Caller 1: Oh, good heavens!

 

Ernst Zundel: I’m not saying it, man! It’s the Jewish Encyclopedia that is.

 

Caller 1: I don’t believe you! I don’t believe you!

 

Host: Well, in terms of history, according to Jewish Encyclopedia, we have a caller who is well versed in jewish history and we’ll go to him in just a second. Okay, just one second now. I think this is the line. Is that you, Mr L?

 

Caller 2: Yes, yes.

 

Host: Okay. You’ve been listening. Have you been listening?

 

Caller 2: Hello.

 

Host: Have you been listening for the last few minutes, Mr. Lipman?

 

Caller 2: Yes, hello?

 

Host: Hello.

 

Caller 2: Mr. Lipman. Yes, speaking. Hello?

 

Host: Yes, just one second now.

 

Caller 2: Speaking, please.

 

Host: Okay, there, you’re on the line now. Pardon?

 

Caller 2: Yeah, I’m the caller, Mr. Lipman. I want to speak to the Nazi and I want to speak to the jew there.

 

Host: Well, the jew hung up and the Nazi, as you call him, [chuckling] is on the line.

 

Caller 2: Did you laugh at the Nazi there?

 

Host: Yeah, go ahead, Mr. L.

 

Ernst Zundel: I beg your pardon.

 

Host: Go ahead. You’re on the air now.

 

Caller 2: Is the jewish man there, too?

 

Host: No, he hung up.

 

Caller 2: Well, if he hung up. Hello?

 

Host: Yes.

 

Caller 2: Wouldn’t be surprised if you’re listening while I’m talking.

 

Ernst Zundel: Yes, the jewish man is here. Go on.

 

Caller 2: Hello?

 

Host: Hello? Go ahead, sir.

 

Caller 1: First of all, I would like to bag the jewish fellow to take my telephone number and call me personally. I want to speak to him personally after I’ll finish. My number is [bebbed out] Sometimes you can still have my telephone number. I’m not hiding anything.

 

And I’m not hiding anything. And I can debate with you what I want to know, Mr. Caller Number One. Hello?

 

Ernst Zundel: Yes?

 

Caller 2: Caller Number One, is that you?

 

Ernst Zundel: Well, are you referring to the, …

 

Caller 2: Are you caller Number One?

 

Ernst Zundel: Yes.

 

Caller 2: Tell me, what capacity do you speak of the name of the Arab? Are you in capacity of making a peace between the jews? And are you official representative that you talk with such authority, or you just an ordinary journalist which writes in the yellow tabloid of [word unclear] Gable? Answer me the question, sir.

 

Ernst Zundel: First polite question.

 

Caller 2: I like concrete, man! I don’t like to talk nonsense! In what capacity do you speak to make peace between jews and Arabs?

 

Host: All right, he’s going to answer the question. Mr. L.

 

Ernst Zundel: Mr. M. Would you be polite?

 

Caller 2: Yeah, I will. Yes.

 

Ernst Zundel: Okay.

 

First of all, I’m not writing for Julius Streicher.

 

Caller 1: I beg your pardon?

 

Ernst Zundel: I’m not writing for Julius Streicher. And the other gentlemen because their papers have gone out of business.

 

Caller 1: Yeah, but there’s plenty of Streichers at the moment. Plenty of Streichers roaming around in the streets of Montreal and in New York and in South America.

 

Host: Well, sir, let me. Just for the benefit of listeners, your response can be interpreted two ways. You’re not writing for them because they no longer exist. Does that mean if they did exist, you would write for them?

 

Ernst Zundel: No, but I was just trying to find out how, …

 

Caller 2: Listen, give me an answer, man! I want you to give me an answer. Caller number one.

 

Ernst Zundel: Yes, I, …

 

Caller 2: In what capacity do you speak to make peace between the jews and the Arabs?

 

Ernst Zundel: Well, all night stated in a, …

 

Caller 2: Yeah, go ahead. I didn’t hear.

 

Ernst Zundel: Well, then you have, …

 

Caller 2: Repeat yourself.

 

Ernst Zundel: Mr. Lipman, are you there?

 

Caller 1: I’ll beg your pardon.

 

Ernst Zundel: Okay. Would you hang on for just a second, …

 

[04:55]

 

Caller 2: Yeah, wait a minute. I’ll close the radio. I’ll be able to hear.

 

Ernst Zundel: Okay, very good.

 

Caller 2: Go ahead.

 

Ernst Zundel: Radio done?

 

Caller 2: Yes, go ahead.

 

Ernst Zundel: Now, Mr Lipman, if you have been listening and you have been hearing not what you wanted to hear, but what I said.

 

Caller 2: Yes, what did you say?

 

Ernst Zundel: I said repeatedly tonight that I spoke as an individual.

 

Caller 2: Wait a minute. Yeah, but you speak like you’re sitting at a conference table with the jews.

 

Ernst Zundel: No.

 

Caller 2: And trying to make peace between the Arabs and jews!

 

Ernst Zundel: Oh, I say it as a suggestion. It’s a free country we are in.

 

Caller 2: Well, no, no, no, no, wait a minute. There’s a different. There’s a dialogue, man! We can criticize the jews. We can criticize anybody.

 

Ernst Zundel: Sometimes I wonder.

 

Caller 1: Yeah, we can criticize the jews. They are right sometimes. Don’t give me that stuff, mister. You know well that we can criticize the jews.

 

Ernst Zundel: Anybody that listens to the headline tonight must wonder the, …

 

Caller 2: The [word unclear] doesn’t wonder. The only thing is I can’t understand Mr. Bell. I told him one time how does he allow such poison to be spread when there Streichers and so many Meyers and so many. What you call them? You call yourself Meyer. Your father was Meyer, you said. And so many [word unclear] walking around in the streets of Montreal.

 

Host: All right, now if you’ll let me say something for just a moment.

 

Now, there are callers who are barred from the line because in my opinion, they are guilty of what you suggested Mr. L.

 

Caller 2: Yes.

 

Host: In my opinion, this gentleman is not guilty of what you suggest and it escapes me how you can accuse him of this.

 

Now, as I have said before.

 

Caller 2: Yes.

 

Host: I take issue with some of his figures. Another gentleman called up with other figures. We have a few more lines loaded. People with other figures.

 

Caller 2: From the jewish Congress they called.

 

Host: How’s that?

 

Caller 2: From the Congress. Jewish Congress they called.

 

Host: Yeah, well, I have somebody on another line with more figures. In other words, over a figure dispute whether the man, … And a few statements that he has made. He could be historically inaccurate.

 

Now, when quoting from the Jewish Encyclopedia. I don’t know. I’ve never read the thing.

 

Caller 2: Yes, Mr. Bell.

 

Host: Yeah.

 

Caller 2: Not only inaccurate, he’s full of lies. And I can prove it to him!

 

Ernst Zundel: Okay, wonderful! Why don’t you prove it?

 

Caller 2: I’ll prove it to you right away.

 

Ernst Zundel: Okay.

 

Caller 2: Listen. No, wait. I proved it to you! Give me a chance to prove it to you. I’ll prove it to you. I’ll prove it to you, man! I’ll prove it to you. I’ll prove it to you!

 

Ernst Zundel: I believe you.

 

Caller 2: Listen, listen! Will you listen?

 

Ernst Zundel: No, one hundred percent.

 

Caller 2: Will you listen?

 

Ernst Zundel: In other words, that we are going to be positive and not negative, that we don’t engage in name calling.

 

Caller 2: No, I wouldn’t call it a name calling, but just listen to.

 

Ernst Zundel: Okay.

 

Caller 2: I want to expose you that you are working for the Nazis! And you’re an agent of the Nazis. Okay.

 

Ernst Zundel: Okay. How much is my pay?

 

Caller 2: Do you know? I don’t know.

 

Ernst Zundel: And where is the headquarters by the way?

 

Caller 2: The headquarters in Nazis are still in Bonn. And it’s still in Cairo.

 

Ernst Zundel: So in other words, …

 

Caller 2: It’s still in Cairo!

 

Ernst Zundel: Is the Nazi headquarters in the, …

 

Caller 2: Is still in Bonn and Cairo. Will you listen? Will you listen? I want to refute your argument. Okay. I want to refute your argument.

 

Ernst Zundel: You’re wonderful!

 

Caller 2: I want to refute your argument. Oh, will you listen?

 

Ernst Zundel: Oh, yeah.

 

Caller 2: Well, listen. You made a statement that Germany restituted the jews so much. And you give figures, right?

 

Ernst Zundel: Yes, I did.

 

Caller 2: You did fine. Do you know that whatever they give 800 some million dollars it’s restitution, right or not?

 

Ernst Zundel: No.

 

Caller 1:800 million. I don’t argue. You had a figure. $826 million. They give a restitution to the jews. You said so.

 

Ernst Zundel: No, I didn’t.

 

Host: I’m the one who said that.

 

Caller 2: Hey, beg your pardon.

 

Host: I’m the one who said that.

 

Caller 2: Where did you get the figure?

 

Host: I got the figure from the Almanac.

 

Caller 2: Okay, fine, let’s be. So I’ll take this figure too. $826 million was given restitution by the German to the jews.

 

First of all, if you know history, and history is very young, that when Grynszpan* made an attack on the German ambassador in Switzerland or in Sweden, I don’t remember exactly between these two places.

 

 

[* Herschel Feibel Grynszpan was a Polish-Jewish expatriate born and raised in Weimar Germany who shot and killed the German diplomat Ernst vom Rath on 7 November 1938 in Paris. The NS’s alledgedly used this assassination as a pretext to launch Kristallnacht, “The Night of Broken Glass”, the pogrom of 9–10 November 1938. Grynszpan was seized by the Gestapo after the fall of France and brought to Germany; his further fate remains unknown. Wikipedia]

 

Ernst Zundel: I thought it was in France.

 

Caller 2: Wait a minute, wait a minute. Give me a chance to explain myself. So Hitler right away confiscated all the jewish wealth which amount to $4 billion. Before even he started to persecute the jews outside of Germany amounted to $4 billion.

 

Ernst Zundel: Not true.

 

Caller 2: It’s true! It’s in the paper. The start of civil life. I started the life here in Montreal. I’ll prove it to you. Number one.

 

Second thing. The money that Germany gave to the jews, it’s not her money. It’s American money from American taxpayers. Because Mr. Eisenhower and the rest of his gang wanted to whitewash the dirty deeds of the former Nazi. And he said “let bygones be bygones”. And he contributed $4 billion to build up again the Bonn government.

 

So it’s not their money, it’s American taxpayer pay the money. Is it right?

 

Ernst Zundel: Mr Lipman.

 

Caller 2: Wait a minute, I’m not finished yet. You got to listen. I listen to you. Because I listen to your story, which is full of lies. And I’m surprised that the jew that is a well capable man and that he converse with you. Because listen, I said to Mr. Bell, There is four brothers, four characters. Evil man, evil man, right or wrong. You still tell you that you’re wrong. So why they debate with you? You’re not an official capacity. You’re not an official capacity from the Arabs or from the Germans. What right have you got to speak in the name of the Arabs or the Germans or anybody else?

 

[10:12]

 

Ernst Zundel: That’s why you don’t like to talk to me. I’m just a goy.

 

Caller 2: I beg your pardon?

 

Ernst Zundel: You don’t like the other chap to even converse with this fantastic goy.

 

Caller 2: What goy? Anyway, go on. This language is French to me.

 

Ernst Zundel: You don’t speak Yiddish?

 

Caller 2: I speak Yiddish, yes. Goy is Hebrew. Goy means if you know Hebrew, goy means a nation, it’s not an individual. And he don’t even know the interpretation of goy. You don’t even know the interpretation of goyim.

 

Hello, Wait a minute. Listen, big shot. Goyim is plural, means nation. Goy means one race.

 

Ernst Zundel: And who is referred to usually as goyim?

 

Caller 2: I beg your pardon?

 

Ernst Zundel: Who is usually referred to as goyim?

 

Caller 2: They referred goyim. Because these people that say goy, they are ignorant. They don’t know what they’re talking about. Because goy means a race, one, a nation, I mean. And goyim is plural. So they don’t know. You just inquire if I’m in the wrong, I’ll give anything. You see?

 

Ernst Zundel: Right. Go on.

 

Caller 2: And number one, and we don’t use such language as “dirty jews” or any or anything else. When we. In our scriptures, if you want to know it’s written, when we go to the synagogue, we say:

 

“My Lord, forgive us all our sins. And also to those who live among us. Strangers that live among us.”

 

In other words, we pray for the non-jews too.

 

And as far as persecution is concerned, no jew persecuted yet a non-jew. It’s in history. And we were persecuted for 2,000 years.

 

And let me tell you one thing. I said sometimes I speak French. It’s [words unclear] English. Wait a minute, wait a minute. Give me a chance.

 

Ernst Zundel: I think the Old testament.

 

Caller 2: No, no, no! I want to prove my point that the worst jew, the worst jew, which is called Judas Ishkariot, had a conscience. And when betrayed Jesus Christ, he gave him the kiss of death. His conscious part of him. And he hanged himself. And I never seen non-jew that is conscious of him by attacking a jew, he shall hang himself. I never seen yet.

 

I said this to French people many times. But I’m French. I live with French more than the jews. If I speak French just as fluent as Yiddish.

 

Ernst Zundel: Are we a bit far off the point, don’t you think?

 

Caller 2: Go ahead. No, no, This is a good point. Pardon me. Yeah, go ahead. Go ahead. I’ll listen to you. Then ask me question.

 

Ernst Zundel: No. You guys want to repeat all my arguments and call me and find out that I was a real liar and spreader of poison?

 

Caller 2: Yeah. I prove it to you and I mean it. If I said the word liar, it’s too mild. But I wouldn’t use any more of this word. I’ll debate with you like man to man. I’ll debate with you like man to man without any insults anymore.

 

Ernst Zundel: Would you say I’m maybe a super liar?

 

Caller 2: I beg your pardon?

 

Ernst Zundel: Maybe I’m a super liar.

 

Caller 2: Well, even this is mild.

 

Ernst Zundel: Oh, well, maybe we can find some other adjectives.

 

Caller 2: Yeah. Anyway. No, no, don’t worry. You’re a coward because when the man put you to the wall, cornered you last time, you ran away because you couldn’t take it.

 

Ernst Zundel: When was that?

 

Caller 2: That was two, three nights ago.

 

Ernst Zundel: Was the same man I spoke to?

 

Caller 2: The same man you spoke to? Yeah. He cornered you and you ran away and then you came back.

 

Ernst Zundel: The same man that I spoke to tonight for one hour that hung up on me!

 

Caller 2: No, no, no, no! You spoke tonight to the jewish family is well eloquent, but you’re still not acquainted well, with jewish history and world history.

 

Host: Right. That’s why I got you on the line, sir.

 

Now if we can dispense with personalities. You have accused the man of being a Nazi and of spreading poison. And you can’t for the life of you see why I permit it on the program. You will have to give me an example of a lie that amounts to spreading poison.

 

Caller 2: Yeah, I’ll give it to you.

 

Host: Good.

 

[13:48]

 

 

Caller 2: Of course, I’ll give it plenty. I got it in my [word unclear] my dear man, I got in my [word unclear].

 

Ernst Zundel: Okay.

 

Caller 2: And then here I give you the first example.

 

First of all, he said that the jews always lived with the Arabs. And first in harmony all the time, the Semite Arabs, I mean. And Palestine around there in the Middle East. The jews were always persecuted by the Arabs in Casablanca they had no right to walk on the sidewalk. Just like the negro had no right to walk in Alabama. Exactly the same thing for the last, 2,000 years! People in Casablanca lived in a ghetto and they couldn’t go out and they couldn’t show their faces, number one.

 

Ernst Zundel: But I didn’t say it’s the same.

 

Caller 2: No, no, no, no! You said once before. Not tonight. You said before the jews lived well with the Arabs. And I know history. You don’t know my history, but I know your history, my friend.

 

Ernst Zundel: I never said that.

 

Caller 2: Yeah, you said it last time. I’m not speaking tonight. And many Arabs made the statement that the jews never fought with the Arabs before. They lived in harmony, they understood each other, they were brotherly till the zionism came. I’m not a Zionist. I never will be a Zionist. I’m a jew.

 

Ernst Zundel: Mr. Lipman, why not.

 

Caller 2: What?

 

Ernst Zundel: What are the points that you differ with zionism?

 

Caller 2: What are the points differ what?

 

Ernst Zundel: Can you give us points where you differ with zionism?

 

Caller 2: Speak louder. I can’t hear good.

 

Ernst Zundel: Mr Lipman.

 

Caller 2: I beg your pardon?

 

Ernst Zundel: Why would you not be a Zionist?

 

Caller 2: Why?

 

Ernst Zundel: Yeah.

 

Caller 2: Because theoretically I don’t agree with them.

 

Ernst Zundel: Well, in other words, you wouldn’t say that the idea of zionism to found a jewish homeland in Palestine, …

 

Caller 2: Yes.

 

Ernst Zundel: Doesn’t please you?

 

Caller 2: Yeah. It doesn’t mean to say that I’m a Zionist, because if jews have to have a home. First, I’m a Canadian and first, the 6 million jews are Americans, they’re not Zionist. Not all of them are Zionists. If they’re Zionist, some of them is their business. But I’m not. I’m speaking myself.

 

Ernst Zundel: Yeah, but listen, I’m very interested.

 

Caller 2: Yes, yeah, I’ll do to you. I’ll give it to you.

 

Ernst Zundel: Very good.

 

Caller 2: Well, all right. If Mr. Bell permit a time, I’ll give it to you as much as you want.

 

Host: Well, you have seven minutes, sir.

 

Caller 2: Okay, then listen. I made a statement that if I’m not mistaken to Mr. Bell that we jews in Europe before the Hitler Holocaust, before the Nazis tried to spit their dirt in the world, we jews fought zionism with all our might in the street because we find it impractical! We said that we live in Europe 10,050 years. We have more right to demand our rights in Europe and live there than to the rights on Palestine. Right? Listen to this. Just a moment. I’ll give it to you. This story. We had a jewish organization which is called Bund.

 

Ernst Zundel: Oh yes, I know about this.

 

Caller 2: Yeah, you know everything. Hey, you’re a real Nazi! You know all the information!

 

Host: Sir, you asked him if he knew. He said yes, he knew!

 

Caller 2: I beg your pardon?

 

Host: I said you asked him if he was aware of a certain fact. He admitted to being aware of the fact.

 

[16:46]

 

 

Caller 2: Okay.

 

Anyway, I’m hearing the Nazi organization, the jewish bund, which is a socialistic organization, they didn’t believe that the sand of Palestine shall be recultivated. And they said we have no right to think of Palestine because it’s impractical. Because the jews are living at their roots are in Europe. They live 10,050 years. And we shall try to fight our best for the rights of the jews which they entitled to.

 

Host: Which agrees with what the caller number one read from the encyclopedia. So I would assume that the encyclopedia is basically Zionist in its thinking.

 

Caller 2: I beg your pardon? I didn’t hear that.

 

Host: Did you hear me caller number one?

 

Ernst Zundel: I did.

 

Host: Would you agree with that?

 

Caller 2: Did you repeat that? I didn’t hear all this conversation tonight.

 

Host: Well, what you just said is similar to what the caller number one read from a Jewish Encyclopedia.

 

Caller 2: What do you read?

 

Ernst Zundel: Well, you will listen.

 

Host: Well, what you said, sir, basically what you said is what he read from the encyclopedia. So I am suggesting that because the other gentleman questioned the encyclopedia, I am suggesting that conceivably it is a Zionist publication.

 

Ernst Zundel: I suppose so.

 

Host: Would you say that does sound reasonable to you, number one?

 

Ernst Zundel: Not really, no. I don’t think that the Jewish Encyclopedia that I’m referring to is a Zionist publication.

 

Host: Well, curiously, it’s, …

 

Ernst Zundel: Let’s say, it saying the same thing.

 

Host: I shouldn’t have said that. I should have said, as I phrased it the first time Zionist in its, …

 

Caller 2: Mr. Bell, let me explain, please. Mr. Bell.

 

Host: Yeah, okay, go ahead.

 

Caller 2: I know my history well and I can explain it. And even a man who is 100% against the jews, you cannot refute my argument because the truth speaks for itself. You can expose, you cannot expose the truth! You can expose a lie.

 

Host: Right? Well, again, that’s why I brought you on the line because you know, we have had a number of discussions based on jewish history. And you do know jewish history.

 

Caller 2: I’ve had many conversations with ardent jew baiters in Quebec City. And I spoke with a man two and a half hours and in his hotel, and there was pleasant 20 Frenchmen. And he spoke the same language as Hitler and I exposed out of him and the Frenchman, which is a wonderful people. The moment he sees the truth, he came over. And he slapped him in the back and he said to him, you lost your discussion because the jew had the best of you! You see.

 

Ernst Zundel: Listen.

 

Caller 2: Hello.

 

Ernst Zundel: I just would like to find out. You said before that the jews had lived in Europe for 10,050 years.

 

Caller 2: Yes.

 

[19:26]

 

Caller 2: Not 10,050 years. Thousand and fifty. Not 10,000.

 

Ernst Zundel: Okay.

 

Caller 2: If you know history, man!

 

Ernst Zundel: Well, I wonder if it is your, …

 

Caller 2: I wish you should know your history as I know! You don’t know your history. You just try to, …

 

Host: Well, I suggested that we not engage in personalities. We try to stick to the facts. So if you’ll proceed sir, …

 

Caller 2: I want to speak about the bund.

 

Host: Yeah, well the seven minutes you had is now three minutes.

 

Caller 2: Well, I don’t know. What can I do? Listen, you gave him so much time. You don’t give me time, Mr. Bell.

 

Host: I’m giving you time to make your case. But you are wasting all of your time by engaging in personalities.

 

Caller 2: You spend so much time to give him and you don’t give me time to explain to refute the argument.

 

Host: Well, you are one of many callers who are calling in to refute the argument. But you’re wasting your time with personality.

 

Caller 2: I’m not talking out of my people either. Like the rabbis, the rabbi. The rabbis, the religious rabbi were against Palestine too before it the holocaust of Hitler. Because they, from religious point of view, they believe that Messiah has to come. And they [word unclear] evil freedom. And the [word unclear] jew didn’t believe in that. He believed that we had to free ourselves with our own capability and with our own power.

 

And that’s why they fought those Zionists in the streets of Warsaw, in the streets of other places where jews live. That we shall fight for our rights in Europe. But here came Hitler and many Hitlers. He said after we lived in Europe 1,050 years, we are fifth class citizens and they try to destroy us. And we had to leave against our own will. So every jew, even a non-zionist like me, I’m a non-zionist. I came to convince that every jew, a jew is supposed to have a home. And where he lives, if he hasn’t got a home, his place is in Israel. And if he’s got a home in Canada, he has no business to think of Israel. Except, shall I say spiritually and financially he could help and morally. But as far as physically, it’s got nothing in common with Israel. You hear me?

 

Ernst Zundel: Yes, I hear you.

 

Caller 2: I beg your pardon?

 

Ernst Zundel: Yes, I hear you very loud and clear, sir.

 

Caller 2: You hear me?

 

Ernst Zundel: Yes.

 

[21:43]

 

 

Caller 2: Okay. So it shows you that a man like me that was against Zionist and yet many times debates in Europe against zionism and we.

 

And today I’m 100% backing Israel because every jew that knows after what we went through. Wait a minute. Besides that, I want., … This is not the point. I want the proof, facts, never mind statistics. You, I want to [words unclear] from the subject. The compensation that the Germans give these murderers that murdered 6 million jews. I don’t mean the German people, the German rulers. I don’t accuse the German people. I accuse the German ruler.s These German rulers and that killed the people. They paid their [word unclear]. They took away 10 times, 10 times 100 times as much as they give. And what they give, they give you one cent of their own. That was American taxpayers money. Because Eisenhower and the rest of the American people, I mean that’s the American rulers, not the people, wanted to whitewash their crime and to give them asylum and those that will run away from there and to give them as anti-[word unclear] against whatever political views they have. And they wanted to keep them in line to whitewash their faces. Because you cannot whitewash a criminal! Every criminal is a criminal!

 

Ernst Zundel: What crimes did Eisenhower commit against jews?

 

Caller 2: When he said “let bygones be bygones”. When he’s seen himself what happened in Belsenberg, he see with his own eyes the way the jews, … The English bulldozers were cleaned away to their grave because they couldn’t come near to them. They had to use bulldozers. And he had the nerve, the audacity to say that bygones be bygones after what he’s seen. That no human being can finish him like that, what he’s seen.

 

Ernst Zundel: And for that statement he paid $4 billion American dollars. Right?

 

Caller 1: And not him alone! The only paying behind them, the rulers, not the American people. The American people, the taxpayers pay. But he forced them to pay $4 billion to build out the Germany. Isn’t it seen that Germany has to lend money now to Canada. And she was defeated by us.

 

Ernst Zundel: Mr Lipman, who was the gang behind Eisenhower?

 

Caller 2: What was the gang?

 

Ernst Zundel: Yeah.

 

Caller 2: All these Republican wheelers and dealers. All these Republican wheelers and dealers. And the same time applies not only the American wheelers and dealers. Applies to the Canadian wheelers and dealers. Applies to the English wheelers and dealers. I’m not speaking of people, the people are innocent. The jews, the Arabs are innocent. The English are innocent. The Americans are innocent. They are suckers!

 

Ernst Zundel: Are the German innocent?

 

Caller 2: The Germans are innocent to a certain extent. But one thing I say the Germans never express themselves to the, at least not all them are guilty. How shall I say morally they are guilty, but not physically. Because not everyone participates in the murder of the jews. It’s stupid to say that! But at least they should have collective shame. They didn’t even express collective shame. I didn’t see a German yet to bow his head and say:

 

“We are sorry what happened to the jews!”

 

They still stick to their own.

 

[24:54]

 

 

Host: Gentlemen, we’re a couple of minutes late with the 2 o’clock news and we have to break for it now.

 

Caller 2: Hey, anyway, listen. Don’t allow this poison to be spread. Let him go and hang himself like Ribbentrop!

 

Host: Well, sir, you’ve been on for some time and you still haven’t given us an example of poison.

 

Ernst Zundel: Mr. Roberts.

 

Host: Well, [chuckling] he hung up on us again. Since the program as of next Monday starts running around 9:00. Complete idiot or something. I fail to see why I am being accused of being anti-Israeli. The caller on the line right now has stated a time or two that he is not anti-Israeli.

 

Ernst Zundel: Not at all Mr. Bell. I have no reason for anti-Israeli. Like in every other subject you must look at all sides in as unemotionally as possible. Now I know Mr. Lipman, I have heard of him. I also have read. I read all the jewish papers. I know what they are saying. I understand that they are very much involved. And I deplore the bloodshed in Israel. I deplore the terrorist raids against Israel. That’s why I suggested a very humble suggestion. I have stressed that and stressed it again. Possibly this might prove a way out. But I’m definitely not anti-Israeli! And everybody that knows me at university and has read my political party program when I was running for the Liberal Party, everybody knows. And I am a card carrying member of the Liberal Party. I am not, as one the first caller suggested, a neo-Nazi, or a Nazi as the second caller suggested. I don’t see where name calling gets us. If I am something. I am a young man that will have to live on this planet for a good long time. I hope 40, 50 years. And so my two sons that they are born in Canada by a Canadian mother.

 

So you see, all I am saying is I don’t want the world to blow up. So as a young man, a student at University of Political Science, I’m saying, have I maybe got an original thought? Is that a crime? I don’t want to offend anybody or hurt anybody. I’m just making this as a I hope a legitimate suggestion. Now if some of my figures are wrong, then I am sorry. I will certainly call these people back and I will certainly tomorrow call the Israeli consulate and find out what they have to say.

 

Host: Right, good. I’m glad you committed yourself to that.

 

Ernst Zundel: I definitely will do that.

 

Host: Fine. Would you say standby please and on CKGM. Good morning, sir.

 

Caller 3: [words unclear] I’ll hang up.

 

Host: Pardon?

 

Caller 3: [word unclear]

 

Host: Yeah, go right ahead, sir.

 

Caller 3: An upline show. I’m not by CKGS, the forum of healthy controversy and exchange of opinion.

 

Host: That’s true.

 

Caller 3: Yes. About two hours ago I opened the radio. I listened to some enormous deliberate distortions of facts! So that I was unable to go to sleep.

 

Actually I should have been in bed now because I had moved [word unclear] very early in the morning. But I couldn’t go to sleep. It’s a person whom I heard already a few times. In fact a few weeks ago he called Mr. David Bassett. As I answered later. He started to throw in figures like $14 billion. And he said that the figures were supplied by the German consulate.

 

Of course this is a lie! And after Geobbel’s said:

 

“Repeat a lie a thousand times and people will believe it!”

 

It’s such a big lie! I don’t know because he doesn’t seem ignorant because I don’t know if he realizes what $14 billion means. Here I have the figures in the latest. The New Middle East issue of December. It’s a monthly issue. A monthly paper issued in London. And they give the figures between. It’s a study about Israeli economy and they give the capital in different tables. And one table I see capital import sby major [word unclear]. From 1950 to 1967, 17 years German personal institutions $1, 190,000. German reparation. It just means to the government.

 

Host: I assume you mean 1,019,000,000.

 

Caller 3:1, 190,000,000. Yes.

 

Host: Yeah.

 

Caller 3: German reparation means to the government, [word unclear] which gives a total of over $1, 900,000,000, from 1950 to 1967. This is one fact. And this gentleman started to come with a figure like 15 billion.

 

And then he changed. He said maybe 7 billion. And then I don’t know.

 

[30:27]

 

 

Caller 4: (female) [garbled voice] What happened to the jews. It doesn’t matter whether it’s jews. Any nationality. It’s hard. It’s trans to me shaking. And you said you don’t give a damn. Those words are you in my ears. And the doctors and nurses that hurt you and shame on you’re not a nice man. You’re a nervous man. You’re crazy! You’re not just saying the clay. You’re just soft. Good relaxing voice in the middle of the night. People like to hear a nice soft voice so we get.

 

Host: Well, they can listen to Red Gail, ma’am. He’s got a nice soft voice.

 

Caller 4: [garbled] They told me that you’re cold one day. Yes. You want to even send a meter down for you’re a nervous. Look, you’re not for this job. Get out the way and give the job to Mr. Lagock or Mr. McCray or all these nice boys who have a little bit of heart and knowledge of everything. You are cruel, man! Very cruel. And you did say that you don’t give a damn what happened to those poor people in the ovens. And you know it! You and your passions are. You have any. And goodbye. Okay.

 

Host: So I can’t know who she is. Not only do I know who she is, I know she’s been here longer. Because when we taped the call yesterday, and when we taped the threats she’s made against my life, it was compared with another tape when I was not even here.

 

But she also threatened Hank [word unclear] ’s life. And we have a tape of that also.

 

So I suggest to the ladies and if you want me to prove who you are, call back. I’ll tell you off the air who you are because we. There’s a lot of people who know you and have been calling us off the air, suggesting that no matter what you say, you’re not dangerous. But let me put it this way. If there’s another threat of the nature that you have made through Hank and to make myself, I’ll do everything in my power to have you committed.

 

Nightline.

 

Caller 5: Hello, Mr. Bell?

 

Host: Yeah. Nightline.

 

Caller 5: Hello.

 

Host: Yes, Right. Nightline.

 

Caller 5: Is that Nightline?

 

Host: It is.

 

Caller 5: Is that you, Robert Bell?

 

Host: Yes, it is.

 

Caller 5: Okay. I’d like to know what the hell the conflict about anti-semitism was.

 

Host: Well, it’s all starting. Started with the, …

 

Caller 5: Let me make myself a little clearer. I am the Anno Automata for sale.

 

Host: Oh, yeah, yeah.

 

Caller 5: Now, I listen to the two babes yelling at each other and you played a kind of neutral role. Now, where do you stand?

 

Host: Where do I stand at? One was attacking me, one was defending me. I guess I stand with the one who defends me. [chuckling]

 

Caller 5: I’m not interested in whether they attacked or defended. But did anybody have some right to say what they said?

 

Host: No.

 

Caller 5: Come on, you can do a little better than that!

 

Host: Well, you asked if they had a right to say what they said. They have a right to say what they want. Of course. Assume you mean say, …

 

Caller 5: I mean, did they reflect something you’ve done in the last couple of days or said in the last couple of days, pro-or anti?

 

Host: No. What was referred to? I answered the charge. The charge was that I said I did not give a damn. What I said was during the course of a hysterical conversation where the lady was screaming and hollering at me.

 

Caller 5: Keep the conversation out of it. But what is your feeling?

 

Host: My feeling about what, sir?

 

Caller 5: I think the charge was anti-semitism and pro-semitism or what?

 

Host: That’s right. Yes. Huh. Do you know what anti-semitism indicates?

 

Caller 5: All right, you tell me. What does it indicate?

 

[34:15]

 

 

Host: Well, for one thing, a Semite is descended from Shem. So this. This includes Arabs and Israelis.

 

Caller 5: Yeah, they were blood tests, as I recall.

 

Host: That’s right. They’re all Semites.

 

Caller 5: Right.

 

Host: Now, in the context that most people use it, which is incorrect, anti-semitism denotes anti-jewishness.

 

Caller 5: Well, yeah, but it’s sort of in a practical sense that you can accuse [word unclear] ’s at pragmatic. It sort of is the way it works. Right.

 

Host: Right.

 

Caller 5: Okay. Now let’s go back to what I listened to. These two broads, two young ladies that were talking to you. I couldn’t figure out what the hell is happening because I tuned in a little late and I haven’t listened to program for the last couple of days.

 

Host: Well, one called me a Hitler and one said I wasn’t.

 

Caller 5: Well, what the hell is the real score?

 

Host: Well, we’ve been dealing with the Middle East situation.

 

Caller 5: Right. And?

 

Host: And there are Arabs who say I am anti-Arab, and there are Arabs who say I am pro-Arab. There are jews who say I’m anti-Israeli, and there are jews who say I am pro-Israeli.

 

Caller 5: I don’t give a damn what you are! I’d rather you told me what you are!

 

Host: Well, [chuckling] if you don’t give a damn what I am, that doesn’t follow. Are you trying to ascertain with whom my sympathies lie in the Middle East dispute?

 

Caller 5: No, no, the point isn’t. I’ll correct myself. I didn’t mean to say. I don’t give a damn what you are. What I really meant to say was I want you to tell me what you think.

 

Host: I think, you’re talking about the Middle East situation?

 

Caller 5: That’s what you told me you were talking about.

 

Host: Right now there is a state, a Republic called Israel, in that area.

 

Caller 5: Was established in 1948.

 

Host: Right.

 

Caller 5: By the United Nations.

 

Host: Right.

 

Caller 5: And I’m sorry, go ahead.

 

Host: Anyway, the state is in existence. The Arab world does not recognize the existence of this state.

 

Caller 5: Well, they don’t do it. Well, they sort of recognize it, but they don’t recognize it from a political point of view.

 

Host: Right. My position is it is there. To me it exists. I recognize it. There will never be a relaxing of the state of hostility until the Arab world accepts the existence. There are many reasons why they do not accept the existence.

 

Caller 5: I follow you. Go ahead.

 

[36:47]

 

 

Host: Now in allowing Arabs to come on the line or anyone to come on the line and explain the other position, I opened myself to being charged with being anti-Israeli. The term has been anti-semitism and second Hitler and so on and so forth.

 

Caller 5: Wow! Second Hitler. You have a mustache.

 

Host: No, I don’t.

 

Caller 5: Okay. [chuckling] And you’re not a second Hitler. No. But have you made any pronouncements that have made these broads talk the way they do?

 

Host: No. Except in a private conversation with the hysterical one.

 

Caller 5: You shouldn’t have had a private, …

 

Host: I know I shouldn’t have!

 

Caller 5: This is the first place., …

 

Host: And I rarely break that rule! I rarely talk to anybody except on the air. And whenever I do, I’ve done it twice. [chuckling] It’s bad news.

 

But anyway, I did, fortunately, because of the equipment here. Taken the precaution of taping, you know,. So and also I taped her threats against my life and so on so forth.

 

Caller 5: [word unclear] this provocative conversation that set me up to this hour. My wife is listening here we have seen it.

 

[buzzer sounds]

 

Mr. Bell?

 

Host: Yeah.

 

Caller 5: When and if I hear you saying something wrong, I’ll get on and be even more malicious than these young ladies can be. Will you tell them to control their emotions and bring a little bit of rationalization or rationale to their conversation? I’m the guy who told you a couple of weeks ago that you are too patient with some of these idiots. Remember the day, …

 

Host: I don’t remember the conversation, but I do remember, …

 

Caller 5: I remember listening about five minutes later and some drunken old gal got on and she said:

 

“Well that pseudo intellectual comes on and tells us to be rational.”

 

 

Remember that?

 

Host: Yeah, vaguely.

 

Caller 5: Okay, that’s where I remember. No, but kidding aside, I’d like to hear your position on it. If there is a position or if you have a position and you’re going to be attacked no matter what your position.

 

Host: True, I’m in the position, the historical position of the jews who I’m damned if I do and damned if I don’t but I have stated that I am basically., … Pardon?

 

Caller 5: I said being a jew, I know what the name of the game is.

 

Host: Ah.

 

Caller 5: Go ahead.

 

Host: Anyway, I have said that, as with most of the Western world, my sympathies are with the jews in this matter. In other words, I would be more, …

 

[39:24]

 

 

Caller 5: I’m not even sure I am a Democrat sympathetic to the jews. I think the Arabs have got a you know, they got a lot of problems. And I’m being facetious at the moment. But not completely because I think there are a lot of poor people, poor uneducated people that could benefit by what Israel could contribute to the Middle East. Not looking at something, not looking at it from a Westerner point of view, but just looking at it from the point of view of what fits to the Middle East. I think that the jews that have come there, who are mostly Europeans, highly educated, highly sophisticated, you know, technologically skillful, they could, you know, remake the goddamn Arab world and they’re ready to do it! I don’t mean every one of them. I’m not talking about orthodox religion, I’m talking about the people who would do it!

 

And I think that that the whole damn Middle East has become a boiling pot for western both politics and Soviet, US deal and they’ve lost sight. And guys like Nasser and maybe some of the jewish leaders too, have lost sight of the fact that if they want to make something good for their people, which is presumably what we’re all born to do, they’ve got to stop playing games, stop worrying about whether Mr. [word unclear] is an anti-semite because I don’t give a damn if he is, but if you are, don’t walk across the street with me at the same time, [host chuckled] stop giggling! I think if they., …

 

Host: That was a chuckle, sir.

 

Caller 5: Pardon?

 

Host: That was a chuckle.

 

Caller 5: I don’t know. You might have burped. I think the point is that if we really care about the Middle East for the Middle East sake, then we ought to tell the Arabs, and I think the jews have been trying to do that they don’t always do it very carefully. But then again, the gentile world hasn’t done it very gently all the time either.

 

If you want to cooperate. Cooperate. You want to be a bunch of silly [buzzer]. You know, just. Did I hear any deep beats?

 

Host: I don’t know what he’s doing in there.

 

Caller 5: Something to either.

 

Host: I think he may be softening your conversation a bit. It’s a little colorful.

 

Caller 5: Who’s the he?

 

Host: Pardon?

 

Caller 5: I said who’s the he?

 

Host: My engineer.

 

Caller 5: I thought it was a censor. No, I think if you want to tell him, keep on with your own idiocy and keep up this nonsense in this part of the world, fine. I think the jews by any right have a right to Israel. And it’s debatable, but they are there and they’re a force for good so long as the Arab world wants to accept them. The Arab world wants to [word unclear] you on any kind of silly nonsense like filthy punk termite Carmichael that Canadians don’t own Canada because the Eskimos was here first and we are in a democracy because the Indians owned it first. Then you can listen to these guys and they’re right up to a point, and they’re seeing a certain amount of social injustice. But deep down, Israel the jews, have a right to that land on any international basis. And they proved it by virtue of their skill. And they could make the Arab lands richer, healthier.

 

Now their emotionalism is going to say:

 

“We don’t want the jews, we want our land back. We want to go back to the 17th century.”

 

Then, okay, they have a right to do that they have a right to do as Arabs, as Nasser did in 1968, 67, remember?

 

Host: Yes.

 

[44:07]

 

 

Caller 5: He said on Sunday:

 

“We’ll throw them into the ocean!”

 

The jew said:

 

“Look, if we’re going to be thrown into the ocean, like Mr, we’re not going to let you do that. We’re going to do the best we can to stop you.”

 

So then the rest of the world said:

 

“The jews were the aggressors.”

 

Because they sort of stopped the guy that would throw them into the ocean from throwing them to the ocean. Mr Bell, do you have anything to contribute?

 

Host: No. You’re saying, in effect what has been said over the past few days. And I have said over and over again, you know, there are three sides to the story. There’s the Arab side, there’s the Israeli side, and then there’s the truth! Because the Israelis are blinded on one side, the Arabs are blinded on one side. And you cannot be objective over an issue like this. It’s impossible! This is why it is fairly obvious that, at least it should be fairly obvious that I am. You know, if I have to be one or the other. I’m basically pro-Israeli. However, …

 

Caller 5: … Myself., … Problem.

 

Host: No, but that’s just my personal feeling.

 

Caller 5: But I gotta wait and that’s my problem. Now you go ahead.

 

Host: Yeah. Now, I think it cannot be objective. That does not preclude your being fair. And that is what I try to do, functioning on this program. I try to be fair.

 

In other words, there are these sides to be heard. And of course, because it’s an emotional issue and you cannot be objective about it. And I don’t expect anyone to be objective about it, I open for myself to incredible criticizm and threats against my life and so on and so forth.

 

Caller 5: Why don’t you expect anybody to be objective about it?

 

Host: I don’t see how it’s possible.

 

Caller 5: Why?

 

Host: Because it is such a highly charged emotional issue.

 

Caller 5: Pardon?

 

Host: Because it is such a highly charged emotional issue on both sides.

 

Caller 5: [buzzer sounds] Highly emotional? The French-Canadian separatism problem, the problem of the atom bomb, the problem of communism, of separatism, of everything. These are all highly emotional issues! No, I think you’re right. Most people are not capable of being objective. Including me and maybe you. I’m not including you because that’s your prerogative. But I don’t think it’s valid. Can’t be reasonably objective.

 

Host: Right. When I say, you know, ideally, objectivism or to be objective, it would be an ideal way to deal with it. But because it is unlikely, I say that there is no reason why you shouldn’t be fair.

 

Caller 5: Fair?

 

Host: I’m using that in place of the objectivity that you could use in reacting to another issue. In this particular type of issue, as I say, objectivity is unlikely. Are you open to taking a call, sir?

 

Caller 5: Pardon?

 

Host: Are you open to taking a call?

 

Caller 5: I’ll take any calls at all!

 

Host: Go right ahead.

 

Caller 1: (female) Good evening.

 

Host: Good evening.

 

Caller 1: May I please speak to the gentleman who’s on with you now?

 

Host: Yes, go ahead.

 

Caller 1: Listen, Mr, I don’t know your name, but anyway, Mr Bell hasn’t been leveling with you at all!

 

Caller 5: Hello here. Would you talk a little louder?

 

Caller 1: Right. Mr. Bell hasn’t been leveling with you at all! Did you hear the night line last night? From 12 o’clock till 5 o’clock this morning?

 

Caller 5: Oh, dear! I Was busy sleeping, I think.

 

Caller 1: Well, let me. And it was obvious to everybody who was listening. It took a few hours, he [words unclear] that this man was upsetting every jewish person in Montreal.

 

Caller 5: Now, baby doll, he wasn’t upsetting me.

 

Caller 1: Well, he wasn’t upsetting you?

 

Caller 5: No, I wasn’t listening to him then.

 

Caller 1: He was upsetting me.

 

Caller 5: Okay, I’m sorry if he upset you. What did he do to you, [word unclear] idiot?

 

Caller 1: This neo-Nazi carried on for five hours!

 

Caller 5: What did he say?

 

Caller 1: He spoke all sorts of nonsense! We had very articulate jewish people on the line. We had very hysterical people on the line, people who had lost all their relations.

 

Caller 5: Okay, but what did Mr. Bell do?

 

Caller 1: Mr. Bell was absolutely neutral if he had anything to do. He gave the other chap all the time. He gave some people seven minutes. He gave some people a little longer.

 

Caller 5: I hear. Would you hold on for a minute? Okay. Mr Bell?

 

Host: Yeah.

 

Caller 5: You there?

 

Host: I am.

 

Caller 5: Did you do that?

 

Host: No, I did not. The gentleman was on the line, but in terms of time, my time and his time put together did not anywhere near equal the time in opposition, which, in effect was the jewish side.

 

Caller 1: He kept the man on five hours!

 

Host: Madam, I’m sorry. The jewish callers kept him on.

 

Caller 1: Mr Bell there were two callers. You gave them seven minutes, even then if they came back. I tried to get the line for five solid hours!

 

Host: Right. Now. When you add up all what we’ll call the jewish time and put it, let’s say, against the caller and my time and the news, you’ll find that the jewish callers had proportionately more time.

 

Now, I did not keep him on. The callers kept him on.

 

Caller 1: He kept me on the air for five hours with my position and [word unclear] beat the Arab people, I have no issue with Arabs coming on the line and explaining their side.

 

[49:52]

 

 

Host: Madam, when you called up, you want to talk to this gentleman, and I said:

 

“That’s fine.”

 

Now, if somebody calls up and wants to talk to you, that’s fine, too. You can hang on if you don’t object to taking their calls.

 

Caller 1: But I wanted to tell this gentleman that you were not telling him what went on last night, keeping him [words unclear] natural offender.

 

Caller 5: Dear, you listen to me for a minute. I didn’t listen to the conversation last night.

 

Caller 1: But I’m telling you I’m not, …

 

Caller 5: Hey, dear, I heard you and I got the message. Bell must be a rotten. Mr. Bell, you listening?

 

Host: Yeah.

 

Caller 5: Well, you must be kind of some kind of pervert! But he also is a very confident man that’s handling this kind of job. Are you listening, dear?

 

Caller 1: Yes.

 

Caller 5: Maybe from time to time, this kind of job is a battle. So don’t attack him until he tells you he’s an anti-semite.

 

[sound cut out]

 

Host: I mention to you that we are undergoing some technical difficulties. I have three engineers and they’re working on it. So you will be cutting out from time to time? Possibly. It’s unfortunate, but that’s where it has to be for the moment.

 

Caller 1: Is that Mr. Bell speaking?

 

Host: Yeah.

 

Caller 2: (female) I am the third party, Mr. Bell, and I would appreciate very much. Even if it’s off the air, I would appreciate to speak to that gentleman and, …

 

Caller 5: And Just a minute, dear.

 

Caller 2: Is it possible?

 

Host: Well, you’re talking to him now, ma’am.

 

Caller 2: Thank you.

 

Caller 5: Mr. Bell.

 

Host: Yes, sir.

 

Caller 5: Okay. I’m Hope, Chief Charity. And I said you’re Faith, …

 

Caller 2: Sir.

 

Host: So we have Faith, Hope and Charity on the line.

 

Caller 2: I am a human being. This is what happened. I appreciate the fact that you got, …

 

Caller 5: I wasn’t there and I didn’t look there, …

 

Caller 2: I appreciate the fact that you got out. The fate of the whole situation. I am not going to, … You know what that means?

 

Caller 5: I don’t speak that language. But go ahead, dear.

 

Caller 2: Oh, yes you do.

 

Caller 1: And I know what you mean.

 

Caller 2: You do?

 

Caller 1: Yes, I do.

 

Caller 2: Well, listen, the woman pulled up, …

 

Caller 5: How many women? Mr Bell.

 

Host: Yeah.

 

Caller 5: How many women, …

 

Host: Sir, you’re cutting out. Would you mind repeating what you said?

 

[52:32]

 

 

Caller 2: Hey, I said I appreciate the fact that the judgment got [word unclear] It saved the whole situation because that’s what we need, more brilliant people on the line, not just trusted on. If he’s such a hardened nurse, why listen to the stomach sickness in these days. Why isn’t she nursing? That’s the nurse I’m speaking of now, the gentleman was saying that the two women were young. I am in [word unclear] for the last two weeks, sir. And I heard everything. I heard the Sterling fellow and everybody. And I couldn’t cope with the way that both of the women were attacking Mr. Bell And I faced him. I came to his rescue. I don’t know if he cares to. There was such excitement. Well, why can’t Mr. Bell defend himself? He’s quite capable of defending himself. Oh, are you the lady? I’m the lady. Are you still the you call yourself a lady too? I’m not yelling at. I came on to speak to the gentlemen, and to Mr. Bell. I want to have a full weight.

 

Caller 1: [words unclear]

 

Caller 2: You’re not saying anything else, but the same thing all over again.

 

Caller 1: Please believe me. You didn’t believe me that I am jewish. I want to tell you I had more friends than you will ever have and I never had any misunderstanding with any one of them.

 

Caller 2: Mr. Bell, I came on. And you called me an anti-semite.

 

Host: All right, well, just moment. Let’s take space for a second. Go ahead.

 

Caller 5: Faith, faithful and charity.

 

Caller 2: Mr Bell, I came onto the air.

 

Host: Yeah.

 

Caller 2: To the gentleman, may I have my chance? May this lady please come on later.

 

Caller 1: Yeah, I’ll wait.

 

Caller 2: Well, I’ll be the judge of that, ma’am. Just stand by you have been designated Faith, hope and charity. Madam, you are Faith. Go ahead.

 

Caller 2: Now, Mr. Bell, if you knew that you were a upsetting so many people last night for five hours, why didn’t you cut this man? Why didn’t you stop the whole thing?

 

Host: Because upsetting one is no basis for cutting anyone off the air. We’ve had other discussions. I won’t even mention what they are, but they have upset people too.

 

Now, no matter what you talk about, if you’re dealing with an emotional issue, you’re going to upset people. And that just narrows what we, … I don’t want to get into budgie birds and puppies dogs and, …

 

Caller 2: Neither do I Mr Bell. But the whole point is this, that you knew quite well that the jewish people of this city whose relations are in Israel who are going to part of the war are in a panic anyway. You don’t need neo-Nazis to put us into a bigger panic!

 

[55:20]

 

 

Host: Well, you see, you’re accusing someone of being a neo-Nazi. That is your opinion. You are entitled to it. It is not my opinion and I am running the show.

 

Caller 2: Hey, but what about all the dozens of others or [words unclear] and accuse him of being a neo-Nazi too?

 

Host: Well, what about the dozens and dozens of calls that came in not accusing of being a neo-Nazi?

 

Caller 2: Because you really compare the intelligence of the few people who called you up to compliment you and say:

 

“Oh, Mr Bell, we enjoy your show. Carry on. You do the good work.”

 

To these people who came on this articulate woman last night, who gave you the position of Israel to the man who comes on pretty often. Do you know that this particular Nazi, and we probably do know by now, does not get onto Mr. Burns, sir, Mr. Burns says:

 

“I smell this Nazi and he never gets onto that show!”

 

So if Mr. Burns thinks he’s a Nazi, surely you appreciate Mr Burns intelligence? I mean, really, Mr. Bell, there’s something so sadistic about you and this man and this, …

 

Caller 5: Hey, doll, can I interrupt?

 

Host: Yes, sir, go right ahead, Hope.

 

Caller 5: Dear, I haven’t heard a thing and I didn’t listen to the program last night, but I haven’t heard of a thing that Mr. Bell did last night. I was wrong to start [word unclear] some character talk. Did he do anything other than that?

 

Caller 2: Do you want me to answer?

 

Caller 5: Yes, you’re the one that’s caught me.

 

Caller 2: He upset people to such an extent, …

 

Caller 5: No, no, I’m asking you a question here.

 

Caller 2: Yes. This is one of the suggestions he made, that the Israelis should pay the refugees reparation.

 

Caller 5: I think it’s a pretty goddamn [buzzer sounds] I’m all of the, … Go ahead.

 

Caller 2: Would you like the 6 million jews plus the 28 million, 24 million other people to come out and also have to pay the reparation? How do you pay for these human lives?

 

Caller 5: Well, I don’t know how you pay for human lives. And you’re right.

 

Caller 2: And don’t you., …

 

Caller 5: Mr Bell.

 

Host: Yes.

 

Caller 5: Just a minute.

 

Host: Yes.

 

Caller 5: Mr. Bell ought to participate.

 

Caller 2: Mr. Bell does not participate!

 

Caller 5: Now, baby doll, quiet down. Quiet down, …

 

Caller 2: I’m not your baby doll.

 

Caller 5: Well, if you’re not my baby doll. You’re somebody else’s.

 

Caller 2: That’s for sure.

 

Caller 5: Okay, fine. Sure. You got to be somebody’s baby doll. Mr. Bell.

 

Host: Yes, sir.

 

Caller 5: Come on! You, sir, participate.

 

Host: All right. In terms of evaluating the lives lost and the caller was on earlier referred to it as a grisly subject, which it is.

 

Caller 2: [buzzer sounds]

 

Host: On one side with his lawyers and a jewish leader on the other side with his lawyers arrived at a settlement. Let’s say. That was a figure was arrived.

 

Caller 5: In relation to what?

 

Host: In relation to the lives lost in Germany.

 

Caller 5: Okay, all right, now I got the message. Go ahead.

 

Host: Well, this term, rather this figure was based on, as the caller mentioned, the fact that a father is responsible for the upbringing of children up to the age of 21. So then the state took over at that point. In terms of other members of the family logic. It was arrived at in similar logic, let’s say a lawyer’s logic, I guess, for lack of a better term.

 

 

Caller 5: Yeah, I got the message. Go ahead.

 

Host: Well, that is all that I’m saying on that point.

 

Caller 5: What the hell is this broad [word unclear] you up?

 

Host: It’s upsetting the jewish population of Montreal.

 

Caller 2: Well, why is it upsetting the jewish population? They know that’s [word unclear] for no reason.

 

Caller 5: You’re not a baby doll. I know. Okay.

 

Caller 2: Isn’t that awful?

 

Caller 5: No. Okay. It’s not awful!

 

Caller 2: Now, what sort of a remark is that from that woman? Isn’t that awful?

 

Host: Well, let’s listen to the [word unclear] charity. Go ahead. Charity.

 

Caller 2: I mean, this is ridiculous! Wouldn’t like to get on three, four times a day.

 

Host: Okay, now Charity is on the line. Go ahead, Charity.

 

Caller 2: There’s a point of this that it’s a well known fact, or it should be to Mr. Bell.

 

Host: One moment. You’re Faith, you’re Faith.

 

Caller 5: I’m sorry. [word unclear] responsibility. Mr. Bell.

 

Host: One moment, sir. One moment, sir.

 

Caller 4: You know you’ll never change that woman’s mind. She sticks to the same story. I shall tell tomorrow to every one.

 

Caller 2: And I discuss this with Mr. Bell. I don’t want that woman on the earth. I have nothing to do.

 

Caller 4: I can say the same things for you, my dear.

 

Caller 2: But I didn’t call up to talk to you, madam.

 

Caller 4: I didn’t talk to you.

 

Caller 2: I mean, you’re just a false spoke to the wheel.

 

Ernst Zundel: I would like my listeners to realize that all three individuals arguing with one another so vehemently are jews. Faith, Hope and Charity. All three are jews! The debate raged on. Much material was brought out and I would like you to have the opportunity to inform yourself further to these issues. You can obtain material book list from us from Zamistad, 206 Carlton Street, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. Postal code M5A 2L1. Telephone number 416-922-9850. [No longer valid]

 

[01:01:18]

 

 

 

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

White Australia Special

Understanding Australia’s White Australia Policy

Racial Conflict in Australia with Chinese and Others

The Fight for a White Australia – the Shearers Strike

The Case for a Single, Unified Border and Federation

Should Australians Fight in the Second World War?

The Jewish Invasion in Australia Post WWII

White Australia and the Jews

The Origins of Australian Multiculturalism

Returning to White Australia – Multiculturalism is Rejection of National Identity

White Australia in 2023 – Bringing Back White Identity Politics to Australia

The Issue of Racial and Cultural Difference

What’s the Essential Inheritance of the Australian Policy?

Joel and Blair Show

Joel Davis: Welcome to a special. I am joined by Matthew Grant of the Australian Natives Association once again.

 

And today we are going to do a deep dive into the White Australia Policy, the history, the context, the ideological and political aspects of it and do a broad overview of its history, why it came into being, what its precursors were, what were the forces that ripped it apart? What were the forces that opposed it all along? And reflect upon it from the position of contemporary Australian politics and the current national situation.

 

Welcome Matthew to the channel. It’s a pleasure to have you.

 

Mathew Grant: Yeah, thanks, Joel. Thanks for having me on again. It’s good to be back and honestly, it’s been a bit long since we last had a bit of a catch up, which is a bit of a shame. But, yeah, I suffer from the same disease as many other men in the ANA. We’re all very busy men, we all have careers and families and study commitments and all the rest of it, so time is a bit of a challenge.

 

Before we get into it, I’m obliged to give a couple of disclaimers to align with our media policy in the ANA. So, firstly, the views expressed here are my own and not necessarily those of the ANA.

 

And secondly, I do not exercise any control over the channel and that my appearance as a guest shouldn’t be taken as an endorsement, necessarily of any published material on the channel.

 

But, yeah, you’ve opened up, right.

 

I mean, the question of the White Australia Policy, which rotates around the Immigration Restriction Act is a huge subject. We couldn’t even do justice to it in this single podcast. There’s a litany of literature and even oral history which builds on this subject which is so crucial and so fundamental to our country.

 

One famous Australian Parliamentarian said:

 

“That in Australia, White Australia is not a mere policy, it is a religion.”

 

This concept of a White nation, a beacon of civilisation in the southern hemisphere, in the Pacific, really does go down to the heart of what Australia is, what Australia’s political and cultural destiny and ambition and idealism really was. So a noble subject to explore.

 

Joel Davis: It’s so important if you are a nationalist or if you are an identitarian, someone who listens to this channel. If you’re an Australian, you need to know your history of your own country, obviously. And a lot of these facts and elements in Australian history, there’s unfortunately a lack of knowledge. People have a very contemporary outlook on politics. They’re broadly aware of current events and global events, but the historical knowledge is lacking because this isn’t something that they teach you in school, for obvious reasons. They don’t want you to have a national historical consciousness, they don’t want you to be proud of your ancestors and of your history and understand who you are. Because if you did, then you’d probably want the White Australia Policy back and you’d probably become a White nationalist of some description.

 

We now live under a society in which that makes you persona non-grata, where the state declares this to be an extremist ideology, even though we’ve only had 31 prime ministers in Australia’s history. And I think it would be fair to say the first 16 up to Robert Menzies could be described as White nationalists.

 

[03:32]

 

So if you are a White nationalist, you have the majority view. If we went to heaven and we got together all the previous Australian prime ministers and all the current living ones and we sat them in a room, we would be, in the majority opinion, alongside all of our nation’s founders, all of the great men of the first half of our nation’s history.

 

Yet somehow this is now totally marginalised as an extreme fringe radical ideology, which is only possible due to the lack of historical consciousness in our nation.

 

Also, for foreign viewers, I think it’s a really instructive tale because obviously the White race is under attack globally and there are a lot of lessons in Australia’s history that you can take on for your respective national histories. Australia is perhaps the most explicit White nationalist project of any country in the world.

 

So I think for the future, for our people and for this idea of a global racial consciousness and so on, Australia really is a potent example of racial identitarianism.

 

So with that, let’s get into some of the history. And I think the logical place for us to start here is the Gold Rush of the mid 19th century. Because the Gold Rush, from the beginning to the end of the Gold Rush, our national population more than tripled. People were pouring in from all over the world to try and get a run at some of that gold, obviously, because if you strike gold, that’s your ticket out of an impoverished lifestyle, particularly at that time in history when people weren’t as well off as they are today.

 

And obviously the majority of the people who came to Australia, to try and take advantage of the Gold Rush were Europeans. But you also had Chinese pouring in and people of other races pouring in this was really the foundation of the racial clash.

 

Obviously, we had the experience of the Aboriginals and so on, but this was really the origin of dealing with non-White immigration in Australia and the formation of a racial politics in the country.

 

So maybe I’ll throw it to you Grant.

 

Mathew Grant: Yeah, well, no worries. Well, one little contrarian thing for you is I actually did learn this in school, all the way through primary school and high school, which wasn’t too long ago. This was actually a not unreasonable size of our curriculum. The question of the Gold Rush. The question of White Australia.

 

[05:55]

 

So I guess I’ve been disproportionately blessed when compared to a lot of other people I’ve met around Australia who never really touched on much of this history. I was very fortunate to get a first bite of it in my schooling. Obviously, it was all tinged with this kind of negative accusations that the White Australia Policy was kind of premised on bigotry and an unreasonable hatred of foreigners.

 

But just to address that really quickly before I touch on the Gold Rush. Even at the time of the Gold Rush, this was a very simple question that White European descent miners in the country of New South Wales and Victoria were being quite literally overrun and outnumbered, displaced by Chinese migrants. You can’t blame the Chinese migrants escaping from the poverty of their own home country to come and try find their fortunes here.

 

[Miners at Miners at Fairleys Creek, Buckland Valley gold mines]

 

But one particular area called Buckland River*, there was a gold mining settlement there which was quite large, and it homed around, 2,000 Chinese settlers and 500 European descent settlers. Buckland River actually descended into a violent riot on the 4th of July where the local miners had thrown all the Chinese out of the town.

 

[* During the Victorian gold rush of the 1850s the Buckland Valley was home to several thousand Chinese miners. On 4 July 1857, following a meeting at a Buckland Valley public house, approximately 100 European miners violently expelled most Chinese miners from the area in an event referred to as the Buckland Riot. The Buckland River was rich in alluvial gold and was dredged extensively in the 19th century. Source: Wikipedia]

 

According to history, the Chinese had started building their own temple to their own pagan foreign gods. And this very deeply begrieved the Europeans there because they hadn’t even managed to build themselves a church yet.

 

So when news of this new temple got around, the people were absolutely outraged and began an act of overwhelming kind of coercion. There was some violence, there was some injuries, but principally, they just told all these Chinese people to pack their bags, and they all left. They were force marched out of the town and then they burnt down all the Chinese buildings and occupations, so it was deserted after that.

 

But the Gold Rush was a tremendous period in history.

 

So this was before Federation, this is before Australia had a single united federal border. You had the colonies of Victoria, New South Wales, Queensland and South Australia. Queensland and South Australia had wide open borders. They had no racial policies, no interest in having a strongly enforceable border. And that as well, they actually really struggled to have an enforceable border just due to the sheer scale of the borders. A lot of boats could land in those colonies without much impedance and people could travel overland.

 

In New South Wales and in Victoria in 1861 is really when the racial struggle began kicking off. And that was in Young in New South Wales, which formerly then was known as Lambing Flat.

 

In that time, you had all these Chinese migrants, principally coming into the gold fields. They were making all the best findings. They were washing their dirty clothes and sluicing and dirtying the rivers so Europeans couldn’t drink the clean water. There was a lot of cultural, I suppose, anxiety of the scale of the Chinese migration.

 

[09:39]

 

And then there was, in fact, just the basic incompatibility of the two cultures. And in Young, it was in February, 1861, that they basically had another kind of like the Buckland River event, they had another violent episode. This one was particularly more violent.

 

[Image: The Roll Up Banner with which a mob of 2,000–3,000 men rallied and attacked Chinese miners at Lambing Flat in June 1861. The banner is displayed in Lambing Flat, now known as Young.]

 

However, I think the Chinese put up a bit more of a fight, which resulted in some deaths and some injuries. The founder of the Labour Party and the Australian Workers Union, William Spence, wrote in his book Australia’s Awakening that:

 

“They drove the Chinese off the field, some of the pig tailed heathens losing their lives!”

 

It was quite a violent episode, which resulted in the police trying to arrest a great number of the European rioters or instigators of this kind of rebellion. In response to that, the rioters burnt down the police station and the police narrowly escaped with their lives and had to charge to the nearest station at the barracks in Goulburn, which was quite a distance away from Young.

 

So it was a very heated, a very spectacular event in Young which really demonstrated the anger, but also the willpower and the will of these miners to maintain these kind of higher standards on the gold fields which had been subverted by these cheap Chinese migrants.

 

Joel Davis: Yeah, I think many commentators view this as the origin point, essentially, of White nationalism in Australia, or nationalism, I mean, calling it “White nationalism” is somewhat reductive in the sense that the term nationalism doesn’t really make any sense without reference to a people of shared ancestry.

 

So obviously, that has racial connotations. And in English, back at that time, the term “nation” and the term “race” would have been used interchangeably by most people, unlike conventions in the contemporary era. So they would not have really been able to understand nationalism as anything but, quote, unquote, “White nationalism”. They would not be able to conceive of a different kind of nationalism in those days, and we really shouldn’t be able to today either, except for the abuse that has been done to our language.

 

So you have these acts passed in the mid 1850s, I think 1855, in Victoria 1861, in New South Wales to restrict the influx of Chinese immigration, obviously in response to this general unrest.

 

And at that time, obviously, these are all colonies of the British Empire, and the British government and its representatives weren’t exactly enthused. Britain’s then colonial secretary in 1861, when the New South Wales Parliament did pass these laws, Lord Carnarvon, he was not pleased. He stated that, quote:

 

“That exceptional legislation intended to exclude from any part of Her Majesty’s dominions the subjects of the state at peace with Her Majesty is highly objectionable in principle.”

 

And the pressure was put on after the Chinese stopped flowing in to rescind the laws, and they were, they were actually repealed.

 

So from this very early origin, there was, from the British imperial influence, resistance to this organic movement of Australian nationalism in the general population. They were willing to make concessions to it, obviously, to maintain order and political stability, but they weren’t exactly supportive.

 

[13:26]

 

And that was a trend that you see continually from then onwards. Because from the British perspective, Australia wasn’t genuinely a nation. There was the British race, many of whom just happened to be in colonial Australia. And Australia was an economic zone as far as they were concerned. And they were more interested in protecting the interest of wealthy industrialists and other capitalist interests who benefited from importing cheap non-White labour into the country.

 

In 1876, the Queensland Parliament passed a Bill to amend the Goldfields Act, which would basically put a higher licensing fee upon Asians in order to discourage them from coming into Australia as well and encourage them to go home. The ones that were already there. And the British appointed governor of Queensland reserved the bill, prevented it from being passed and sent it to the British government. They didn’t approve it and the Bill didn’t become law.

 

So they’re already intervening here.

 

And this is important in understanding the context leading up to Federation and so on and the emergence of the Australian labour movement and this perception that capitalist interests and British imperial interests were the main enemies basically of Australian nationalism.

 

Mathew Grant: Yeah, it’s exactly right! I guess, Australia was to them just an economic zone. It was a place where you could raise sheep, wheat and sugar cane, make good money and go take your money back home to England and have a good time. Charles Pearson writes in National Life and Character in 1893:

 

“The fear of Chinese immigration, which the Australian democracy cherishes and which the Englishmen at home find hard to understand, is in fact the instinct of self preservation. Quickened by experience, we know that coloured and White labour cannot exist side by side. We are well aware that China can swamp us with a single year’s surplus of population. And we know that if national existence is sacrificed to the working of a few mines and sugar plantations, it’s not the Englishmen in Australia alone, but the whole civilised world that will be the losers.”

 

In a similar stead Teddy Roosevelt, the American President did a review of Pearson’s work and he also formed the view that not only the United States, but Australia were both subject to international finance oligarchs that these English, usually residing in England, persons of financial means, were using our countries to make money. And slavery in the south of the United States was a product of that process.

 

[Image: The Port Phillip Gold Mining Company’s claim and  the township of Clunes]

 

In the same way, in Australia, the importation of Chinese was used heavily. So back in the 19th century there was a lot of cases like that. So one instance in the town of Clunes in Victoria, there was a gold mine there that was making money. There was no issues. It was a commercially viable operation.

 

[16:36]

 

However, the shareholders decided that they wanted to pay less for labour and so they actually brought in three or four horse carriages full of Chinese labourers and intended to sack all of the Australian and European descent miners from the gold mine. And this town of Clunes the entire town, men, women and children physically mobilised themselves with weapons and blockaded the roads coming into the town.

 

So the horses that were drawing these Chinese scabs, as we would call them, non-unionised labourers, these Chinese scabs were stopped on the road, and they had actually police escort as well. It’s a famous story I always make reference to because the policeman bore his rifle and pointed it at a woman, and the woman picked up a rock and was about to throw it at the policeman and said:

 

“I’d rather be shot than starved!”

 

And this was the dire situation that these people in Victoria and people in towns and regions all around Australia faced, that they were looking down the barrel of being completely replaced by Chinese scab labourers who would work for a bowl of rice a day. And would not work at European standards of work. They wouldn’t work for a fair rate.

 

And this actually manifested in a whole bunch of events. I won’t get into the full detail of all of them. But similar situation in 1878, you had the maritime strike, where basically a large Australasian steam navigation company sacked all of their White sailors and replaced them with Chinese sailors, which resulted in other riots and a strike which were successful. Thank heavens.

 

There was also the black legging for Polynesian labourers in Queensland for sugarcane.

 

A lot of people in that time were convinced that White men of European stock could not settle the tropics. I mean, Marcus Clark, Charles Pearson, Teddy Roosevelt, they all kind of subscribe to this concept that warm climates are unsuitable for people of northern European stock.

 

[Image: The Australasian, 13 March, 1897, p. 4, advertisement indicating ‘European Labour’ made furniture.]

 

So they were bringing in Polynesian labourers to Queensland. During the same time as the gold rush, unsuccessful Chinese miners who didn’t find any goods on the gold fields ended up taking over the Victorian manufacturing industries, primarily in furniture. So you had lots of backyard furniture factories that were sweating 70 hours week, undercutting the wages and conditions of Australian labourers in factories in Victoria. Which actually resulted in a few riots and some legislation which required all furniture be stamped if it was made by European or Chinese labourers.

 

And all of this kicking off around the 1860s, 1870s, finally culminated in the Great Shearers Strike in 1891. So William Spence, the founder of the Labour Party, says in his book Australia’s Awakening:

 

“When they were going to fill White men’s places with Chinese and further insisted on freedom of contract, which means non-unionised agreements, shearers and shed hands had no alternative but to go on strike.”

 

So 1891 saw probably the largest industrial action in Australian history, resulting in the army having to be mobilised because there was actual fears of a genuine civil war and a revolutionary army of thousands of shearers armed with rifles taking over the colony of Queensland.

 

[20:38]

 

So there was a lot of stuff going on, just after the gold rush and during the gold rush, which was really testing multiculturalism, the earliest form of it. I mean, principally dealing with Chinese migrants. But it was very clear across the board that this was detrimental to the national health. There was a lot of labour struggle against it. But there was also liberal thinkers who were uninvolved with the Labour movement that were staunchly in favour of this principle of a White Australia. Henry Parks was probably one of the first of those leading men.

 

But in the Inter-Colonial Conference of 1888, a lot of colonial Parliamentarians had come together to meet and they all agreed that the further introduction of Chinese to Australia was going to be detrimental to the country.

 

And as you rightfully said, they all tried to legislate to this end and the Crown refused to give royal assent to them because they, at the time, had colonised India. They had millions and millions and millions of Indians that were technically British subjects. The Englishmen at home didn’t understand the importance of these racial issues because they’d never experienced it.

 

And so they, withheld this legislation, …

 

Joel Davis: The original NIMBY* shit-libs!

 

[* The phrase “not in my backyard,” shortened to “NIMBY,” seems to have appeared first in the mid-1970s. It was used in the context of the last major effort by electric utilities to construct nuclear-powered generating stations, especially those located in Seabrook, New Hampshire, and Midland, Michigan. Source: Britannica]

 

Mathew Grant: Yeah, exactly! Just had no idea. Yeah. I mean, Henry Higgins, the High Court Justice and Parliamentarian, said that:

 

“The principle of a White Australia really came about when people had to rub shoulders with foreign labour and compete with them.”

 

But the rich people, the people in the agricultural societies and chambers of commerce, they don’t understand because they’ve never had to compete with them. And even better, they profiteer off scab cheap labour from overseas.

 

So it’s a fascinating bit of history. I mean, it caused a lot of violence, a lot of grief, a lot of people were displaced, a lot of people lost their work and employment. But it also created this national psyche. It forced these people of different European descent and even inter-British cultures, Irish and Welsh and English and Scots. All these people had to unify under a single concept of a White Australia that’s a European descent, Australian ethnic identity, which would repel these cheap foreign invaders.

 

JF Archibald, the publisher of The Bulletin, the old newspaper, he’s attributed to saying:

 

“By the term ‘Australian’, we mean not just those who are merely born in Australia, but all White men who come to these shores with a clean record and who leave behind them the memory of class distinction and religious difference in the Old World, all men who place the happiness of their adopted lands before imperialism are Australian.”

 

So you saw this ethno-genesis kicking off around the same time of all these struggles against Chinese labour.

 

[24:07]

 

Joel Davis: Yeah, and obviously that is so relevant I think in our time, it’s only become more relevant, that concept. I mean, it wasn’t just the economic struggles, although we have to remember that it’s not like today where the idea of having to compete with foreign labour is annoying, but there’s so many safety nets and comforts in modern society. I mean, it was a life or death matter in those days to find gainful employment.

 

There was no Social Security systems established. You really were on your own either as an individual, as part of a community. But there wasn’t this big state bureaucracy, there wasn’t all of this modern social architecture,

 

Mathew Grant: No Fair Work Commission.

 

Joel Davis: Yeah, there are two components. You got the more kind of trade Unionist types who you mentioned William Spence, who is one of the major trade Unionist figures in this late 19th century Australian nationalism and went on to be influential after federation as well. And quote from him to get a feel for their politics. He’s saying this, by the way, while conceding that, yeah, there are some liberal conservative elements in Australian politics that also did politically support the White Australia Policy. But his stance is:

 

“That the anti-socialist is invariably (as I quote) the most unpatriotic person to be found. He belongs to the Stinking Fish Party. If he cannot get his own stupid way, he denounces the country in which he has done so well. The bedrock of the cry for a colour line across the continent so that anti-socialists could boss N-words and yellow men is found in the anti-socialist nature. He is a born tyrant and as the White Australian will not stand his tyranny, he must have a N-word to order about. There is no patriotism in the anti-socialist press, hence it barracks for anything the capitalist crowd asked for.”

 

So there was this, obviously from the Labourerists, this keen sense of class warfare and a very racial concept of trade unionism, as you mentioned.

 

This idea that there’s something about being a Whiteman was having this collective mentality. And people often flip that these days and talk about how to be a Whiteman is to be individualistic and that all the other races are more collectivist than us. But they had this inverse perception that it was actually the Whiteman who had this inherent virtue that “all for one and one for all” was their kind of principle and as opposed to the pursuit of individual advantage, this kind of rejection of bourgeois morality.

 

So that was a strong component. Obviously, the Australian Labour Party was formed out of that worldview and that tendency.

 

[26:36]

 

But at the same time you also had more liberal nationalist elements like HP Higgins, who went on to become Attorney General and was massively influential in the early politics of Federal Australia and the formation of the White Australia Policy. A staunch advocate.

 

You have Alfred Deacon, Australia’s second Prime Minister, one of the most influential prime ministers in Australian history. Really set the tone for the early phase of Australian politics, the so-called Australian Settlement. Alfred Deacon, in his maiden speech to Parliament, declared:

 

“Australia to be an Aryan Christian nation.”

 

His racial Unitarianism and his religious faith were really front and centre of his political project. They were the Protectionist Party. So they opposed themselves to the pro-British Empire free traders. They aligned themselves with colonial White Australians and their interests, but they weren’t so much trade Unionists. Instead they had this liberal, democratic conception of nationalism. But nevertheless they were also integral in the formation of White Australia. But we’re going to get into the story of Federation now. I’ll turn it back to you.

 

But once Federation forms, the Labour Party comes to be really the front and centre advocates of the White Australia Policy. But you do have a lot of these other more centrist national elements that are also supportive. But maybe to turn it back to you on the logic in Federation and the forces that pushed for it. Because Australia didn’t have what the Americans had, a revolution and Republicanism. Maybe in retrospect, maybe we should have, considering we ultimately haven’t protected White Australia and White Australia was being ripped away from us. But at the time, what were the kind of practical considerations?

 

Obviously there was a logic of entering into an agreement with the Empire where the Empire would make concessions and allow us essentially to have our White nationalist thing, but still conciliatory in many respects to British business interests and imperial interests, foreign policy interests and so on.

 

And there was a tension there. Was that because we felt we didn’t have the capacity to stage a revolution? Or was there a sense of:

 

“Well, there’s benevolence and that we can do this in a clean political way?”

 

Also at the time, you have the context of Charles Henry Pearson, his conception, which you alluded to before, of the Whiteman under siege:

 

“That the world wasn’t destined to be ruled by these White, globe spanning empires forever. But that this was an aberration in history and that the vitality of the Anglo Saxon race and some of the other European races was limited and would burn itself out in cosmopolitanism and so on and declining birth rates. And the yellow races and other races would rise and they would become peers on the international stage and take their countries back from colonial domination.”

 

[29:17]

 

He was obviously quite prescient with that because that’s literally how the 20th century played out. And he feared forces of misgegenation would be existential for the White race, and that therefore an explicit politics of racial preservation and explicit White nationalism was necessary because he had that, as you mentioned, this view that the Whiteman really only belonged in the temperate zones and that living in northern Queensland would be a problem. He didn’t predict that we could adapt to those environments, which obviously kind of seems silly now to a certain extent. But nevertheless, the view was well, in Australia and in North America, we have these temperate zones where the Whiteman can set up states that have the explicit goal of racial self preservation to secure a future for our people and way of life despite changing global conditions.

 

That’s important to recognise as well that the White Australia Policy wasn’t just based in some kind of contemptuous hatred for other races, but was based in an existential requirement, a struggle from the very beginning. Whether you’re talking about the early Australian labour movement or talking about nationalist intellectuals and political figures and so on.

 

They were big picture people and they obviously were very happy with White culture and the White way of life and wanted to preserve it. But they didn’t necessarily have this seething hatred or even this will to dominate other races, but actually they wanted separation for the preservation of our way of life down the generations.

 

And so this is actually the opposite of a supremacist worldview, it’s a separatist worldview and it’s a worldview that actually gave respect to these foreign races by saying:

 

“Well, we don’t actually anticipate our capacity to dominate you is going to be successful or even desirable. Instead, we recognise that we can’t dominate the world entirely and that we need ethno-states or racial states in certain pockets of the world.”

 

With all of that context, what’s your impression of the key forces leading up to Federation? Why we went for a conciliatory approach to the British Empire? Was it just through sentimental attachment to the mother country and the fact that we were ultimately sons of the British Isles, or was there more to the story than that?

 

[31:16]

 

Mathew Grant: Yep, I guess starting off moving towards Federation. So you had Henry Parks. He was our main man in New South Wales, a Parliamentarian. And to touch on that subject of racial bigotry, I agree, the White Australia Policy was absolutely never premised on this concept that we just hate everyone else and therefore we don’t want to let them in. There was serious qualities to the idea of the policy.

 

Henry Parks, in his second reading of the Chinese Restriction Bill in the New South Wales Colonial Parliament, said:

 

“They are not an inferior race, they are a superior set of people, a nation of old and deep rooted civilisation. It is because I believe the Chinese to be a powerful race, capable of taking a great hold upon this country, and because I want to preserve the type of my own nation, I am and always have been opposed to the influx of Chinese. I contend that if this young nation is to maintain the fabric of its liberties unassailed and unimpaired, it cannot admit into its population any element that of necessity must be of an inferior nature and character. In other words, I’ve maintained at all times that we should not encounter or admit amongst us any class of persons whatever, whom we are not prepared to advance to all our franchises.”

 

So basically, Henry Parks, he was a great thinker of his time. He was known as the “Father of Federation”. He was the one who made Federation very politically popular. He campaigned on the issue.

 

So New South Wales had at this time managed to introduce a poll tax. So if you were Chinese and you were getting off a ship in Sydney Harbour, there’d be a quite heavy financial cost to you getting off the boat. You were allowed in, but it would come at a cost. Queensland and South Australia did not have this. And at the time they were basically skipping the poll tax by landing in Queensland and South Australia and walking across the border.

 

So we had this issue where Victoria and New South Wales, who were trying to protect their ethnic homogeneity, were being swamped by Chinese migrants through Queensland and South Australia. So it became increasingly evident that there needed to be a single, unified national border Australia and the Pacific Ocean, and that every colony in the continent should be part of this one single nation which has a single immigration policy and a single controllable border. This was a big area of the Australian Natives Association platform as well.

 

So the ANA was started in 1871 and it was in favour of the native born European descent people of Australia.

 

And as part of that, it was a staunch advocate of a White Australia and of Federation. Because they saw that getting that single, unified border is going to be the thing that prevents us from becoming another melting pot like had been seen in the United States.

 

The honourable King O’Malley, who became the minister for home affairs in one of the early Australian Parliaments, said:

 

“If the Australian people had only lived in the southern states of America, as I have, and had seen the dire results of the present mingling of the Africans with the Whites, they would put their feet down and say, ‘We are not going to leave such an unholy problem behind for future generations to solve’.”

 

And in the same vein, Jack Beasley, who was a New South Wales Parliamentarian in the 1920s, said:

 

“It’s possible to live on the highest terms of mutual respect with one’s neighbour, whilst recognizing that it would be destructive of all harmony to invite him to become a permanent resident in one’s household.”

 

So you had these ideas. We Australians of European stock, we are in the Pacific, we have Asian neighbours, we should be friends with them, but at the same time we should recognise it would be destructive of all harmony. These people don’t share the same heritage as us. They did not adopt Magna Carta, they did not adopt the Act of Settlement, they did not adopt Roman law, Roman principles of equity and justice. They are completely alien to us.

 

And we talk about White nationalism and why it’s important to be White. And I think one of the great reasons for that is because we are actually related by blood to the people who died for these high principles of civilisation, which we hold very dear.

 

So these Asian migrants, as Henry Parks was saying, they have alien concepts to us. They are not going to develop the same brand of civilisation which we hold so dear. They have their own ways, and their own ways are definitely noble to them and something that they would venerate. But to us, we have a higher calling based on our own heritage and based on our own concepts of civilisation and justice and equity and all the rest of it.

 

So the march towards Federation was really for that single, unified border. James Stewart said in 1901, and this is during the debates on the Immigration Restriction Act:

 

“We do not desire to keep out those coloured people simply because they’re inferior to us, but because for racial, social, and economic reasons, we cannot permit them safely to enter. With regards to race, we cannot mix with them. There is no natural affinity between them and us. And if an attempt were made to confide them and us in one bottle, so to speak, one or the other must be precipitated to the bottom. A compacted, homogeneous community cannot be formed out of such heterogeneous compounds. The thing ought not to be attempted because it is absolutely impossible!”

 

“With regards to the social aspect of the question, these people are brought up under institutions entirely different from ours. Their religion, position and customs are different. I should be a traitor to my country, to my race, and to those of our ancestors who have conferred benefits upon us. If I were a party to anything which would allow these Asiatics to come here and destroy in one fell swoop all the efforts of centuries. For these reasons, I think we are all agreed that the coloured man must be kept out, whether he is a Japanese, a Chinaman, or an African.”

 

So I think in general, ideological terms, aside from the Labour issues of wages and unionism, the intellectual concept was that White people of European descent, are in fact inheritors of political and social and cultural institutions, dating all the way back through from Rome up to now, that were noble, that needed to be defended, and would be absolutely destroyed by an influx of foreigners.

 

As it said, that Chinese could take this country with a single year’s surplus population. I think all of the founders understood and realised that a non-European descent majority in Australia would mean a death of all the legal and political institutions which we hold so dear and we think are crucial to our civilisation.

 

[38:53]

 

Now, how this relates to the British Empire? As I said previously, the British Empire at the time had millions of people in India. Before Federation Natal had attempted to – this is in South Africa – the Natal colony attempted to have an explicit racial immigration policy. They wanted to preserve Natal for people of European stock, and the British refused to give them royal assent in similar ways that they refused us.

 

But at the same time, Australia was very low in population. It didn’t have great industries and military resources at its disposal. A lot of the early Parliamentarians and people pushing for Federation understood that the protection of the British fleet, the British Navy, was what’s going to allow us to have a White Australia, that the millions of desperate Asians to our north would not be able to be repelled by an Australian independent army.

 

So even those with Republican sympathies in the Labour Party all acknowledged that the defense of Australia really relied on the British Navy.

 

And so we had to keep our ties to Britain quite neat and tidy.

 

So that was that.

 

I mean, there’s definitely the ethnic solidarity thing as well, I mean, we were being constantly populated by first generation British migrants who did feel an affinity with the United Kingdom and felt that that was home. I mean, it is also our heritage. I mean we are predominantly of British extraction in Australia, and I think people feel, the practical side of it. We needed the British Navy, but also the cultural side of it that we felt ourselves of European British extraction particularly.

 

I think a lot of people hadn’t come to grips with how badly the British Parliament and the Crown had really betrayed our interests in terms of an immigration platform.

 

But as Dr. William Maloney said in 1912, this is before World War I kicks off:

 

“If England were to go down, the result would be disastrous to Anglo-Celtic Saxon race the whole world over. We should be rendered helpless against one of the greatest fighting nations the world has ever known. I shall never utter a word derogatory of the Japanese as a nation, but what could we do unaided against such a nation?”

 

So at Federation time, there was the acknowledgment. We finally had the ability to make our own laws. The Crown could withdraw Royal Assent and that was a real threat. So even at the time of the Immigration Restriction Act, even though a lot of Parliamentarians wanted an explicit racial law, and that’s constitutional under Section 51 of the Constitution, there was still a great fear that the Crown wouldn’t give it royal assent and therefore it wouldn’t become law for fear of offending all of the Indians in the Empire.

 

So, yeah, there was a very kind of vexed issue, but it’s multi pronged, definitely, the practical consideration. We need the British Navy to defend a White Australia and we also feel a cultural and heritage affinity with it.

 

And a lot of people were genuinely loyal to the Crown. So those are, I suppose, the main considerations.

 

[42:19]

 

Joel Davis: It is, I think, important, though, to recognise that pretty much all factions at the time bar, very few, were committed to White Australia. And that was really the guiding principle, this principle that we need to preserve our people and our race on this continent and make this the Whiteman’s continent, was a prevailing bipartisan stance. And the debate was how do we go about that best.

 

The defense of Australia, the geopolitical angle obviously is vital and that obviously plays a massive role in first half of the 20th century as we go to two wars for the British Empire.

 

Yeah, I think people don’t really realise now that at the time of Federation we didn’t truly become an independent nation state and not just in the basic sense that it is now where obviously we still share a head of state with the United Kingdom. But Australia was originally still defined as a colony, it was defined as a “self governing colony” according to the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act, which was an act in British Parliament.

 

From the British standpoint, they were happy to go along with it because it improved the ease of administration that they just had this one central Australian government to deal with, rather than all of these separate colonies to liaise with. But ultimately the British government still had oversight over the Australian Constitution, which they did interfere with after it was approved by an Australian referendum. And most of their interventions were either to serve their foreign policy interests.

 

So you have the alliance with Japan that was brokered in 1904, which really perturbed us because the Japanese were seen as our main national security threat in our region, yet the British were getting in bed with them because they feared the rise of the Germans. The unified Germany became their obviously direct rival in Europe and so they didn’t want to commit as many forces to maintaining their position in the Asia Pacific region.

 

And so the solution to that was to make an alliance with the most powerful rising power in the region, which at the time was the Japanese, fresh off defeating the Russians in a war, and defeating the Chinese and they had all these expansionist aims and so on.

 

Obviously we saw how that ended up playing out in the Second World War where we ultimately had to confront them.

 

[44:25]

 

But not only was the foreign policy of the United Kingdom and this Britain centric foreign policy that they had where Australia wasn’t seen as a partner so much as a colony for the first few decades of our existence, but know you had all these wealthy British capitalists, many of them of jewish extraction, who were based out of the City of London, who had extensive investments in Australia. And those investments often also provided them with an interest in coloured immigration. So that produced also a tension. But primarily it was the foreign policy of the British. They didn’t want to anger the Japanese. The Japanese were not fans of Australia having explicit racialist laws on the books preventing the immigration of all non-White races.

 

And so the advisement that was given by the British government was that we do a dictation test. So instead of having an explicit law there were many elements in the Labour Party, I think the entire Labour Party actually at the time and many other elements in the Australian government or the Australian political establishment, who wanted an explicit racial law about who can come to Australia, who can become a citizen, who can enter the country. They even wanted to put it into the Constitution, many of them, but that was declined.

 

And instead they were advised to have a dictation test where basically, if someone tried to immigrate to Australia who was seen as undesirable, which basically meant that they weren’t White, they probably also did it to many Slavic and Mediterranean types, because at that time they had a very Anglo conception of who we were. And maybe they were more amenable to some German immigrants or some Scandinavian immigrants, but generally speaking, they weren’t huge fans of jewish immigrants, they weren’t huge fans of Italian immigrants or Polish immigrants or anything like that, even. But basically, they had a dictation test which could be given in any arbitrary language they could choose from.

 

So if they didn’t like someone, they could just give it to them in a language they knew they didn’t understand to ensure that they would fail.

 

So it was a kind of bureaucratic trickery where the White Australia Policy was enforced basically through bureaucratic processes, rather than through an explicit legal framework. And many people found that to be somewhat offensive to the Australian sensibility. We like to be direct and upfront. But the Japanese were not too happy about it. And so to maintain the alliance, that was what was necessary.

 

And then you mentioned we get to the First World War. Obviously, Australia commit incredible forces. 60,000 Australians died fighting for the British Empire in the First World War, which was more than double the Australian deaths in the Second World War, I believe, just to give an idea of the scale. And we did that because we wanted a seat at the table in the Empire. We wanted to elevate our position in the Empire, to get more influence in the Empire, and so we wanted to prove ourselves.

 

[47:16]

 

So the logic was, with the Australian political establishment, by going hard for the Empire and showing that you need us. When you actually go to war, you want the Australians there fighting on the battlefield, defending the Empire. And we wanted to earn our position through that. And it did succeed to the extent that Billy Hughes, the Nationalist Prime Minister at the time, was able to be a key figure at the Treaty of Versailles at the end of the war. And the Japanese, as an ally in the First World War, were angling for the introduction of a racial equality clause to be accepted by the League of Nations, whereby laws that were explicitly discriminatory on racial grounds be abolished. Billy Hughes fought against that tooth and nail and succeeded partially by spreading fear mongering propaganda around the legislation in the United States of America to create domestic pressure upon Woodrow Wilson, at the time the American President, to acquiesce. And so they did.

 

It was also interesting that at the time, we demanded Papua New Guinea from the Germans who had taken it.

 

And interestingly, we actually had told the British before the Germans took New Guinea, that they were about to and that we wanted their support to defend it due to fears of having hostile powers on our doorstep. And the British told us not to worry about it and ultimately that it wasn’t their problem. We were right, the Germans took it.

 

And another key factor into our participation, our extensive participation in the First World War, was the sense that if the Germans were to win, that perhaps Australia would be a bargaining chip to the British, that they would hand us over to the Germans in a wartime settlement and we would start taking German immigrants. Considering how things have played out historically, maybe that wouldn’t have been so bad! Maybe it would have been better if we had lost World War I [chuckling] and were handed over to the Germans. White Australia would probably still exist today had that happened in that alternative timeline. But from the standpoint of that time, you can understand as proud Anglos why we didn’t want that eventuality.

 

But nevertheless, due to these foreign policy concerns, which were very real, we were all the way with the Empire, obviously, up until the Second World War. Maybe the story of the Second World War would be better if I pass that one over to Grant.

 

Mathew Grant: Obviously we go hard to defend England. That way the British Navy isn’t knocked out of the universe, so we’re protected against Asia.

 

Along comes World War II and the Japanese are pouring down through Asia. They’ve taken China, they’ve used Australian steel to do it. Thank you, Bob Menzies!

 

And then they started marching towards Singapore, which is a great trading outpost of the British Empire at the time.

 

Now, the British absolutely botched the defense of Singapore! And we had thousands and thousands and thousands of Australian soldiers posted there under British commanders.

 

[50:05]

 

And basically what happened was they had all their guns pointed out to the sea, out into the harbour, expecting a Japanese naval assault. But they landed themselves over thousands of bicycles and little wagons through the land access to the back of Singapore and began a siege of the city. Some Australian divisions valiantly held them back for a couple of days, but suddenly the Japanese were knocking on the door, and the British generals actually thought that urban combat was not gentlemanly and therefore immediately surrendered.

 

And all of the British and Australian soldiers were force marched to POW camps and died in enormous numbers. I mean, just on the march alone, thousands and thousands of men were killed.

 

And then they spent the rest of the war in concentration camps, where they were starved and tortured. And I’m sure everyone knows the story, but it was at that time, I think, Australia really came to the reckoning that the British were out of the game. They’d pull the plug on Asia and we were on our own.

 

So Bob Menzies tremendously lost the election. In comes John Curtin and the Labour Party, which mobilised the entire country immediately putting everyone on food rations and portioning, nationalizing industry, bringing online an Australian war machine to produce weapons and tanks and planes to defend Australia. Massive numbers of Australians were mobilised to fight.

 

And we were already in the war with the Germans over in Europe. And Australia had a lot of soldiers, a lot of assets over in North Africa. And immediately John Curtin makes the command:

 

“We’re coming back.”

 

And the British Parliament and Winston Churchill were sulking and whinging:

 

“You have to defend us! We’re going to get crushed by the krauts in Europe!”

 

And Curtin just said:

 

“No! We have to bring the soldiers back to Australia, to defend from Japan.”

 

And this really is reflective of the psyche of the British at the time:

 

“These colonials, they belong to us, they’re our pawn on the chessboard. We need to protect the UK from the krauts! Who cares what happens to this far off backwards colony?”

 

But anyway, Curtin stood his ground. The Australians’ assets in Europe mobilised, got on a bunch of transport ships, and they were on the Pacific. And suddenly Winston Churchill gets on the foghorn to the captain and commands him to turn around and land all the troops in Ceylon to defend India from the Japanese invasion. Because Churchill and the British Parliamentarians and the other financial interests in Britain were more concerned about their financial interests in India being lost to the Japanese than actually the defense of Australia and the White European descent people in Australia.

 

[53:11]

 

Fortunately, through a couple of very powerfully worded cables from our Prime Minister, John Curtin, the commander of the ship did end up bringing Australia’s troops and assets back to Australia, to begin preparing for a defense in Papua New Guinea, which we’d freshly won from the Germans. Thanks to the great foresight of Billy Hughes, that Papua New Guinea would be the buffer zone between us and the foreseen Japanese opponent.

 

I mean, long before I read you that quote before about what would happen if England fell and know Japan is our greatest adversary in the Pacific. Australian Parliamentarians, generals, and all the rest of it, had been anticipating this war since around 1910, even earlier.

 

So everyone was thinking about it. And the occupation of Papua New Guinea was an excellent play to see the defense of Australia from the Japanese.

 

And so the war proceeds.

 

I mean, the war has its own history, I suppose. But the impact, the policy implications to the White Australia Policy. By the time we’ve won World War II, it was with the help of the United States and not with the United Kingdom. I mean, not only did the UK absolute scum born to rule generals, surrendered our soldiers in Singapore and led to thousands of needless deaths, then refused to relinquish our soldiers from the European campaign. Not only did they do those things to a great grievance to our country, even after all the sacrifice we gave them in World War I. Just absolutely no respect! After that it was recognised that the UK could not be relied upon for our national defense and that the United States was our new partner.

 

But in addition to that, it really just created this great sense of anxiety. After the Japanese steel had separated many Australian heads from many shoulders and many nurses were kidnapped and sold into sex slavery or shot, Australia became even more anxious of Asia than it ever had.

 

But it began to manifest in a different way at the end of the war. It was a lot of Parliamentarians were desperately trying to befriend and get on really good terms with Asiatics. And that really started the most formal way with the Colombo Plan, which was this concept of bringing in Asian students so that they could learn at our universities, become up-skilled, go back to their home countries, improve their home countries, so that the desperation of Asia stops looking over to Australia with its starvation in its eyes.

 

But at the same time that they would be an appreciation that the Asiatics that returned home building their countries would come back from Australia with a favourable impression of Australia and would be pro-Australian.

 

So the whole dynamic goes from isolation, having no friends in Asia, to we need to desperately have friends in Asia. And people started getting really self conscious about this.

 

[56:34]

 

The way the White Australia Policy was marketed, I mean, the very name of it itself became a subject of great controversy because they didn’t want to offend all of our neighbours in Asia, for fear not only the economic issue of not having trading partners and places to export our goods and materials, but also for this fear of actually the geopolitical breakdown of peace in the Pacific.

 

So I suppose that’s a general summary of what kicked off of World War II.

 

Joel Davis: It’s just so ridiculous! I mean, when have White people got offended at these Asian countries for restricting immigration from us? Like when have we complained that the Japanese don’t let White people immigrate there, …

 

Mathew Grant: Yeah, that’s right, …

 

Joel Davis: … In substantial numbers.

 

Mathew Grant: I was just going to say quickly, that it’s a really funny question you ask that, because if you read the Parliamentary debates in 1955, when the Liberal government’s getting rid of the Immigration Restriction Act, one Parliamentarian who is like the Foreign Secretary who travelled all through Asia for some years said:

 

“All the way going through Asia, the only people who ever brought up any questions or concerns about White Australia were, in fact White journalists that had followed him there to ask the question!”

 

So yeah, I think it was very overestimated how much the concept of a White Australia offended Asia. I mean, obviously the Japs didn’t like it. But after they got zapped in World War II, I think they were amicable to it. But no one else really cared. It was really the self-conscious, this new generation of post-war, limp wristed kind of rat bags that ran the country, that were really self conscious about it.

 

Joel Davis: There was some push, some resistance from the Indians back during the imperial days. He put in some complaints about our immigration policy. This is going back to the very beginnings of the 20th century. The British advised them to maybe just withdraw that. I don’t think the Australians are going to let us destroy their immigration policy because the Indians are offended [chuckling] and they didn’t want to provoke us.

 

Unfortunately, we’ve seen these days I mean, I’m jumping ahead a little bit, but unfortunately, these days it seems as though that is actually literally what is happening. Every time our wog prime minister meets with his Indian counterpart, he’s just opening up the borders more and more for the hordes to pour into the country.

 

But cycling back to the Second World War and the reaction. Obviously another key reaction to the Second World War was the concept of “Populate or Perish”. And that Australia, not only were we now partners with the United States, more primarily than the British, and that was a bit of a slower transition.

 

The US didn’t have the same imperial mentality that the English did. Obviously, even though we kind of perceived racial ties, they were trying to de-emphasise their racial identitarianism in the post-war era themselves, because they were trying to become these enlightened leaders of the liberal world order at the time and compete with communism. And they had this approach of combating communism from the Left, trying to prove to the coloured races of the world that in fact, it was the liberal world order that was truly anti-racist, even more so than the Communists.

 

And also with the legacy of the Second World War, the reconstruction of ideological legitimacy around the defeat of National Socialist Germany and all the implications that that had.

 

[1:00:03]

 

And so even though the American people, in many respects, American grassroots nationalism was very much in line with the tendencies in White Australia. The American political elite who we actually had to deal with, they were moving, unfortunately, in this very anti-racialist direction.

 

And I think that was also a contributing factor to our elite trying to, in its mind, update itself to the new ideals of the new world. The new world in the sense of the postwar international order. But the “populate or perish” element was interesting because that idea was that:

 

“Well, we’re going to open the border, but just to other Europeans.”

 

Where before we weren’t so keen on Italians and Greeks and Poles, now we’ll let them in because their countries have all been ruined by the Second World War. A lot of them are looking to get out and have a fresh life. Australia is a land of opportunity, cheap land, massive industrial projects are underway.

 

And you can see why that was attractive to a lot of them to get out of the blown up Europe that was still gripped by now the Cold War and all the hostility that brought to come out to Australia and make a new life for themselves.

 

And so we have these massive waves of quote, unquote, “wog migration”. Also at this time, jews start pouring into Australia at a rate that hitherto hadn’t happened. There were some Anglo jewish elements that had come over prior to the Second World War, but they were in very small number and largely quite assimilated as far as jews go, and didn’t seem to cause too much problems.

 

However, the jews that come over after the Second World War, a lot of them were Communist jews from Eastern Europe and they were bringing with them the ideologies and sensibilities of Central and Eastern European jewry and everything that went along with that at that time in history. So they became very active in the communist movement here, which obviously never really rose to considerable prominence in Australian society.

 

But nevertheless, it didn’t take them very long to infiltrate our government and start shipping off national secrets to the Soviet Union, which was the reason why we actually had to set up ASIO in the first place. Previously, we had such a high trust society that you could just trust your fellow Anglo Australian brothers to not betray your nation like that. But that started to change and we get this gradual undermining of the pre-war Australian identity.

 

[1:02:18]

 

Also, I talked about this a little bit on the show with Blair, this article that I read in The Occidental Observer by Jason Cannon. A three part series called Jews in the Australian Dream, talking about how a lot of these jewish immigrants to Australia, they brought high rise living, they brought cosmopolitan, high density living to Australia that they were accustomed to in European cities where they came from. Previously, Australian society was quite hostile to high density city living.

 

In fact, not many people really did live close in the actual city centre. You had, like, townhouses for the working class in the surrounding suburbs, but they weren’t high rises. You still had a little backyard, you could have a little family in there. The church was the largest building in the general vicinity.

 

Now, all of a sudden, these high rise apartments are getting put in the postwar era, about 50% of the high rise apartments that were built in Sydney, and obviously this was mainly a Sydney and Melbourne thing, were built either by jewish architects or by development companies run by jews. And they were built basically in the jewish areas around King’s Cross, in Sydney, in Melbourne, around St Kilda and some of these areas. And that radically transformed Australian society because now you have this cosmopolitanism, you got like the boomer counterculture of the 1960s, the spread out, suburban, largely Christian, White Australian lifestyle was disintegrating.

 

During the 60s, there was a study done on church attendance, or youth group attendance, actually, in Brisbane. And at the beginning of the 1960s, something like 75% to 80% of young people attended their local church youth group. By the end of the 1960s, that number was down to only 30%.

 

So you see, youth culture fundamentally transform. The television comes in, the media landscape changes this new American led international order, English speaking culture gets Beamed into the country.

 

And at the same time, there are all of these threats that you mentioned in the existential position that Australia found itself in. From a geopolitical standpoint, these are the conditions whereby we start seeing the gradual erosion of White Australia.

 

But obviously, there is still specific actors in the political system who are responsible. So, Matthew, who do you fundamentally blame? Because John Curtin was a staunch advocate of White Australia, he took us through the Second World War. The quotations from the man, the speeches from the man. We know where he stood.

 

And Robert Menzes*, who got back the Prime Ministership afterwards, he is somewhat to blame, but he also nevertheless understood the importance of maintaining White Australia. Particularly for him, it was the Anglo-Celtic British identity aspect. But the floodgates didn’t exactly just open immediately after the Second World War. It was this very gradual process. And then really only the floodgates opened to foreign migration in the 70s.

 

[* 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. He held office as the leader of the United Australia Party in his first term, and subsequently as the inaugural leader of the Liberal Party of Australia, which he was responsible for establishing and defining in policy and political outreach. Source: Wikipedia]

 

So if you could set it up play by play, who are the key actors responsible here?

 

[1:05:17]

 

Mathew Grant: Yeah, that’s right. Well, I’ll touch on the jews first because you had a bit to say about them. It’s actually really fascinating!

 

I’m not sure if you’ve ever read, I mean, as much as I hate the man Churchill, if you’ve ever read Zionism versus Bolshevism, but he touches on a really interesting subject which you’ve kind of touched on. Which is like this idea of the international jew, the rootless jew, who ascribes himself to this kind of Trotskyite, world-wide revolution kind of Marxism.

 

And then there was the English jew, the naturalised jew in the United Kingdom, who didn’t have that kind of state of mind and in fact was somewhat of a contributor to the country. And Churchill had this view of zionism as being a solution to all these rootless jews to make them feel like they have some possession over some soil and their own ethnic identity and all the rest of it.

 

Because before World War II, there were a lot of prominent jews in Australia that were absolutely staunch advocates and defenders of the White Australia Policy. So, I mean, number one of this is the great Isaac Isaacs*, who was our first Governor General and a High Court justice, who not only gave lip service to the White Australia Policy, but in court, he actively was involved in cases leading to the deportation of Asiatics from Australia.

 

[* Sir Isaac Alfred Isaacs, was an Australian lawyer, politician, and judge who served as the ninth Governor-General of Australia, in office from 1931 to 1936. He had previously served on the High Court of Australia from 1906 to 1931, including as Chief Justice from 1930. Isaacs was born in Melbourne and grew up in Yackandandah and Beechworth. Source: Wikipedia]

 

So there was definitely a heavily assimilated, … I mean, you got General John Monash, who was someone of jewish extraction who fought in the war. He was the first one to kind of revolutionarily use planes, tanks and men in good sequence to save Australian lives.

 

So it’s really fascinating! You have these guys that were before the war, that were kind of sympathetic to Australia, that were in favour of this concept of a White Australia. Then after the war, there’s this influx of real nasty personalities. There’s an interesting case, Egon Kisch.* He’s an Austrian jew who is in the Communist International. He tried to do a tour of Australia to kind of spur up the Communist Party here and all the rest of it. And when he gets to the immigration official, the immigration official says:

 

“Okay, cool, no worries. Can you say the Lord’s Prayer in Scottish Gaelic?”

 

[Image: Egon Kisch in Melbourne in 1934]

[* Egon Erwin Kisch (29 April 1885 – 31 March 1948) was an Austrian and Czechoslovak [jewish] writer and journalist, who wrote in German. He styled himself Der Rasende Reporter (The Racing Reporter) for his countless travels to the far corners of the globe and his equally numerous articles produced in a relatively short time (Hetzjagd durch die Zeit, 1925), Kisch was noted for his development of literary reportage, his opposition to Adolf Hitler, and his Communism. Source: Wikipedia]

 

And [chuckling] of course, he couldn’t. You could use any European language in the dictation test. It wasn’t actually just five, it was any European language. And Kisch was deported.

 

But in his stead, it was appealed to the High Court. And after a long series of cases, it was argued that Scottish Gaelic was not, in fact, the European language and he had to be given a more fair test.

 

[1:08:08]

 

Anyway, he ended up coming in and giving a couple of speeches. But definitely jews were a bit of a concern to Australia, particularly because of their kind of communist leanings. As Churchill picked up in Zionism versus Bolshevism, most Bolsheviks were of jewish extraction and they were very concerned about Communism coming to Australia.

 

The Department of Immigration had the same chairman for 15 years, from 1946 onwards. His name was Tasman Hayes, and he was very strict. When Australians were going through these refugee camps in Europe after the war, they had a little tick box on their form of “Aryan non-jewish descent”, and that was part of our immigration policy.

 

So you did see a little bit of an influx of some jews who managed to slip through the cracks. And a lot of them were quite subversive because they were the East European jews that had no loyalty to Australia or to our, I suppose, British roots.

 

Joel Davis: By the way, they didn’t just slip through the cracks. There were international jewish networks, many of them based in the United States, which actively funded and supported jews to immigrate to Australia. So that’s another element as well.

 

Prior to the Second World War, Australia or the Immigration Department would analyze the physiognomy of applicants, and if they looked a little too jewish or they had a jewish sounding name, then they would make sure that they didn’t get through.

 

And a lot of those people were still working there, obviously, and things like what you just mentioned as well. So they actually needed that kind of institutional support to get in. But somehow a whole massive series of them still managed to get in despite all of that.

 

Mathew Grant: Not [chuckling] helpful! But yeah, anyway, so that’s one thing. Those Eastern European jews, obviously with this whole post World War II schizophrenia about the “Holocaust” and all the rest of it, I think that the victimhood psychology and their existing Bolshevist kind of tendencies led to them generally being subversive to any kind of nationalist political movement. So there’s the jews.

 

They’re definitely a part of the whole series of events. But I’m never one person to attribute everything to them. I think there was a lot of other forces at play. And one of the big ones being the commercial interests.

 

So we had really started scratching the bottom of the barrel. So after World War II we got a good influx of Europeans, but then in the post-war construction, the reconstruction of Europe, migration numbers kind of started to plummet. And so we started going to know Mediterranean migrants and then we kind of soaked all of the willing and suitable ones from those kind of extractions. So you had industries that wanted labour and then you have the perennial kind of corporatists who want to bring in non-unionised, scab labour. So they were definitely advocating behind the scenes in every Chamber of Commerce and all the rest of it. They were all advocates for bringing an end to the White Australia Policy.

 

Then you have the Democratic Labour Party [DLP]. So they were a so-called anti-communist split off from the Australian Labour Party. So they actually were very staunchly Roman Catholic. They were led by BA Santamaria* and they had an event where they were trying to get a Japanese Bishop to come to Australia, to do a kind of a country mass out near Wagga. And the Bishop was refused entry, basically on the premise of a White Australia.

 

 

[Image: B. A. Santamaria (14 August 1915 – 25 February 1998) ]
[* Bartholomew Augustine Santamaria, usually known as B. A. Santamaria, or Bob Santamaria, was an Australian Roman Catholic anti-communist political activist and journalist. He was a guiding influence in the founding of the Democratic Labour Party, the party that split from the Labour Party in the 1950s. Source: Wikipedia]

 

[1:12:10]

 

So the DLP were the first party after the Communist Party to try and get rid of the White Australia Policy. So they were lobbying on one side, and while at the same time they sucked resources and votes out of the actual Labour Party who were still staunch advocates of a White Australia.

 

I think the biggest nail in the coffin for White Australia practically was just the final election loss of Arthur Calwell.*

 

[Image: Calwell as Leader of the Labour Party Opposition]

[* Arthur Augustus Calwell KCSG (28 August 1896 – 8 July 1973) was an Australian politician who served as the leader of the Labour Party from 1960 to 1967. He led the party through three federal elections, losing each one in turn.

In his final year in Parliament, Calwell made several statements regarding non-white immigration to Australia. In March 1972 he publicly endorsed British Conservative MP Enoch Powell’s views on race, later describing the United Kingdom as having experienced a “black tragedy”. In May 1972, in response to comments from customs minister Don Chipp supporting a multi-racial society, Calwell released a statement strongly opposing non-white migration to Australia, stating that he was “appalled” at the thought and was “opposed to the creation of a chocolate-coloured Australia”. In a subsequent interview with The Canberra Times, he stated that non-white migrants would lower community living standards as they “live on the smell of an oily rag and breed like flies”. Source: Wikipedia]

 

So Calwell went to the national election on the policy of a White Australia. I think the national psyche had kind of changed. The Vietnam War is just kicking off. The DLP is saying:

 

“We have to fight communism. And to do that we have to be best friends with everyone in Asia, which means we can’t have a racial immigration policy.”

 

Then you got the new generation, the baby boomers, all these university students who are absolutely obsessed with how exotic foreign people are.

 

And I think the Colombo Plan, that plan I mentioned earlier, which I think on fundamentals is a pretty good concept, I think a lot of university students, they really had a hard on for some of their visitors from Asia and really just hated this concept of a stagnant kind of British descent, White Australia. They wanted some excitement! They were bored! Post World War II, the most wealthy, the most secure, probably the height of prosperity in our civilisation’s history. So people get bored, they want something exotic.

 

Joel Davis: They’re all on drugs!

 

Mathew Grant: Yeah, they’re all on drugs, “how good is the food”, all the standard cultural tropes from them.

 

So you have all these different prongs coming out. And the only stalwart defenders of White Australia, the Australian Workers Union and Calwell’s leadership of the Labour Party. And Calwell dies in 1973. He’d already handed over the reins to Gough Whitlam*.

 

It’s interesting, in the Parliamentary debates, when they’re talking about immigration, Gough Whitlam was actually quite staunch on the immigration issue, which you wouldn’t think because he’s kind of credited with bringing an end to White Australia. I think definitely this is in the late 60s when he’s doing this. And he really changed his tone when the 70s rolled around.

 

[* Australian politician, 21st Prime Minister of Australia (1916-2014) Edward Gough Whitlam was the 21st prime minister of Australia, serving from 1972 to 1975. He held office as the leader of the Australian Labour Party, of which he was the longest-serving. Wikipedia]

 

So there was deception from all sides. But I do genuinely feel like people had lost sympathy for it. Definitely the institutions had. I think the average person was definitely still a supporter of the principles of a White Australia, but they’d also become very self conscious about it. And the way the media spun it was that the White Australia Policy was this:

 

“Bigoted, hateful policy for no grounds other than we hate them because we breathe!”

 

And people sucked that up. They actually thought that White Australia was based on “hate” and not based on kind of industrial and social policy considerations.

 

So by the time the 70s rolled around, 1973, Calwell dies, the Australian Workers Union takes White Australia off their platform and it all goes into freefall from there!

 

But, yeah, I really don’t think you can really attribute it to any one event. You have lots of these different events playing in unison. I mean, you’re getting pressure from the United States at the same time, they were actively lobbying against the policy, particularly in the later stages of World War II, when they wouldn’t let black sailors off the American ships when they landed in Sydney Harbour. That caused a lot of kerfuffle.

 

And when Harold Holt was in, the American President, I believe, brought up some concerns about White Australia. So we were just getting nailed from every side about it, really. That’s probably my synopsis on it.

 

[1:16:11]

 

 

Joel Davis: Yeah. And I think just the general spirit of the times, unfortunately, internationally, this tendency towards the kind of greater cosmopolitanism, youth focused culture, the new mass media environment. Yeah, it was like this perfect storm. Obviously, at the same time that it was being undermined in Australia, the borders are starting to get opened across the entire Western world in one way or another through that time period. And that can’t be a coincidence, right? So obviously it would have to be a complex thing.

 

I do also want to mention (((Walter Max Lippmann*))), who was prominent due a great five part series in The Occidental Observer to direct you to another one which I’ve spoken about many times before, written by Brenton Sanderson, The War on White Australia** a Case Study in the Culture of Critique. Highly recommended! Brilliant, brilliant write up!

 

[* Walter Max Leopold Lippmann AM MBE (1919–1993) was a jewish and ethnic community leader and advocate of multiculturalism in Australia, Walter was born in Hamburg, Germany and moved to Melbourne, Australia in 1938. He was a member of the Commonwealth Immigration Advisory Council during the years 1967–74, and chaired its committee on community relations during the years 1973–75. He was a member of the committee to review the Special Broadcasting Service during the period 1983-84. He helped to establish and became chairman of the Ethnic Communities’ Council of Victoria during the period 1974-83, and held senior positions in the Federation of Ethnic Communities’ Councils. Source: Wikipedia.
He received, in the 1987 Australia Day Honours, an MBE (Member of the Most Excellent Order of the British Empire) for service to the welfare of ethnic communities.]

 

[** https:// www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2018/09/06/the-jewish-war-on-white-Australia-colin-tatz-and-the-genocide-charge-part-one /]

 

He talks in part three about Walter [Max] Lippman, the jewish architect of Australian multiculturalism.

 

Now there’s another figure, El Grassby*. He was of, I think, Spanish descent, who generally speaking is kind of held up as the father of Australian multiculturalism.

 

[* Albert Jaime Grassby, AM (12 July 1926 – 23 April 2005) was an Australian politician who served as Minister for Immigration in the Labour Whitlam government. He completed reforms in immigration and human rights, and is often known as the father of Australian “multiculturalism”. He gained notoriety by acting as an agent of influence for the Calabrian criminal network that murdered anti-drugs campaigner Donald Mackay. Source: Wikipedia]

 

However, that’s probably for political correct reasons. He’s not jewish, so he’s easier to blame. Obviously he’s still just as responsible.

 

Mathew Grant: And Spanish too are to blame!

 

Joel Davis: [chuckling] So many people are to blame. But Lippman, I think, is important to note. I mean, he was a German jewish refugee who came just before the Second World War broke out, actually. Prominent member of the jewish community down in Melbourne. Active in their organisations and so on. And elevated through those networks, ultimately into being appointed during the Whitlam government in the early seventies to run the immigration department. With him in, all of the racists that were in the Immigration Department were flushed out! Because again, as we were saying, it was bureaucratically enforced. It wasn’t hard law so much as the law empowered the bureaucracy to exercise discretion, generally speaking.

 

[118:13]

 

And so it was really dependent upon the quality of individuals and the culture of the Immigration Department more so than anything else. And he wrote articles around the same time talking about how:

 

“A multicultural society is necessary for the jews to feel comfortable in the country because otherwise they’re going to be marginalised by the domination of Anglo Saxon cultural superiority.”

 

Yeah, and obviously you got the post “Holocaust” psychosis going on at the same time. This is also important to take into consideration and as the emergence of this pluralist ideology, the figures behind it.

 

We should have mentioned this before, perhaps when we’re talking about World War I and World War II, but there was a consciousness that they were fighting for White Australia. Everything was justified in those terms. And you look at what we have today of documents of some of the war propaganda and so on, and it was incredibly racial the way that it was portrayed to the Australian people to get people to go and fight those wars and to moralise the soldiers. And the bodies that represented the soldiers were staunch in their advocacy. The RSL, the Return Services League, still had senior representatives speaking in defense of the White Australia Policy. Still in the 80s! I talked about this a little bit in The Joel and Blair Show that we did back on Anzac Day, for obvious reasons.

 

But yeah, obviously their political influence was more prominent immediately after the Second World War, but it started to decline and the popularity of Australian veterans hit an all time low with the unpopularity of the Vietnam War, obviously. So their political capital was at an all time low at the absolute worst possible time., …

 

Mathew Grant: It’s interesting, sorry. It’s interesting with Vietnam as well, because when Vietnam first kicked off, it was really popular. And Calwell and the Labour Party, who supported a White Australia, were dead against going into Vietnam. And that’s considered one of the big reasons why they lost that election, which led to Caldwell having to abdicate to Gough Whitlam. So it’s another interesting play in it.

 

Like, obviously Vietnam became quite unpopular later, but it was Calwell’s refusal to send Australian troops into Vietnam which was a big contributor to them losing, which then kind of shook up the Labour Party after they lost a couple of elections back to back. It really made Calwell’s policies seem like outdated, unpopular. White Australia being part of the unpopular thing that needs to be thrown into the dust bin.

 

But yeah, go on. Sorry.

 

Joel Davis: That’s a good interjection because it’s an important context because this is the Cold War period. Right?

 

So the accusations to the Left that they aren’t sufficiently anti-communist were obviously very potent at that time, and particularly with the DLP thing that you described and them breaking away to kind of get a picture of the political climate at the time. Also in the 70s, when we were starting to really bring in non-White migrants, really for the first time in large quantities, one of the key selling points and one of the main demographics was the Vietnamese, that:

 

“We wrecked their country, we owe it to them!”

 

And so on.

 

[1:21:28]

 

Mathew Grant: A lot of the South Vietnamese refugees were very anti-communist, which was seen as another playing card in their deck. That’s why a lot of people supported, like a lot of DLP types, the anti-Communists. They’re so anti-communist, they’ve become colour-blind and they’ll take in any anti-communist in the world.

 

Joel Davis: Yeah, I mean, you still have that today, right? With Conservatives talking about “based minorities”. You see that quite often with people like Mark Latham and they’re like:

 

“Oh, epic! And based brown people hate homosexuals just as much as we do. That’s so great!”

 

Yes, we’re getting to the kind of tragic component of the story. And I guess really White Australia, it came into being as we described in the 19th century, as a political concept through struggle. And it was almost like at the end of World War II, we had so much prosperity. I mean, Australian prosperity was at a scale that was really only matched by the United States.

 

Even to this day, despite all the damage that’s been done to our economy, our GDP per capita is higher than pretty much any European country, I think, except like Switzerland and Luxembourg and those kinds of countries. And it’s very close to the American levels. Plus we have a European style Welfare State on top of that, unlike the Americans.

 

So incredible prosperity in Australia. And that’s after so much damage has been done. Back in the mean it was incredible! We truly lived in, from an economic standpoint, a utopia. The boomers had it good! And much like the cosmopolitan Brits in London that had no concept of the impact of this importation of foreign races, non-White races into the country, they also, I think, lacked this perception. And it’s a lack of perception that you see to this day in the White upper middle class who live in some of the gentrified intercity areas and the only non-Whites they have to deal with are high IQ, successful non-Whites who don’t seem so bad.

 

Meanwhile, the White working class out in places like Western Sydney have to deal with the actual reality.

 

[1:23:36]

 

But yeah, in the 80s you do see a little bit of pushback starting to come online, some prominent academic defenders of White Australia emerge. You see a figure like John Howard who was in opposition at the time making some pretty charged comments on the subject of immigration. Conservatives getting more muscular in their opposition.

 

So the Labour Party, which under Paul Keating, you know, really pushed into the:

 

“Australia has to move into being a part of Asia.”

 

And the Asianification of Australia and really doubling down on multiculturalism.

 

And with the end of the Cold War, “end of history”, global liberal internationalist, the ideology that we’re accustomed to now really came through with Keating. And in response to that you get the One Nation Party. So even though the One Nation Party didn’t advocate for a return to the White Australia Policy, they were obviously representative of that tendency. An echo of those tendencies meant much of the rhetoric from Pauline Hanson* when she first emerged onto the scene as a national political figure. There were echoes of Labour Party rhetoric from the 60s and earlier. People like Ben Chifley and so on, I think, who she directly quoted in her maiden speech. And I think her speech writers were guys that, I think the main speech writer – I can’t remember his name, unfortunately you might know who he was – wrote that “Swamped by Asians” speech** that she gave, famous.

 

[* Pauline Lee Hanson (née Seccombe, formerly Zagorski; born 27 May 1954) is an Australian politician who is the founder and leader of One Nation, a Right-wing populist political party. Hanson has represented Queensland in the Australian Senate since the 2016 Federal Election.]

[** MP Pauline Hanson called for an end to multiculturalism, foreign aid and the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission in her maiden address to Parliament (1996)

‘I believe we are in danger of being swamped by Asians,’ she said.

‘They have their own culture and religion, form ghettos and do not assimilate.’]

 

Mathew Grant: I remember his face, but not the name!

 

Joel Davis: I think he used to work for Graeme Campbell* who set up the Australia First Party after leaving the Labour Party as one of these old racist Labourites that are no longer welcome.

 

[* Graeme Campbell (born 13 August 1939) is an Australian “far-Right” politician. Campbell represented the seat of Kalgoorlie in the Australian House of Representatives from 1980 to 1998 as a member of the Australian Labour Party. Campbell later founded the nationalist Australia First Party, before joining Pauline Hanson’s One Nation. Source: Wikipedia]

 

Mathew Grant: Yeah, there was a few of them, [chuckling] yeah.

 

Joel Davis: And so One Nation came on board and it was a bit of a flash in the pan. It was interesting to get your reflections on the 90s and White populism coming back into vogue.

 

Mathew Grant: Yeah, there’s a really bit of interesting history there. And a reasonable amount of it is captured in Dr. Jim Salem’s PhD thesis which is like a contemporary study of the far-Right in Australia.

 

But you had all sorts of groups, you had Australians against further immigration and that was a political party that got stacks of votes! One Nation ended up sucking most of their votes up. And then the Liberal Party started playing the game to win their votes back. And that was part of Howard’s crusade to try and bring votes back. But you did still have some of these old hangout kind of nationalists in the Labour Party.

 

So, you mentioned Graeme Campbell. Another one was John Fischer. He was in the Western Australian Parliament and he said:

 

“You cannot have a nation where the only shared value is the fact that there are no shared beliefs! The importance of a clear definition is now more urgent. And due to the disastrous federal policies of multiculturalism imposed on us by major political parties since the Whitlam era, multiculturalism is the negation and the rejection of a shared national identity.”

 

So you do get some dudes in the back ranks, which is still kind of causing a bit of a fuss. And there is some voting outbursts like Australians against further immigration. One Nation. Then you get some of the more exotic, like, National Socialist Democratic Australian Party. There’s all these weird kind of dudes that are kind of role playing as 1930s Germans, but in Australia.

 

[1:27:22]

 

So there’s a few of those little parties floating around. But overall it does seem to become like the majority of Australians, you know, Bob Hawke* and Paul Keating**, these trendy Labour prime ministers were fully on board with Asianisation. And so I think a lot of the country went with them. Because particularly Bob Hawke was probably our most loved prime minister for a very long time, just because he could shoot a pint of beer real quick and created Medicare.

 

[* Robert James Lee Hawke AC GCL (9 December 1929 – 16 May 2019) was an Australian politician and trade Unionist who served as the 23rd prime minister of Australia from 1983 to 1991. He held office as the leader of the Australian Labour Party (ALP), having previously served as the president of the Australian Council of Trade Unions from 1969 to 1980 and president of the Labour Party national executive from 1973 to 1978.
During the period of 1973 to 1979, Hawke acted as an informant for the United States government. According to Coventry, Hawke as concurrent leader of the ACTU and ALP informed the US of details surrounding labour disputes, especially those relating to American companies and individuals, such as union disputes with Ford Motor Company and the black ban of Frank Sinatra. Source: Wikipedia]

 

[** Paul John Keating (born 18 January 1944) is an Australian former politician who served as the 24th prime minister of Australia from 1991 to 1996, holding office as the leader of the Australian Labour Party (ALP). He previously served as the treasurer of Australia under Prime Minister Bob Hawke from 1983 to 1991 and as the seventh deputy prime minister of Australia from 1990 to 1991. Source: Wikipedia.

 

[Image: Australian jewish billionaire Anthony Pratt has Keating on his list of “consultant” payments to him of $25,000 a month and to Tony Abbott of $8000 a month after his hiring in June 2019. Source: https:// www.smh.com.au/world/north-america/being-rich-is-my-superpower-tapes-reveal-pratt-is-pursuit-of-the-powerful-20231017-p5ecwv.html]

 

So you had the general population kind of being raised with like a negative reflection on their recent history. So you already have the media and the education game in full force. So the loyalty to the concepts of a wide Australia really become lost.

 

And then the typical conservative just talking about immigration generally and civic nationalism starts to become more of a force to play in the 90s.

 

But yeah, it goes on and it just quietly dies in the background. I think a lot of nationalism, a lot of groups and causes were kind of discredited with their own autism.

 

So it’s a bit of a shame.

 

Joel Davis: Yeah, I mean, I was reading about the 90s recently and there was a study that was done because I was reading about the formation of the Australian property lobby in the 90s, which they really got organised in response to the sudden emergence of Pauline Hanson.

 

And people who are younger and don’t really know about that time, Hansen was a nobody that burst onto the scene in 1996 and just simply because she was just some random fish and chip shop lady that was preselected for the Liberals in a seat they didn’t expect to win, who came out and started talking about the problems with Aboriginals and with immigrants and the media went ballistic against her. The Liberal Party removed their endorsement. She ran as an independent and won! The people were behind her.

 

And then all of a sudden, this One Nation Party infrastructure was just kind of smashed together through different elements very quickly and rapidly. And because it was kind of put together by grifters and inexperienced political figures, including Hansen herself, it didn’t have any staying power, it was a total disaster and it fell apart as quickly as it was put together.

 

[1:30:00]

 

 

But in the Queensland election, I believe in 96 or 98, they did get like a quarter of the vote! Which is insane for some brand new political party, obviously. So it showed the appetite in the electorate. There was a study done, I think, in 1994 on immigration and what they found was that 71% of Australians wanted radical reductions to immigration.

 

So immigration was wildly unpopular! And no one was giving the people a voice. And then even this awkward, politically inexperienced, gaff machine woman comes on the scene and just makes a few noises in the right direction and becomes a political force that shakes the foundations of Australian politics for the subsequent decade.

 

So that shows how the sentiments in the general Australian population were still relatively racially conscious, despite everything even in the 90s. I think we should look at that, its tragic in many respects at how much of a missed opportunity it was and how poorly handled it was and how we’ve inherited basically nothing, almost from the people who were involved back then.

 

But it should also be a cause for some optimism because of how quickly it was able to kind of shoot up in political relevance, that if it could be replicated with better organisation, that who knows what could happen.

 

But in those days, Australia was still over 90% White. And even the Australia that I grew up in, I was born in 1995. When I was a young child in the 2000s in the areas in where I grew up and lived and so on, pretty much everyone was White. It was kind of strange to see a non-White person, even though I lived in suburban Melbourne and suburban Sydney. And then gradually the floodgates opened and, … There’s about 20 million White people in Australia today.

 

But there’s about 7 million non-Whites in Australia, more or less. And thankfully, I think less than 2 million of them actually have citizenship.

 

But obviously now we’ve got Albanese opening the floodgates into the country at unprecedented levels. We’ve got immigration rates now that are three times the national record on a yearly basis in this kind of post Covid era. Anti-immigration politics is coming back to the fore and a new kind of identitarianism is becoming internationally popular because the reality that there is this global replacement of the White race across the entire Western world is dawning on everyone! Whether you want to take whatever kind of reaction you want to take to it it’s gotten past the stage where people could just ignore it. It’s now becoming just a reality of life that everyone has to accept and now we have to make the debate is around the value judgements and the response.

 

And today, though, traditionally White Australia was very much focused on economic issues. And there are some economic issues that are quite egregious, which are caused by immigration today. The speed in which they’re bringing people in is obviously causing a housing crisis in Australia. Now we’re recording this 15 July 2023. Rents are flying up at record levels in Sydney and Melbourne. There’s wage stagnation even though we’re having an inflation crisis and it’s an economic mess from the Covid recovery mixed with mass immigration.

 

[1:33:37]

 

There’s something like a million foreign students in Australia right now. So many Indians pouring in through student visas, taking all of these low skilled jobs. We got the Chinese buying up neighbourhoods, we got Indians buying up neighbourhoods, White people moving into, there’s less and less options within the cities for young White families. Birth rates are at an all time low. We’re in a very bad position. And it’s become, as I said at the beginning, in the minds of the Australian political elite and media establishment you’re an “extremist” if you’re loyal to this idea of White Australia, if you have a racial identitarian worldview when it comes to politics.

 

So under this context, how much of what we’ve discussed in Australian history do you think we can draw upon? Because I think there is a certain kind of post class, post material element to identitarian politics today where even despite all of these economic machinations, the average Australian is still pretty well off. It’s more of an existential threat, a cultural threat, a way of life threat. It is an economic issue as well, but I don’t think that’s enough of a motivating factor.

 

And I think that the story that we just told of describing how White Australia was preserved despite all of its opposition for the first half of this country’s existence and then how it was destroyed, was that in the first half of this country’s existence it was explicitly racial identitarian. We you mentioned some quotes. I mentioned some quotes, but every political leader at that time was a White nationalist! And they did not pull any punches. They were explicit.

 

And then we get the phase in the 50s, 60s, 70s, where it becomes you have to talk around the issue and you can’t speak about it directly. We talked about Pauline Hanson. That’s the ultimate politics of talking around the issue where:

 

“No, I’m not racist! And it’s no immigration without assimilation. And the problem is that they’re not assimilating!”

 

But now the One Nation Party is running Indians in elections in New South Wales to try and win the Indian vote because according to Mark Latham, the leader of the One Nation Party in New South Wales, Indians have family values and nationalism. And these are One Nation values, apparently. So they’ve completely acquiesced.

 

But the point is that the civic nationalism, the economic nationalism wasn’t enough. It wasn’t enough ultimately to preserve White Australia. And I’ve also talked a bit recently about how if you look at the voter demographics, non-English speaking immigrants vote for the Left at like a 20% higher rate voting for the Labour Party than either English speaking immigrants to Australia or Australian born who vote basically the same way if you control for average income.

 

So the Right-wing has totally abandoned, … You talked about Howard and you’re probably seeing a similar thing with Dutton. Well, they’ll dog whistle certain anti-immigration sentiments while they’re in opposition to maintain political legitimacy. But when they get in they’re beholden to the same big business interest that they always have been, and they’re going to keep pouring the immigrants in.

 

So how do we learn from our history? What can we take into 2023 and beyond? How can we bring back White Identity Politics to Australia in light of all of this?

 

[1:37:28]

 

Mathew Grant: Yeah, well, good question. I think the first thing worth noting is that during the days of Bob Hawke and Keating in the we did have all these kind of nationalist sympathies getting around and different groups.

 

And although we haven’t been handed much of an inheritance other than some good ideological groundwork which has been done by a lot of kind of Nativist nationalists in the last 30 years. What we have been inheriting from them, to those that are willing to listen and those willing to read and understand is a lot of lessons learnt about practical organisational skills and ideological issues.

 

So there has been some things handed to us. Because nationalists really had to restart after the Labour Party dropped White Australia. A whole new cadre of completely fresh people had to reinvent the wheel and create a political machine. I mean, Australia’s modern context is not too far off from the historical context. I mean, in the 1890s in Australia, there was also a housing crisis and there was cause for the progressive land tax and there was arguments about immigration affecting housing affordability and labour costs and all the things that Philip Lowe* was talking about the other day.

 

[* Reserve Bank of Australia governor Philip Lowe has warned that not enough homes are being built to house an influx of migrants, predicting that rents will continue to rise in a further hit to household budgets. Source: https:// www.afr.com/policy/economy/philip-lowe-is-housing-market-warning-20230405-p5cya0]

 

I think one of the big things, if we take the economics out of this situation, we forget the fact that 7/11 was paying Indians $0.75 an hour a couple of years ago, according to some news reports.

 

The issue we have to really look at now from a know, cultural, social point of view is this concept of social capital and diversity. So there is a lot of academic literature that’s coming out now.

 

I mean, the real Magna Carta in this space is Robert Putnam’s work in Diversity and Community in the 21st Century, which is a 2007 academic study into ethnic diversity and how it was found in the United States ethnically diverse neighbourhoods, all the races kind of hunker down. So it lowers a sense of trust. It lowers the sense of common identity, belonging. It reduces, I suppose, the moral and social desire for people to commit acts of charity and voluntarism. This kind of point of our civilisation where people go and do good in the private space, they create mutual associations and charities, and neighbours take care of each other, and you have street barbecues and all the rest of it. You have a common sense of belonging, identity, purpose and destiny. These things are all considered “social capital”.

 

[1:40:15]

 

And a lot of the literature now is pointing to the fact that the greater there is diversity amongst ethnicities, the lower there is social capital, the less trust there is so from the point of view, it’s actually to no one’s benefit except international finance, who benefits from cheap labour, or perhaps to the benefit of Trotskyites who have an interest in creating social upheaval so they can try and win themselves political power. It’s of no one’s interest, not even the migrants interest, to have this level of diversity. Ethnic diversity is an absolute detriment to civil society and the creation of meaningful community, especially national community.

 

I mean, even Charles Pearson, in his National Life and Character  in 1893, he comments on the fact that government and democracy becomes quite impossible when you have such divergent populations that constitute the voter base. When you have different ethnic and cultural groups that are all pulling in different directions, things become more and more radical. Similar to how it is in India. In India, you have very diverse ethnic and cultural and religious groups that are all pulling in different directions. And those directions, they manifest in the Parliament of India. But often it spills out onto the streets, into great mass mob violence. And there’s great upheaval in any instance where you have a democracy that’s racially and ethnically diverse.

 

So I think that’s the next thing we have to tap in. We learn all these things from the past. We learn the economic issues, but we’re also learning the social issues.

 

And now there’s a great body of academic work looking at this issue of social capital and diversity. And we need to make a point of that and we need to make a solid, stalwart argument for a White Australia that is a European descent country. How Henry Parks was talking about Asiatics having different institutions. If we go back to why is it important to be White? It’s important to be White because we have a valued heritage. We look at our English common law and we look at our Parliamentarian system. We look at basic liberties of the man. I hate to use the word “liberalism” because it’s obviously morphed into a great, more negative and destructive force in civilisation.

 

But the forces at play in civilisation from Rome up until probably 150 years ago, in my point of view, are positive things and those things are going to be adhered to by people of European extraction because they can always look back and say:

 

“Hey! My ancestors spilt blood for this cause!”

 

They spilt blood for the principles of our civilisation. Where people from Asia or Africa don’t have that same affinity. Their ancestors didn’t fight for Magna Carta. They didn’t fight for the Act of Settlement. They were just in know, they were living in huts and having a good time!

 

So it’s just different cultures, different ethnic groups and races have different things they value based on their heritage. And so therefore you’ll never be able to have that homogeneity and Common Purpose and identity.

 

[1:43:41]

 

Joel Davis: What we’re finding out from race realism as well, which they wouldn’t have known, didn’t have genetic modeling and things like this back in the formation of the White Australia Policy, is that it’s not just about heritage. What you said is obviously incredibly important!

 

But also what we find from race realism is that the largest genetic differences, the largest biological differences between the races have to do with neurophysiology. Not skin colour or bone structure or these kinds of things, but neurophysiology. In other words, in the aspects of our biological makeup which have the most influence over attitudes, behaviours, tendencies and so on.

 

So you can see how this would manifest in cultural and political differences, because it means we fundamentally just hardwired with different mentalities.

 

And so the preservation of our way of life is really there is a kind of conscious aspect to our heritage but also an unconscious organic aspect to our heritage which just comes through us in an involuntary way. It’s just part of who we are, that only fellow people of European descent can share with us. It’s just simply impossible for us to share that with people of other races and vice versa.

 

And that really does account for why we have such radically different civilisations. I mean, you look to the Japanese, for example, and I have a very impressive country, a very impressive civilisation. They were our ancient enemy. But now I’m quite happy actually to be allied with the Japanese. I find them to be a respectable people.

 

And now, other than the United States, they are probably our next best ally, frankly. And you could see in their culture, it’s a very developed, very impressive culture, but it’s radically different. We can appreciate things about them and they can appreciate things about us.

 

But ultimately you can only have a Japan if it’s Japanese people.

 

And I think everyone understands that, thankfully, I think including most Japanese people still. And it’s the same for us. And if we want our children to have a way of life that is in any way analogous to what we were accustomed to when we were being raised, where my parents never had to sit me down, they probably didn’t have the ideological resources to sit me down and explain to me my heritage as Anglo Saxon or as an Australian. It just happened naturally. It was just growing up, I participated in that they’re just normal Australian people. We have a normal Australian culture and I just organically learnt about it, internalised it and so on.

 

[1:46:24]

 

No one told me you have to like cricket. I just did. No one told me it’s really nice to have a barbecue on a Saturday night. I just like doing that, you know what I mean? It’s just little things like that which might not seem like much, but they accumulate when you really add them all up together. And that is just part of who we are.

 

And it’s something which really dawned on me. Even traveling in Britain for some time in other parts of Europe and coming back to Australia, even just the differences between us and them, even though the racial stock is so similar, the people there in Denmark or in England, they look just like Australians pretty much. But even those differences are large. Then you multiply that with racial differences and it’s just incredible!

 

I think that’s really the basis of the new politics is this more advanced and developed understanding of racial and cultural difference and its importance. Because obviously with advances in air travel and other kinds of transport technology and economic development, mass immigration is so much easier than it ever was before.

 

And so we’re kind of running this experiment, this multiracial experiment in a radically new way with this anti-racist ideology kind of bolted onto it to kind of force integration.

 

And to me, it’s an issue that ultimately transcends class differences. Then, even though it is easy for the White upper class, as we mentioned before, to escape some of the consequences, they can’t escape all of them. And the longer that it goes on, the harder and harder it is going to be for these people to escape them.

 

So I guess the final thought would be to get from you before we close this up, Matthew, would be, fundamentally, when it comes to the White Australia Policy, if you had to kind of boil it down into a nutshell, its significance, because this should be our birthright. Unfortunately, it wasn’t really handed to us, but this should be our birthright. This is what our ancestors, my ancestors have been in Australia for over 200 years. I think from talking to you, it’s similar time frame, maybe even longer. Our ancestors were actually part of this building White Australia.

 

So this was supposed to be our birthright that’s being stripped away. That’s why I wanted to make this, because I really wanted there to be a resource and hopefully more resources can get developed to really impress upon this history to our people.

 

But to you, what is the essential inheritance if you had to kind of sum it up? What’s most inspirational to you about the history of the White Australia Policy and the formation of this once great nation?

 

Mathew Grant: From my point of view.

 

The most important thing to me is this creation of a national sense of community. People sharing a common sense of identity, belonging, purpose, where people shared the same worldview and outlook on life. I think it gets back to this idea of a homogeneous society being the ultimate form of a society. I think there’s nothing wrong with being friends with your neighbours and having good relationships with all sorts of cultures and ethnic groups around the world.

 

[1:49:36]

 

But I think your home and the place where you dwell, you should be principally in relations with people of your own stock. And that creates the greatest sense of community and belonging and creates the most positive attributes of our culture and human condition. People are more inclined to do acts of good work and charity and all the rest of it. But it is just essential to everything, our standard of living as decent, civilised people, and not rats working for a bowl of rice a day. That’s really important too. But the big thing to me is just the social cohesion, culture and community. That’s the biggest draw card to me.

 

Before we finish, I’d like to just read one final quote from Billy Hughes, our 7th Prime Minister of Australia, in the Parliamentary debates on the 5 July 1949. He said:

 

“I want to make it clear to the honourable members and to the people of this country that the White Australia Policy is not a mere banner waved by politicians and waved to inflame party passions. It is a living thing. White Australia is Australia! And everything that is inherent in the White Australia Policy is vital to the very existence of Australia itself.”

 

And that truly is on all levels the racial, cultural, White Australia really is Australia and everything that we hold dear to our heritage is inextricably linked to the fact that this was a European descent country.

 

Joel Davis: Yeah, thank you Matthew, this was great! And you can find the website for Matthew’s organisation, the Australian Natives Association. Ausnatives.org, AUSnatives.org. I’ll put link in the description. Also I’ll put links to your Telegram and your Twitter and so on so people can go and find your social media presence. Yeah, if you’re interested in finding out about the organisation, we did a podcast, I think maybe six months ago or so, which is also on this channel talking about your organisation and the philosophy of the organisation. So if you haven’t watched that, you can go check that out.

 

But yeah, pleasure to have you on, as always and hopefully we can do another collabouration soon on another subject. I thought this was really good.

 

Mathew Grant: Yeah, great! No, it was good.

 

Joel Davis: The audience will love it. So thanks everyone for listening.

 

And by the way, if you’re watching this, you might not know that I have a second, I did mention earlier, the show that I do with Blair. I have a second YouTube channel, The Joel and Blair Show YouTube channel. You can find@youtube.com slash at Joel and Blair. And there Blair Cottrell and I every Thursday night, 08:00 p.m., we talk about Australian political news, basically for the previous week and do our kind of analysis. So check that out.

 

There isn’t too many weekly shows on Australian politics that are worth listening to. I’d like to think that the one that we do is one of the few that actually is so go and subscribe to that if you haven’t already. And thanks for listening.

 

[1:52:39]

 

 

END

top

 

 

 

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

 

Youtube Comments

top

(Comments as of 7/29/2023 = 28)

@zoomerboomer3109
1 day ago
Exellent stream, can be hard to find good historical discussions about Aus and NZ history. Bloody insufferable being forced to read books from the likes of James Belich.
13

@maxtrainor8401
1 day ago
Great work, can you make one on an American version of white policy?
21

1 reply

@windhoek1675
1 day ago (edited)
If you would like a book on this subject for your own reading, I’d recommend re-forging America by Lothrop Stoddard.
5

@peroercegovac1973
1 day ago
Fantastic stream. At the highest level of historicism. Well done.
6

@SteveLogan-lt8zi
1 day ago
Excellent discussion. Hopefully it is an ongoing thing.
13

@Vingul
1 day ago
Extremely interesting, great to hear so many quotations by men of the era, very relatable and relevant to us (though I’m not Australian myself).
Joel, or Matthew, what book would you recommend to understand this era and the policy? If you were to recommend only one, I guess — either an original work from the time or a later overview.
19

4 replies

@letztersohndesabendlandes7471
1 day ago
Commenting so that I get notified if anyone responds to this – also interested in going a bit deeper on nationalist Australian history.
6

@deanalessi9583
1 day ago
Australia’s awakening, thirty years in the life of an Australian agitator by William Guthrie Spence
4

@Vingul
1 day ago
@deanalessi9583 Thanks!

@jackmatthews939
23 hours ago (edited)
The Making of White Australia – P.Griffiths – Australian National University 2006
The Making of White Australia – D.Gibb – Victorian Historical Association 1975
The Administration of the White Australia Policy – A.C.Palfreeman – Melbourne University Press 1967
History of the White Australia Policy to 1920 – Myra Willard – Melbourne University Press 1978
“Be Just & Fear Not” – A.A Calwell – Wilk & Company 1972
This is probably the best book to explain what happened in Australia post WW2 & is written by a former major politician/minister covering until the 1960’s.
6

@LogosVeritas-di1yp
20 hours ago
Great work guys. Matthew grant is so very knowledgable on this topic. thanks for putting this together Joel
2

@domsanchez148
1 day ago
Great work as usual.
7

@blackriders3509
1 day ago
Well done
13

@henrylawson938
1 day ago
Let’s have a 20 yr moratorium on immigration and close down immigration, just leaving passport control and border protection.
6

2 replies

@gch8810
1 day ago
50 years would be better.
4

@EliteBuildingCompany
1 day ago
Good stream, cheers.
7

@jeffreysebranek9697
1 day ago
Hi joel. Love your shows buddy
1

@leonieblah8806
1 day ago
great video
4

@BasedYeeter42
16 hours ago
Interesting stuff, curious to know where the Lebanese would fit into this model, considering our tendency to pass off as white in comparison to our neighbors
1

1 reply

@LuciusAugustusRomanusInvictus
15 hours ago
Anecdotally it seems Christian and Muslim lebos are almost different populations but it would be stretching the definition of white to include lebos in general

@audhumbla6927
1 day ago

4

@user-jp4ci5ny3v
1 day ago
Let’s gooooooo
5

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

See Also

top

 

 

Mark Collett — It’s Okay To Be White — TRANSCRIPT

Mark Collett — Christmas Adverts – Multicultural Propaganda — TRANSCRIPT

Mark Collett — What We Must Do To Win — TRANSCRIPT

Mark Collett — Assad Didn’t Do It – Faked Syrian Gas Attack — TRANSCRIPT

Mark Collett — The Plot to Flood Europe with 200 Million Africans — TRANSCRIPT

Mark Collett — The jewish Question Explained in Four Minutes — TRANSCRIPT

Mark Collett at The Scandza Forum, Copenhagen – Oct 12, 2019 — Transcript

Patriotic Weekly Review – with Blair Cottrell – Dec 4, 2019 — TRANSCRIPT

Dangerfield – Talking Tough with Mark Collett – Mar 28, 2020 — Transcript

Mark Collett – Sam Melia Sentencing – with Laura Towler – Mar 1, 2024 – Transcript

Joe Marsh – Sam Melia Going into Court Before He was Sentenced – Mar 1, 2024 – Transcript

 

 

 

911 – The Jews Had Me Fooled: A Jewish Engineered Pearl Harbor

Organized jewry Did 9/11

Organized jewry Did 9/11 — The 16th Anniversary, 2017

Know More News — Christopher Bollyn, The Man Who Solved 9/11 — TRANSCRIPT

The Realist Report with Christopher Bollyn – Sep 2018 — TRANSCRIPT

Guns and Butter interviews Christopher Bollyn — The War on Terror – Dec 18, 2019 — Transcript

AE911Truth – Exposing Those Who Covered up the Crime of the Century – May 28, 2023 – Transcript

 

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

PDF Download

top

Total words in transcript = 18,026

• Total words in post = 20,007
• Total images = xx
• Total A4 pages = xxx

Use your browser to download/export a PDF of this post.

 

Version History

top

Version 5:

Version 4: Thu, May 30, 2024 — Transcript complete. Added Content list.

Version 3: Wed, May 29, 2024 — 90/113 mins of transcript complete. Added images.

Version 2: Tue, May 28, 2024 — 76/113 mins of transcript complete. Added images.

Version 1: Mon, May 27, 2024 — Published post. 60/113 mins of transcript complete. Includes Youtube comments (28).

Henrik Palmgren: Welcome ladies and gentlemen. Thank you for tuning into Red Ice TV. I’m Henrik. Always a pleasure seeing you. Thank you for spending some of your time with us today.

 

Our guest today is Kevin MacDonald. We are going to talk about, well at least initially, about a recent paper that was published back in January, actually. But it was by an Israeli-based academic journal called Philosophia, if I pronounce that correct. And the title of the paper was The Default Hypothesis Fails to Explain jewish Influence.

 

And, of course, if you’re not familiar with Kevin’s work. I think most of you are. But if you’re not, he’s behind The Occidental Observer, author of “Culture of Critique”, and many other titles as well.

 

Kevin. Welcome back to the show. Good to see you.

 

Kevin MacDonald: Hey. It’s great to be here Henrik.

 

 

Henrik Palmgren: Always a pleasure Kevin. Thank you for taking some time. So let’s begin with this then. We talked about this offline a little bit. And just the kind of absurd nature to this. And you know this as well as anybody, when it comes to this topic, that the problem is to actually manage to address something both in a serious, but also like in an academic way that people take seriously.

 

Because otherwise it just goes down the name calling route. It goes off into tangents which is irrelevant to the academic study that you’ve made of this topic. And, of course, it is taboo, right? We recognize that. And that is for a specific reason.

 

But let me begin with this Kevin. Let me read the abstract to the paper here real quick:

 

“The role of jewish activism in the transformative changes that have occurred in the West in recent decades continue to be controversial. Here I respond to several issues putatively related to jewish influence, particularly the default hypothesis, the jewish IQ and urban residency explained jewish influence and the role of the jewish community in enacting the 1965 immigration law in the United States. Other issues include jewish ethnocentrism, and intermarriage, and whether diaspora jews are hypocritical in their attitudes on immigration to Israel versus the United States.”

 

And it continues:

 

“The post-World War II era saw the emergence of a new, substantially jewish, elite in America that exerted influence on a wide range of issues that formed a virtual consensus among jewish activists and the organized jewish community, including immigration, civil rights, and the secularization of American culture. Jewish activism in the pro-immigration movement involved intellectual movements, denying the importance of race in human affairs, establishing staffing and funding anti-restrictionist organizations, recruiting prominent non-jews to anti-restrictionist organizations, rejecting the ethnic status quo as a goal, because of fear of a relatively homogeneous White majority and leadership in Congress and the executive branch.”

 

So take us through this a little bit Kevin here. The paper came about, of course, as a reply to Cofnas, right? I know you guys have been going back and forth on Twitter. And there’s been debates there.

 

But he published a paper called The Anti-jewish Narrative. And then you did this as a reply to that. And it did end up published, as I said, by this Israeli-based academic journal, Philosophia.

 

So tell us how that came about and do you know, why they accepted it, at least at first, righ? And then it was some back and forth.

 

[Added Image] Nanthan Cofnas.

 

Kevin MacDonald: Yeah, Cofnas’ paper came out in like about a year ago. Maybe a little more than a year ago. And yeah my first thought was, … Because the first time this happened, when he published an article in 2018. And I made these long replies. But I couldn’t get them published anywhere. The journal that published his article wouldn’t consider any reply for me. He had an article in Colette saying the same stuff. This was in 2018. And again they wouldn’t accept a reply from me. There was another one like that.

 

[Added images] See: Luke Ford with MacDonald Vs Cofnas On Culture Of Critique – Mar 2018 — TRANSCRIPT

 

But this time I just decided. Well, I’ll just ask. And so I sent an email to Philosophia, or however you pronounce it. And they said:

 

“Okay, yeah. Submit a reply.”

 

So I worked on this thing have and it went through two rounds of review. And it’s an academic paper. And the common thing for academic papers to send them out to the so-called peer review, or they send them out to other professors and they give their opinions on it. And it was nice. So I went through that. They had some criticisms. And I answered them.

 

And lo and behold, the editor accepted it. And so then it got published on January 1st, of this year.

 

And immediately there was a big controversy that came out. And they were going after the editor saying:

 

“How could anybody ever publish this thing?”

 

And they said they went crazy about it. And so right now on the website there’s this sort of warning label saying that:

 

“This paper has gotten very controversial. And so we’re going to send it out for further review.”

 

So they did send that out. And I got the reviews about two weeks ago. And they were extremely hostile! [laughter] All three of them. There were three reviews.

 

Henrik Palmgren: Big surprise, eh?

 

Kevin MacDonald: And they gave me one week to reply. And I begged for one more week. So I get a little time on this. And so I sent in my reply last week, about a week ago. And I haven’t heard back from them on that.

 

But they were extremely hostile. I mean, just calling me all kinds of names. And I didn’t think they have substantive criticism.

 

I mean, the problem with the second round of reviews was they basically didn’t have any substantive objections. What they would do is simply rephrase my ideas in a very invidious, you know, negative, crazy sounding, way:

 

“A conspiracy theory!”

 

You know.

 

[6:10]

 

Henrik Palmgren: Yeah, I saw how they rephrased it. Like:

 

“This is what Kevin means, or what he talks about.”

 

Yeah.

 

Kevin MacDonald: And so that, I don’t know. We’ll see what they do with it.

 

Henrik Palmgren: Yeah.

 

Kevin MacDonald: But the jury is out on that.

 

But anyway, they have the paper itself.

 

Cofnas has this idea that IQ jews are smarter than the average. And so you expect them to be more common among intellectuals. And that explains why jews are so influential.

 

And I deny that. First of all, as I say there, that if you look at the activism in, … The main issue really, in the paper, is the 1965 immigration law showing, … Because that’s the only issue that really would, you know, defeat “The Culture of Critique”. It would really be a problem for me if they could get over that.

 

But the other thing is just looking at IQ, isn’t enough, because jews are smart. So I have a little section on it, beginning, … Where is it? Yeah, it’s like the section, the first section I guess, where I talk about the default hypothesis. And point out that jewish IQ is simply not enough. That for any level of IQ there are going to be more White non-jews than jews. So you take 120. Even though they’re more jews percentage-wise at that, jews are only two and a half, three percent of the population. So for any given level of IQ, there’re going to be more White people at that level of IQ. Or you take 130, 140, whatever it is. And there’re going to be more White people at that level.

 

So you can’t explain jewish influences by simply saying the jews are smart. Because they’re not really. There’re more White European Americans who have equally high IQ for any level you want to take, for IQ. So that just doesn’t explain it.

 

And yeah, I’ve got another other points there that oftentimes that, … This really angered a lot of the reviewers. Especially in the second round there. That I would say that these jewish movements will recruit non-jews as a sort of “window dressing”. I used the term “window dressing” actually in “Cultural of Critique”, in Chapter Three. And I had specific examples of that.

 

And I was actually an example of that back when I was a student at a big anti-war rally. I was on the Left. I knew all these jewish guys and roommates in the whole thing. And they asked me to give a talk on how this guy from a small town in Wisconsin came to be involved in the anti-war movement. And I was there to be the sort of the “goy” [Henrik laughs] who had his head screwed on, right? Had become a Leftist. So anyway, …

 

Henrik Palmgren: Yeah, because usually I hear this Kevin, that it’s like:

 

“Well, if jews were influential and stuff, they would be the President.”

 

Or kind of topical things like that.

 

Kevin MacDonald: Yeah.

 

Henrik Palmgren: But as an example you just break down, because in our day and age we’re super obsessed, not us, but like the culture in general, unfortunately, about percentages. And like, how many people are represented based on the numbers and stuff like that. I mean, now we’re getting in overdrive, because we’re living in an anti-White age.

 

So, for example, despite the fact that blacks are only about twelve percent of the US population, in TV media, advertisements, and stuff, they’re like way over a percentage right.

 

But look at something like Biden’s cabinet, for example. Jews are severely over-represented in Biden’s cabinet. One percent of the population, but about fifty percent of the cabinet! I think one or two have quit. But there’s some new ones that come coming and stuff right.

 

Like okay, well why is there such an over-representation then, if everything is supposed to be according to how the number parses out, the percentages [chuckling]. How do you explain, just because you don’t have a President doesn’t mean you don’t have influential and powerful people in positions of power that can advocate. Whether that be for themselves as a group, or whether there’s for a specific, you know, political objective.

 

Kevin MacDonald: That’s right. Yeah. The fact is the jews are wildly over-represented in pretty much any position of real power in this country.

 

If you look at the media, massive over-representation!

 

You look at the academic world. I have another paper on that, which I actually reference in this paper. And what I argue there is that jews are, especially in the 1960s, came to the fore in the academic world. And they were much to the Left of the average professor at that time. But that’s exactly the time with the rise of the jews in the academic world. Especially in the most elite colleges, like the Ivy League universities. Harvard, Yale, Princeton, all of them.

 

The academic world’s a top-down institution. The professors at Harvard had much more influence than Professors down the line. In fact, the Professors at Harvard and other Ivy League schools, they train graduate students in these other areas. Their Phd students go to Berkeley, or University of Wisconsin, or University of Michigan, or something like that. And then at the University of Wisconsin, those graduate students go down to the lower level. The Wisconsin State University, or California State, or whatever. And so it go trickles down like that.

 

And so academic schools are very hierarchical. And so you when you take over the top level you sort of got it under control!

 

And, of course, during the 1960 was a time when you established all these ethnic studies departments. When sociology became, it was liberal. But then it became radical! And it started being really influenced by Marx.

 

I was in philosophy, you could see that the transition at the time. I was an undergraduate in philosophy. And I went to graduate school in philosophy. And I actually talked about, … Well I talked about that in an article. I wrote that you could see the transformation of the department. That almost all the hires, the young professors that were hired, were jews. And the chairman of the department was jewish.

 

It was really an interesting sociological thing. And then I’ll just never forget watching one of these older, you know, non-jewish guys who just retired. He’s at the medical center, and probably not in good health and everything. And I just sort of felt sorry. But what they did was like the changing of the guard.

 

Henrik Palmgren: Right. Yeah.

 

Kevin MacDonald: And now you had these young jews. And they were all on the Left. And they were radical! And they came from the best institutions. Just like I was saying. If you’re a Oxford Phd, you go to University of Wisconsin, you could be a professor. So Harvard and that kind of thing.

 

Henrik Palmgren: Yeah, exactly. So if you can summarize for us how does that work. What happened there? [chuckling] If you can you boil that down for newcomers to your work and stuff like that. I guess get to the essence both of your paper, of course, but also the main study that you’ve done over the years. So, how do we explain it Kevin?

 

[14:01]

 

Kevin MacDonald: How do you explain, sorry?

 

Henrik Palmgren: Basically how do we explain that so many jews ended up in the position that they did? It’s obviously down to the thing of ethnic interest, right? That they have a group interest here, which is about advancing their own group, and their own interest of the group.

 

Kevin MacDonald: That’s right. I mean, and the whole thesis of “Culture of Critique” is that IQ is important. And they are smarter on average. But only on average. And again, if you look at the numbers, there’re more, far more non-jews than jews. And an IQ, say about over 140, I came up like seven to one. So you can’t explain this by IQ. But you can certainly start to explain it with ethnic networking.

 

And what that means is that you promote other jews. And you cite them. You view them as leaders, and gurus! So one of my ideas in “A Culture of Critique” is what I call the “guru phenomena”. Where you have a guru like Freud, or Franz Boaz, or Horkheimer, or the Frankfurt School. These people were central figures that were looked up to and idolized. Trotsky’s a good example.

 

And they were then seen as by other jewish intellectuals, or political activists as, they would sort of gather around and soak up his wisdom. And so there was all this mutual reinforcement, mutual ethnic networking, mutual patting on the back. [chuckling]

 

Henrik Palmgren: Right. Yeah.

 

Kevin MacDonald: And initial hiring! So you could see that in Wisconsin. Once the jews got in they started hiring their own people. And pretty soon the whole department’s transformed. And that is sort of written large is what happened I think to the American academic establishment.

 

But then when it comes to media, it’s a little different. Because there, so much of it involves ownership. But even in the 1930s jews had a very disproportionate ownership of media. The New York Times, NBC Broadcasting. And CBS then became jewish. And all the big networks. So the ABC.

 

So that by the 1950s – I mentioned this in the paper – by the 1950s, all the television networks when I grew up were three networks exactly. We didn’t have cable, or any stuff. All three were owned by jews!

 

And there was a big push after World War II by Frankfurt School people. There’s a great paper by Andrew Joyce about this. I mean, something I overlooked pretty much, but he got into how these jewish activists that were associated with the Frankfurt School. You definitely recognize their names. But what they got into, which was really influencing the media! And the basic message was:

 

“Race does not exist.”

 

It was the whole Boasian anthropology, that race does not exist. That the worst thing in the world is White people, who are ethnocentric. And if you are ethnocentric it’s a sign of some kind of pathology. You had bad parent-child relationships. You are inadequate personality wise. You’re envious of other people. They’re all kinds of explanations that these people came up with. And they’re all nonsense! They’re not based on any kind of data, really. But they satisfy jewish interests.

 

And the entire jewish community was much to the Left. And even, whatever occupation, jewish businessmen tend not to be as radical as jewish sociology Professors, or something. [chuckling] But they are to the Left of non-jewish business people.

 

And there’s a big push now for your sort of social responsibility in business. And these people like the guy, I guess named Larry Fink, from Blackstone, …

 

Henrik Palmgren: Blackrock. Yeah, Blackrock.

 

Kevin MacDonald: Yeah, and Mark Benioff, Salesforce. They’re like big push for social responsibility in business. And so the the fact is now, … I mean, when I was growing up businesses tended to be conservative, to the Right of the people as a whole. But business has really been another area that’s been taken over by the Left. And so your big corporations, Coca-Cola, all those, all sorts of big internet companies, social media, all on the Left.

 

Walt Disney. When I was growing up was run by Walt Disney. And he was very conservative. He was probably an anti-semite. [Henrik laughs] Because the jews tried to take away his company many times.

 

Henrik Palmgren: Right. Yeah.

 

Kevin MacDonald: But after he died, guess what? They ended up with it. And it’s been run by jews for a long time. And it’s very liberal. And now you look at the movies and stuff that Disney puts out. They have some for children and some for adults and all that. But even the movies, the cartoons, directed at children are very much on the Left, when it comes to race, and White privilege, and centering black people and all that kind of stuff.

 

So yeah, our world’s been transformed. And we have to understand that. And what really gets me is like someone like Cofnas comes along and:

 

“Oh! It’s always like jews!”

 

And that sort of explains it. I heard other people say:

 

“Oh, it’s modernism!”

 

Oh yeah! Right! I mean, the world’s been into a modernist state where we have industrial cars, pretty advanced technology, even by say 1940, when you had fascism in Europe. And you had a very different culture in America, very different attitudes.

 

You have to remember America did pass the 1924 Immigration Law, that was very much biased towards northwestern Europe. Was supposed to reflect the population, the percentage of the population as they existed in 1921, and then went down to 1890. So when you think about the population of the United States in 1890, it was overwhelmingly northern European!

 

Henrik Palmgren: Yeah.

 

Kevin MacDonald: They did not want, you know, they certainly, … There was some concern about Italian immigrants. Because they were different. They tended to come from the south of Italy. And that’s where you see the Mafia, and all this sort of familism that really is not good. And it’s very different from northern Europe. That’s a big thesis in my book on Western family structure and everything.

 

[21:18]

 

But the big problem really was Eastern European jews. They came from Poland, and other areas in Eastern Europe. And they were radicals! They were either especially, you know, Marxists.

 

When the Soviet Union was established in 1917, they were entirely on board! I mean, almost the entire American jewish community was entirely on board with the Bolshevik revolution. And it’s no surprise that the atrocities are horrible! The mass murders, and torture, and everything else that happened in the first decades of the Soviet Union, was completely covered up in the American media. These people had never heard about it. It was covered up. And the far Left continued with the jewish community.

 

If you look at the 1950s, … You know, I grew up in the 1950s. [chuckling] And you think of it as this sort of golden age. And it sort of was for me growing up. Because it was really nice, peaceful it seemed.

 

But under the surface there was this massive cultural battle going on! And Joe McCarthy famously holding these hearings in Washington. He was a Senator from Wisconsin, 20 miles down the road from where I lived. And he had these hearings to expose the communists in the State Department, and other areas of government. And a high percentage of the people he brought before his committee were jews! And the American jewish community was very uptight about it, because they were so overrepresented.

 

And so at that time the American jewish community was all in favor of free speech. Well things have changed since then. And now the American jewish community is entirely on the board with censorship. Anything they don’t like. Which means anything like the sorts of things that we would love.

 

Henrik Palmgren: Yeah, it’s completely changed the attitudes in the environment. And again it was just free speech and all. It was just used as long as they could take control and dominate! Then it’s like:

 

“Ah! Democracy is not so great anymore! We have to do all these things!”

 

Kevin MacDonald: Exactly! , you know, they have got no principles here!

 

Henrik Palmgren: No!

 

Kevin MacDonald: It’s just jewish interests!

 

Henrik Palmgren: It’s because it’s about winning! It’s not about being principled!

 

Kevin MacDonald: It’s about their interest and nothing more! And people don’t get that! I think a lot of White people really are principled. And you see these conservatives, they’re principled to a fault.

 

Henrik Palmgren: To a fault, yeah.

 

Kevin MacDonald: They have principles for democracy, freedom, for you all these things that they mouth all the time. And they don’t seem to care about the consequences in the real world! Like immigration! They don’t seem to care, or be aware that this is going to submerge the Republican Party.

 

So there could be no hope for real conservatism in the future, anything like it was 50 years ago, with this immigration. But they don’t care! They just like the principle. Or else it’s just profits.

 

But yeah, these jewish organizations have no principles. And it’s really, if you look at jewish ethics, it’s the same sort of thing. It’s whatever is good for jews.

 

There are no general principles that apply both to jews and non-jews, despite what you read on Wikipedia. By the way, [scoffing] they have a page on jewish ethics! And it’s like fantasyland! [Henrik chuckles]

 

If you look at actual jewish writing on ethics over the centuries, there’s a great big difference if a jew killed a goy, or a non-jew, versus killing a jew, or stole from a non-jew, versus a jew, and a slave who is a jew, versus, … Anything like that.

 

[25:15]

 

 

Henrik Palmgren: Yeah. So Kevin, before we continue there I want to sneak in this real quick, because it’s actually the perfect timing. The fact that you brought up Blackrock. And I want to play a clip actually with Larry Fink here now too.

 

But you talked basically about the neoliberal capitalist world, right. How they’ve joined forces with all this, what do you call it? Against “Social Justice”. That’s the boiled down term they use for it. Social Justice. We could call it anti-White. We know what’s going on.

 

But it’s Blackrock. It’s literally they’re passing the mark. Now, they’re the first company in the history of the world that’s going to oversee, or manage, I think, about 10 trillion dollars! They’re like an asset management company they’re a holding company to handle other people’s.

 

But I saw an interesting clip the other day too, by the way, apparently the government hires them for regulation. They have insight into specific information that other banks, and financial services don’t have. They came out of nowhere. And it used to be Goldman Sachs. But Blackrock just kind of surpassed him all of a sudden. Like they came out of nowhere, at least as far as I’m concerned, right.

 

But showing his screenshot here. Blackrock 10 million dollars to support the “Black Lives Matter” movement. Of course, Amazon did the same. Goldman Sachs, right? And you have much more of some of the other companies, as well. But so this is not strange. Here’s even a screenshot from what Blackrock had on their website, I believe. Social impact is just what you mentioned here:

 

“In February we established the Blackrock Foundation to augment our efforts to promote a more inclusive and sustainable economy. Through our focus on financial security for vulnerable communities we aim to bring visibility and increased resources to support the upward mobility of black and Latinx communities. Our 10 million dollar plan included, …”

 

And then they went on from there right. But isn’t this fascinating how this capitalist corporation all of a sudden joins forces with the likes of not only the World Economic Forum, but the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals, right. Some people call this Agenda 2030. But there’s a number of names.

 

But have you heard of “ESG”, equity social, no sorry, Environment Social and Governance? It’s this new kind of stakeholder capitalist system. And it looks like Kevin, that it doesn’t matter what big company you go to they’re all on board on this.

 

Kevin MacDonald: Yeah.

 

Henrik Palmgren: And it seems even at some points they’re perfectly willing to put the aspect of profit to the side to start inflicting change in a direction,. Which I think a lot of people wouldn’t agree to. But again, keep in mind these are unelected people, right? They’re taking their massive wealth, and power, and influence, and just steamrolling over, if you will, the democratic process. Right.

 

Kevin MacDonald: Yeah. And you’re besides donating money they can punish companies that don’t go along. You can imagine a company holds out, pretty soon, you know, Blackrock divests from some of their, … They got all these investment funds. And they might have a harder time on Wall Street getting loans, and stock offerings, and all kinds of things. The supply lines, people might stop using them.

 

Because I think that’s what’s happened here is that you’ve had a critical mass. And now it’s moving fast forward. That putting incredible amounts of money. And so much corruption! I mean, they’ve exposed a number of these “Black Lives Matter” people taking money, and just nobody knows where the money went. It’s like millions and millions of dollars have been given.

 

Henrik Palmgren: Four, or five houses, right! In White neighborhoods, of course! [chuckling] They’re buying houses, just squandering the money, or running with it, or whatever. But listen to this clip. Here’s Larry Fink:

 

“Behaviors are going to have to change. And this is one thing we’re asking companies. You have to force behaviors. And at Blackrock we are forcing behaviors.”

 

There you go!:

 

“We have to force behavior.”

 

Wonder what that means? And I mean, they’re buying, they’re gobbling up everything. If you look at basically any major corporation today there’s two, I think they’re just called holding companies, right? Blackrock is usually number one on that list. And it doesn’t matter if it’s Pepsi, or Coca-Cola, or whether it’s Pfizer, or Moderna right, they’re up there. And then it’s Vanguard, number two. And then usually number three might be State Street, or you get, what’s his name again, is it Warren Buffett’s? I’ll forget what his firm is called now.

 

But it’s usually those four. My point is here they just have massive influence over the whole business sector, and the whole capitalist neoliberal system!

 

[30:07]

 

Kevin MacDonald: What they do is they buy up large blocks of stock in a particular company. Then they have voting rights. And then they can go to the shareholders meeting. And they can put pressure. Any activist investor that has a significant stake in a company can be heard. I mean, you don’t have to have 50%. Even a few percent is enough to make you heard.

 

I mean, Carl Icahn, for example, famously as activist investor. He’ll buy a whole lot of stock and then he’ll say like:

 

“We got to get rid of this management team.”

 

You have a lot of power! And Blackrock has huge resources! They can do this. And so if a company is not on board with this stuff, they better get on board! And as Fink was saying, they don’t have any problems with coercion.

 

It’s almost like their real ideal model is a Chinese model, where you have top-down total government control, surveillance everywhere. But you do have a wealthy oligarchic elite. And I really think that’s what they’re aiming for. An oligarchic globalist elite that is able to establish a surveillance state and just radically curtail the freedoms of ordinary people.

 

Henrik Palmgren: Yes, absolutely! It’s the ESG thing. And again, it’s kind of interchangeable. You have the Bank of International Settlements to a certain degree pushing this. You have the World Economic Forum. And then, of course, you have other, you know, United Nations as I mentioned, the Sustainable Development Goals, or Agenda 2030. But it’s like a Social Credit Score for the business world.

 

And, you know what I think the root of this is? I think the root of it, is that as they previously chose the democratic method, or whatever you want to call that strategy, right. Because to a certain extent they had control of information, they could manipulate. I mean, what does it matter if you have a democracy if everyone is just led around the nose by television, or whatever? [chuckling] It doesn’t matter, right!

 

But I think the reality is they kind of lost this control at some point, and things started moving and happening. And Trump was a big indicator of this. But you had Salvini in Italy, you had Orban in Hungary, there’s a couple of parties like this in Germany, in Holland, in the Netherlands, in Sweden, of course, right? And I think they slowly began to realize:

 

“We can’t count on these people to do our bidding! We have to start going to the business world. We have to start getting these massive CEOs aboard. And we have to build, …”

 

Like again, the Klaus Schwab of the World Economic Forum, he talks about “stakeholder capitalism”. And it’s this kind of integrated system, where basically every company is interdependent on each other. And they’re signed up to this, through the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals, or the ESGs under the same kind of globalist institution. They’re saying:

 

“If you don’t have enough non-White people working for you, you’re gonna get a lower score! And you’re not gonna be part of that grid work of all the other corporations. You can go to them. And yeah, for services, or from materials.”

 

So it’s like they’re freezing out those who are refusing to comply [chuckling]! That’s what I think they’re doing!

 

Kevin MacDonald: Right. That’s what it’s going to be.

 

Henrik Palmgren: Yeah.

 

Kevin MacDonald: Absolutely!

 

Henrik Palmgren: ESG, Environmental Social and Governance.

 

Under “Environment”, we know where that’s going. Climate change strategy, biodiversity, carbon intensity, which, of course, carbon has become an enemy now, all of a sudden. They’re going to use that as a kind of a value point, or a currency, it seems like in the future. And then on the “Social”, it says:

 

“Equal opportunities, freedom of association.”

 

Yeah, I wish!:

 

“Health and safety, human rights, customers production, blah, blah, child labor.”

 

But under that banner is also like:

 

“Diversity, equity. What are you doing to make sure that there’s not too many White people in your corporation?”

 

And things like that. So it’s like a whole neoliberal have capitalist, way of enforcing these very, very radical Left-wing ideas that you’ve been talking about for such a long time. But utilizing this in the business world. It’s a completely new strategy in a way, isn’t it?

 

Kevin MacDonald: Yeah. And I certainly resonated with what you said before that Trump, and the populist parties, like in Hungary, just scared the hell out of these people! That was a total wake-up call! Because Trump was very popular.

 

I mean, Trump screwed up a lot of ways. But he was also under attack in his entire presidency. Like no other President has ever been. And there’s never been such a incredible, wall-to-wall, full-court press assault on a President, as they did. They tried to impeach him repeatedly! And one scandal, a hoax actually, after another! It was an amazing phenomenon!

 

So yeah, they are scared. They want to seal the deal! And I think [word unclear] are the best thing ever happened to them, because they managed to change all the voting laws and everything else, and get fear into the hearts of everyone. And now the war in Ukraine is one crisis after another. We’ll see.

 

[35:27]

 

 

Henrik Palmgren: Yeah, exactly! I guess we can segue over to that a little bit. It’s pretty crazy. But it’s like Putin has actually given these people everything they want, in a way.

 

I mean, NATO has a new purpose now. They’re kind of like for 70 years what were they, sure they were expanding. But it’s like what do you need them for? What are they doing? Even Trump, didn’t he say:

 

“We need not to pay as much money to NATO.”

 

And I guess force other countries to pay, you know, unfortunately European ones, which is whatever. But, the point stands. What are we doing here?

 

And even here’s a globalist from Sweden here, Carl Built [sp]. You might remember him, who was the head of the Moderate Party, our conservatives. For a while he’s been hanging around on the Bilderberg meetings. He’s going to all these big globalist meetings and stuff. And he said this on Twitter yesterday, actually this earlier today then.:

 

“It’s going to be a unique Summit of Summits in Brussels today!”

 

And that’s where Biden is currently right now. He’s speaking there, and many other people. It says:

 

“It’s a NATO Summit, an EU Summit, and a G7 Summit. I think that’s a first when it comes to these things. President Putin, …”

 

Here’s the kicker, right:

 

“Has managed to bring the democratic world together in a unique way with his aggression.”

 

In other words, Putin is giving them exactly what they want Kevin! Isn’t that fascinating? Now, Putin has justified their existence, all these groups in a way, right? [chuckling]

 

Kevin MacDonald: The fact is that the NATO was an anachronism after 1991. They really didn’t need it anymore. And I just tweeted as saying there’s an article that Putin gave interviews in 2000, the end of 2000, 2001, saying that he would like to join NATO. And he said:

 

“That Russia’s part of the West.”

 

And all that. Well, that was rebuffed. And you could see that this American foreign policy establishment never gave up that hostility! And when Putin came in and got rid of those oligarchs, and he took over real control. Whereas Yeltsin was completely under the thumb of these oligarchs who ran the media, and really ran Russia. And just stole all the wealth, and became billionaires and all that. It was horrible!

 

And then they invited Ukraine to be part of that they kept expanding and expanding! Every time it happened Russia would object. And then they said that Ukraine could be part of it. Right on the border, big country. And 2014 with the Maidan Uprising, totally CIA operation, neocons, the National Endowment for Democracy, which is a neocon organization, Victoria Nuland, famously. And, of course, they’re freaked out by that!

 

Henrik Palmgren: Yeah.

 

Kevin MacDonald: Changed the government! You had a government that was de facto neutral. It wasn’t hostile to the West, wasn’t hostile to Russia. And they were doing the right thing. But then this! So it’s just horrible what’s happening here!

 

Henrik Palmgren: They’re giving him, this fits perfectly into the bigger picture. And we’ll talk more a little bit later here, because what some of the consequences is here. And, of course, now again so-called the conspiracy theorists, we’re going to say, talked about this a while ago. Even as a result of the Covid measures, right?

 

But now the upper elites are beginning to address these issues openly, as well. Even Biden today, in fact, talked about food shortages as a consequence of the Ukraine-Russia war. It’s, of course, very convenient, as I said. Because the ball on this has been rolling for a long time. But there is an exacerbated problem as something I think will come down the pipes.

 

But before we get in there, you tweeted out an article as well. And I want to try to get to this. Because a lot of people are going back and forth. And I’m not sure what’s going on in Russia, I’m not sure what’s going on with Putin. Is he controlled by some of the oligarchs that wasn’t kicked out? Is he critical overall of these oligarchs of jewish influence? I’m reading both things at the same time. We can show a couple of things that shows it.

 

But you tweeted out this one from Tablet Magazine, “The fate of Putin’s jewish oligarchs”. Because as you said, when he initially took control there was a number of them. And they were kicked out, right.

 

We were talking about Boris Berezovsky. He ended up dying in London. But he was like going between Tel Aviv and London. And basically spent most of his fortune, and the rest of his life trying to undermine Putin. He, together with people like Alex Goldfarb, they sponsored the Orange Revolution in Ukraine. Coup attempt after coup attempt! All these things.

 

You had other people too, Abrahamovic. You had, what is it Kordorovsky? I think he was in jail for some time, right? Are there some others, Kevin, as well, that you’re aware of that are still there now?

 

Kevin MacDonald: There are others. Mikhail Fridman, for one. He’s jewish. But I think what happened here is that when Putin came in he wanted to consolidate power. He didn’t want to be controlled by these oligarchs. And there’s a big difference there. So he got rid of Kordorovsky, because he was big time involved in politics. Got rid of Gosinski who had a big position in Russian media, and was very pro Yeltsin and all that.

 

And these billionaires were not apolitical, they were totally involved in Russian politics. It was very much like what we have in this country, where the media is on one side and pushing certain things. And we can call it a democracy. But they’re giving us some messages and filtering it and everything.

 

And I really do believe that Putin consolidated power. And that the Tablet article is quite right. And it fits right well.

 

Also with an article we posted on Occidental Observer, simultaneously, almost, by this guy Rolo Slavskiy, who lives in Eastern Europe, and is a new writer for us. But he said the same thing. That Putin is in control in Russia.

 

And it’s quite the opposite of what’s going on in Ukraine. Where Zelenskyy is bought and paid for by this jewish oligarch Kolomoisky. And Zelenskyy’s got millions of dollars from this guy. Zelenskyy was a TV actor, he was a comedian. And he was nothing!

 

And so then all of a sudden this Kolomoisky guy, and there he is. He puts him in a TV show where he’s a President. And so, …

 

Henrik Palmgren: That’s Servant of the People. That was the title of the show.

 

[Added Image] Servant of the People – TV Series with Zelenskyy as President.

 

 

[42.22]

 

 

Kevin MacDonald: Yeah. And he runs for President, on an anti-corruption campaign, if you can believe it. Kolomoisky is so corrupt it’s unreal! He was involved in the same gas company that Hunter Biden got all his money from. He’s got operations in Miami, and all this stuff. Offshore accounts. Complete sleazeball! And, of course, he’s jewish. So President Zelenskyy is just bought and paid for! He’s his boy!

 

You could never say that about Putin. Putin runs Russia! And anybody, including an oligarch who gets on the wrong side of him, better watch out! He runs the place. And you can say:

 

“Well, it’s not a democracy.”

 

Yeah, it’s not. But neither is Ukraine really. It’s an oligarchy. And it’s run by these oligarchs. And Ukraine has a reputation as being the most corrupt country in Europe.

 

Henrik Palmgren: Yeah.

 

Kevin MacDonald: And it still is.

 

Henrik Palmgren: Thanks to the people meddling in it too. Right [chuckling]?

 

Kevin MacDonald: Yeah. And democracy? Zelenskyy has just abolished all political parties that are opposed to him. Consolidated the media into one big media, that they have one message.

 

Henrik Palmgren: Yep!

 

Kevin MacDonald: That’s democracy?

 

Henrik Palmgren: Yep! Freedom!

 

Kevin MacDonald: That is what we’re fighting for over there?

 

Henrik Palmgren: They’re fighting for their freedom, right! And then they’ve had like some of the most, I think even now, these are kind of maybe not side issues.

 

But I just saw in passing that it’s like the Covid thing have been crazy too in Ukraine. It’s almost like the US is using Ukraine as a playground, as a testing ground! The whole thing with the bio labs. There is an in-depth research on that alone. But those are mostly Pentagon funded at least. Some of them were even operated, they were operated by US diplomats and stuff.

 

They did the same thing in Georgia, right. All this crazy stuff! But it’s been so corrupt there! And there’s so many American that that have nestled their way in there and they’re using it as kind of like a slush fund, I guess, for the lack of a better term.

 

Look at Hunter Biden. He gets in there, he gets on the board of Barisma [sp]. He’s like $85,000 a month, or whatever the hell [chuckling] it was for literally doing nothing! And it gets worse! All these companies are in there and they’re meddling, and they’re ensuring kind of that Ukraine never really gets up on its feet and sorts things out. Do you see what I’m saying?

 

Kevin MacDonald: Yeah. But then Joe Biden goes over to Ukraine and says that if they don’t stop this prosecution, this investigation, this criminal investigation of this gas company, he’ll withhold a billion dollars in aid!

 

[45:05]

 

Henrik Palmgren: Yeah.

 

Kevin MacDonald: So Biden is up to his eyeballs in this corruption! And there’s a possibility that the fact that the New York Times finally publicized those emails, and that stuff on that laptop are is authentic, you wonder what’s going on here. Maybe they understand that the Biden isn’t working. He’s very unpopular. But I don’t know what we’re going to do about Kamala Harris [chuckling]! Who’s the weakest Vice President in history! And everybody said she’s doing a horrible job.

 

But there was an article we had on Occidental Observer, right around the same time that article from Tablet, by Rolo Slavskiy. And he points out this recent Bloomberg article which is:

 

“Jewish oligarch, Mikhail Fridman, lamenting the fact that sanctions were imposed on him and his friends.”

 

With the Biden sanctions. That’s one of the recent things they did:

 

“And amounted to him, pleading for Washington to relent. Arguing that neither he, nor his friends, had any real pull or power over Putin. Without information indicating anything to the contrary, we may as well take his words at face value.”

 

I believe that!

 

Henrik Palmgren: Yeah.

 

Kevin MacDonald: Putin’s position is strong and consolidated. And nobody can get really get in his way. And if you do you’re going to be in trouble! And he’ll probably confiscate your assets, … He doesn’t mind jews being rich, being pretty wealthy. But he doesn’t want them to be messing with politics, unless they agree with him.

 

Henrik Palmgren: Yeah, that’s what I’ve heard too, right. And again that’s why I’m getting like conflicting information. And again, maybe we’re looking at this from a different view than he does. Obviously he’s a politician. He knows how to play politics to a certain extent he’s, at times, despite the West would deny, of course. But he’s diplomatic to a certain extent. And as you said, it’s not that he’s like:

 

“Out to get jews!”

 

Or something like that. I mean, obviously not. I mean, there’s people in there, and again let’s show a couple of headlines as a way to kind of get that point of view, of like contradiction. He said things like this. This article a while ago:

 

“Putin’s first Soviet government was mostly jewish!”

 

Kind of whoops! What is that, right? There’s other articles like this. And, of course, the West would say:

 

“Well look at how anti-semitic Putin is. He’s literally Hitler! Putin jokes about jews and money during visit to Crimea.”

 

He said:

 

“He cracked a joke about jews and money while visiting Crimea. He said ‘Oh! So the jews have fun problems with finances?’ he answered to laughter. Such a thing could only happen in Crimea.”

 

There’s things like that [chuckling] which is kind of more funny. But the West takes this very seriously. And this is a kind of a big problem, a big issue. But then at the same time people are like maybe looking to Putin, or something for like:

 

“Oh, he’s ensuring that there’s no jewish ethnic interest in the country.”

 

That’s obviously not correct either. Here is another compilation of some headlines that people had right. How he’s targetting nationalist groups. He’s going after the so-called far-Right in Russia. They’re a very multicultural country. I mean, they have a lot of different ethnic groups. They’re a federation, they’re very proud of that fact. Here’s Al Jazeera:

 

“The death of the Russian far-Right.”

 

The Jerusalem Post:

 

“Putin not remotely anti-semitic says Russia’s chief rabbi.”

 

The jewish Daily Forward:

 

“That Holocaust deniers in Russia now face five years in prison.”

 

Jerusalem Post:

 

“At Putin’s side an army of jewish billionaires!”

 

And that’s from 2012. So not that long ago. 10 years ago. And then Lauder, of course:

 

“Russia’s fight against anti-semitism isn’t just good for jews, it’s good for Russia as well.”

 

And then World Net Daily says:

 

“The day Putin prayed for rebuilding the temple.”

 

So it’s not as squared away and as easily like just say:

 

“Oh! It’s this, or that.”

 

As you said. But it seems to be, and I guess I’m trying to be as just charitable and genuine as, accurate I guess that’s the best term, as possible. And it’s like he’s, as I said, he seems to be very proud of his multicultural, you know, Federation of sorts. I’ve heard he mentioned that many times in talks.

 

And he thinks he’s fighting Nazism in Ukraine. And, of course, you have Azov there, so I’m not trying to look down on that. But it’s obviously not the biggest problem if you have Washington sponsoring everything, right? The liberal world order of the West sponsoring you. Your problem is not Nazis, they hunt Nazis in the West. So there’re not Nazis taking over everything and running the show in Ukraine.

 

But my point is he genuinely seems like, as long as you don’t like are engaging in like criminal behavior that undermines the Russian Federation, he seems to be somewhat okay. He doesn’t care what ethnic group it is. That’s what I’m getting to. What do you think of this Kevin?

 

Kevin MacDonald: Well again. I think it’s hard to really get an inside view of all that. Again this writer Rolo Slavskly has written out, … Well I posted already six articles of his. He’s got one called The State of Opposition in Nationalist Politics in Russia.

 

And basically what he says is that things have been changing recently. And that really the nationalist right doesn’t really have much of a conflict now with Putin. That Putin is changing their direction enough to molify them.

 

So I thought that’s very interesting. I can’t really vouch that this is absolute truth. But this guy really seems to understand what’s going on the ground in Russia. I understand that in the past these Russian nationalists had big problem with Putin. But that is not so much the case anymore, if at all.

 

[51:03]

 

 

Henrik Palmgren: No. Exactly. I’m trying to find that article as well. But it’s a very interesting dynamic. And, of course, there’s big fights in the West over this:

 

“Do you take the Ukrainian side? You take the Russian side?”

 

And some people say:

 

“Oh, Putin is great! Russia is going to fix everything!”

 

And I don’t believe in that. And then at the same time it’s like I don’t want anything bad to happen to Ukraine, or Ukrainians. Obviously not.

 

But it’s clear to me, at this point, that they’re being used as a as cannon fodder in this battle. And I mean, even Liam Panetta the other day – the former, I think he’s exCIA – he just literally said:

 

“Whatever people say, this is a proxy war!”

 

You have massive amounts of funds. Biden gave them 15 billion the other. Day one billion on that was arms, weapons, all kinds of things. You have foreign mercenaries coming to the country encouraged to come to the country, and just this massive hypnosis campaign, essentially mind control campaign in the West, to just, … No matter what, like Ukraine number one! That’s it!

 

Like every liberal and Left-wing lunatic in the West now is like super gung-ho about like:

 

“Our people in Ukraine! The people in Ukraine! And their borders, and their freedom, and their nationalism!”

 

It’s quite something isn’t it?

 

Kevin MacDonald: It’s pathetic! Yeah, I really do. That’s why I really hope Russia wins this. At least gets a good settlement, where they are able to insist that Ukraine not be part of NATO. And at least get to Donbas and Crimea formalized.

 

Because I really do think that this is the globalist elites on one side pushing for Ukraine and against really Russia and China together now. I mean, China’s been backing Russia. And I think it’s an interesting sign that they don’t want to see this Western hegemony that has been going on since World War II. And really long before that.

 

But I think that they have decided that they want a bipolar world here, at least. Where you have other sort of centers of power. And I think that’s why the West is putting up such a strong fight. They see this as Armageddon here. They don’t want to lose this. Because if they do its going to be a huge setback for globalism. Some people already said that is a huge setback for globalism, anyway.

 

But I think if Putin really comes out of this looking good, and he may well, if he gets what he wants, I do think that globalism would take a huge hit! That this is an expression of Russian nationalism. It’s a rejection of the West. And it’s really a wake-up call. That this is not going to be a unipolar world anymore.

 

I mean that’s what happened in 1991 when the Soviet Union died basically. Immediately these neocons in the United States said:

 

“Look! Unipolar world! We are the boss! We can run things.”

 

So what you have? War after war! In the Middle East and everywhere else.

 

The Russian embassies in the UK and Ukraine, everywhere else, they were tweeting this stuff today where you had the pictures of American presidents like Clinton the Bush senior, Bush Jr, and all that. Not Trump, [chuckling] by the way! But Obama was in there. And they’re saying:

 

“Five wars and six million dead! And all in the name of ‘democracy and non-interventionism’.”

 

It’s a joke! So that’s the Russian point of view, that America has been intervening all over the place.

 

Henrik Palmgren: Yeah.

 

Kevin MacDonald: Wrecking havoc, and death, and destruction! Think what happened to Iraq! I mean, forget about the American causalities. Those who were, you know, large thousands. But Iraqis lost hundreds of thousands, in fact millions of people here!

 

[55:24]

 

Henrik Palmgren: Well yeah! Madeleine Albright who just passed away, the former US Secretary of State said, remember that clip from 60 minutes?:

 

“Was worth it? 500,000 Iraqi kids!”

 

And look at the waves of migration that’s come in the wake of these conflicts in the Middle East, and North Africa, too!

 

Kevin MacDonald: Yeah a good example is Gaddafi with Libya. Hillary Clinton is cackling about how wonderful that was!:

 

“We came, he died!”

 

That kind of thing. When the result is total political chaos in Libya! You have these warring factions. I don’t think they’ve solved it yet. And then you’ve got migration coming up from Africa that Libya used to stop. They don’t do it anymore.

 

So they got slave markets and the whole crazy thing! Gaddafi was good in a lot of ways. And it was crazy for NATO, at the behest of Hillary Clinton, was really the prime mover of that. But that’s it. These liberals are, … You think of liberals:

 

“Oh, anti-war people!”

 

They’re not anti-war people!

 

Henrik Palmgren: No. No!

 

Kevin MacDonald: They want wars that serve their interests.

 

Henrik Palmgren: Exactly! And again. I mean, it’s like Biden said, this is in his speech there, is that after the Second World War there was a formulation of a liberal world order. And all these countries are beginning to kind of homogenize under this banner and stuff. And now, they’re saying, they’re kind of losing control of this.

 

And look, I’m not saying, and I personally don’t think that it will be anywhere better for White people if Russia teams up with China, and India, and a bunch of Asian countries, and exerts more dominance than the, … Look, it’s been bad enough under US control.

 

But we have no idea what’s going to happen if we truly go into like the abyss in terms of economic collapse. And let’s assume that they make it somehow over there, right. Russian alliance with the Belt and Road Initiative, of course, with Israel trying to kind of, … Now Israel is trying to play this little in-between game. They haven’t been quite outspoken about being pro-Ukraine, or pro-Russia. They’ve been asked to mediate many, many, many times, right.

 

But the point is, it’s like a new alignment, or I guess, a new Cold War, I guess. That’s the best term, a “new Cold War” of sorts is opening up.

 

Kevin MacDonald: That’s right. And I think if the West, … I just can’t want the West to win, because what we’re about is multiculturalism, massive immigration, anti-White politics. I just can’t get behind it! And I know the nationals in Ukraine, I love them. And I see why they do what they do. But I see it from our point of view, and someone who lives in the West. And if the West wins this, they’re just going to clamp down all the harder. And the whole anti-White revolution is going to go faster and faster.!

 

Henrik Palmgren: Yeah, I cannot say, … We need to take, rational, normal, sensible, people need to take control of the West again.

 

Kevin MacDonald: Yeah, right!

 

Henrik Palmgren: And we need to be in a position where we’re still influential, but on good terms! We should trade with Russia!

 

Kevin MacDonald: Absolutely!

 

Henrik Palmgren: We’ll get into this in the second part, we’re gonna take a break. But again like this absolute lunacy from Biden and from these European leaders who are like shooting themselves in the foot! You’re cutting yourself off from oil, and gas, and hydrocarbons. What are you going to do? Fertilizer now, all the grains. Like this will be a disaster! And again, I think it’s by design. [chuckling] But we’ll talk more about that in a second, Kevin. I’m going to take just a quick break here.

 

You can follow Kevin MacDonald on Twitter, The Occidental Observer edit, for editor. And that’s, of course, The Occidental Observer. Check that out. That’s a great publication. And then, of course, you have the Occidental Quarterly, as well. Still printing that Kevin? Is there a digital version of that, or is it just a hard hard copy version?

 

Kevin MacDonald: It’s hardcopy, and it’s online. And a hard copy subscription sixty dollars a year. Online is thirty dollars. So anybody can afford it really. And we just put out the Spring issue. Just completed it.

 

Henrik Palmgren: Awesome! The Occidental Quarterly. Of course, check that out. There’s links from Occidental Observer. And again the website for that is theoccidentalobserver.net. Definitely check it out. Make sure you follow, make sure you support Kevin’s work.

 

We’ll take just a quick break here ladies and gentlemen. Stay with us. We’ll be right back with Kevin.

 

Join us in the second part ladies and gentlemen as we continue with Kevin MacDonald at Red Icemembers.com, for a very fascinating part two. We’re going to go deeper into the major consequences of some of these policies now that we’re seeing, because of sanctions, because of import-export restrictions, and these kinds of things. And the deeper crisis. These are very important topics, because they’re right at the forefront. And they might drastically change how we live! Not only the within the scope of six months, we don’t know! A year, two years out, maybe longer.

 

We do not know how these things are going to be resolved! We don’t know if we have the means, in capability in many Western nations to kind of make up for the things that might be lost as a consequence of the poor decision-making that led to this schism between, well essentially Russia and the West.

 

But in the continuation you have a increasing side on the east being formed, with India, and China, of course, kind of aligning with Russia, Iran, you know, some of these other countries. A new alliance, kind of a new Cold War of sorts is rising up out of this.

 

And again consequence of this, high gas prices, food shortages, fertilizer shortage. And again these could have massive consequences in a span of very short time.

 

We’re going to talk more about that with Kevin MacDonald. We have some other topics lined up, as well. We’ll talk a little bit more some about the crazy anti-Whiteness that’s still, as all of this is ongoing in the West, and as we’re collapsing, the anti-White nonsense is still continuing to this day! There’s rising crime, of course. These things are never going away.

 

And we’re seeing a West in decline. And we kind of ask the question:

 

“Well, is this what they want?”

 

Isn’t that one of the goals of the Frankfurt School is to make the West so corrupt that it stinks? So the question is, people are rooting for the West’s collapse, or are they just abiding by this old agenda, essentially, as opposed to advocating maybe for a change in the West? I’m not saying solely political, but at some point sane, rational, sensible, people will have to step up and take responsibility and try to restore our nations to some kind of balance again. Or, that will be it! At least in the current configuration.

 

But anyway, that’s some of the things we’re going to get into with Kevin in the second part. So join us over at RedIceMembers.com. You can sign up over at Subscribestar dot com slash Red Ice, as well. Support us over there. It’s only 10 bucks a month. If you sign up for a longer subscription, we have those as well all the way up to two years, it gets cheaper per month. I think it’s six dollars 20 cents, or so, per month if you get a two year subscription.

 

This helps to support us. We need your support. We need your help to still continue to be here. We need fuel in the tank, so we can keep going! Without your support there will be no Red Ice! Don’t leave it up to anyone else it’s up to you to step up and ensure that we can continue.

 

So if you like what we do, consider either signing up for a membership, or donating. You can find more about that on Red Ice dot TV forward slash donate. It’s only with your help that Red Ice can continue.

 

All right guys. Thank you so much again. We’ll be back with more soon. But check out the second hour right now then with Kevin MacDonald. Check out all the different methods that we have to sign up Subscribestar, Entropy stream. We have the cash app. We have an e-check option. We have crypto. And we have a mailing address as well.

 

Keep in mind guys that we are banned from several financial services that normal individuals and corporations out there do have access to. So we’ve been denied access! Why? Because, of course, we are over the target! That’s why that happens. So we don’t have any big sponsors, or angel investors. Actually, in fact, we should! If you feel inclined, definitely step up to the plate. But we appreciate your support. Share the links, share the show, share the videos that we do, because that helps to get the word out, as well.

 

Thank you guys. Part two with Kevin MacDonald is coming up. So we’ll see you on the other side.

 

[63:33]

 

[Outro music]

 

[64:22]

 

 

(Readers: please enter any corrections, or suggestions, in the comments section.)

 

 

END

top